PAK-USA relations ? Coming War …? more

PAK – USA relations ? Coming War …? more

>

The Globalization of War – GRTV Backgrounder

From: GlobalResearchTV  | Dec 23, 2011  |

 

 

 

The Globalization of War – GRTV Backgrounder

From: GlobalResearchTV  | Dec 23, 2011  | 10,251 views

The world’s attention is increasingly focused on Syria and Iran as the region continues to move toward military confrontation. Less noticed, however, is that the pieces are being put into place for a truly global conflict, with military buildup taking place in every region and threatening to draw in all of the world’s major powers.

Find out more in this week’s GRTV Backgrounder.

… (more info)

View comments, related videos, and more

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/GlobalResearchTV

 

total war ….

 

WWIII War sparks in extended theater….Syria… Iran…Pakistan …. etc

 

…. China and Russia part of equation ….

 

drone attacks in six countries

 

….. global war machine

 

etc

 

Is Islam, and are the Muslims are specifically targeted?

>

Ahmed Rashid, the world’s foremost authority on the Taliban, about the very real concerns over potential violence between the United States uneasy ally Pakistan

The Long War: Are We Safer?

By Christiane Amanpour

By Christiane Amanpour | Around the World – Sun, Oct 2, 2011

Around the World with Christiane Amanpour debuts as we approach a decade of war in Afghanistan, and the question on the lips of Americans and Afghans alike is “what’s next?”

Ten years after the attack on World Trade Center, Osama Bin Laden is dead, but how will this chapter in the longest war in American history be written?

ABC News foreign correspondent Nick Schifrin joins Christiane Amanpour from Kabul, Afghanistan, taking the pulse of that country amidst an explosion of violence at the hands of the resurgent Taliban.

Then a revealing interview with Ahmed Rashid, the world’s foremost authority on the Taliban, about the very real concerns over potential violence between the United States uneasy ally Pakistan.

The critical question must be asked: Is war with Pakistan a real possibility?

The Long War: Are We Safer?Around the World with Christiane Amanpour debuts as we approach a decade of war in Afghanistan, and the question on the lips of Americans and Afghans alike is “what’s next?”Ten years after the attack on World Trade Center, Osama Bin Laden is dead, but how will this chapter in the longest war in American history be written?ABC News foreign correspondent Nick Schifrin joins Christiane Amanpour from Kabul, Afghanistan, taking the pulse of that country amidst an explosion of violence at the hands of the resurgent Taliban.Then a revealing interview with Ahmed Rashid, the world’s foremost authority on the Taliban, about the very real concerns over potential violence between the United States uneasy ally Pakistan.The critical question must be asked: Is war with Pakistan a real possibility?By Christiane Amanpour | Around the World

 Liberals are the ones

who want you to walk in lock-step with them

or you are ostracized…

Reply to Message

Mark Message Unread

(Msg Id: 535768:773623)

>

Jeremy Scahill

Dispatches on wars, the military-industrial complex and national security.

Text Size A | A | A

The (Not So) Secret (Anymore) US War in Pakistan

Jeremy Scahill on December 1, 2010 – 12:18pm ET

Despite sustained denials by US officials spanning more than a year, US military Special Operations Forces have been conducting offensive operations inside Pakistan, helping direct US drone strikes and conducting joint operations with Pakistani forces against Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in north and south Waziristan and elsewhere in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, according to secret cables released as part of the Wikileaks document dump. According to an October 9, 2009 cable classified by Anne Patterson, the US ambassador to Pakistan, the operations were “almost certainly [conducted] with the personal consent of [Pakistan’s] Chief of Army Staff General Kayani.” The operations were coordinated with the US Office of the Defense Representative in Pakistan. A US special operations source told The Nation that the US forces described in the cable as “SOC(FWD)-PAK” were “forward operating troops” from the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the most elite force within the US military made up of Navy SEALs, Delta Force and Army Rangers.

The cables also confirm aspects of a Nation story from November 2009, “The Secret US War in Pakistan,” which detailed offensive combat operations by JSOC in Pakistan. In response to the Nation story, Pentagon spokesperson Geoff Morrell called it “conspiratorial” and explicitly denied that US special operations forces were doing anything other than “training” in Pakistan. More than a month after the October 2009 cable from the US embassy in Pakistan confirming JSOC combat missions, Morrell told reporters: “We have basically, I think, a few dozen forces on the ground in Pakistan who are involved in a train-the-trainer mission.  These are Special Operations Forces.  We’ve been very candid about this.  They are—they have been for months, if not years now, training Pakistani forces so that they can in turn train other Pakistani military on how to—on certain skills and operational techniques.  And that’s the extent of our—our, you know, military boots on the ground in Pakistan.” According to the October 2009 cable, Morrell’s statement was false.

In one operation in September 2009, four US special operations forces personnel “embedded with the [Pakistani] Frontier Corps (FC)…in the FATA,” where the Americans are described as providing “ISR”: intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. The support from the US forces, according to the cable, “was highly successful, enabling the FC to execute a precise and effective artillery strike on an enemy location.” A month later, according to the cable, the Pakistan Army again “approved deployment of US special operation elements to support Pakistani military operations.” To the embassy staff, this was documented in the cable as a “sea change” in Pakistan’s military leaders’ thinking, saying they had previously been “adamantly opposed [to] letting us embed” US special ops forces with Pakistani forces. According to the cable, “US special operation elements have been in Pakistan for more than a year, but were largely limited to a training role,” adding that the Pakistani units that received training from US special operations forces “appear to have recognized the potential benefits of bringing US SOF personnel into the field with them.”

In another operation cited in the cables, the US teams, led by JSOC, were described as providing support to the Pakistani Army’s 11th Corp and included “a live downlink of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) full motion video.” Whether the drones were used for surveillance or as part of a joint offensive is unclear from the documents. While the US government will not confirm US drone strikes inside the country and Pakistani officials regularly deride the strikes, the issue of the drones was discussed in another cable from August 2008. That cable describes a meeting between Ambassador Patterson and Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani. When the issue of US drone strikes came up, according to the cable, Gillani said, “I don’t care if they do it as long as they get the right people. We’ll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it.”

The ability of US special operations forces to operate in Pakistan is clearly viewed as a major development by the US embassy. “Patient relationship-building with the military is the key factor that has brought us to this point,” according to the October 2009 cable. It also notes the potential consequences of the activities leaking: “These deployments are highly politically sensitive because of widely-held concerns among the public about Pakistani sovereignty and opposition to allowing foreign military forces to operate in any fashion on Pakistani soil. Should these developments and/or related matters receive any coverage in the Pakistani or US media, the Pakistani military will likely stop making requests for such assistance.”

Such statements might help explain why Ambassador Richard Holbrooke lied to the world when he said bluntly in July 2010: “People think that the US has troops in Pakistan, well, we don’t.”

A US special operations veteran who worked on Pakistan issues in 2009 reviewed the Wikileaks cables for The Nation. He said he was taken aback that the cable was not classified higher than “SECRET” given that it confirms the active involvement of US soldiers from the highly-secretive, elite Joint Special Operations Command engaging in combat—not just training—in Pakistan. And offensive combat at that. JSOC operations are compartmentalized and highly classified.

Pentagon spokespeople have repeatedly insisted that the US military’s activities in Pakistan are restricted to training operations. Even after the October 2009 cable and multiple JSOC operations in Pakistan, US and Pakistani officials continued to hold official meetings to discuss “potential” joint operations. In January 2010 in Washington DC, US and Pakistani military officials gathered under the umbrella of the “US-Pakistan Land Forces Military Consultative Committee.” According to notes from the meeting, they discussed US military operations in Pakistan aiming to “enhance both US and Pakistan Army COIN [counterinsurgency] capabilities” and “potential US COIN Center/Pakistan Army interactions.” Among the participants were representatives of the Special Operations Command, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs’ Pakistan-Afghanistan Coordination Cell, the Office of Defense representative-Pakistan and a Pakistan delegation led by Brigadier General Muhammad Azam Agha, Pakistan’s director of military training.

A special operations veteran and a former CIA operative with direct experience in Pakistan have told The Nation that JSOC has long engaged in combat in Pakistan—which raises a question: How in-the-loop is the US embassy about the activities of JSOC in Pakistan? Just because Ambassador Anne Patterson approves a cable saying that US special ops forces have only done two operations with Pakistani forces and plays this up as a major-league development doesn’t make it true. JSOC has conducted operations across the globe without the direct knowledge of the US ambassador. In 2006, the US military and Pakistan struck a deal that authorized JSOC to enter Pakistan to hunt Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders with the understanding that Pakistan would deny it had given permission. JSOC has struck multiple times inside Pakistan over the years, regardless of what Ambassador Patterson’s cables may say.

In 2006, twelve “tactical action operatives” from Blackwater were recruited for a secret JSOC raid inside Pakistan, targeting an Al Qaeda facility. The operation was code-named “Vibrant Fury.” Which raises another issue: the activities described in the October 2009 cable very closely align with what a US military intelligence source, a US special forces source and a former Blackwater executive told The Nation in November 2009, namely that JSOC was running an operation in Pakistan where “members of an elite division of Blackwater are at the center of a secret program in which they plan targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, ‘snatch and grabs’ of high-value targets and other sensitive action inside and outside Pakistan.… The Blackwater operatives also assist in gathering intelligence and help direct a secret US military drone bombing campaign that runs parallel to the well-documented CIA predator strikes.” The arrangement, which involved a web of subcontractors, allowed the Pakistani Frontier Corps—the force cited in the cable—to work with JSOC operators while simultaneously denying that Americans were involved. From the Nation article, “The Secret US War in Pakistan,” in November 2009:

A former senior executive at Blackwater confirmed the military intelligence source’s claim that the company is working in Pakistan for the CIA and JSOC, the premier counterterrorism and covert operations force within the military. He said that Blackwater is also working for the Pakistani government on a subcontract with an Islamabad-based security firm that puts US Blackwater operatives on the ground with Pakistani forces in counter-terrorism operations, including house raids and border interdictions, in the North-West Frontier Province and elsewhere in Pakistan. This arrangement, the former executive said, allows the Pakistani government to utilize former US Special Operations forces who now work for Blackwater while denying an official US military presence in the country. He also confirmed that Blackwater has a facility in Karachi and has personnel deployed elsewhere in Pakistan. The former executive spoke on condition of anonymity.

[…]

According to the executive, Blackwater works on a subcontract for Kestral Logistics, a powerful Pakistani firm, which specializes in military logistical support, private security and intelligence consulting. It is staffed with former high-ranking Pakistani army and government officials. While Kestral’s main offices are in Pakistan, it also has branches in several other countries.

[…]

Blackwater operatives also integrate with Kestral’s forces in sensitive counterterrorism operations in the North-West Frontier Province, where they work in conjunction with the Pakistani Interior Ministry’s paramilitary force, known as the Frontier Corps (alternately referred to as “frontier scouts”). The Blackwater personnel are technically advisers, but the former executive said that the line often gets blurred in the field. Blackwater “is providing the actual guidance on how to do [counterterrorism operations] and Kestral’s folks are carrying a lot of them out, but they’re having the guidance and the overwatch from some BW guys that will actually go out with the teams when they’re executing the job,” he said. “You can see how that can lead to other things in the border areas.” He said that when Blackwater personnel are out with the Pakistani teams, sometimes its men engage in operations against suspected terrorists. “You’ve got BW guys that are assisting…and they’re all going to want to go on the jobs—so they’re going to go with them,” he said. “So, the things that you’re seeing in the news about how this Pakistani military group came in and raided this house or did this or did that—in some of those cases, you’re going to have Western folks that are right there at the house, if not in the house.” Blackwater, he said, is paid by the Pakistani government through Kestral for consulting services. “That gives the Pakistani government the cover to say, ‘Hey, no, we don’t have any Westerners doing this. It’s all local and our people are doing it.’ But it gets them the expertise that Westerners provide for [counterterrorism]-related work.”

The military intelligence source confirmed Blackwater works with the Frontier Corps, saying, “There’s no real oversight. It’s not really on people’s radar screen.”

* * *

In November 2009, Capt. John Kirby, the spokesperson for Adm. Michael Mullen, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told The Nation, “We do not discuss current operations one way or the other, regardless of their nature.” A defense official, on background, specifically denied that Blackwater performs work on drone strikes or intelligence for JSOC in Pakistan. Captain Kirby told The Nation if it published the story it would “be on thin ice.” The US embassy and Pakistan’s interior Minister Rehman Malik both denied Blackwater was operating in Pakistan.

In January 2010, on a visit to Pakistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, appeared to contradict that line, telling a Pakistani TV station, “They [Blackwater and another private security firm, DynCorp] are operating as individual companies here in Pakistan,” according to a DoD transcript of the interview. As Gates’s comments began to make huge news in Pakistan, US defense officials tried to retract his statement. As the Wall Street Journal reported, “Defense officials tried to clarify the comment…telling reporters that Mr. Gates had been speaking about contractor oversight more generally and that the Pentagon didn’t employ [Blackwater] in Pakistan.” The next day, Pakistan’s senior minister for the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), Bashir Bilour, said that Blackwater was operating in Pakistan’s frontier areas. Bilour told Pakistan’s Express News TV that Blackwater’s activities were taking place with the “consent and permission” of the Pakistani government, saying he had discussed the issue with officials at the US Consulate in Peshawar, who told him that Blackwater was training Pakistani forces.

Since the Nation story originally ran, Blackwater has continued to work under the Obama administration. In June, the company won a $100 million global contract with the CIA and continues to operate in Afghanistan, where it protects senior US officials and trains Afghan forces. Earlier this year, Blackwater’s owner, Erik Prince, put the company up for sale and moved to the Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. Whether Blackwater or former Blackwater operatives continue to work in Pakistan is not known. What is clear is that there is great reason to believe that the October 2009 cable from Ambassador Anne Patterson describing US special operations forces activities in Pakistan represents only a tiny glimpse into one of the darkest corners of current US policy in Pakistan.

Like this blog post? Read all Nation blogs on the Nation’s free iPhone App, NationNow.
NationNow iPhone App

>

Coming War between the US and Pakistan !

Posted on June 4, 2011 by wakeupbd

http://www.pro-pakistan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/the_duel.jpg

US, Pakistan Near Open War; Chinese Ultimatum Warns Washington Against Attack !

Obama Has Already Approved Attack on Pakistan’s Nukes rumors say !

http://sabbah.biz/mt/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Gates-Op-Ed_cartoon_america_in_pakistan_small_over.jpg

According to the London Sunday Express, Obama has already approved an aggressive move along these lines: “US troops will be deployed in Pakistan if the nation’s nuclear installations come under threat from terrorists out to avenge the killing of Osama Bin Laden… The plan, which would be activated without President Zardari’s consent, provoked an angry reaction from Pakistan officials… Barack Obama would order troops to parachute in to protect key nuclear missile sites. These include the air force’s central Sargodha HQ, home base for nuclear-capable F-16 combat aircraft and at least 80 ballistic missiles.” According to a US official, “The plan is green lit and the President has already shown he is willing to deploy troops in Pakistan if he feels it is important for national security.”

http://muslimindia.in/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/pic3.jpg

Extreme tension over this issue highlights the brinksmanship and incalculable folly of Obama’s May 1 unilateral raid, which might easily have been interpreted by the Pakistanis as the long-awaited attack on their nuclear forces. According to the New York Times, Obama knew very well he was courting immediate shooting war with Pakistan, and “insisted that the assault force hunting down Osama bin Laden last week be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if confronted by hostile local police officers and troops.”

China has officially put the United States on notice that Washington’s planned attack on Pakistan will be interpreted as an act of aggression against Beijing. This blunt warning represents the first known strategic ultimatum received by the United States in half a century, going back to Soviet warnings during the Berlin crisis of 1958-1961, and indicates the grave danger of general war growing out of the US-Pakistan confrontation.

Any Attack on Pakistan Would be Construed as an Attack on China

Responding to reports that China has asked the US to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty in the aftermath of the Bin Laden operation, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu used a May 19 press briefing to state Beijing’s categorical demand that the “sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan must be respected.” According to Pakistani diplomatic sources cited by the Times of India, China has “warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China.” This ultimatum was reportedly delivered at the May 9 China-US strategic dialogue and economic talks in Washington, where the Chinese delegation was led by Vice Prime Minister Wang  Qishan and State Councilor Dai ingguo.

http://wnnpakistan.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/drop-in-image-slideshow-gallery/gallery//2010/04/Pakistan-and-China-to-celebrate-60th-anniversary.jpgChina has officially put the United States on notice that Washington’s planned attack on Pakistan will be interpreted as an act of aggression against Beijing.

Chinese warnings are implicitly backed up by that nation’s nuclear missiles, including an estimated 66 ICBMs, some capable of striking the United States, plus 118 intermediate-range missiles, 36 submarine-launched missiles, and numerous shorter-range systems.

Support from China is seen by regional observers as critically important for Pakistan, which is otherwise caught in a pincers between the US and India:

“If US and Indian pressure continues, Pakistan can say ‘China is behind us. Don’t think we are isolated, we have a potential superpower with us,’”

Talat Masood, a political analyst and retired Pakistani general, told AFP.

Full Force Retaliation to Defend Pakistan’s Strategic Assets

The Chinese warning to Washington came on the heels of Gilani’s statement to the Pakistan Parliament declaring:

“Let no one draw any wrong conclusions. Any attack against Pakistan’s strategic assets, whether overt or covert, will find a matching response…. Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force. No one should underestimate the resolve and capability of our nation and armed  forces to defend our sacred homeland.”

A warning of full force retaliation from a nuclear power such as Pakistan needs to be taken seriously, even by the hardened aggressors of the Obama regime.

http://shamazkhan.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/504-2002-05-28-india-pakistan-education-war.jpg?w=460&h=335

The strategic assets Gilani is talking about are the Pakistani nuclear forces, the key to the country’s deterrent strategy against possible aggression by India, egged on by Washington in the framework of the US-India nuclear cooperation accord. The US forces in Afghanistan have not been able to conceal their extensive planning for attempts to seize or destroy Pakistan’s nuclear bombs and warheads. According to a 2009 Fox News report, “The United States has a detailed plan for infiltrating Pakistan and securing its mobile arsenal of nuclear warheads if it appears the country is about to fall under the control of the Taliban, Al Qaeda or other Islamic extremists.” This plan was developed by General Stanley McChrystal when he headed the US Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. JSOC, the force reportedly involved in the Bin Laden operation. is composed of Army Delta Force, Navy SEALs and “a high-tech special intelligence unit known as Task Force Orange.”

“Small units could seize [Pakistan’s nukes], disable them, and then centralize them in a secure location,” claimed a source quoted by Fox.

China gives 50 State-Of-The-Art JF/17 Fighters to Pakistan for FREE !

http://en.valka.cz/attachments/12846/JF-17_Thunder1.jpg

The Chinese ultimatum came during the visit of Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani in Beijing, during which the host government announced the transfer of 50 state-of-the-art JF-17 fighter jets to Pakistan, immediately and without cost. Before his departure, Gilani had stressed the importance of the Pakistan-China alliance, proclaiming:

“We are proud to have China as our best and most trusted friend. And China will always find Pakistan standing beside it at all times….When we speak of this friendship as being taller than the Himalayas and deeper than the oceans it truly captures the essence of our relationship.”

These remarks were greeted by whining from US spokesmen, including Idaho Republican senator Risch.

http://rlv.zcache.com/navy_seals_operation_kill_osama_bin_laden_poster-p228723216336777428t5wm_400.jpg

The simmering strategic crisis between the United States and Pakistan exploded with full force on May 1, with the unilateral and unauthorized US commando raid alleged to have killed the phantomatic Osama bin Laden in a compound at Abottabad, a flagrant violation of Pakistan’s national sovereignty. The timing of this military stunt designed to inflame tensions between the two countries had nothing to do with any alleged Global War on Terror, and everything to do with the late March visit to Pakistan of Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian National Security Council chief. This visit had resulted in a de facto alliance between Islamabad and Riyadh, with Pakistan promising troops to put down any US-backed color revolution in the kingdom, while extending nuclear protection to the Saudis, thus making them less vulnerable to US extortion threats to abandon the oil-rich monarchy to the tender mercies of Tehran. A joint move by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to break out of the US empire, whatever one may think of these regimes, would represent a fatal blow for the fading US empire in South Asia.

As for the US claims concerning the supposed Bin Laden raid of May 1, they are a mass of hopeless contradictions which changes from day to day. An analysis of this story is best left to literary critics and writers of theatrical reviews. The only solid and uncontestable fact which emerges is that Pakistan is the leading US target — thus intensifying the anti-Pakistan US policy which has been in place since Obama’s infamous December 2009 West Point speech.

The Shooting Has Already Started

http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/images/apaches.jpg

The shooting between US and Pakistani forces escalated on Tuesday May 17, when a US NATO helicopter violated Pakistani airspace in Waziristan. Pakistani forces showed heightened alert status, and opened fire immediately, with the US helicopter shooting back. Two soldiers at a Pakistani check post on the border in the Datta Khel area were wounded.

Possible Pakistani retaliation for this border incursion came in Peshawar on Friday, May 20, when a car bomb apparently targeted a 2-car US consulate convoy, but caused no American deaths or injuries. One Pakistani bystander was killed, and several wounded. In other intelligence warfare, Ary One television reported the name of the CIA station chief in Islamabad, the second top US resident spook there to have his cover blown in six months.

US Envoy Grossman Rejects Pakistani Calls To Stop Border Violations

US Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman, the replacement for the late Richard Holbrooke, on May 19 arrogantly rejected Pakistani calls for guarantees that no more Abottabad-style unilateral operations would be mounted in Pakistan.In refusing to offer such assurances, Grossman claimed that Pakistani officials had never demanded respect for their border in recent years.

http://wakeupbd.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/ex2bvijayee2bbhava2bin2bprogress-702745.jpg?w=459&h=327

In the midst of this strategic crisis, India has gone ahead with inherently provocative scheduled military maneuvers targeting Pakistan. This is the “Vijayee Bhava” (Be Victorious) drill, held in the Thar desert of north Rajastan,. This atomic-biological-chemical Blitzkrieg drill involves the Second Armored Corps,

“considered to be the most crucial of the Indian Army’s three principal strike formations tasked with virtually cutting Pakistan in two during a full-fledged war.”

A CIA-RAW-Mossad Pseudo-Taliban Countergang

One way to provide the provocation needed to justify a US-Indian attack on Pakistan would be through an increase in terrorist actions attributable to the so-called Taliban. According to the mainstream Pakistani media, the CIA, the Israeli Mossad, and the Indian RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) have created their own version of the Taliban in the form of a terrorist countergang which they control and direct. According to one account,

“Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives have infiltrated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda networks, and have created their own Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) force in order to destabilize Pakistan.”

The former Punjab Regional Commander of the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), retired Brigadier General Aslam Ghuman, commented:

“During my visit to the US, I learned that the Israeli spy agency Mossad, in connivance with Indian agency RAW, under the direct supervision of CIA, planned to destabilize Pakistan at any cost.”

Was this countergang responsible for last week’s double bombing in Waziristan, which killed 80 paramilitary police?

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-cPHOkNBtvNE/TWlKU95EB_I/AAAAAAAAAV4/Mq55m1W49OY/s1600/nexux.JPG

According to the same account,

“Russian intelligence disclosed that CIA contractor Raymond Davis and his network had provided Al-Qaeda operatives with chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, so that US installations may be targeted and Pakistan be blamed….”

Davis, a JSOC veteran himself, was arrested for the murder of two ISI agents, but then released by the Pakistani government after a suspicious hue and cry by the State Department.

CIA Claims The New Al Qaeda Boss Lives in Waziristan

http://saif-al-adel.com/images/saif-al-adel.gif

If the US needs a further pretext for additional raids, it will also be easy to cite the alleged presence in Waziristan of Saif al-Adel, now touted by the CIA as bin Laden’s likely successor as boss of al Qaeda. It is doubtless convenient for Obama’s aggressive intentions that Saif al-Adel can be claimed to reside so close to what is now the hottest border in the world, and not in Finsbury or Flatbush.

http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/asia/latuff-obama_and_bin_ladin.png

In the wake of the unauthorized May 1 US raid, the Pakistani military chief General Kayani had issued his own warning that similar “misadventures” could not be repeated, while announcing that US personnel inside Pakistan would be sharply reduced. In the estimate of one ISI source, there are currently about 7,000 CIA operatives in country, many of them unknown to the Pakistani government. US-Pakistan intelligence sharing has reportedly been downgraded. In response to Kayani’s moves, the CIA limited hangout operation known as Wikileaks once again showed its real nature by attempting to discredit the Pakistan commander with dubious US cable reports that he had demanded more Predator drone attacks, not fewer, in recent years.

Especially since Obama’s West Point speech, the CIA has used Predator drone attacks to slaughter civilians with the goal of fomenting civil war inside Pakistan, leading to a breakup of the country along the ethnic lines of Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan, and Pushtunistan. The geopolitical goal is to destroy Pakistan’s potential to be the energy corridor between Iran and China. Selig Harrison has emerged as a top US advocate for Baluchistan succession.

Since May 1, six reported US Predator drones attacks have slain some 42 Pakistani civilians, goading public opinion into a frenzy of anti-US hatred. In response, a joint session of the Pakistani parliament voted unanimously on May 14 to demand an end to American missile strikes, calling on the government to cut NATO’s supply line to Afghanistan if the attacks should continue. Since the Karachi to Khyber Pass supply line carries as much as two thirds of the supplies needed by the Afghanistan invaders, such a cutoff would cause chaos among the NATO forces. All of this points to the inherent insanity of provoking war with the country your supply line runs through.

US Wants to Use Taliban Boss Mullah Omar Against Pakistan

The State Department dropped all preconditions for negotiating with the Taliban back in February, and the US is now reported by the Washington Post to be talking with envoys of Mullah Omar, the legendary one-eyed leader of the Quetta Shura or Taliban ruling council. It is apparent that the US is offering the Taliban an alliance against Pakistan. US regional envoy Grossman is hostile to the Pakistanis, but when it comes to the Taliban he has been nicknamed “Mr. Reconciliation”. By contrast, the US is said to be determined to assassinate the head of the Haqqani network using a Bin Laden-type raid. The Pakistanis are equally determined to keep the Haqqani as an ally.

If China stands behind Pakistan, then Russia might be said to stand behind China. Looking forward to the upcoming June 15 meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Chinese President Hu praised Sino-Russian relations as being “at an unprecedented high point,” with an “obvious strategic ingredient.” In a press conference this week, Russian President Medvedev was obliged indirectly to acknowledge that the much-hyped Obama “reset” with Russia had amounted to very little, since the US ABM missile program in Romania and the rest of eastern Europe, so obviously directed against Russia, means that the START treaty is of dubious value, thus raising the specter of a “new Cold War.” Given the NATO assault on Libya, there would be no UN resolution against Syria, said Medvedev. Putin has been right all along, and Medvedev is trying to imitate Putin to salvage some chance of remaining in power.

Are We in July 1914?

http://wakeupbd.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/assassination2.jpg?w=460&h=276The Sarajevo Assassinations of June 28, 1914

The crisis leading to World War I began with the Sarajevo assassinations of June 28, 1914, but the first major declaration of war did not occur until August 1. In the interim month of July 1914, large parts of European public opinion retreated into a dreamlike trance, an idyllic la-la land of elegiac illusion, even as the deadly crisis gathered momentum. Something similar can be seen today. Many Americans fondly imagine that the alleged death of Bin Laden marks the end of the war on terror and the Afghan War. Instead, the Bin Laden operation has clearly ushered in a new strategic emergency. Forces which had opposed the Iraq war, from MSNBC to many left liberals of the peace movement, are variously supporting Obama’s bloody aggression in Libya, or even celebrating him as a more effective warmonger than Bush-Cheney because of his supposed success at the expense of Bin Laden. In reality, if there were ever a time to mobilize to stop a new and wider war, this is it.

>

>

US and Pakistan Near Open War

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Webster Tarpley
Infowars.com
May 23, 2011

China has officially put the United States on notice that Washington’s planned attack on Pakistan will be interpreted as an act of aggression against Beijing. This blunt warning represents the first known strategic ultimatum received by the United States in half a century, going back to Soviet warnings during the Berlin crisis of 1958-1961, and indicates the grave danger of general war growing out of the US-Pakistan confrontation.

“Any Attack on Pakistan Would be Construed as an Attack on China”

Responding to reports that China has asked the US to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty in the aftermath of the Bin Laden operation, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu used a May 19 press briefing to state Beijing’s categorical demand that the “sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan must be respected.” According to Pakistani diplomatic sources cited by the Times of India, China has “warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China.” This ultimatum was reportedly delivered at the May 9 China-US strategic dialogue and economic talks in Washington, where the Chinese delegation was led by Vice Prime Minister Wang Qishan and State Councilor Dai Bingguo.1 Chinese warnings are implicitly backed up by that nation’s nuclear missiles, including an estimated 66 ICBMs, some capable of striking the United States, plus 118 intermediate-range missiles, 36 submarine-launched missiles, and numerous shorter-range systems.

Support from China is seen by regional observers as critically important for Pakistan, which is otherwise caught in a pincers between the US and India: “If US and Indian pressure continues, Pakistan can say ‘China is behind us. Don’t think we are isolated, we have a potential superpower with us,’” Talat Masood, a political analyst and retired Pakistani general, told AFP.2

The Chinese ultimatum came during the visit of Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani in Beijing, during which the host government announced the transfer of 50 state-of-the-art JF-17 fighter jets to Pakistan, immediately and without cost.3 Before his departure, Gilani had stressed the importance of the Pakistan-China alliance, proclaiming: “We are proud to have China as our best and most trusted friend. And China will always find Pakistan standing beside it at all times….When we speak of this friendship as being taller than the Himalayas and deeper than the oceans it truly captures the essence of our relationship.”4 These remarks were greeted by whining from US spokesmen, including Idaho Republican Senator Risch.

The simmering strategic crisis between the United States and Pakistan exploded with full force on May 1, with the unilateral and unauthorized US commando raid alleged to have killed the phantomatic Osama bin Laden in a compound at Abottabad, a flagrant violation of Pakistan’s national sovereignty. The timing of this military stunt designed to inflame tensions between the two countries had nothing to do with any alleged Global War on Terror, and everything to do with the late March visit to Pakistan of Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian National Security Council chief. This visit had resulted in a de facto alliance between Islamabad and Riyadh, with Pakistan promising troops to put down any US-backed color revolution in the kingdom, while extending nuclear protection to the Saudis, thus making them less vulnerable to US extortion threats to abandon the oil-rich monarchy to the tender mercies of Tehran. A joint move by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to break out of the US empire, whatever one may think of these regimes, would represent a fatal blow for the fading US empire in South Asia.

As for the US claims concerning the supposed Bin Laden raid of May 1, they are a mass of hopeless contradictions which changes from day to day. An analysis of this story is best left to literary critics and writers of theatrical reviews. The only solid and uncontestable fact which emerges is that Pakistan is the leading US target — thus intensifying the anti-Pakistan US policy which has been in place since Obama’s infamous December 2009 West Point speech.

Gilani: Full Force Retaliation to Defend Pakistan’s Strategic Assets

The Chinese warning to Washington came on the heels of Gilani’s statement to the Pakistan Parliament declaring: “Let no one draw any wrong conclusions. Any attack against Pakistan’s strategic assets, whether overt or covert, will find a matching response…. Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force. No one should underestimate the resolve and capability of our nation and armed forces to defend our sacred homeland.”5 A warning of full force retaliation from a nuclear power such as Pakistan needs to be taken seriously, even by the hardened aggressors of the Obama regime.

The strategic assets Gilani is talking about are the Pakistani nuclear forces, the key to the country’s deterrent strategy against possible aggression by India, egged on by Washington in the framework of the US-India nuclear cooperation accord. The US forces in Afghanistan have not been able to conceal their extensive planning for attempts to seize or destroy Pakistan’s nuclear bombs and warheads. According to a 2009 Fox News report, “The United States has a detailed plan for infiltrating Pakistan and securing its mobile arsenal of nuclear warheads if it appears the country is about to fall under the control of the Taliban, Al Qaeda or other Islamic extremists.” This plan was developed by General Stanley McChrystal when he headed the US Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. JSOC, the force reportedly involved in the Bin Laden operation. is composed of Army Delta Force, Navy SEALs and “a high-tech special intelligence unit known as Task Force Orange.” “Small units could seize [Pakistan’s nukes], disable them, and then centralize them in a secure location,” claimed a source quoted by Fox.6

Obama Has Already Approved Sneak Attack on Pakistan’s Nukes

According to the London Sunday Express, Obama has already approved an aggressive move along these lines: “US troops will be deployed in Pakistan if the nation’s nuclear installations come under threat from terrorists out to avenge the killing of Osama Bin Laden… The plan, which would be activated without President Zardari’s consent, provoked an angry reaction from Pakistan officials… Barack Obama would order troops to parachute in to protect key nuclear missile sites. These include the air force’s central Sargodha HQ, home base for nuclear-capable F-16 combat aircraft and at least 80 ballistic missiles.” According to a US official, “The plan is green lit and the President has already shown he is willing to deploy troops in Pakistan if he feels it is important for national security.”7

Extreme tension over this issue highlights the brinksmanship and incalculable folly of Obama’s May 1 unilateral raid, which might easily have been interpreted by the Pakistanis as the long-awaited attack on their nuclear forces. According to the New York Times, Obama knew very well he was courting immediate shooting war with Pakistan, and “insisted that the assault force hunting down Osama bin Laden last week be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if confronted by hostile local police officers and troops.”

The Shooting Has Already Started

The shooting between US and Pakistani forces escalated on Tuesday May 17, when a US NATO helicopter violated Pakistani airspace in Waziristan. Pakistani forces showed heightened alert status, and opened fire immediately, with the US helicopter shooting back. Two soldiers at a Pakistani check post on the border in the Datta Khel area were wounded.8

Possible Pakistani retaliation for this border incursion came in Peshawar on Friday, May 20, when a car bomb apparently targeted a 2-car US consulate convoy, but caused no American deaths or injuries. One Pakistani bystander was killed, and several wounded. In other intelligence warfare, Ary One television reported the name of the CIA station chief in Islamabad, the second top US resident spook there to have his cover blown in six months.

US Envoy Grossman Rejects Pakistani Calls To Stop Border Violations

US Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman, the replacement for the late Richard Holbrooke, on May 19 arrogantly rejected Pakistani calls for guarantees that no more Abottabad-style unilateral operations would be mounted in Pakistan.9 In refusing to offer such assurances, Grossman claimed that Pakistani officials had never demanded respect for their border in recent years.10

In the midst of this strategic crisis, India has gone ahead with inherently provocative scheduled military maneuvers targeting Pakistan. This is the “Vijayee Bhava” (Be Victorious) drill, held in the Thar desert of north Rajastan,. This atomic-biological-chemical Blitzkrieg drill involves the Second Armored Corps, “considered to be the most crucial of the Indian Army’s three principal strike formations tasked with virtually cutting Pakistan in two during a full-fledged war.”11

The Nation: A CIA-RAW-Mossad Pseudo-Taliban Countergang

One way to provide the provocation needed to justify a US-Indian attack on Pakistan would be through an increase in terrorist actions attributable to the so-called Taliban. According to the mainstream Pakistani media, the CIA, the Israeli Mossad, and the Indian RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) have created their own version of the Taliban in the form of a terrorist countergang which they control and direct. According to one account, “Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives have infiltrated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda networks, and have created their own Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) force in order to destabilize Pakistan.” The former Punjab Regional Commander of the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), retired Brigadier General Aslam Ghuman, commented: “During my visit to the US, I learned that the Israeli spy agency Mossad, in connivance with Indian agency RAW, under the direct supervision of CIA, planned to destabilize Pakistan at any cost.”12 Was this countergang responsible for last week’s double bombing in Waziristan, which killed 80 paramilitary police?

According to the same account, Russian intelligence “disclosed that CIA contractor Raymond Davis and his network had provided Al-Qaeda operatives with chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, so that US installations may be targeted and Pakistan be blamed….” Davis, a JSOC veteran himself, was arrested for the murder of two ISI agents, but then released by the Pakistani government after a suspicious hue and cry by the State Department.

CIA Claims The New Al Qaeda Boss Lives in Waziristan

If the US needs a further pretext for additional raids, it will also be easy to cite the alleged presence in Waziristan of Saif al-Adel, now touted by the CIA as bin Laden’s likely successor as boss of al Qaeda.13 It is doubtless convenient for Obama’s aggressive intentions that Saif al-Adel can be claimed to reside so close to what is now the hottest border in the world, and not in Finsbury or Flatbush.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • FREE Shipping on all orders!

In the wake of the unauthorized May 1 US raid, the Pakistani military chief General Kayani had issued his own warning that similar “misadventures” could not be repeated, while announcing that US personnel inside Pakistan would be sharply reduced. In the estimate of one ISI source, there are currently about 7,000 CIA operatives in country, many of them unknown to the Pakistani government. US-Pakistan intelligence sharing has reportedly been downgraded. In response to Kayani’s moves, the CIA limited hangout operation known as Wikileaks once again showed its real nature by attempting to discredit the Pakistan commander with dubious US cable reports that he had demanded more Predator drone attacks, not fewer, in recent years.

Especially since Obama’s West Point speech, the CIA has used Predator drone attacks to slaughter civilians with the goal of fomenting civil war inside Pakistan, leading to a breakup of the country along the ethnic lines of Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan, and Pushtunistan. The geopolitical goal is to destroy Pakistan’s potential to be the energy corridor between Iran and China. Selig Harrison has emerged as a top US advocate for Baluchistan succession.

Since May 1, six reported US Predator drones attacks have slain some 42 Pakistani civilians, goading public opinion into a frenzy of anti-US hatred. In response, a joint session of the Pakistani parliament voted unanimously on May 14 to demand an end to American missile strikes, calling on the government to cut NATO’s supply line to Afghanistan if the attacks should continue.14 Since the Karachi to Khyber Pass supply line carries as much as two thirds of the supplies needed by the Afghanistan invaders, such a cutoff would cause chaos among the NATO forces. All of this points to the inherent insanity of provoking war with the country your supply line runs through.

US Wants to Use Taliban Boss Mullah Omar Against Pakistan

The State Department dropped all preconditions for negotiating with the Taliban back in February, and the US is now reported by the Washington Post to be talking with envoys of Mullah Omar, the legendary one-eyed leader of the Quetta Shura or Taliban ruling council. It is apparent that the US is offering the Taliban an alliance against Pakistan. US regional envoy Grossman is hostile to the Pakistanis, but when it comes to the Taliban he has been nicknamed “Mr. Reconciliation.”15 By contrast, the US is said to be determined to assassinate the head of the Haqqani network using a Bin Laden-type raid. The Pakistanis are equally determined to keep the Haqqani as an ally.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

If China stands behind Pakistan, then Russia might be said to stand behind China. Looking forward to the upcoming June 15 meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Chinese President Hu praised Sino-Russian relations as being “at an unprecedented high point,” with an “obvious strategic ingredient.” In a press conference this week, Russian President Medvedev was obliged indirectly to acknowledge that the much-hyped Obama “reset” with Russia had amounted to very little, since the US ABM missile program in Romania and the rest of eastern Europe, so obviously directed against Russia, means that the START treaty is of dubious value, thus raising the specter of a “new Cold War.” Given the NATO assault on Libya, there would be no UN resolution against Syria, said Medvedev. Putin has been right all along, and Medvedev is trying to imitate Putin to salvage some chance of remaining in power.

Are We in July 1914?

The crisis leading to World War I began with the Sarajevo assassinations of June 28, 1914, but the first major declaration of war did not occur until August 1. In the interim month of July 1914, large parts of European public opinion retreated into a dreamlike trance, an idyllic la-la land of elegiac illusion, even as the deadly crisis gathered momentum. Something similar can be seen today. Many Americans fondly imagine that the alleged death of Bin Laden marks the end of the war on terror and the Afghan War. Instead, the Bin Laden operation has clearly ushered in a new strategic emergency. Forces which had opposed the Iraq war, from MSNBC to many left liberals of the peace movement, are variously supporting Obama’s bloody aggression in Libya, or even celebrating him as a more effective warmonger than Bush-Cheney because of his supposed success at the expense of Bin Laden. In reality, if there were ever a time to mobilize to stop a new and wider war, this is it.

This post first appeared on Webster Tarpley’s website.

References

1 http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/china-asks-us-to-respect-paks-sovereignty-independence/articleshow/8454577.cms

2 “China-Pakistan alliance strengthened post bin Laden,” AFP, May 15, 2011, http://www.sundaytimes.lk/index.php/analysis/7546-china-pakistan-alliance-strengthened-post-bin-laden

3 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/asia/20pakistan.html?_r=3

4 http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/05/08/Gilani-China-best-most-trusted-friend/UPI-96101304911435/

5 http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/pakistani_pm_regrets_unilateral_GAOWNTpBXGJaJtwzWaZu0K?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=

6 Rowan Scarborough,”U.S. Has Plan to Secure Pakistan Nukes if Country Falls to Taliban, Fox News, May 14, 2009.

7 “US ‘To Protect Pakistan,” London Sunday Express, May 15, 2011, http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/246717/US-to-protect-Pakistan-

8 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/17/us-pakistan-nato-idUSTRE74G0PS20110517

9 “US refuses to assure it will not act unilaterally,” http://thenews.jang.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=15758

10 “No US assurance on unilateral ops,” http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/20-May-2011/No-US-assurance-on-unilateral-ops

11 “Getting leaner and meaner? Army practices blitzkrieg to strike hard at enemy,” Times of India, May 10, 2011, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-10/india/29527731_1_three-strike-corps-army-and-iaf-transformational

12 “CIA has created own Taliban to wreak terror havoc on Pakistan, claims Pak paper,” ANI, May 12, http://my.news.yahoo.com/cia-created-own-taliban-wreak-terror-havoc-pakistan-091621821.html

13 “New al-Qaeda chief in North Waziristan,” May 19, 2011

14 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43033985/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

15 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8519535/US-steps-up-face-to-face-peace-talks-with-Taliban.html

>

http://tarpley.net/2011/05/21/us-pakistan-near-open-war-chinese-ultimatum-warns-washington-against-attack/

>

The US-Pakistan war

Struggle over A’stan heats up

Last Updated: 11:30 PM, October 3, 2011

Posted: 10:34 PM, October 3, 2011

headshotAmir Taheri

We can’t hide the fact: America and Pakistan are at war over Afghanistan.

The Pakistanis want a big voice in the government in Kabul. The United States backs Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who’s determined to prevent that.

Initially, this was a proxy war. The Pakistanis recruited, armed and deployed Afghans who wished to fight America. In the last year or so, however, we’ve seen more direct Pakistani involvement both in command and control and as an actual presence in anti-American operations, such as the recent attacks on the US embassy and other targets in Kabul.

An open enmity: As US-Pakistan relations grow even more sour, Pakistanis protested American policies in Hyperabad on Sunday.

Demotix
An open enmity: As US-Pakistan relations grow even more sour, Pakistanis protested American policies in Hyperabad on Sunday.

The US side of the war initially was limited to drone attacks against suspected Afghan and Arab terrorist hideouts in Pakistani-administered tribal areas. But that changed when a US special-ops team went into Pakistan proper to kill Osama bin Laden.

Reports also say that the US military is preparing for “search and snatch” operations in Pakistani Baluchistan, where the Taliban has its headquarters.

According to the doctrine taught at Pakistani military colleges, Afghanistan provides the “hinterland” that Pakistan needs to face its historic enemy, India. Afghanistan is also the vital link between Pakistan and Islamic Central Asia.

More important, a hostile Afghanistan could play the Pushtun card against Pakistan. Under the British Empire, the Pushtuns were divided between Afghanistan and what was to become Pakistan in 1947. Since the 1950s, a pan-Pushtun movement has thrived on both sides of the border.

Thus, Pakistan feels it must have a say in Kabul, if only to keep the pan-Pushtun demons under control.

Pakistani doctrine also doesn’t allow for an Afghanistan allied to hostile powers, so Pakistan supported the Afghan “mujahedin” against the Soviet-backed communist regime in Kabul.

When that regime collapsed in 1992, the new Afghan government, led by Burhaneddin Rabbani, denied Pakistan a share in the spoils of victory. So Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence raised an Afghan force — the Taliban, which came to power in 1996.

In 2001, Pakistan ended up the loser when Americans ousted the Taliban and installed forces hostile to Islamabad.

Despite that setback, then-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf thought America, his putative ally, would prevent such hostile powers as India and Iran from dominating Afghanistan and would secure Pakistan a voice in the new Afghan government.

The Musharraf calculation lost all logic when the Obama administration chose what amounts to a cut-and-run strategy in Afghanistan. Faced with the prospect of a total US military withdrawal by 2013, the Afghan power elite, including the Karzai clan, is looking for new allies and protectors — leading to a dramatic upsurge in Iranian, Indian and even Russian influence in Kabul. Iran and India are the second- and third-biggest aid donors to Afghanistan, just behind America. Tehran also delivers large sums of cash to Karzai and other senior Afghan politicians.

All that concerns the ISI — so Pakistan has abandoned the Musharraf policy.

The ISI has allowed the Taliban leadership, known as the Quetta Shura (Council), to operate fairly openly in Pakistani Baluchistan. (All the new phone numbers for Taliban spokesmen start with the country code for Pakistan.)

The Pakistanis have also revived several dormant non-Taliban armed groups, including the Haqqani network, rooted in the southern province of Paktia and responsible for several recent terror attacks in Kabul.

The Haqqanis allied themselves to the Taliban in 1996, when leader Jalaleddin Haqqani was appointed interior minister. In its new incarnation, however, the Haqqanis are more a Pakistani tool than a Taliban ally.

The ISI also has revived the Hizb Islami (Islamic Party) of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The terror network recently distanced itself from Iran and tried to make a deal with the Americans. One of Hekmatyar’s sons even met a CIA representative during a “seminar” in the Maldives. Yet no deal materialized, because America did not want to antagonize Karzai. Disappointed, Hekmatyar turned to his old allies in the ISI.

The Pakistanis plan to create a broad front of the Taliban, the Haqqani network, the Hizb Islami and several smaller groups that could bid for power once the Americans have left.

Several Arab countries support that plan, notably Saudi Arabia, which prefers to see Afghanistan dominated by Sunni Pakistan than Shiite Iran and Hindu India. The Haqqanis maintain their family home in Abu Dhabi and use United Arab Emirates banks for their transactions.

So far, the US-Pakistan war has been low-intensity. The problem, as always, is that wars are easy to start but hard to end.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_us_pakistan_war_FCOmmNlf7RotH3HJwgVLQK#ixzz1ZrNe9sXD

>

October 3, 2011 6:09 AM EDT

Afghanistan, The U.S. and Pakistan: Where Will the War of Words Lead?

By Anissa Haddadi
Afghanistan, The U.S. and Pakistan:  Where Will the War of Words  Lead?Pakistan is still hitting back at allegations from Afghan officials that its intelligence agency masterminded the assassination of Kabul’s chief peace negotiator with the Taliban, threatening the region’s stability and pointing the finger at their neighbour rather than looking at the lack of efficiency of domestic forces.As accusations from both the U.S. and the Afghan authorities are angering Pakistan, tensions between the country risks creating more regional instability as alliances could shifts.An investigative delegation recently set up by President Hamid Karzai has said it had obtained evidence and a confession by a man involved in Burhanuddin Rabbani’s killing on September 20.The man, they said, sustain the bomber was Pakistani and the assassination had been plotted in Pakistan.However hitting back at the accusations, the Pakistani authorities instead questioned the Afghan’s authorities’ ability to pre-empt the Taliban’s attacks and fight off the movement.”Instead of making such irresponsible statements, those in positions of authority in Kabul should seriously deliberate as to why all those Afghans who are favourably disposed toward peace and toward Pakistan are systematically being removed from the scene and killed,” Pakistan’s foreign ministry said in a statement.”There is a need to take stock of the direction taken by Afghan Intelligence and security agencies.”Rabbani’s killing came just as the U.S. and Afghan authorities had renewed efforts to forge dialogue with the Taliban as despite foreign troop’s involvement, insurgency against the government and those considered to be on its side has seen an increase.Meanwhile, anti-Pakistani feeling in Afghanistan is also rising, and hundreds of demonstrators took to the streets of Kabul on Sunday to condemn recent shelling of border areas by Pakistan’s army and accuse the country’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) spy agency of involvement in Rabbani’s killing.Also, the Peace Council, which was previously headed by Rabbani is now calling for negotiations to be held with Pakistan rather than with the Taliban, implying Islamabad is directly involved in supporting some militants from behind the scenes.Afghan leaders are following on the U.S. suit in becoming increasingly suspicious of Pakistan’s ability to help them fight militants group, especially the Haqqani network.While some analysts have warned Pakistan might use the group as a strategic tool to counterweight he influence of its main regional rival India in Afghanistan, ISI officials have denied ever supporting the Haqqani network.The Afghan accusations came after a the top U.S. military officer, admiral Mike Mullen, had accused Pakistani intelligence of supporting an attack on the U.S. embassy in Kabul on September 13, which was allegedly carried out by the Haqqani group.Pakistan retorted angrily, which later on led to the White house trying to distance itself from the remarks but it seems unlikely relations could now return to the level of cooperation seen when the two countries started their alliance to fight against the war on terror.Pakistan says it has sacrificed more than any other country that joined the U.S.-led global campaign against militancy after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, losing thousands of soldiers and security forces.Meanwhile, adding to the confusion and despite accusations, leaders from the Haqqani group have kept on denying being responsible for killing Rabbani or having links with the Pakistani ISI.Siraj Haqqani a leader for the group also told the BBC that the U.S. had been in touch to try to persuade him to enter talks with the Afghan government.The Haqqanis “have been contacted and are being contacted by intelligence agencies of many Islamic and non-Islamic countries, including the US, asking us to leave the sacred jihad and take an important part in the current government”, the BBC quoted him as saying.With the Haqqani regime intensely denying any involvement or support by the Pakistani authorities the war of words between the U.S., Afghanistan and Pakistan is set to continue and risks exchanges risks becoming even more tensed.The Afghan authorities it seems have followed the U.S. in turning the heat on Pakistan and becoming more straightforward and direct on accusing the authorities of supporting militants’ network.While Washington has been very vocal of its suspicions towards Pakistan, the Afghan authorities have also a lot of questions to answer as security in the country has been more than volatile and government forces also accused of corruption and having close ties with militants.With the war of words between Pakistan and Afghanistan set to increase, the Karzai government has failed to realise that once foreign troops will leave the country it will need Pakistan’s help more than ever.

>

The economic reality of US threats

October 3, 2011

A Pak-US war is an empty threat, given the interests of China and India plus the economic condition of America.

There has been a wave of American threats of war against Pakistan if the latter does not take action against the Haqqani network reportedly operating from the Pak-Afghan border. There is, thus, widespread concern among already economically miserable and politically devastated Pakistanis if an open US-Pak war is about to take place or the current threats are another jugglery of the US to put forward a new do-more agenda.

This distress among Pakistanis is feeding upon the ongoing discourse on local and international print and electronic media, and the latter are doing their jobs pretty well to fatten the fear. Let’s see if the war ground can really be extended to Pakistani mainland, given the vulnerable interests of other fast growing economic players of the region, specifically China and India.

The 2011 report titled “Asia 2050: Realizing the Asian Century” by the Asian Development Bank notes that Asia is expected to contribute 50% of world’s total GDP in 2050 and 70% of the world’s added capital stock in 2030. On deeper investigation it is not difficult to find that China and India are the main contributors in this emerging Asian economic boom. The report notes that India’s GDP per capita will rise by more than three times, and that of China by more than double. Looking at the given statistics and explicit aspirations of India to become, as she says, the Asian tiger and the current international status of China, I believe that there are too dear and powerful stake holders to overlook for the US to extend this war into Pakistan’s mainland.

India is always perceived as an interested party in any warfare expedited against Pakistan. However, this time, India, which is living in the glassy economic walls, would not want to indulge with conventional war against Pakistan.

Indian defence minister has explicitly expressed the same a few days after the US allegations against Pakistani intelligence agencies. India has much more to lose economically than it had a couple of decades ago. Wars are not good for economic growth, which India has seen recently. The region is growing as a manufacturing hub for the world and India is the second largest country in this setup. The war in Pakistan’s mainland would immediately harm Indian economic interests, even if India does not engage itself directly.

So far Pakistan has been serving as a buffer between the US lead Afghan war and Indian Territory and the buffer is paying the war cost. If war is brought into Pakistan’s mainland, it will directly expose India with war’s economic side effects. If India wants to sustain its speed of growth it must demonstrate to the world, which is investing heavily in India since a couple decades, that the Indian market place is not vulnerable to any sort of war damages.

China, emerging as a powerful state in the world, has strategic economic interests in Pakistan. Pakistan provides access to rich Middle East market through Gawadar Port. China’s route to Middle East’s market will become inoperable in case of any expedition of US on Pakistan. Also, Pakistan provides a defence to China against India, which has burning territorial dispute on China-India border.

If the US lead war is extended into Pakistan’s mainland, the action would kill both advantages which China enjoys currently.  The presence of the US army in Pakistan will also create the US-India joint venture on the Chinese border, which is never acceptable to China in the long run. As a result, the world has recently witnessed China’s immediate response against US war threats to Pakistan and a following visit of Chinese Premier to Pakistan. China owns the veto power and economic muscle, which it will use to keep the presence of the US army away from its border.

How could I ignore to include the implications of current bailed-out economic position of the US?

Frankly speaking, America cannot afford to trigger a new war, at least at this point of time, when it is seeking capital investment from a third world country like India to create employment in American job market. Its economy cannot afford a new war except the war slogans in efforts to retain Obama’s vote bank until the upcoming elections in the US. The current administration has to take back their faces to their voters and this time, since Osama is apparently not available, they have chosen Pakistani shoulder to put off their burden.

Also, this is a good time to push another list of do-more in the same blow.

The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of The Express Tribune

>

Op-Ed Contributor

Take the War to Pakistan

By SETH G. JONES
Published: December 3, 2009

Kabul, Afghanistan

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S decision on a timetable for withdrawal of American troops only makes official what everyone here has known for a while: the clock is ticking in Afghanistan. The Taliban have long recognized this, and many captured militants have reminded their interrogators that “you have the watches, but we have the time.”

As we quicken the pace, the top American commander here, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has repeatedly noted that there are many issues to focus on: building more competent Afghan Army and police forces, adopting more effective anticorruption measures and reintegrating “moderate” Taliban and other insurgent fighters into Afghan society and politics.

But perhaps the most difficult issue is largely outside of General McChrystal’s control (and got short shrift in President Obama’s speech at West Point): undermining the Taliban’s sanctuary in Pakistan. Thus far, there has been no substantive action taken against the Taliban leadership in Baluchistan Province, south of the Pashtun-dominated areas of Afghanistan. This is the same mistake the Soviets made in the 1980s, when they failed to act against the seven major mujahadeen groups headquartered in Pakistan.

This sanctuary is critical because the Afghan war is organized and run out of Baluchistan. Virtually all significant meetings of the Taliban take place in that province, and many of the group’s senior leaders and military commanders are based there. “The Taliban sanctuary in Baluchistan is catastrophic for us,” a Marine told me on a recent trip to Afghanistan’s Helmand Province, across the border from Baluchistan. “Local Taliban fighters get strategic and operational guidance from across the border, as well as supplies and technical components for their improvised explosive devices.”

Like a typical business, the Taliban in Pakistan have an organizational structure divided into functional committees. It has a media committee; a military committee; a finance committee responsible for acquiring and managing funds; and so forth. The Taliban’s inner shura, or governing council, exerts authority over lower-level Taliban fighters. It is composed of the supreme Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, his principal deputy, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, his military commander, Abdullah Zakir, and roughly a dozen other key leaders. Many Taliban leaders have moved their families to Baluchistan, and their children attend Pakistani schools.

Mullah Baradar is particularly important because he runs many of the shuras involving senior Taliban commanders, virtually all of which are in Pakistan. “Omar is reclusive and unpolished,” one Taliban figure recently said to me, “and has preferred to confide in a small number of trusted advisers rather than address larger groups.”

Yet Pakistan and the United States have failed to target them systematically. Pakistani Army and Frontier Corps forces have conducted operations in Pakistan’s tribal areas to the north, and the United States has conducted many drone strikes there. But relatively little has been done in Baluchistan.

The United States and Pakistan must target Taliban leaders in Baluchistan. There are several ways to do it, and none requires military forces.

The first is to conduct raids to capture Taliban leaders in Baluchistan. Most Taliban are in or near Baluchi cities like Quetta. These should be police and intelligence operations, much like American-Pakistani efforts to capture Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other Qaeda operatives after 9/11. The second is to hit Taliban leaders with drone strikes, as the United States and Pakistan have done so effectively in the tribal areas.

The cost of failing to act in Baluchistan will be enormous. As one Russian diplomat who served in the Soviet Army in Afghanistan recently told me: “You are running out of time. You must balance counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan by targeting the leadership nodes in Pakistan. Don’t make the same mistake we did.”

Seth G. Jones, the author of “In the Graveyard of Empires: America’s War in Afghanistan,” is a civilian adviser to the American military and a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation.

More Articles in Opinion » A version of this article appeared in print on December 4, 2009, on page A35 of the New York edition.

>

Pakistan: USA’s next war zone

Friday, September 26, 2008 – 10:00

Washington’s next war is already on the go. “Classified orders”, according to the September 11 New York Times, were passed by US President George Bush in July. And the target is not “axis of evil”-famed Iran. It is Washington’s close ally in the “war on terror”, Pakistan.

On September 17, a US attack on the Waziristan (tribal areas) region of Pakistan left another five “Taliban” dead. Only a week earlier, 20 were killed in another US attack. Between August 13 and September 12, at least 79 people were killed in nine US attacks on Pakistan’s tribal areas. Since January 29, more than 150 people have been killed.

Besides the rising death toll, a large-scale displacement is taking place. From Bajour district alone, more than 30,000 people have migrated to the relative safety of the neighbouring North West Frontier Province (NWFP).

The massive military operation launched against the Taliban by the Pakistani army under US pressure since 2003 has driven many people out of their homes. The Taliban’s successful attempt to capture and turn Pakistan’s tribal areas into “Talibanistan” has inflicted misery — including beheadings, amputations and harsh dress codes — on the residents, also leading to displacement.

However it was the US invasion of Afghanistan that reduced the tribal areas to a battlefield for multi-pronged war, with Shias fighting Sunnis, the Taliban pitched against the Pakistan military and US missiles and air drones pounding Pakistan.

The Taliban’s strategy is to Talibanise at gunpoint — politically and administratively — the tribal areas. Talibanised Sharia (Islamic law) has been instituted and Taliban militias have replaced the state apparatus (the police, civil administration and courts) with their own courts. They have established tolls to levy road taxes on transport, which is a major source of income. Maliks (tribal elders) who might pose a challenge to Taliban authority have been eliminated or silenced.

The Shia tribes are alarmed at the Taliban occupation of the tribal areas, remembering the reported massacre in Afghanistan of some 5000 Shias by the Taliban when in power in the late 1990s. They have decided to resist tooth and nail.

The Taliban have encountered many acts of resistance. A brave woman refused to quit her job as a school teacher and stay home. Villagers formed militias and resisted, though unsuccessfully. The local tribes at first were no match for the Taliban and al Qaeda cadre, trained in the 1980s with CIA-provided manuals.

However, the Shia resistance became an impetus for others. The tribes have now formed their own militia and have begun liberating their villages from the Taliban.

While tribes have been left on their own to defend themselves against the Taliban, the NYT on September 11 quoted a senior US official as saying that the Pakistan government had “privately assented to the general concept of limited ground assaults by [US] Special Operations forces against significant militant targets, but that it did not approve each mission”.

Though the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) government has denied such assertions, there is a general feeling in Pakistan that this is the case. During the rule of Pervez Musharraf, every time the US attacked inside Pakistan, the regime would claim responsibility. Now every US attack is followed by a protest statement by Pakistan’s government and every protest statement is followed by another US attack.

The US has not always considered the Taliban enemies. In the wake of the radical 1978 “Saur [April] revolution” in Afghanistan, the CIA turned the tribal areas and parts of the NWFP bordering Afghanistan into a safe haven for the “Mujahideen”, the Taliban’s forerunners.

The tribal areas were brutalised, criminalised and militarised as the weapon and drug trades became a major source of funding for the anti-Soviet “jihad”.

When the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, Afghan leader Mohammed Najibullah was able to hold the Mujahideen out for another three years. The Mujahideen then reduced Afghanistan to rubble as they turned against each other in the battle to capture Kabul.

The chaos ended when the Taliban took power in 1996 with imperial help. Assassinated PPP leader Benazir Bhutto once claimed: “Weapons were supplied to the Taliban by the USA and Britain with money from Saudi Arabia … Pakistan’s territory was used to train solely the Afghan refugees — Pushtoons, who made up the backbone of Taliban movement.”

The Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s notorious military intelligence service, was the architect of the Taliban victory.

Then in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks, Washington launched its invasion of Afghanistan. Pakistan GHQ (military headquarters) reluctantly obeyed US orders to give the Taliban up. However a section of the military refused.

US pressure to target the Taliban as they regrouped in Pakistan pitched the sections of the Pakistani military following US dictates against those patronising the Taliban in the tribal areas.

The Taliban, being blocked westward, will most likely spread eastward. Already, districts neighbouring the tribal areas, particularly the scenic valleys of Swat, have become a venue for pitched battles between the Taliban and the Pakistani military.

However, neither successful Talibanisation nor the presence of Taliban hide-outs should serve as an excuse for an imperialist invasion of Pakistan. It will further plunge this region into chaos. The stability of the region cannot be guaranteed until the US occupation of Afghanistan is ended.

Talibanisation can be best fought against by the masses. The US presence in the region will only delay the Taliban’s defeat.

[This article is abridged from a September 17 article by Farooq Sulehria, a member of the Labour Party Pakistan residing in Sweden. For an extended version, visit http://www.links.org.au.]

>

Blackwater (Xe): The Secret US War in Pakistan

Top 25 of 2011

117Share

At a covert forward operating base run by the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in the Pakistani port city of Karachi, members of an elite division of Blackwater are at the center of a secret program in which they plan targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda operatives inside and outside Pakistan. The Blackwater operatives also gather intelligence and help direct a secret US military drone bombing campaign that runs parallel to the well-documented CIA predator strikes, according to a well-placed source within the US military intelligence apparatus.

Student Researchers:

  • Andrew Hobbs, Kelsea Arnold, and Brittney Gates (Sonoma State University)

Faculty Evaluators:

  • Elaine Wellin and Peter Phillips (Sonoma State University)

Captain John Kirby, the spokesperson for Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Nation, “We do not discuss current operations one way or the other, regardless of their nature.” Meanwhile a defense official specifically denied that Blackwater performs work on drone strikes or intelligence for JSOC in Pakistan. “We don’t have any contracts to do that work for us. We don’t contract that kind of work out, period,” the official said. “There has not been, and are not now, contracts between JSOC and that organization for these types of services.” The Pentagon has stated bluntly, “There are no US military strike operations being conducted in Pakistan.”

Blackwater’s founder Erik Prince contradicted this statement in an interview, telling Vanity Fair that Blackwater works with US Special Forces in identifying targets and planning missions, citing an operation in Syria. The magazine also published a photo of a Blackwater base near the Afghanistan–Pakistan border.

Jeremy Scahill’s military intelligence source said that the previously unreported program is distinct from the CIA assassination program, which the agency’s director, Leon Panetta, announced he had canceled in June 2009. “This is a parallel operation to the CIA,” said the source. “They are two separate beasts.” The program puts Blackwater at the epicenter of a US military operation within the borders of a nation against which the US has not declared war—knowledge that could further strain the already tense relations between the US and Pakistan. In 2006, the two countries struck a deal that authorized JSOC to enter Pakistan to hunt Osama bin Laden with the understanding that Pakistan would deny it had given permission. Officially, the US is not supposed to have any active military operations in that country.

Blackwater, which also goes by the names Xe Services and US Training Center, has denied that the company operates in Pakistan. “Xe Services has only one employee in Pakistan performing construction oversight for the US government,” Blackwater spokesperson Mark Corallo said in a statement to the Nation, adding that the company has “no other operations of any kind in Pakistan.”

A former senior executive at Blackwater confirmed the military intelligence source’s claim that the company is working in Pakistan for the CIA and JSOC. He said that Blackwater is also working for the Pakistani government on a subcontract with an Islamabad-based security firm that puts US Blackwater operatives on the ground with Pakistani forces in “counterterrorism” operations, including house raids and border interdictions, in the North-West Frontier Province and elsewhere in Pakistan. This arrangement allows the Pakistani government to utilize former US Special Operations forces that now work for Blackwater while denying an official US military presence in the country. He also confirmed that Blackwater has a facility in Karachi and has personnel deployed elsewhere in Pakistan.

The covert program in Pakistan dates back to at least 2007. The current head of JSOC is Vice Admiral William McRaven, who took over the post from General Stanley McChrystal, who headed JSOC from 2003 to 2008 before being named the top US commander in Afghanistan. Blackwater’s presence in Pakistan is “not really visible, and that’s why nobody has cracked down on it,” said Scahill’s military source. Blackwater’s operations in Pakistan, he adds, are not done through State Department contracts or publicly identified defense contracts. “It’s Blackwater via JSOC, and it’s a classified no-bid [contract] approved on a rolling basis.”

Blackwater’s first known contract with the CIA for operations in Afghanistan was awarded in 2002 and was for work along the Afghanistan–Pakistan border.

According to Scahill’s source, Blackwater has effectively marketed itself as a company whose operatives have “conducted lethal direct action missions and now, for a price, you can have your own planning cell. JSOC just ate that up.” Blackwater’s Pakistan JSOC contracts are secret and are therefore shielded from public oversight, he said.

In addition to planning drone strikes and operations against suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in Pakistan for both JSOC and the CIA, the Blackwater team in Karachi also helps plan missions for JSOC inside Uzbekistan against the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.

Since President Barack Obama was inaugurated, the United States has expanded drone-bombing raids in Pakistan. Obama first ordered a drone strike against targets in North and South Waziristan on January 23, 2009, and the strikes have been conducted consistently ever since. The number of strike orders by the Obama administration has now surpassed the number during the Bush era in Pakistan, inciting fierce criticism from Pakistan and some US lawmakers over civilian deaths.

The military intelligence source also confirmed that Blackwater continues to work for the CIA on its drone-bombing program in Pakistan, as previously reported in the New York Times, but added that Blackwater is working on JSOC’s drone bombings as well. “It’s Blackwater running the program for both CIA and JSOC,” said the source. When civilians are killed, “people go, ‘Oh, it’s the CIA doing crazy shit again unchecked.’ Well, at least 50 percent of the time, that’s JSOC [hitting] somebody they’ve identified through HUMINT [human intelligence] or they’ve culled the intelligence themselves or it’s been shared with them and they take that person out and that’s how it works.”

In addition to working on covert action planning and drone strikes, Blackwater SELECT also provides private guards to perform the sensitive task of security for secret US drone bases, JSOC camps, and Defense Intelligence Agency camps inside Pakistan.

Blackwater’s ability to survive against odds by reinventing and rebranding itself is most evident in Afghanistan, where the company continues to work for the US military, the CIA, and the State Department despite intense criticism and almost weekly scandals.

Sources:

Jeremy Scahill, “The Secret US War in Pakistan,” Nation, November 23, 2009, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091207/scahill.

Jeremy Scahill, “Blackwater Wants to Surge Its Armed Force in Afghanistan,” Antiwar.com, January 20, 2010, http://original.antiwar.com/scahill/2010/01/19/blackwater-wants-to-surge.

David Edwards and Muriel Kane, “Ex-employees Claim Blackwater Pimped Out Young Iraqi Girls,” Raw Story, August 7, 2009.

Similar Posts:

>

note this was deleted – I guess too provocative

Will USA and Pakistan go to war? – Yahoo! UK & Ireland Answers

uk.answers.yahoo.com › … › Current Events

“Will USA and Pakistan go to war?” – Find the answer to this question and millions more on Yahoo! UK & Ireland Answers.

>

US Meddling: Pakistan’s Long War Has Just Begun

Posted by on May 8th, 2011

US Meddling: Pakistan’s Long War Has Just Begun

Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post

 

 

US Meddling: Pakistan’s Long War Has Just Begun

Back in October 2010, I had cautioned Pakistan’s security planners to be on guard for military intervention from the western border. Since then, we’ve had five major attacks on Pakistan from that side. The fortified US and ISAF bases in Afghanistan are now being used against Pakistan.

Brig. SAMSON SIMON SHARAF | Sunday | 8 May 2011 | The Nation
WWW.PAKNATIONALISTS.COM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—For Pakistanis, this is not time to feel embarrassed and to hang heads in shame over the simplicity and quickness of the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. It is rather a time for a long overdue bugle cry that Pakistan is at war. 1/5 was not Pakistan’s Day inasmuch as 9/11 exposed the vulnerabilities in USA’s Homeland Security.

Writing in TheNation in December 2009, I had assessed the next 18 months and beyond as crucial for Pakistan and reiterated that “Pakistan must reassert itself” on February 20. I had written: “The next 18 months and beyond will test Pakistan to the verge.”

Between the 14th and 17th months, we have witnessed the Raymond Davis case, a drone attack on a peaceful jirga, a full-fledged conventional multi-directional night attack on a border outpost in Dir, a border skirmish at Angoor Adda and now the operation to kill Osama bin laden.

Writing an article, Pakistan: A Rudderless State, earlier in TheNation in November 2010, I had cautioned the security planners of Pakistan to beware of the Cold Start-type operations from across the Durand Line. I had also written about the heavily fortified US and ISAF citadels in Afghanistan that would be used as pivots of such operations against Pakistan. No one in our security establishment and the media took notice of the warnings.

2009-2010 had been remarkable years of Pakistan’s fight against militancy. During this time, joint intelligence operations led by Pakistan had resulted in the elimination of numerous prized targets both from TTP and Al-Qaeda. The efficiency of information gathering was such that many high value targets deemed missing and believed to be killed had been brought back into focus and neutralised, some amongst them US nationals. But by mid-2010, this cooperation began to wane due to the direct influx of the CIA agents into Pakistan. Since this influx was not a part of the working agreements between the ISI and CIA, Pakistan’s security establishment felt that they were being stabbed in the back.

Click to enlarge

Counter security efforts, on part of Pakistan, identified hundreds of locations in the country in which the US agents had located themselves inside Pakistan covertly. Some of these locations were heavily fortified and the activities inside them were always dubious. After much rallying, Pakistan was able to force the closure of some of these locations, but not all. Meanwhile, the network of CIA’s local informers was spreading, a reason why the agency forced budgetary reallocations for its operations in Pakistan. With huge funds to play around, the CIA could now buy off anyone, including Al-Qaeda agents whose data Pakistan had shared with the USA. They put tags on many such targets and monitored all their movements and places of visit. Consequently, what they have been able to track with their superior technical resources and heavy monetary disbursements is a trail of redoubts within Pakistan, where the militants have contacts and hiding places. Then came the Raymond Davis shooting and some issues became public.

There is definitely a trove of very important information that the US has extracted from shared sources and double crossing. One such is the hideout of Osama bin Laden, his courier trails and much more. The biggest vulnerability that Pakistan faces is that some of its own assets within this Al-Qaeda trail may have been exposed, or double crossed and could be used to blackmail Pakistan into coercion.

This column appeared in Pakistan’s The Nation. Mr. Sharaf, a retired brigadier of Pakistan Army, can be reached at nicco1988@hotmail.com

© 2007-2011. All rights reserved. Paknationalists.com
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium
without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

>

Inside the war for central asia Twitter Facebook RSS
Daily Brief Latest from the Blog Latest from FP

The U.S.-Pakistan stalemate

By Imtiaz Gul, April 23, 2011 Saturday, April 23, 2011 – 12:26 PM Share

It looks like the proverbial marriage of convenience; although international obligations and strategic considerations continue to serve as the glue for an increasingly volatile partnership between the United States and Pakistan, deep-seated mutual mistrust and conflicting geo-strategic objectives prevent Pakistan and the United States from partnering in a friction-free way. This is how one could characterize the bilateral relationship following Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen’s terse meetings last week with the Pakistan Army high command during his trip to Pakistan, and the unusually blunt remarks by Mullen to several Pakistani media outlets just before the meeting left little doubt that both sides remain divided on some of the most fundamental issues related to Pakistan’s fight against militants.

The interviews Adm. Mullen gave before his talks with his counterpart General Khalid Shameem Wynne, as well as with General Ashfaq Kayani, the Pakistani army chief,  reflected the American frustration with the Pakistani reluctance in dealing with groups such as the Haqqani Network and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) the way Washington (and New Delhi) would want.

“It is fairly well known that ISI had a relationship with the Haqqani network and addressing the Haqqani network from my per spective is critical to the solution set in Afghanistan. … that’s at the core — it’s not the only thing — but that’s at the core that I think is the most difficult part of the relationship,” Admiral Mullen said in an interview with Dawn TV late Wednesday.

This essentially reflected what Mullen said in January this year, when he called Pakistan the “epicenter” of terrorism in the world, and called on the Pakistani safe havens where the Haqqanis, LeT, al-Qaeda and the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban reside. Speaking to reporters the day before his trip to Pakistan, Mullen also said that, “We’re working our way through the relationships that [Pakistani intelligence] has with the Haqqani network and the strain that that creates… and these are issues I address with him (Gen.Kayani) every single time we engage.”

And if the brief press release put out by the U.S. embassy or the stern response from the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi south of Islamabad were any indicator, Mullen’s  “engagement with Kayani” was not a smooth affair at all.

“U.S. Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was in Pakistan today to consult with Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff,” was how Kayani figured at all in the 124- word statement issued after Mullen’s 22nd visit to Pakistan since October 2007. As for Kayani, he “”strongly rejected negative propaganda of Pakistan not doing enough and Pakistan army’s lack of clarity on the way forward” according to the statement released by the Pakistani Army.

Let us now consider why Mullen’s patience has worn thin with Pakistan, after long being known as a defender of the Pakistani military; only a few months away from the scheduled beginning of the phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, the U.S.-Pakistan relationship has been racked by the controversy surrounding CIA operative Raymond Davis after he killed two armed men in Lahore in January. This episode not only exposed the CIA operations in Pakistan that for the most part until Davis’s release had been suspected but not paraded about in broad daylight. It also certainly delivered a serious jolt to the relationship, and provided Pakistan with a wand to wave at the United States in order to extract some concessions on covert CIA activities in Pakistan.

And this has turned it into an ISI-CIA turf-war over their mutually conflicting interests and objectives in the region – namely that the Americans want Pakistan to conclusively move against the Haqqani Network and LeT, while Pakistan wants to secure its future interest in a post-American Afghanistan, while also wanting to maintain some order in North Waziristan, dominated by the Zadran tribe, who are also spread across Afghanistan’s Paktia province and to which the Haqqanis belong.

It would seem that Mullen failed to extract a commitment from Kayani on this front, while Mullen, on the other hand, seems to have failed in committing himself to addressing the Pakistani establishment’s paranoia with the expanding Indian role in Afghanistan, a concern that a senior Pakistani general told me the military has raised on various occasions with their American partners. This failure to openly address Pakistani concerns also reinforces the Pakistani preoccupation with the perceived U.S. tilt towards India.

The generals at army headquarters in Rwalpindi also believe that the Indo-American partnership, with the active support and connivance of a Tajik-dominated Afghan security establishment, wants to deny Pakistan a dominant role in Afghanistan, and believe the United States thinks that the only way to achieve this is to accord India key security responsibilities in that country once the bulk of foreign troops leave. Unless addressed by an increasingly strident American defense establishment upset by the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan, these Pakistani concerns will likely continue to disrupt the bilateral U.S.-Pakistan ties, as well as the keep the regional multi-lateral relations on the boil. The perceived American deference to India works to the detriment of Pakistani interests, the senior general told me, and would hardly provide them with the comfort level that a “strategic partner needs to get fully involved in a war that has cost [Pakistan] a lot.”

Pakistani intelligence, says the military commander, “cannot afford to relent and allow the United States or its security institutions a free hand in shaping the geo-political agenda in the region in league with the Indian and Afghan security establishments.”

The challenge for both the U.S. and Pakistan remains the problem of trying to marry their divergent geo-strategic objectives. As for now, the relationship has soured significantly, with no indication of Pakistan giving in on the issue of support for the Haqqanis or LeT. Nor does the U.S. appear ready to accommodate Pakistani concerns flowing from the surging Indian influence in Afghanistan. And in such an environment, stalemate and tension seem ready to endure.

Imtiaz Gul heads the independent Centre for Research and Security Studies — CRSS-Islamabad — and is the author of The Most Dangerous Place.

>

China to US: Hands off Pakistan

Share262

posted at 12:00 pm on May 24, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

Barack Obama says that if the US has another chance to get a high-value terrorist target like Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, he’ll make the same call as he did earlier this month.  Not so fast, says China.  According to a report from India a few days ago, China has warned that an “attack” on Pakistan will be taken as an attack on China (via Pundit Press):

In the wake of the US raid in Abbottabad that killed Osama bin Laden, China has “warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China”, a media report claimed today.

The warning was formally conveyed by the Chinese foreign minister at last week’s China-US strategic dialogue and economic talks in Washington, The News daily quoted diplomatic sources as saying. China also advised the USa to “respect Pakistan’s sovereignty and solidarity”, the report said.

Chinese Premier Mr Wen Jiabao informed his Pakistani counterpart Mr Yousuf Raza Gilani about the matters taken up with the US during their formal talks at the Great Hall of the People yesterday. The report said China “warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China”. The two premiers held a 45-minute one-on-one meeting before beginning talks with their delegations.

The Chinese leadership was “extremely forthcoming in assuring its unprecedented support to Pakistan for its national cause and security” and discussed all subjects of mutual interest with Mr Gilani, the report said. Mr Gilani described Pakistan-China relations and friendship as “unique”. Talking to Pakistani journalists accompanying him, he said that China had acknowledged his country’s contribution and sacrifices in the war against terrorism and supported its cause at the international level. “China supported Pakistan’s cause on its own accord,” Mr Gilani said with reference to the Sino-US strategic dialogue where the Chinese told the US that Pakistan should be helped and its national honour respected. Mr Gilani said China had asked the US to improve its relations with Pakistan, keeping in view the present scenario.

Pakistan’s diplomatic pilgrimage to Beijing succeeded better than previously thought.  This came about the same time as the “gift” of 50 new jet fighters to Pakistan’s military.   While the US flexes its muscles in the wake of the OBL mission, Pakistan’s shopping for a less troublesome ally.  Not that China needed much prompting here, anyway, since both Afghanistan and Pakistan border China, and American operations in the region have to make Beijing nervous anyway.

This new doctrine from China will pose some difficulties for the US.  For instance, what about the Predator attacks on terrorists in the border regions?  Pakistan has officially protested these attacks while unofficially tolerating them.  If China is serious about its message, will they insist on an end to all operations within Pakistan from now on?  And how will China respond to an attack on Pakistan under a doctrine that’s not dissimilar from NATO’s charter?  Will they attack the US and start a war, or will they react only diplomatically?

This may have one salutary effect.  If Pakistan draws closer to China, then the US will have to draw closer to India, which George Bush started to do and which Obama, to his credit, has continued.  India is more of a natural ally to the US anyway.  However, China’s interference in the Af-Pak region will have serious implications for our ability to prosecute the war in Afghanistan.

>

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://cachef.ft.com/cms/s/0/1f26fc5e-74a9-11e0-8988-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1ZrYJT1JV

US and Pakistan odd bedfellows in ‘war on terror’

By David Pilling

Published: May 2 2011 12:54 | Last updated: May 2 2011 12:54

It was only six weeks ago that Raymond Davis, a CIA contractor accused of murdering two Pakistanis, left the country in a welter of controversy after the payment of $2.3m in “blood money” to secure his release.

At that time, Jamaat-e-Islami, the main Islamist political party, spoke for at least a significant minority of Pakistanis when it complained bitterly that the American had ducked the law and “deeply compromised” the country’s sovereignty.

Now US security forces are being lauded for their daring operation in the heart of the country on a mansion housing the world’s most wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden.

The assassination of the al-Qaeda leader will take the sting out of Pakistani complaints that the US is riding roughshod over the country in its pursuit of Islamist extremists. One Pakistani official conceded on Monday that Washington had given a “backbone-breaking jolt to al-Qaeda and their supporters across the globe”.

Hitherto, many Pakistanis have been angered that the US has operated with apparent impunity inside the country’s borders. In particular, they have criticised the use of drone attacks – carried out with the quiet assent of Islamabad. These, say critics, are recruiting agents for Islamist extremists because of the inevitable civilian casualties associated with unmanned aerial attacks.

Barack Obama, the US president, who has stepped up the number of drone attacks during his term in office, brushed aside questions of extraterritoriality.

“I’ve repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was,” Mr Obama said in announcing the terrorist leader’s death.

The US president did go out of his way to praise Pakistan for its help in locating the whereabouts of bin Laden, saying: “Our counter-terrorism co-operation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding.”

Emphasising that the two countries had a mutual interest in seeing the al-Qaeda leader dead, he added: “Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people.”

Yet those words cannot hide the fact that the US-Pakistan relationship has been deeply troubled. If they have been bedfellows in their fight against terrorism, it has been an extraordinarily lumpy and uncomfortable bed.

US officials have consistently complained in private that the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s equivalent of the Central Intelligence Agency, has been playing a double game.

On the one hand, the ISI has taken money from Washington to fight Islamist extremists. On the other, it has cultivated militants to project Pakistani power against India in Kashmir, and also pursued what Islamabad calls “strategic depth” in Afghanistan.

The fact that bin Laden had been living in a big city, apparently just 500 metres from the prestigious Pakistan Military Academy, will fan suspicion that the country’s intelligence apparatus was not doing all it could to track down al-Qaeda’s leader.

Abdullah Abdullah, the former Afghan foreign minister and presidential candidate, said the location of bin Laden’s death was “very telling”.

“I insisted all along that he was in Pakistan,” said Mr Abdullah. “That shows that the [al-Qaeda] network of support is very strong. And it says something about the ISI’s willingness – or unwillingness – to take a serious look at these issues”.

Indeed, Pakistani officials have a tendency to play down support for extremism in their country, portraying Islamist extremists as a tiny minority.

Salman Taseer, former governor of Punjab, told the Financial Times in November, for example, that Taliban and al-Qaeda supporters were small in number and mainly imports. A few weeks later, he was assassinated by one of his own bodyguards for opposing a blasphemy law that discriminates against Christians.

If anything, the relationship between Pakistan and the US has grown more tense in recent months. Joint intelligence operations in north-west Pakistan had come to a virtual halt, according to a former Pakistani diplomat. Pakistan had also resisted US pressure to invade North Waziristan, suspected by Washington as an al-Qaeda base.

Last week, Pakistani officials even had to deny reports that Yusuf Raza Gilani, Pakistan’s prime minister, had been lobbying Afghanistan to drop its alliance with the US and to look, instead, to Islamabad to help solve its differences with the Taliban. Mr Abdullah, for one, says that bin Laden’s death may change all these calculations.

“The Taliban sacrificed Afghanistan for Osama bin Laden,” Mr Abdullah said, referring to the refusal by the Taliban government of Mullah Mohammed Omar to give up the al-Qaeda leader after the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. That precipitated the US invasion in October, ratcheting up the pressure on Pakistan to fight militancy on its side of the border.

The death of bin Laden, on Pakistani soil, is by far the biggest milestone in the campaign to combat Islamist extremism. Pakistan officials were on Monday saying they were involved in the operation. Yet Mr Obama, though he acknowledged there had been joint intelligence-gathering, insisted the raid itself had been carried out by “a small team of Americans”. Even in their hour of victory, the two uncomfortable allies in the “war on terrorism” could not get their story quite to match.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. You may share using our article tools. Please don’t cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

>

Time for Pakistan to divorce the US

by News Source on May 12, 2011

Shaukat Qadir, a retired brigadier and former president of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute, explains how Pakistan ended up at war with itself dealing with a tribal rebellion.

If we hark back in time, in 2001, the Pakistani Pashtun and all Afghans were celebrating US intervention in Afghanistan. It would liberate them from Taliban oppression. Within a year, American arrogance, their suspicion of all Afghans, their utter disregard for local customs and culture, could result in only one thing: Another Afghan freedom struggle from an oppressive foreign force. The US called it a resurgence of the Taliban and al Qaeda! In time it did become that, because the US converted a legitimate struggle for freedom from an army of occupation into ‘Taliban linked to al Qaeda.’

To return to my question — as they did when Afghans sought their freedom from the Soviet occupation, the Pakistani Pashtuns bordering Afghanistan, girded their loins to assist their Afghan brethren. This time, Pakistan did not want them to. And in 2004, we decided to kill the most outspoken of those Pashtuns, a wazir called Nek Muhammad.

His murder was the watershed. We had a rebellion on our hands because we were preventing our tribal Pashtun from assisting their Afghan brethren in their freedom struggle against an army of occupation: The Americans, of course. So all Pakistan suddenly became American, kafirs, legitimate targets for religious fanatics to kill, and we are more vulnerable and accessible for them to target. So we are faced with an existentialist threat and we die. This was the first gift we got from the US.

Without tracing all the history, where do we stand today as far as the US is concerned? Anybody, who is anybody in the US, is baying for our blood. We are traitors to them and branded American-kafirs by our enemy within. Obama now tells us that when the Navy SEALs came to get Osama, they were “in sufficient numbers and prepared to retaliate to any response by the police or Pakistan’s security forces”.

They also gifted us Raymond Davis, hundreds of him. When we agreed to give him back, it was on the condition that all other Raymonds also leave. The CIA has not forgiven us and recent drone attacks are again killing more civilians than militants. If the Raymonds can no longer stoke unrest in Pakistan, the drones can!

As far as the promised financial aid is concerned, we receive a mere trickle, each time with another threat of severance if we fail to obey our Lords and Masters in DC. Even the Coalition Support Fund (CSF), intended to compensate a small portion of the expense incurred by the military in this war that has been forced on us by the US and Musharaf’s capitulation, is long overdue by well over a billion dollars.

The US has its own litany of complaints but we have ours. Isn’t it time to file for divorce?

Share

ShareThisprint this post print this post

>

September 17, 2011

Is Pakistan At War With the United States?

Possibly, or at least part of its government may be.

The United States government believes it has evidence linking the Haqqani network, a terrorist organization which has repeatedly carried out attacks against US government personnel and positions, with the government of Pakistan. As ABC News (Australia) reports,

The United States says there is evidence linking the Pakistani government to the militant group that carried out last week’s attack on the US embassy in Kabul.

The US ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, claims there are links between the Pakistani government and high-profile terrorist group the Haqqani network.

In blunt comments broadcast by state-run Radio Pakistan, Mr Munter said: “Let me tell you that the attack that took place in Kabul a few days ago that was the work of the Haqqani network,” he said, referring to a deadly miltant attack in on Tuesday.

“There is evidence linking the Haqqani network to the Pakistan government. This is something that must stop.”

During the US Civil War, our ambassador in London, Charles Francis Adams, was increasingly concerned by signs that the British government was tolerating the construction of Confederate warships that would attack Union commerce on the high seas.  “It would be superfluous in me,” he told the British foreign minister of the day, “to observe to your lordship that this is war.”

Britain — at the time, the greatest power in the world — stepped up the enforcement of its neutrality legislation, and after the war paid millions in compensation for the damage the Confederate raiders had done.

You don’t have to read very far between the lines to hear a similar message in Ambassador Munter’s latest remarks. I hope they are listening in Islamabad.  I also hope they are paying attention in Washington.  Via Meadia supports a continued US-Pakistan relationship, but in our view the US has to be ready to walk away for the relationship to have a chance.  As long as Pakistan thinks we have no option, it will continue to play gruesome games.  In fact, we have a number of pretty good options, and it is high time we explored them in depth.

Posted in Quick Takes

>

US should cut aid to Pakistan for its ‘War of Terror’ on women

To push Pakistan’s improved cooperation in fighting terrorists, the US has suspended millions in military aid. Will it also have the spine to cut aid over Pakistan’s abhorrent treatment of women?

By Walter Rodgers / July 13, 2011

To push Pakistan toward more cooperation in fighting terrorists, the United States has suspended hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid. Will it also have the spine to cut aid over Pakistan’s abhorrent treatment of women?

Skip to next paragraph

The fact remains that Pakistan has long been a country that collectively wages a war of terror against 49 percent of its own population: against its wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters. Yet outsiders scarcely hear a whimper about this story.

Rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, honor crimes, abuse, and discrimination against women remain serious problems in Pakistan. TrustLaw, an organization that provides legal aid and information on women’s rights, ranks Pakistan as the third most dangerous country for women (behind Congo and Afghanistan). If successive US administrations and Congress don’t use more muscle against these criminal human rights violations, it is because they don’t want to.

Sexual assault is so common it’s not reported

Recently an elderly Pakistani woman was forcibly paraded naked through a Punjab village. The reason? The woman’s grown son was having an adulterous relationship.

According to the latest Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Report, 3,000 women were raped in 2010 and 791 murdered in so-called “honor killings.”

Azra Rashid, a Canadian-Pakistani women’s rights activist, says those numbers are grossly underestimated. “Sexual assault is so common women don’t even report it. Girls grow up not even knowing it’s sexual assault when they are touched inappropriately.” Ms. Rashid says as a young girl she was often groped and fondled going to the market.

Why don’t Pakistani women report these crimes to police? Not long ago, one young Pakistani woman and her sister went to a police station to report a missing brother. The two girls were detained and repeatedly gang-raped by the police.

Rashid says, “At best Pakistani police don’t believe rape victims, the politicians don’t care, and Pakistanis have come to accept this as part of their daily reality.”

A leading Pakistani politician was recently quoted as saying if a woman is raped, and she can’t bring four independent witnesses who saw the act, she should not bother to report it. This, despite the fact that the law no longer requires four witnesses to prove rape. Pakistan has improved its laws protecting women in recent years, but lack of enforcement and entrenched attitudes block progress.

It’s not just rape

It’s not just rape. The ex-husband of a female Pakistani friend threatened to throw acid in her face if she went out with another man. It is not uncommon to see Pakistani women with faces scarred by such acid attacks. Ireland’s Refugee Document Center reporting on crimes against Pakistani women said that “in extreme cases punishments can include women being buried alive.” Pakistani men are rarely convicted of crimes against women.

Skip to next paragraph

Rural land or cattle disputes are often settled by having one party give the other an underage daughter. Rural Pakistan is the 14th century. The countryside is quite familiar with wealthy landlords locking up nubile young serf girls in pens and using them for their pleasure. Domestic house maids in cities are so vulnerable their condition is said to be worse than that of slaves. “The entire patriarchal society is run by men, and warped,” says Rashid.

In a high-profile case, Mukhtara Mai was gang raped on orders of her village council in 2002 because her brother had allegedly committed adultery with the daughter of a feudal lord in an opposing clan. Yet all but one of the 14 accused men were acquitted this year.

In a 2005 Washington Post interview, then-President Pervez Musharraf acknowledged rape as a problem in Pakistan, but added, “A lot of people say that if you want to go abroad and get a visa or Canadian citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped.”

US should not fear playing hardball

The US government largely winks at all this, giving Pakistan upward of $3 billion a year in economic and military assistance. But why should any American woman’s (or man’s) taxes be used to prop up a Pakistani government that views crimes against its own female population as acceptable?

Some apologists cluck and say “Don’t dump Pakistan. It has 100 nuclear weapons.” Yet in the cold war the United States courageously championed the cause of Soviet Jews when the Russians had thousands of nuclear weapons.

To those worrying that if Washington were to dump Pakistan it might fall into China’s orbit, the appropriate response should be “Good! They deserve each other.”

Fear of an erratic Pakistan and our own shameless political expediency should not be the driving force behind US policy toward Islamabad. Those are the values of moral and political bankruptcy. Great democratic nations do not abandon the weak, the abused, and the raped for political convenience.

Walter Rodgers, a former senior international correspondent for CNN, writes a biweekly column.

>

Pakistan pulls out of talks with U.S. on Afghan war

By pulling out of upcoming talks on the war in Afghanistan, Pakistan signals its anger over an American drone missile strike that it says killed civilians along the Afghan border. The U.S. says it hit a compound where militants were meeting.

March 19, 2011|By Alex Rodriguez, Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan — Pakistan on Friday pulled out of upcoming talks with the U.S. on the war in Afghanistan, a move meant to convey Islamabad’s anger over an American drone missile strike that it says killed a gathering of civilians along the Afghan border.

The U.S. and Pakistan disagree on who was killed in the strike Thursday in North Waziristan, a volatile tribal region that serves as a stronghold for an array of militant groups, including Al Qaeda, the Pakistani Taliban and the Haqqani network, a wing of the Afghan Taliban that regularly attacks U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan.

The U.S. said it struck a compound where militants were meeting. But Pakistani authorities insisted that among the 45 reported dead were tribal elders and other civilians meeting to discuss an ownership dispute over a mine.

The dispute comes at a particularly sensitive time in U.S.-Pakistan relations, when Pakistanis are seething over the release Wednesday of a CIA contractor charged with murdering two motorcyclists in the eastern city of Lahore in late January.

At small protests organized by Islamist parties in Islamabad, Lahore and other cities, demonstrators angrily denounced President Asif Ali Zardari’s government for allowing Raymond Davis to go free. His release was made possible by a “blood money” agreement sanctioned by Pakistani law and negotiated by Islamabad and Washington that allows the accused to pay financial compensation to the victims’ families in exchange for their forgiveness.

In announcing that Pakistan would not take part in talks with Afghanistan and the U.S. scheduled for Brussels on March 26, Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir told U.S. Ambassador Cameron Munter that such drone strikes “constituted a flagrant violation of humanitarian norms and law,” according to a statement by the Foreign Ministry.

Drone strikes are a crucial component in Washington’s strategy against Islamic militant groups hiding out in Pakistan’s largely ungoverned tribal areas, and experts say they have been successful in degrading Al Qaeda and the Taliban’s ability to launch attacks.

Pakistan has maintained a policy of publicly condemning the drone strikes while tacitly allowing them to take place. In some instances, the strikes are carried out with the help of Pakistani intelligence-gathering.

alex.rodriguez@latimes.com

>

Alert: U.S. Withdraws All Pakistan Embassy Staff… Prepare for War

Posted on on May 10, 2011 // 6 Comments

5248Share

As being reported in the Foreign Press and on the Alternative News Media on-line, (and not by their main stream corporate media groups) that the U.S. has now withdrawn all of their Embassy Staff, and closed down all Embassies in the country of Pakistan.
http://www.state.gov/cms_images/map_pakistan1.jpgThey are now (implementing) thereof, they are now creating a Global War in the name of the unknowing and unsuspecting American People, and we (The United States of American people) are to be blamed for having allowed for this (Rothschild) Crime Syndicate to literally steal our entire country and it’s destiny.Apparently Rothschildsplan is to now instructing it’s state of Israel and it’s U.S. corporate military intelligence (sock puppets) to begin the attack on Iran in this immediate future.That these Elitists are now beginning their last desperate move to create their (illegal and unwarranted) military actions that surely, will now quickly lead to a confrontation with China and Russia who are in place to counter act this unwarranted attack for the Rothschild global banking crime syndicate. As that they have planned for this global conflictand that they are now getting their way(s) once again and with once again, their mass profiteering at the cost of this time many hundreds of millions of unsuspecting and innocent peoples live worldwide.We have been apparently getting too smart for them with the support of the Internet and the Alternative media and now Rothschild is in a hurry to accelerate their plans for final destructionof the entire planet.Whether they can and or that they cannot steal Iran’s many trillions of dollars in ancient Babylonian (Persian) gold and Iran’s ancient records that explain who Rothschild and the Rothschild’s hidden global (Reptilian-Draconian-Ashkanazi-Karzakian-Zionist) network really is.Apparently the word “draconian,” emerged into our language due to the hidden meaning referring to the Constellation of Draco, whereof hence, apparently these Draconian’s came from the Constellation of Draco and that they are now in the act of fully destroying this entire planet just like they have been doing throughout this entire galaxy for a long time.They will now also apparently begin setting off the New Madrid Fault lines, the subduction zone just off of the coast of Oregon, Washington, and Vancouver Island, as well as Mount Sheridan in Yellow Stone National Park and the Canary Island Volcano-s that will surely send thousand foot high sunami-s to destroy most of the coast lines in Europe, Asia, and North America. Get ready in Hawaii people.Other locations no doubt being (HAARP) will be Mount Si located just east of Seattle, and Mount Tabor located within the city limits of Portland, Oregon.They are apparently also targeting the fault lines located off of the Southern Californiacoastlines, and also realize that Mexico’s fault lines also are now being targeted and most of the Volcanos located all of the way down through Central America will also now begin to erupt.They are using what was discovered many years ago, that they can set off the earths grid lines using very powerful (Tesla) ELF (Extra Low Frequency). Research this for a better explanation at:
http://keelynet.com/ or thereof, the history of the incredible scientific discoveries of another Tesla, named John Worell Keely referring to this great scientific discovery as being “Sympathetic Vibratory Harmonics.”
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ds=yt&sugexp=ldymls&pq=col.+tom+bearden+elf&xhr=t&q=Earth+Grid+ELF&cp=14&biw=1280&bih=885&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=vw#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&pq=earth%20grid%20elf&xhr=t&q=John%20Worell%20Keely%20Sympathetic%20Vibratory%20Harmonics&cp=11&pf=p&sclient=psy&biw=1280&bih=885&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=John+Worell+Keely+Sympathetic+Vibratory+Harmonics&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=c47720ba43ce4197The Earth Grid system ss was originally researched by Dr. Bill Becker and Beth Hagens back in the 1980s and that their work was further supported by the renown scientific scholar Dr. Bob Beck, and later by Adam Trombly, and Col. Thomas Bearden, that they have the technology to literally set off the entire planet’s grid system. And, that is apparently what we are observing at this time.John Worrel Keely Sympathetic Vibration Harmonics
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ds=yt&sugexp=ldymls&pq=col.+tom+bearden+elf&xhr=t&q=Earth+Grid+ELF&cp=14&biw=1280&bih=885&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=vw#hl=en&biw=1280&bih=885&sa=X&ei=ZpPITYCoEKLbiAL_69GJBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CBUQBSgA&q=John+Worrel+Keely+Sympathetic+Vibration+Harmonics&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=c47720ba43ce4197In the 1880s John Worrel Keely flew a piloted Sympathetic Harmonic propelled craft (Gyroscopic Aether) over the U.S. War Department and in front of more then eight hundred governmental observers who afterward had the vehicle stored in the Lime Stone caverns located underneath the University of Florida in Gainesville.

Apparently the famous financier named John Jacob Astor had been funding the research of John Worrel Keely.

Also, apparently John Jacob Astor was set up to be on the famed Titanic and was lured to bring on board for shipment a array of newly built Tesla technology devices including Tesla transmitting technologies that would have provided regional electrical energy in unlimited abundance.

As was also mentioned by Judge David Wynn Miller (http://www.dwmlc.com) on the All Day Live show (weekly on http://www.scantv.org) during this past week’s All Day Live program that these types of (Tesla) transmitting technologies can be placed on telephone poles and provide an infinite energy source with now pollution or nuclear power sources.

So on May 9th, (today) they blanked out the SCANTV station broadcast during this All Day Live broadcast that is also broadcast on local Seattle Comcast cable channel 77, and on Broadstripe cable in South King County, and all on-line streaming Webcast was also blocked

The City of Seattle is one of the most corrupt corrupt political cesspools in the world, being completely controlled by the key MOB families who reside here in the Northwest and they do whatever they deem they want to here. Bobby Kennedy just prior to leaving the Northwest from Portland International Airport in 1967 heading to his final last moments, clearly mentioned that the Northwest (Oregon and Washington states) are the most corrupt states North America.
Don’t forget the phoney Washington State Constitution of 1889 that the established order has tried to enforce as being the Constitution for the State of Washington when in fact, Washington states actually constitution is that of the 1878 Constitution, but during the 1880s these crime families proceeded to burn down all of the originally located state capital buildings in Ellensburg, Washington.

These buildings and archives were what had comprised what was the first Washington State capital in Ellensburg, Washington. These same criminal elements then proceeded to murder off more then two thousand people, while also destroying all of the original state of Washington archives.

These crime families then proceeded to steal all of the land and resources in the entire Northwest (after murdering off the original land owners, and this includes the massacre of most of the Chiefs of the Northwest Indian tribes like that of the caucasian appearing Kowlitz Indians) thus having murdered whole tribes and as well as the many generations of these noble Indian Chief’s later generations throughout the entire Northwest.

These crime families prospered in the many billions of dollars under the cover of their Regis (timber) Family, their Weyerhaeuser Family, their Crown Family, their Simpson Family, and other Elitist picked minions, and now their Maxwell Family, tying together by bloodlines, the Northwest’s main political and judicial figureheads.

Not by coincidence, all of the Northwest’s top political, banking, corporate, and judicial figureheads are all cousins and or they are all related to one another through this network of crime syndicate family control over the entire Northwest.

These hidden and all powerful crime family bloodlines also tie to the Bonanno and Gambino crime families (look who owns all of the strip bars and casinos and it is not the Indian reservations like you would think of it as, and most of the native northwest population don’t have a clues as to how these Crime Families control their reservation gambling operations). This crime syndicate and crime family control encompasses as well, the Bank of America founders the Amadeo Giannini crime family who are one of the most powerful crime families in Europe, and this is the means of whence Donald came upon his vast banking and financial power, and casino holdings because Donald Trump is merely their primary banking officers for North America like Warren Buffett is, and why the founders of Microsoft are who they are and who they are all related to and they didn’t just happen to be lucky, they are all a part of this intertwined crime family network linking the Bronfmans and the Guinness (banking) families of Canada.

Sarah Palin is as well a part of these same family infrastructure, linking to the Seattle Mercer family, on of the first God Fathers of the Northwest. Sarah Palin is tied by bloodline to these crime families, or she would not ordained to be who she is being touted by their fake stream corporate media mind control and cover-up operations. Consider the actual parameters of power that these crime families have that give them complete control over their CPS (Child Prostitution Services) networks and their agendas to implement total destruction of most of the families and communities here in the Northwest while simultaneously then trafficking in these millions of stolen children.

That their all powerful networks and crime families that comprise the entire Northwest’s most powerful infrastructures, are, all of the while and behind the scenes running and covering up a gigantic, drugs, prostitution, gambling, pedophile, and murder network, and they select who is in charge here, who is allowed to have or retain their family estates, or who becomes a police chief, or who become a Federal and Superior Court judge, etc., etc, etc, and who controls all of the Northwest media and communications systems.

They then also then proceeded to steal all of the original Stuart family trust estates, here in the Northwest, (holdings that were originally bequeathed to the people of this country and to this region) and then they proceeded to murder off and kidnap the Stuart family heirs and as well as then steal all of the entire port infrastructures in Oregon and Washington.
Nuclear Tipped Cruise Missiles Fired on Orders From Obama?
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=127911
Massive Psychotronic Warfare on the American People.
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=133662;
When America Has Reached La La Land. Pt. 2
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=131386;

So they are getting ready to shut down SCANTV studios this July (illegally) to shut down free speech, to shut down the Northwest whistle blowers capability for bringing out the incredible crimes being committed here in the Northwest and as well as bringing out the real truth concerning what the alternative news reporting community here in the Northwest who have been effectively reporting on the crimes of the now very apparent governmental U.S. corporate crime syndicate and their now immediate plans to fully destroy this entire nation.

After uncovering massive fraud, embezzlement, and extreme illegal administrative affairs that have encompassed the SCANTV studios over this last twelve years. SCANTV: Seattle Community Access Network Television.

Seattle City Council members like that of a Bill Compton are complicit in the mis-allocation and failure to account for the more then fifty million dollars that should have rightfully gone to the SCANTV non profit entity over this past twelve years, due to the original Comcast cable contract with the SCANTV non profit entity, but instead this same Seattle City Council have been covering up their massive fraud and theft.

SCANTV board members whose board contracts had been expired with SCANTV for more then three years, like that of a Stan Emert, who they then illegally Quit Claim Deeded the SCANTV studios over to this same Seattle City Council, who then they have proceeded to deed over the property to their insider network who are planning on building a condominium complex at this soon to the former site of the SCANTV studios. Seattle corruption at it’s usual best. And, right in front of the entire planet.

The SCANTV program has transcended into having world class producers who produce programs that are viewed throughout the world on the Internet due to SCANTV having achieved to being one of the most actively watch on-line streamed broadcasting stations in the world.

So the corporate media groups located here in the Seattle and Northwest region like that of KingTV, KomoTV, KiroTV, KCTS, and Northwest Fox News have been upset that due to SCANTV being a not for profit entity that SCANTV is not in violation of it’s FCC Federal Communications contracts due to it’s non profit status that has allowed for SCANTV to able to successfully broadcasting by streaming media over the Internet.

Thereof, SCANTV has proceeded to create an audience size in the many millions of daily viewers whereas, the corporate media groups had to come up with a means for quietly destroying their Community Access Network competitor. Even though SCANTV is braodcasting on-line, it has become a world leader in on-line broadcast and SCANTV’s actually following is the largest in the Northwest encompassing more then three hundred and fifty thousand regular viewers in just the Western Washington area alone.

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2011/05/10/alert-u-s-withdraws-all-pakistan-embassy-staff-prepare-for-war/

>

Truth hard to find in US-Pakistan war of words over Raymond Davis

Diplomatic and legal situation remains fraught, while the media are engaged in a frenzy of speculation about CIA agent

A flier calling on Pakistanis to demonstrate against attempts to release CIA agent Raymond Davis

A flier calling on Pakistanis to demonstrate against US attempts to secure the release of CIA agent Raymond Davis, who shot dead two Pakistani men. Photograph: Warrick Page/Getty Images

A storm of media speculation has enveloped the case of Raymond Davis, the CIA official charged with murder in Pakistan, as officials from both countries seek to shape public opinion in an increasingly fraught diplomatic and legal standoff.

Since it emerged this week that Davis, who shot two people on a busy street last month, was a working spy, Pakistan’s media has been gripped by lurid stories portraying him as a dangerous provocateur.

One front-page story accused him of working with Taliban bombers to sow chaos across Pakistan; other accounts have variously suggested he is addicted to chewing tobacco, howls during prayers, enjoys jailhouse visits from women and spends hours playing Ludo to fend off depression. US officials continue to insist Davis is a bona-fide diplomat, so immune from prosecution. Conditions are so dangerous at the jail where Davis is being held, they say, that dogs test his food, his guards have been disarmed and he is at constant risk of assassination.

“This issue is mired in so many versions of the truth that it’s hard to know who’s telling the truth and who isn’t,” said Cyril Almeida, a columnist with Dawn.com. “My guess is that all sides are lying.”

The outcome should be settled in court, although resolution seems distant.

Barack Obama insists Davis should be freed under the provisions of the Vienna convention. But Pakistan’s former foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, who lost his job over the issue, says Davis is not covered – as does Ron Mlotek, an experienced former US lawyer.

“The American case is very convoluted and appears to be based on smoke and mirrors,” said Mlotek, who retired two years ago after 25 years of service in the state department examining such cases.

Even if the US can prove that Davis is a diplomat, he argues, Pakistan could challenge immunity on the basis that he was carrying an illegal weapon, worked from a spy agency safe house and was not living in Islamabad, where the embassy claims he was based.

“No matter what the US government says, this is not an open-and-shut case. The facts are far from clear,” he said.

But fact is only one aspect of the issue, which has become enmeshed in a web of nationalist passions and spy agency rivalries. Prompted by selective leaks, newspapers have raised questions about cowboy Americans roaming the country – “How many Davis-type agents are in Pakistan?” asked one headline yesterday – while soap opera-style storylines supplement the publicity frenzy.

On Thursday newspapers reported that the father-in-law of one man killed by Davis had survived a mysterious poisoning attempt; other relatives are said to be under pressure from religious parties to refuse any American offer of compensation. Prison guards have reportedly been fired for trying to smuggle items into Davis’s cell.

But the depth of public hostility is difficult to gauge – the outcry is led by the usual suspects, minority Islamist parties – and some coverage has had a playful tone, drawing parallels between Davis and Jason Bourne, James Bond or, because of his poor spycraft, Mr Bean. One comedian proposed a new television show entitled Everyone Hates Raymond.

A troubled spy agency relationship lies under the media frenzy. Complaining of American arrogance, the ISI says its links to the CIA have been badly damaged by the affair, warning in an unusual press statement this week that it was “hard to predict if the relationship will ever reach [its prior] level”.

It is not just a case of wounded amour propre – analysts say the army is using the controversy to its advantage. “Are they hoping that settling this matter amicably will lead to some concessions or a change in American attitude on other issues? Possibly,” said Almeida.

Amid the noise there is little new light, however, on the 27 January shooting that triggered the crisis. US officials stress that Davis was working in a security role at the time and not in intelligence collection, probably to avoid him also being charged with espionage.

The Pakistani government says it needs until 14 March to decide whether Davis has immunity from prosecution. Given the public uproar, Pakistani analysts say it is hard to see how the government can politically afford to set him free.

“This has become a big mess, for the Americans as well as the Pakistanis,” said Talat Masood, a retired general and analyst. “There’s no easy solution, and both sides need to let things calm down for a while. Otherwise it will get out of hand.”

>

Pakistan and the War on Terror: Conflicted Goals, Compromised Performance

Ashley J. TellisCarnegie Report, January 2008

Resources

Translations

Pakistan and the War on Terror The United States must shift its counterterrorism policy towards Pakistan away from a reciprocal approach—requiring Islamabad to perform desirable actions to receive support—towards one encouraging Pakistan to enact effective counterterrorism policies, not for an immediate payoff, but to strengthen institutionalized trust with the U.S. over time, according to a new report from the Carnegie Endowment.

In Pakistan and the War on Terror: Conflicted Goals, Compromised Performance, Carnegie Senior Associate Ashley J. Tellis points to growing dissatisfaction in the United States with the Musharraf regime’s commitment to counterterrorism operations, given the influx of U.S. aid. But while Pakistan’s performance in the “war on terror” has fallen short of expectations, Islamabad’s inability to defeat terrorist groups cannot simply be explained by neglect or lack of motivation. U.S. policy makers must take into account the specific and complex counterterrorism challenges facing Pakistan and move away from their current unsustainable policies.

Nine strategies for more effective U.S. counterterrorism policies towards Pakistan:

    1. Speak clearly and forcefully to Musharraf in private about U.S. frustrations with Pakistan’s counterterrorism performance to outline the prospective consequences inaction will have on the U.S.-Pakistan relationship.
    1. Continue to encourage Pakistan’s border control efforts, but prioritize the targeting of Taliban leadership operating in Pakistan as part of the current counterterrorism concept of operations.
    1. Restructure the intelligence relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan to allow both the CIA and coalition forces in Afghanistan to acquire greater insight into existing terrorist networks inside Pakistan.
    1. Continue to assist Pakistan with technology and training to prosecute small-unit counterterrorism operations more effectively.
    1. Reform accounting practices to ensure effective oversight and auditing of coalition funds disbursed to Pakistan for counterterrorism operations.
    1. The reestablishment of stable democratic order is essential to stop Pakistan’s spiraling descent into extremism and disorder. The United States must integrate the ongoing political transition in Pakistan, including a return to democracy and rule of law, into the larger war on terrorism.
    1. Commit to long-term assistance for the Karzai government in Afghanistan to address the vacuum of governance, particularly with regards to security, economic development, and narcotics production.
    1. Commit more manpower and material contributions to help NATO live up to its security obligations in Afghanistan.
  1. Accelerate the raising of the Afghan National Army (ANA) as a hedge against the possible failure of NATO to restructure the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to effectively fight and win the war in Afghanistan.

“The Bush administration ought to persist with its current emphasis on the noncoercive engagement of Pakistan at least so long as there is a reasonable hope that the transformation of Pakistan into a moderate Muslim state is not a lost cause, that the Musharraf regime can be persuaded to expand its counterterrorism operations to those groups that have thus far remained beyond reach, and that the United States will have sufficient opportunity to switch to an alternative strategy before the present attempt at engagement is judged to have failed irremediably.”

A limited number of print copies are available.
Request a copy

>

US: On War Path Against Her Ally Pakistan!

Posted on 26. Sep, 2011 by in Pak-US Relations

Unilateral action will dig last nail in coffin of US military

By Brig Asif Haroon Raja

The sole super power priding to be the strongest nation in the world with all its economic indicators in the positive was viciously hit from within by 19 Arab hijackers on fateful day of 11 September 2001. Two hijacked Jumbo aircraft struck Twin Towers in New York in quick succession. Later on, the third aircraft hit part of Pentagon building and the fourth one was shot down short of Pennsylvania.2973 Americans died in the process. The whole American nation sank into state of shock, fear and nervous breakdown. Dignity of the strongest nation lays hatred. Once the clouds of fright dispersed, those at the helm of affairs fumed with anger and put their heads together how to wreak vengeance on the perpetrators of incomprehensible and unforgivable crime.

Zionist controlled media upped the ante to stimulate hatred against Islam and its adherents. Within hours of the tragedy, Israeli former PM Ehud Barak blamed Osama Bin Laden (OBL) and prompted American administration to invade Afghanistan. The whole world went into mourning and termed the terrorist acts as the biggest catastrophe ever happened. All officials, writers and anchors of print and electronic media of the world comity shed copious tears of sympathy over  of lives and trauma caused and condemned the terrorists and their patrons severely.

Based on hearsay and assumptions, OBL led al-Qaeda based in Afghanistan was nominated as the accused even before carrying out investigations and accordingly war preparations were unleashed with frenetic speed and urgency. The US took no time to build an international coalition for the crusade. In order to make the military adventure appear compelling and purposeful, George W Bush led neo-cons coined the theme of ‘war against global terrorism to make the world safe and secure’. On 28 September 2001, the UNSC passed a resolution sanctioning invasion of a sovereign country with a view to combating terrorism.

The US then bluntly demanded physical support from all those willing to be with the US in its hour of crisis instead of offering mere sympathies. Option of staying neutral was ruled out and term ‘you’re with us or against us’ brandished. Gen Musharraf declared as a pariah by USA and western world because of his military coup against a democratic government in October 1999 was put the same question on the night of 12 September by Colin Powel. He had already been briefed by the then DGISI Lt Gen Mahmud who was on a visit to Washington about the ugly mood of American leadership. He had been warned by Richard Armitage that the US would send   Pakistan in to Stone Age if it refused to cooperate. When Musharraf said that he was with the US, he was given seven demands which he promptly accepted. Subsequently he did bring the requirements of Washington to the notice of civil and military policy makers and all agreed with him that he had taken the right decision. It enabled US-NATO military to mount an offensive as early as 7 October 2001which changed the complexion of world dynamics.

Bugles of war were sounded and forces of destruction let loose on a hapless and impoverished nation which had no connection with 9/11. Whole range of destructive weaponry like daisy cutters, cluster bombs, stealth bombers, cruise missiles and depleted uranium were brought into play to rain molten lava from the air.  The only fault of Mullah Omar and his Shura was that they refused to hand over OBL without providing them proof of his complicity. The US couldn’t oblige since it didn’t have any and had engineered the whole drama for altogether different motives. Its ranting and raving was a put up show. It is now widely believed that 9/11 attacks were engineered by Zionists under the framework of Dragon policy, framed by Mossad and RAW in 2001 for carrying out false flag terrorism

New rules on terrorism were formulated which envisaged punishing the terrorist networks and those who harbored, supported or aided them in any form. Thin line between terrorism and freedom struggle was also washed out to benefit Israel and India. Pakistan was a target prior to 9/11 and remained so subsequently but was treacherously made to believe that it was an ally of USA. The proposal of ‘with us or against us’ was a coercive call meant to frighten the military ruler to submit to America’s plan and facilitate its invasion.

Occupation of Afghanistan and formulation of new rules on terrorism gave a godsend opportunity to India to punish its arch rival Pakistan on account of its venture in Kargil and its overall policy of defying Indian hegemony in South Asia. While the US military and NATO got busy in mopping up operation in Afghanistan, India had its own set of priorities. It was desperate to regain its influence in Afghanistan and to bash Pakistan. While the US had politely declined India’s advice that Indian military would attack Pakistan from the west in concert with US-NATO attack on Afghanistan from the north, it agreed to its suggestion to deceive Pakistan by pretending to be its close ally and then forcing it to become frontline state, severing ties with Taliban, sharing intelligence, making available its airbases, airspace, Karachi Port and land routes via Chaman and Torkham for logistic support.

Behind the ruse of helping Pakistan in fighting terrorism nabbing runaway terrorists, CIA and FBI opened outposts in selected regions of FATA and Balochistan and also gained control over immigration department on all major airports. In short time, CIA started dominating ISI in matters of intelligence acquisition since it had superior means at its disposal.

Indian leadership then tasked RAW to chalk out a comprehensive covert war plan to destabilize and emasculate Pakistan’s institutions. In concert with Israel, Dragon Policy was put to use. This highly sophisticated operation is multi-faceted cohesion between intelligence, military, media and politics aimed at fragmenting nations which pose a threat to global agenda of international Zionism.

In order to gauge the reaction capability of Pakistan armed forces after its 70,000 troops had got deployed along western border and also to take the steam out of Kashmir movement, India stage managed a terrorist attack on Indian Parliament in Delhi in December 2001. In return for defusing highly volatile situation after ten-month military standoff, the US pressured Gen Musharraf to let India fence the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir, stop infiltration across LoC, ban Jihadi groups supporting Kashmiri freedom fighters and give a written commitment that Pakistan would not allow its soil to be used for terrorism in neighboring countries or for supporting freedom struggle in occupied Kashmir.

India also decided to bring Pakistan on its knees by building dams and controlling water in three rivers of Jhelum, Chenab and Indus. It had already heavily bribed regional political parties in Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to prevent construction of Kalabagh Dam at all cost since it had the potential to meet future agricultural and energy needs of Pakistan.

In order to subvert Islamic values and to divide the society, India and USA first helped Pakistan in increasing TV channels and then penetrated chosen channels to promote liberalism, secularism and obscenity. Media was also used to spread misgivings and despondency among aggrieved segments and to then instigate dissidents and quislings to pick up arms against the state forces.

RAW didn’t find any difficulty in giving final shape to the plan to destabilize Pakistan covertly since all it had to do was to dig out old files of 1980s in which RAW in collaboration with KGB and KHAD had carried out cross border terrorism against Pakistan using Afghan soil for a decade. KGB’s file on Baloch insurgency in 1970s was also consulted to revive old contacts among Marris and Mengals. RAW teamed up with CIA, Mossad, MI-6 and its own creation RAAM to carryout similar operations in FATA and Balochistan since all had common objectives. CIA facilitated entry of RAW agents in Pakistan and over the years the two agencies established an extensive network all over Pakistan.

Concurrently, Indian military planners started rehashing war plans and speeding up force modernization program. Latest state-of-art weaponry was purchased from advanced countries for all the services and missile and nuclear capabilities were upgraded. Israel not only became the biggest arms supplier of India but also helped India in up-gradation of its nuclear and missile programs and in fighting freedom fighters in Kashmir.

To reciprocate Musharraf’s generosity in defusing Kashmir movement, India agreed to ceasefire along the LoC in Kashmir and signed peace treaty with Pakistan. This was yet another ruse to make Pakistan lower its guards. Once the momentum of freedom struggle waned, Indian planners then began to give final shape to new doctrine of Cold Start which was Pakistan specific and accordingly trained its mechanized battle groups supported by mechanized artillery and air force. Tactical nuclear weapons were manufactured to support independent battle groups. Indian Navy was geared to affect a naval blockade in Arabian Sea at an opportune time.

While India got down in real earnest to prepare its armed forces for the fourth round, Pakistan Army was pushed into the inferno of war on terror in which it was pitched against own people in FATA and Balochistan. In order to keep it embroiled irreversibly, all the five aligned intelligence agencies started funding, training, equipping and launching terrorists from Afghanistan.TTP in FATA, TNSM in Swat-Malakand and BLA-BRA-BLF in Balochistan are foreign supported militias. Members of these outfits belonging to tribal areas are among the best fighters in Pakistan. These assets were bribed and turned into anti-state elements. Drones were also introduced by CIA to further stir up terrorism. Flames of terrorism initially it in South Waziristan and interior Balochistan were gradually spread inwards towards other parts of Pakistan. Foreign hands keep pouring kerosene on embers of terrorism. Consequent to sustained psychological war, Pakistan has been charge sheeted with multiple crimes without providing shred of evidence to substantiate allegations.

Resultantly, Pakistan today is a scene of violence, death and destruction. Whereas Pakistan has suffered the most in US dictated war on terror and is the biggest victim of terrorism, the sponsor of the war instead of sympathizing has declared that Pakistanis the most dangerous country in the world and nursery of terrorism. According to Adm. Mike Mullen, Pakistanis exporter of terrorism and aligned with Haqqani network based in Miranshah, a bustling town of North Waziristan(NW) and epicenter of economic activity. ISI has been directly accused that it had a hand in recent attacks in Kabul. A case has been cleverly built up on the pattern of endgame of Vietnam War in which story of safe havens was played up and Cambodia made a scapegoat to cover up US military’s failure.

The US leaders embarrassed from series of debacles in recent weeks are trying to make Pakistan a sacrificial lamb in order to hide US military’s failures. They are trying to enact 9/11 like situation and have given an ultimatum to Pakistan that it is either with the US or with the Haqqani network. Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Mike Mullen, Petraeus and Panetta who are firing threatening salvos should be realistic and try to understand that the American public as well as the world today is no more ignorant and will not get duped by psychological war again and again. They should know that neither the military and economic situation of USA is as strong as was in 2001, nor Pakistanis under a military dictator who could take decisions on behalf of the nation unilaterally. Rather, the US has become economically impoverished because of global economic meltdown and US excessive defence spending, and militarily weak and timid owing to the beatings it is receiving at the hands of Taliban in Afghanistan. Moreover, after the US lies about WMDs in Iraq were exposed, who would believe its Haqqani network story?

Judging from the barrage of accusations and threatening posture, it can be assumed that the US has finally decided to stick out its neck into North Waziristan where the neck choppers are impatiently waiting. If the US Special Forces opt for another unilateral action, it will undoubtedly add to the woes of Pak security forces, but repercussions of the venture would be unbearable for USA since it would amount to digging the last nail in the coffin of adventurers in Afghanistan. Any hostile act by US forces would greatly help in unifying the otherwise divisive nation.

For a change PM Gilani and FM Hina Rabbani are giving bold and sensible statements and are not showing any signs of weakness. A call for an All Parties Conference has been given by Gilanito solicit support of all political forces. Religious parties and groups are getting restive and have expressed their resolve to stand behind armed forces in case of US physical intervention. As opposed to juvenility displayed by US military leaders, Gen Kayani remained cool, calm and collected and gave measured and sensible statements. Consequent to last Corps Commanders Conference, the Army has readied its response actions in anticipation to all possible options the US could exercise with or without India and has expressed its full determination to face the challenge squarely.

Even the militant groups currently fighting Pak security forces in all probability would turn their gun barrels outwards, as they had done in 2009 when Indian forces were rearing to attack. In short, every Pakistani is firmly of the view that the US is unreliable, double-dealer and a cheat. They agree with Gilani that America and not Pakistan should do more since Pakistan has sacrificed a lot to help USA but the US instead of being grateful  is leaving no stone unturned to degrade Pakistan. They say with one voice that enough is enough and it is high time that Pakistan should distance itself from fair-weather friend and get rid of deceptive US aid tied to harsh conditions. They say that time has come to throw away the crutches provided by unpredictable USA and that Pakistan should learn to stand on its own feet. They also suggest that our policy makers should takeout its eggs from the US basket and shift them into the basket of China who has proved by its deeds to be trustworthy and an all-weather friend. We should also strengthen our backyard by developing very intimate relations with Iran which is in the firing line of USA.

>

US officials slam report on Pakistan drone war dead

The London-based group said 291 CIA drone strikes had taken place in Pakistan since 2004.—Reuters photo

WASHINGTON: US officials on Friday strongly rejected allegations in an independent study that a covert drone war in Pakistan has killed large numbers of civilians, saying the numbers are “way off the mark.”

US officials slammed the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism report’s finding that there had been many more CIA attacks on alleged militant targets and far more civilian deaths than previously reported.

The report said that bombing raids by unmanned aircraft, designed to target Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants, had killed up to 168 children in Pakistan over the last seven years.

“The numbers cited by this organisation are way off the mark,” said a senior US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“In the past year, in the neighborhood of 600 militants —including over two dozen terrorist leaders —have been taken off the battlefield.

“In that same period of time, we can’t confirm any noncombatant casualties,” the official told AFP in an email.

A second US official, who also asked not to be identified, dismissed the report as unfounded, saying: “The numbers are wrong.”

The officials said intelligence agencies took precautions to avoid killing civilians and that the robotic aircraft —equipped with missiles, video cameras and sensors —can linger over a target to ensure accuracy.

“This is a weapon —fueled by good intelligence —that allows us to counter an urgent and deadly threat in otherwise inaccessible places,” said the first official.

“And it’s far more precise than conventional ground operations. What’s the alternative to this kind of rigor, assuming the United States and its allies are unwilling to allow al-Qaeda and its friends to plot and murder freely?”

The London-based group said 291 CIA drone strikes had taken place in Pakistan since 2004, eight per cent more than previously reported, and that under President Barack Obama there had been 236 —one every four days. But the official said the report’s numbers had not been confirmed.

“Credible reports of civilian deaths are taken into account, period. If large numbers of innocent people were being killed, the Pakistanis wouldn’t stand for it. Neither would we. That’s the reality,” the official said.

US officials also cast doubt on one of the report’s sources, Mirza Shahzad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer who is suing the Central Intelligence Agency on behalf of civilians who say they lost loved ones in drone strikes.

“One of the loudest voices claiming all these civilian casualties is a Pakistani lawyer who’s pushing a lawsuit to stop operations against some of the most dangerous terrorists on the planet,” the official said.

“His publicity is designed to put targets on the backs of Americans serving in Pakistan and Afghanistan. His agenda is crystal clear.”

The official said there were concerns about the lawyer’s possible links with Pakistani intelligence, as Akbar had publicly named the CIA’s undercover station chief in the country.

>

>

Also see

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

>>>

http://terrorismbreedsterrorism.wordpress.com/pak-usa-relations-coming-war-more/

http://terrorismbreedsterrorism.wordpress.com

>

Ahmed Rashid, the world’s foremost authority on the Taliban, about the very real concerns over potential violence between the United States uneasy ally Pakistan

The Long War: Are We Safer?

By Christiane Amanpour

By Christiane Amanpour | Around the World – Sun, Oct 2, 2011

Around the World with Christiane Amanpour debuts as we approach a decade of war in Afghanistan, and the question on the lips of Americans and Afghans alike is “what’s next?”

Ten years after the attack on World Trade Center, Osama Bin Laden is dead, but how will this chapter in the longest war in American history be written?

ABC News foreign correspondent Nick Schifrin joins Christiane Amanpour from Kabul, Afghanistan, taking the pulse of that country amidst an explosion of violence at the hands of the resurgent Taliban.

Then a revealing interview with Ahmed Rashid, the world’s foremost authority on the Taliban, about the very real concerns over potential violence between the United States uneasy ally Pakistan.

The critical question must be asked: Is war with Pakistan a real possibility?

The Long War: Are We Safer?Around the World with Christiane Amanpour debuts as we approach a decade of war in Afghanistan, and the question on the lips of Americans and Afghans alike is “what’s next?”Ten years after the attack on World Trade Center, Osama Bin Laden is dead, but how will this chapter in the longest war in American history be written?ABC News foreign correspondent Nick Schifrin joins Christiane Amanpour from Kabul, Afghanistan, taking the pulse of that country amidst an explosion of violence at the hands of the resurgent Taliban.Then a revealing interview with Ahmed Rashid, the world’s foremost authority on the Taliban, about the very real concerns over potential violence between the United States uneasy ally Pakistan.The critical question must be asked: Is war with Pakistan a real possibility?By Christiane Amanpour | Around the World

 Liberals are the ones

who want you to walk in lock-step with them

or you are ostracized…

Reply to Message

Mark Message Unread

(Msg Id: 535768:773623)

>

Jeremy Scahill

Dispatches on wars, the military-industrial complex and national security.

Text Size A | A | A

The (Not So) Secret (Anymore) US War in Pakistan

Jeremy Scahill on December 1, 2010 – 12:18pm ET

Despite sustained denials by US officials spanning more than a year, US military Special Operations Forces have been conducting offensive operations inside Pakistan, helping direct US drone strikes and conducting joint operations with Pakistani forces against Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in north and south Waziristan and elsewhere in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, according to secret cables released as part of the Wikileaks document dump. According to an October 9, 2009 cable classified by Anne Patterson, the US ambassador to Pakistan, the operations were “almost certainly [conducted] with the personal consent of [Pakistan’s] Chief of Army Staff General Kayani.” The operations were coordinated with the US Office of the Defense Representative in Pakistan. A US special operations source told The Nation that the US forces described in the cable as “SOC(FWD)-PAK” were “forward operating troops” from the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the most elite force within the US military made up of Navy SEALs, Delta Force and Army Rangers.

The cables also confirm aspects of a Nation story from November 2009, “The Secret US War in Pakistan,” which detailed offensive combat operations by JSOC in Pakistan. In response to the Nation story, Pentagon spokesperson Geoff Morrell called it “conspiratorial” and explicitly denied that US special operations forces were doing anything other than “training” in Pakistan. More than a month after the October 2009 cable from the US embassy in Pakistan confirming JSOC combat missions, Morrell told reporters: “We have basically, I think, a few dozen forces on the ground in Pakistan who are involved in a train-the-trainer mission.  These are Special Operations Forces.  We’ve been very candid about this.  They are—they have been for months, if not years now, training Pakistani forces so that they can in turn train other Pakistani military on how to—on certain skills and operational techniques.  And that’s the extent of our—our, you know, military boots on the ground in Pakistan.” According to the October 2009 cable, Morrell’s statement was false.

In one operation in September 2009, four US special operations forces personnel “embedded with the [Pakistani] Frontier Corps (FC)…in the FATA,” where the Americans are described as providing “ISR”: intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. The support from the US forces, according to the cable, “was highly successful, enabling the FC to execute a precise and effective artillery strike on an enemy location.” A month later, according to the cable, the Pakistan Army again “approved deployment of US special operation elements to support Pakistani military operations.” To the embassy staff, this was documented in the cable as a “sea change” in Pakistan’s military leaders’ thinking, saying they had previously been “adamantly opposed [to] letting us embed” US special ops forces with Pakistani forces. According to the cable, “US special operation elements have been in Pakistan for more than a year, but were largely limited to a training role,” adding that the Pakistani units that received training from US special operations forces “appear to have recognized the potential benefits of bringing US SOF personnel into the field with them.”

In another operation cited in the cables, the US teams, led by JSOC, were described as providing support to the Pakistani Army’s 11th Corp and included “a live downlink of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) full motion video.” Whether the drones were used for surveillance or as part of a joint offensive is unclear from the documents. While the US government will not confirm US drone strikes inside the country and Pakistani officials regularly deride the strikes, the issue of the drones was discussed in another cable from August 2008. That cable describes a meeting between Ambassador Patterson and Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani. When the issue of US drone strikes came up, according to the cable, Gillani said, “I don’t care if they do it as long as they get the right people. We’ll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it.”

The ability of US special operations forces to operate in Pakistan is clearly viewed as a major development by the US embassy. “Patient relationship-building with the military is the key factor that has brought us to this point,” according to the October 2009 cable. It also notes the potential consequences of the activities leaking: “These deployments are highly politically sensitive because of widely-held concerns among the public about Pakistani sovereignty and opposition to allowing foreign military forces to operate in any fashion on Pakistani soil. Should these developments and/or related matters receive any coverage in the Pakistani or US media, the Pakistani military will likely stop making requests for such assistance.”

Such statements might help explain why Ambassador Richard Holbrooke lied to the world when he said bluntly in July 2010: “People think that the US has troops in Pakistan, well, we don’t.”

A US special operations veteran who worked on Pakistan issues in 2009 reviewed the Wikileaks cables for The Nation. He said he was taken aback that the cable was not classified higher than “SECRET” given that it confirms the active involvement of US soldiers from the highly-secretive, elite Joint Special Operations Command engaging in combat—not just training—in Pakistan. And offensive combat at that. JSOC operations are compartmentalized and highly classified.

Pentagon spokespeople have repeatedly insisted that the US military’s activities in Pakistan are restricted to training operations. Even after the October 2009 cable and multiple JSOC operations in Pakistan, US and Pakistani officials continued to hold official meetings to discuss “potential” joint operations. In January 2010 in Washington DC, US and Pakistani military officials gathered under the umbrella of the “US-Pakistan Land Forces Military Consultative Committee.” According to notes from the meeting, they discussed US military operations in Pakistan aiming to “enhance both US and Pakistan Army COIN [counterinsurgency] capabilities” and “potential US COIN Center/Pakistan Army interactions.” Among the participants were representatives of the Special Operations Command, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs’ Pakistan-Afghanistan Coordination Cell, the Office of Defense representative-Pakistan and a Pakistan delegation led by Brigadier General Muhammad Azam Agha, Pakistan’s director of military training.

A special operations veteran and a former CIA operative with direct experience in Pakistan have told The Nation that JSOC has long engaged in combat in Pakistan—which raises a question: How in-the-loop is the US embassy about the activities of JSOC in Pakistan? Just because Ambassador Anne Patterson approves a cable saying that US special ops forces have only done two operations with Pakistani forces and plays this up as a major-league development doesn’t make it true. JSOC has conducted operations across the globe without the direct knowledge of the US ambassador. In 2006, the US military and Pakistan struck a deal that authorized JSOC to enter Pakistan to hunt Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders with the understanding that Pakistan would deny it had given permission. JSOC has struck multiple times inside Pakistan over the years, regardless of what Ambassador Patterson’s cables may say.

In 2006, twelve “tactical action operatives” from Blackwater were recruited for a secret JSOC raid inside Pakistan, targeting an Al Qaeda facility. The operation was code-named “Vibrant Fury.” Which raises another issue: the activities described in the October 2009 cable very closely align with what a US military intelligence source, a US special forces source and a former Blackwater executive told The Nation in November 2009, namely that JSOC was running an operation in Pakistan where “members of an elite division of Blackwater are at the center of a secret program in which they plan targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, ‘snatch and grabs’ of high-value targets and other sensitive action inside and outside Pakistan.… The Blackwater operatives also assist in gathering intelligence and help direct a secret US military drone bombing campaign that runs parallel to the well-documented CIA predator strikes.” The arrangement, which involved a web of subcontractors, allowed the Pakistani Frontier Corps—the force cited in the cable—to work with JSOC operators while simultaneously denying that Americans were involved. From the Nation article, “The Secret US War in Pakistan,” in November 2009:

A former senior executive at Blackwater confirmed the military intelligence source’s claim that the company is working in Pakistan for the CIA and JSOC, the premier counterterrorism and covert operations force within the military. He said that Blackwater is also working for the Pakistani government on a subcontract with an Islamabad-based security firm that puts US Blackwater operatives on the ground with Pakistani forces in counter-terrorism operations, including house raids and border interdictions, in the North-West Frontier Province and elsewhere in Pakistan. This arrangement, the former executive said, allows the Pakistani government to utilize former US Special Operations forces who now work for Blackwater while denying an official US military presence in the country. He also confirmed that Blackwater has a facility in Karachi and has personnel deployed elsewhere in Pakistan. The former executive spoke on condition of anonymity.

[…]

According to the executive, Blackwater works on a subcontract for Kestral Logistics, a powerful Pakistani firm, which specializes in military logistical support, private security and intelligence consulting. It is staffed with former high-ranking Pakistani army and government officials. While Kestral’s main offices are in Pakistan, it also has branches in several other countries.

[…]

Blackwater operatives also integrate with Kestral’s forces in sensitive counterterrorism operations in the North-West Frontier Province, where they work in conjunction with the Pakistani Interior Ministry’s paramilitary force, known as the Frontier Corps (alternately referred to as “frontier scouts”). The Blackwater personnel are technically advisers, but the former executive said that the line often gets blurred in the field. Blackwater “is providing the actual guidance on how to do [counterterrorism operations] and Kestral’s folks are carrying a lot of them out, but they’re having the guidance and the overwatch from some BW guys that will actually go out with the teams when they’re executing the job,” he said. “You can see how that can lead to other things in the border areas.” He said that when Blackwater personnel are out with the Pakistani teams, sometimes its men engage in operations against suspected terrorists. “You’ve got BW guys that are assisting…and they’re all going to want to go on the jobs—so they’re going to go with them,” he said. “So, the things that you’re seeing in the news about how this Pakistani military group came in and raided this house or did this or did that—in some of those cases, you’re going to have Western folks that are right there at the house, if not in the house.” Blackwater, he said, is paid by the Pakistani government through Kestral for consulting services. “That gives the Pakistani government the cover to say, ‘Hey, no, we don’t have any Westerners doing this. It’s all local and our people are doing it.’ But it gets them the expertise that Westerners provide for [counterterrorism]-related work.”

The military intelligence source confirmed Blackwater works with the Frontier Corps, saying, “There’s no real oversight. It’s not really on people’s radar screen.”

* * *

In November 2009, Capt. John Kirby, the spokesperson for Adm. Michael Mullen, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told The Nation, “We do not discuss current operations one way or the other, regardless of their nature.” A defense official, on background, specifically denied that Blackwater performs work on drone strikes or intelligence for JSOC in Pakistan. Captain Kirby told The Nation if it published the story it would “be on thin ice.” The US embassy and Pakistan’s interior Minister Rehman Malik both denied Blackwater was operating in Pakistan.

In January 2010, on a visit to Pakistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, appeared to contradict that line, telling a Pakistani TV station, “They [Blackwater and another private security firm, DynCorp] are operating as individual companies here in Pakistan,” according to a DoD transcript of the interview. As Gates’s comments began to make huge news in Pakistan, US defense officials tried to retract his statement. As the Wall Street Journal reported, “Defense officials tried to clarify the comment…telling reporters that Mr. Gates had been speaking about contractor oversight more generally and that the Pentagon didn’t employ [Blackwater] in Pakistan.” The next day, Pakistan’s senior minister for the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), Bashir Bilour, said that Blackwater was operating in Pakistan’s frontier areas. Bilour told Pakistan’s Express News TV that Blackwater’s activities were taking place with the “consent and permission” of the Pakistani government, saying he had discussed the issue with officials at the US Consulate in Peshawar, who told him that Blackwater was training Pakistani forces.

Since the Nation story originally ran, Blackwater has continued to work under the Obama administration. In June, the company won a $100 million global contract with the CIA and continues to operate in Afghanistan, where it protects senior US officials and trains Afghan forces. Earlier this year, Blackwater’s owner, Erik Prince, put the company up for sale and moved to the Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. Whether Blackwater or former Blackwater operatives continue to work in Pakistan is not known. What is clear is that there is great reason to believe that the October 2009 cable from Ambassador Anne Patterson describing US special operations forces activities in Pakistan represents only a tiny glimpse into one of the darkest corners of current US policy in Pakistan.

Like this blog post? Read all Nation blogs on the Nation’s free iPhone App, NationNow.
NationNow iPhone App

>

Coming War between the US and Pakistan !

Posted on June 4, 2011 by wakeupbd

http://www.pro-pakistan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/the_duel.jpg

US, Pakistan Near Open War; Chinese Ultimatum Warns Washington Against Attack !

Obama Has Already Approved Attack on Pakistan’s Nukes rumors say !

http://sabbah.biz/mt/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Gates-Op-Ed_cartoon_america_in_pakistan_small_over.jpg

According to the London Sunday Express, Obama has already approved an aggressive move along these lines: “US troops will be deployed in Pakistan if the nation’s nuclear installations come under threat from terrorists out to avenge the killing of Osama Bin Laden… The plan, which would be activated without President Zardari’s consent, provoked an angry reaction from Pakistan officials… Barack Obama would order troops to parachute in to protect key nuclear missile sites. These include the air force’s central Sargodha HQ, home base for nuclear-capable F-16 combat aircraft and at least 80 ballistic missiles.” According to a US official, “The plan is green lit and the President has already shown he is willing to deploy troops in Pakistan if he feels it is important for national security.”

http://muslimindia.in/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/pic3.jpg

Extreme tension over this issue highlights the brinksmanship and incalculable folly of Obama’s May 1 unilateral raid, which might easily have been interpreted by the Pakistanis as the long-awaited attack on their nuclear forces. According to the New York Times, Obama knew very well he was courting immediate shooting war with Pakistan, and “insisted that the assault force hunting down Osama bin Laden last week be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if confronted by hostile local police officers and troops.”

China has officially put the United States on notice that Washington’s planned attack on Pakistan will be interpreted as an act of aggression against Beijing. This blunt warning represents the first known strategic ultimatum received by the United States in half a century, going back to Soviet warnings during the Berlin crisis of 1958-1961, and indicates the grave danger of general war growing out of the US-Pakistan confrontation.

Any Attack on Pakistan Would be Construed as an Attack on China

Responding to reports that China has asked the US to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty in the aftermath of the Bin Laden operation, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu used a May 19 press briefing to state Beijing’s categorical demand that the “sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan must be respected.” According to Pakistani diplomatic sources cited by the Times of India, China has “warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China.” This ultimatum was reportedly delivered at the May 9 China-US strategic dialogue and economic talks in Washington, where the Chinese delegation was led by Vice Prime Minister Wang  Qishan and State Councilor Dai ingguo.

http://wnnpakistan.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/drop-in-image-slideshow-gallery/gallery//2010/04/Pakistan-and-China-to-celebrate-60th-anniversary.jpgChina has officially put the United States on notice that Washington’s planned attack on Pakistan will be interpreted as an act of aggression against Beijing.

Chinese warnings are implicitly backed up by that nation’s nuclear missiles, including an estimated 66 ICBMs, some capable of striking the United States, plus 118 intermediate-range missiles, 36 submarine-launched missiles, and numerous shorter-range systems.

Support from China is seen by regional observers as critically important for Pakistan, which is otherwise caught in a pincers between the US and India:

“If US and Indian pressure continues, Pakistan can say ‘China is behind us. Don’t think we are isolated, we have a potential superpower with us,’”

Talat Masood, a political analyst and retired Pakistani general, told AFP.

Full Force Retaliation to Defend Pakistan’s Strategic Assets

The Chinese warning to Washington came on the heels of Gilani’s statement to the Pakistan Parliament declaring:

“Let no one draw any wrong conclusions. Any attack against Pakistan’s strategic assets, whether overt or covert, will find a matching response…. Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force. No one should underestimate the resolve and capability of our nation and armed  forces to defend our sacred homeland.”

A warning of full force retaliation from a nuclear power such as Pakistan needs to be taken seriously, even by the hardened aggressors of the Obama regime.

http://shamazkhan.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/504-2002-05-28-india-pakistan-education-war.jpg?w=460&h=335

The strategic assets Gilani is talking about are the Pakistani nuclear forces, the key to the country’s deterrent strategy against possible aggression by India, egged on by Washington in the framework of the US-India nuclear cooperation accord. The US forces in Afghanistan have not been able to conceal their extensive planning for attempts to seize or destroy Pakistan’s nuclear bombs and warheads. According to a 2009 Fox News report, “The United States has a detailed plan for infiltrating Pakistan and securing its mobile arsenal of nuclear warheads if it appears the country is about to fall under the control of the Taliban, Al Qaeda or other Islamic extremists.” This plan was developed by General Stanley McChrystal when he headed the US Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. JSOC, the force reportedly involved in the Bin Laden operation. is composed of Army Delta Force, Navy SEALs and “a high-tech special intelligence unit known as Task Force Orange.”

“Small units could seize [Pakistan’s nukes], disable them, and then centralize them in a secure location,” claimed a source quoted by Fox.

China gives 50 State-Of-The-Art JF/17 Fighters to Pakistan for FREE !

http://en.valka.cz/attachments/12846/JF-17_Thunder1.jpg

The Chinese ultimatum came during the visit of Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani in Beijing, during which the host government announced the transfer of 50 state-of-the-art JF-17 fighter jets to Pakistan, immediately and without cost. Before his departure, Gilani had stressed the importance of the Pakistan-China alliance, proclaiming:

“We are proud to have China as our best and most trusted friend. And China will always find Pakistan standing beside it at all times….When we speak of this friendship as being taller than the Himalayas and deeper than the oceans it truly captures the essence of our relationship.”

These remarks were greeted by whining from US spokesmen, including Idaho Republican senator Risch.

http://rlv.zcache.com/navy_seals_operation_kill_osama_bin_laden_poster-p228723216336777428t5wm_400.jpg

The simmering strategic crisis between the United States and Pakistan exploded with full force on May 1, with the unilateral and unauthorized US commando raid alleged to have killed the phantomatic Osama bin Laden in a compound at Abottabad, a flagrant violation of Pakistan’s national sovereignty. The timing of this military stunt designed to inflame tensions between the two countries had nothing to do with any alleged Global War on Terror, and everything to do with the late March visit to Pakistan of Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian National Security Council chief. This visit had resulted in a de facto alliance between Islamabad and Riyadh, with Pakistan promising troops to put down any US-backed color revolution in the kingdom, while extending nuclear protection to the Saudis, thus making them less vulnerable to US extortion threats to abandon the oil-rich monarchy to the tender mercies of Tehran. A joint move by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to break out of the US empire, whatever one may think of these regimes, would represent a fatal blow for the fading US empire in South Asia.

As for the US claims concerning the supposed Bin Laden raid of May 1, they are a mass of hopeless contradictions which changes from day to day. An analysis of this story is best left to literary critics and writers of theatrical reviews. The only solid and uncontestable fact which emerges is that Pakistan is the leading US target — thus intensifying the anti-Pakistan US policy which has been in place since Obama’s infamous December 2009 West Point speech.

The Shooting Has Already Started

http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/images/apaches.jpg

The shooting between US and Pakistani forces escalated on Tuesday May 17, when a US NATO helicopter violated Pakistani airspace in Waziristan. Pakistani forces showed heightened alert status, and opened fire immediately, with the US helicopter shooting back. Two soldiers at a Pakistani check post on the border in the Datta Khel area were wounded.

Possible Pakistani retaliation for this border incursion came in Peshawar on Friday, May 20, when a car bomb apparently targeted a 2-car US consulate convoy, but caused no American deaths or injuries. One Pakistani bystander was killed, and several wounded. In other intelligence warfare, Ary One television reported the name of the CIA station chief in Islamabad, the second top US resident spook there to have his cover blown in six months.

US Envoy Grossman Rejects Pakistani Calls To Stop Border Violations

US Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman, the replacement for the late Richard Holbrooke, on May 19 arrogantly rejected Pakistani calls for guarantees that no more Abottabad-style unilateral operations would be mounted in Pakistan.In refusing to offer such assurances, Grossman claimed that Pakistani officials had never demanded respect for their border in recent years.

http://wakeupbd.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/ex2bvijayee2bbhava2bin2bprogress-702745.jpg?w=459&h=327

In the midst of this strategic crisis, India has gone ahead with inherently provocative scheduled military maneuvers targeting Pakistan. This is the “Vijayee Bhava” (Be Victorious) drill, held in the Thar desert of north Rajastan,. This atomic-biological-chemical Blitzkrieg drill involves the Second Armored Corps,

“considered to be the most crucial of the Indian Army’s three principal strike formations tasked with virtually cutting Pakistan in two during a full-fledged war.”

A CIA-RAW-Mossad Pseudo-Taliban Countergang

One way to provide the provocation needed to justify a US-Indian attack on Pakistan would be through an increase in terrorist actions attributable to the so-called Taliban. According to the mainstream Pakistani media, the CIA, the Israeli Mossad, and the Indian RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) have created their own version of the Taliban in the form of a terrorist countergang which they control and direct. According to one account,

“Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives have infiltrated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda networks, and have created their own Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) force in order to destabilize Pakistan.”

The former Punjab Regional Commander of the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), retired Brigadier General Aslam Ghuman, commented:

“During my visit to the US, I learned that the Israeli spy agency Mossad, in connivance with Indian agency RAW, under the direct supervision of CIA, planned to destabilize Pakistan at any cost.”

Was this countergang responsible for last week’s double bombing in Waziristan, which killed 80 paramilitary police?

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-cPHOkNBtvNE/TWlKU95EB_I/AAAAAAAAAV4/Mq55m1W49OY/s1600/nexux.JPG

According to the same account,

“Russian intelligence disclosed that CIA contractor Raymond Davis and his network had provided Al-Qaeda operatives with chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, so that US installations may be targeted and Pakistan be blamed….”

Davis, a JSOC veteran himself, was arrested for the murder of two ISI agents, but then released by the Pakistani government after a suspicious hue and cry by the State Department.

CIA Claims The New Al Qaeda Boss Lives in Waziristan

http://saif-al-adel.com/images/saif-al-adel.gif

If the US needs a further pretext for additional raids, it will also be easy to cite the alleged presence in Waziristan of Saif al-Adel, now touted by the CIA as bin Laden’s likely successor as boss of al Qaeda. It is doubtless convenient for Obama’s aggressive intentions that Saif al-Adel can be claimed to reside so close to what is now the hottest border in the world, and not in Finsbury or Flatbush.

http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/asia/latuff-obama_and_bin_ladin.png

In the wake of the unauthorized May 1 US raid, the Pakistani military chief General Kayani had issued his own warning that similar “misadventures” could not be repeated, while announcing that US personnel inside Pakistan would be sharply reduced. In the estimate of one ISI source, there are currently about 7,000 CIA operatives in country, many of them unknown to the Pakistani government. US-Pakistan intelligence sharing has reportedly been downgraded. In response to Kayani’s moves, the CIA limited hangout operation known as Wikileaks once again showed its real nature by attempting to discredit the Pakistan commander with dubious US cable reports that he had demanded more Predator drone attacks, not fewer, in recent years.

Especially since Obama’s West Point speech, the CIA has used Predator drone attacks to slaughter civilians with the goal of fomenting civil war inside Pakistan, leading to a breakup of the country along the ethnic lines of Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan, and Pushtunistan. The geopolitical goal is to destroy Pakistan’s potential to be the energy corridor between Iran and China. Selig Harrison has emerged as a top US advocate for Baluchistan succession.

Since May 1, six reported US Predator drones attacks have slain some 42 Pakistani civilians, goading public opinion into a frenzy of anti-US hatred. In response, a joint session of the Pakistani parliament voted unanimously on May 14 to demand an end to American missile strikes, calling on the government to cut NATO’s supply line to Afghanistan if the attacks should continue. Since the Karachi to Khyber Pass supply line carries as much as two thirds of the supplies needed by the Afghanistan invaders, such a cutoff would cause chaos among the NATO forces. All of this points to the inherent insanity of provoking war with the country your supply line runs through.

US Wants to Use Taliban Boss Mullah Omar Against Pakistan

The State Department dropped all preconditions for negotiating with the Taliban back in February, and the US is now reported by the Washington Post to be talking with envoys of Mullah Omar, the legendary one-eyed leader of the Quetta Shura or Taliban ruling council. It is apparent that the US is offering the Taliban an alliance against Pakistan. US regional envoy Grossman is hostile to the Pakistanis, but when it comes to the Taliban he has been nicknamed “Mr. Reconciliation”. By contrast, the US is said to be determined to assassinate the head of the Haqqani network using a Bin Laden-type raid. The Pakistanis are equally determined to keep the Haqqani as an ally.

If China stands behind Pakistan, then Russia might be said to stand behind China. Looking forward to the upcoming June 15 meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Chinese President Hu praised Sino-Russian relations as being “at an unprecedented high point,” with an “obvious strategic ingredient.” In a press conference this week, Russian President Medvedev was obliged indirectly to acknowledge that the much-hyped Obama “reset” with Russia had amounted to very little, since the US ABM missile program in Romania and the rest of eastern Europe, so obviously directed against Russia, means that the START treaty is of dubious value, thus raising the specter of a “new Cold War.” Given the NATO assault on Libya, there would be no UN resolution against Syria, said Medvedev. Putin has been right all along, and Medvedev is trying to imitate Putin to salvage some chance of remaining in power.

Are We in July 1914?

http://wakeupbd.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/assassination2.jpg?w=460&h=276The Sarajevo Assassinations of June 28, 1914

The crisis leading to World War I began with the Sarajevo assassinations of June 28, 1914, but the first major declaration of war did not occur until August 1. In the interim month of July 1914, large parts of European public opinion retreated into a dreamlike trance, an idyllic la-la land of elegiac illusion, even as the deadly crisis gathered momentum. Something similar can be seen today. Many Americans fondly imagine that the alleged death of Bin Laden marks the end of the war on terror and the Afghan War. Instead, the Bin Laden operation has clearly ushered in a new strategic emergency. Forces which had opposed the Iraq war, from MSNBC to many left liberals of the peace movement, are variously supporting Obama’s bloody aggression in Libya, or even celebrating him as a more effective warmonger than Bush-Cheney because of his supposed success at the expense of Bin Laden. In reality, if there were ever a time to mobilize to stop a new and wider war, this is it.

>

>

US and Pakistan Near Open War

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Webster Tarpley
Infowars.com
May 23, 2011

China has officially put the United States on notice that Washington’s planned attack on Pakistan will be interpreted as an act of aggression against Beijing. This blunt warning represents the first known strategic ultimatum received by the United States in half a century, going back to Soviet warnings during the Berlin crisis of 1958-1961, and indicates the grave danger of general war growing out of the US-Pakistan confrontation.

“Any Attack on Pakistan Would be Construed as an Attack on China”

Responding to reports that China has asked the US to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty in the aftermath of the Bin Laden operation, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu used a May 19 press briefing to state Beijing’s categorical demand that the “sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan must be respected.” According to Pakistani diplomatic sources cited by the Times of India, China has “warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China.” This ultimatum was reportedly delivered at the May 9 China-US strategic dialogue and economic talks in Washington, where the Chinese delegation was led by Vice Prime Minister Wang Qishan and State Councilor Dai Bingguo.1 Chinese warnings are implicitly backed up by that nation’s nuclear missiles, including an estimated 66 ICBMs, some capable of striking the United States, plus 118 intermediate-range missiles, 36 submarine-launched missiles, and numerous shorter-range systems.

Support from China is seen by regional observers as critically important for Pakistan, which is otherwise caught in a pincers between the US and India: “If US and Indian pressure continues, Pakistan can say ‘China is behind us. Don’t think we are isolated, we have a potential superpower with us,’” Talat Masood, a political analyst and retired Pakistani general, told AFP.2

The Chinese ultimatum came during the visit of Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani in Beijing, during which the host government announced the transfer of 50 state-of-the-art JF-17 fighter jets to Pakistan, immediately and without cost.3 Before his departure, Gilani had stressed the importance of the Pakistan-China alliance, proclaiming: “We are proud to have China as our best and most trusted friend. And China will always find Pakistan standing beside it at all times….When we speak of this friendship as being taller than the Himalayas and deeper than the oceans it truly captures the essence of our relationship.”4 These remarks were greeted by whining from US spokesmen, including Idaho Republican Senator Risch.

The simmering strategic crisis between the United States and Pakistan exploded with full force on May 1, with the unilateral and unauthorized US commando raid alleged to have killed the phantomatic Osama bin Laden in a compound at Abottabad, a flagrant violation of Pakistan’s national sovereignty. The timing of this military stunt designed to inflame tensions between the two countries had nothing to do with any alleged Global War on Terror, and everything to do with the late March visit to Pakistan of Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian National Security Council chief. This visit had resulted in a de facto alliance between Islamabad and Riyadh, with Pakistan promising troops to put down any US-backed color revolution in the kingdom, while extending nuclear protection to the Saudis, thus making them less vulnerable to US extortion threats to abandon the oil-rich monarchy to the tender mercies of Tehran. A joint move by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to break out of the US empire, whatever one may think of these regimes, would represent a fatal blow for the fading US empire in South Asia.

As for the US claims concerning the supposed Bin Laden raid of May 1, they are a mass of hopeless contradictions which changes from day to day. An analysis of this story is best left to literary critics and writers of theatrical reviews. The only solid and uncontestable fact which emerges is that Pakistan is the leading US target — thus intensifying the anti-Pakistan US policy which has been in place since Obama’s infamous December 2009 West Point speech.

Gilani: Full Force Retaliation to Defend Pakistan’s Strategic Assets

The Chinese warning to Washington came on the heels of Gilani’s statement to the Pakistan Parliament declaring: “Let no one draw any wrong conclusions. Any attack against Pakistan’s strategic assets, whether overt or covert, will find a matching response…. Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force. No one should underestimate the resolve and capability of our nation and armed forces to defend our sacred homeland.”5 A warning of full force retaliation from a nuclear power such as Pakistan needs to be taken seriously, even by the hardened aggressors of the Obama regime.

The strategic assets Gilani is talking about are the Pakistani nuclear forces, the key to the country’s deterrent strategy against possible aggression by India, egged on by Washington in the framework of the US-India nuclear cooperation accord. The US forces in Afghanistan have not been able to conceal their extensive planning for attempts to seize or destroy Pakistan’s nuclear bombs and warheads. According to a 2009 Fox News report, “The United States has a detailed plan for infiltrating Pakistan and securing its mobile arsenal of nuclear warheads if it appears the country is about to fall under the control of the Taliban, Al Qaeda or other Islamic extremists.” This plan was developed by General Stanley McChrystal when he headed the US Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. JSOC, the force reportedly involved in the Bin Laden operation. is composed of Army Delta Force, Navy SEALs and “a high-tech special intelligence unit known as Task Force Orange.” “Small units could seize [Pakistan’s nukes], disable them, and then centralize them in a secure location,” claimed a source quoted by Fox.6

Obama Has Already Approved Sneak Attack on Pakistan’s Nukes

According to the London Sunday Express, Obama has already approved an aggressive move along these lines: “US troops will be deployed in Pakistan if the nation’s nuclear installations come under threat from terrorists out to avenge the killing of Osama Bin Laden… The plan, which would be activated without President Zardari’s consent, provoked an angry reaction from Pakistan officials… Barack Obama would order troops to parachute in to protect key nuclear missile sites. These include the air force’s central Sargodha HQ, home base for nuclear-capable F-16 combat aircraft and at least 80 ballistic missiles.” According to a US official, “The plan is green lit and the President has already shown he is willing to deploy troops in Pakistan if he feels it is important for national security.”7

Extreme tension over this issue highlights the brinksmanship and incalculable folly of Obama’s May 1 unilateral raid, which might easily have been interpreted by the Pakistanis as the long-awaited attack on their nuclear forces. According to the New York Times, Obama knew very well he was courting immediate shooting war with Pakistan, and “insisted that the assault force hunting down Osama bin Laden last week be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if confronted by hostile local police officers and troops.”

The Shooting Has Already Started

The shooting between US and Pakistani forces escalated on Tuesday May 17, when a US NATO helicopter violated Pakistani airspace in Waziristan. Pakistani forces showed heightened alert status, and opened fire immediately, with the US helicopter shooting back. Two soldiers at a Pakistani check post on the border in the Datta Khel area were wounded.8

Possible Pakistani retaliation for this border incursion came in Peshawar on Friday, May 20, when a car bomb apparently targeted a 2-car US consulate convoy, but caused no American deaths or injuries. One Pakistani bystander was killed, and several wounded. In other intelligence warfare, Ary One television reported the name of the CIA station chief in Islamabad, the second top US resident spook there to have his cover blown in six months.

US Envoy Grossman Rejects Pakistani Calls To Stop Border Violations

US Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman, the replacement for the late Richard Holbrooke, on May 19 arrogantly rejected Pakistani calls for guarantees that no more Abottabad-style unilateral operations would be mounted in Pakistan.9 In refusing to offer such assurances, Grossman claimed that Pakistani officials had never demanded respect for their border in recent years.10

In the midst of this strategic crisis, India has gone ahead with inherently provocative scheduled military maneuvers targeting Pakistan. This is the “Vijayee Bhava” (Be Victorious) drill, held in the Thar desert of north Rajastan,. This atomic-biological-chemical Blitzkrieg drill involves the Second Armored Corps, “considered to be the most crucial of the Indian Army’s three principal strike formations tasked with virtually cutting Pakistan in two during a full-fledged war.”11

The Nation: A CIA-RAW-Mossad Pseudo-Taliban Countergang

One way to provide the provocation needed to justify a US-Indian attack on Pakistan would be through an increase in terrorist actions attributable to the so-called Taliban. According to the mainstream Pakistani media, the CIA, the Israeli Mossad, and the Indian RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) have created their own version of the Taliban in the form of a terrorist countergang which they control and direct. According to one account, “Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives have infiltrated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda networks, and have created their own Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) force in order to destabilize Pakistan.” The former Punjab Regional Commander of the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), retired Brigadier General Aslam Ghuman, commented: “During my visit to the US, I learned that the Israeli spy agency Mossad, in connivance with Indian agency RAW, under the direct supervision of CIA, planned to destabilize Pakistan at any cost.”12 Was this countergang responsible for last week’s double bombing in Waziristan, which killed 80 paramilitary police?

According to the same account, Russian intelligence “disclosed that CIA contractor Raymond Davis and his network had provided Al-Qaeda operatives with chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, so that US installations may be targeted and Pakistan be blamed….” Davis, a JSOC veteran himself, was arrested for the murder of two ISI agents, but then released by the Pakistani government after a suspicious hue and cry by the State Department.

CIA Claims The New Al Qaeda Boss Lives in Waziristan

If the US needs a further pretext for additional raids, it will also be easy to cite the alleged presence in Waziristan of Saif al-Adel, now touted by the CIA as bin Laden’s likely successor as boss of al Qaeda.13 It is doubtless convenient for Obama’s aggressive intentions that Saif al-Adel can be claimed to reside so close to what is now the hottest border in the world, and not in Finsbury or Flatbush.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • FREE Shipping on all orders!

In the wake of the unauthorized May 1 US raid, the Pakistani military chief General Kayani had issued his own warning that similar “misadventures” could not be repeated, while announcing that US personnel inside Pakistan would be sharply reduced. In the estimate of one ISI source, there are currently about 7,000 CIA operatives in country, many of them unknown to the Pakistani government. US-Pakistan intelligence sharing has reportedly been downgraded. In response to Kayani’s moves, the CIA limited hangout operation known as Wikileaks once again showed its real nature by attempting to discredit the Pakistan commander with dubious US cable reports that he had demanded more Predator drone attacks, not fewer, in recent years.

Especially since Obama’s West Point speech, the CIA has used Predator drone attacks to slaughter civilians with the goal of fomenting civil war inside Pakistan, leading to a breakup of the country along the ethnic lines of Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan, and Pushtunistan. The geopolitical goal is to destroy Pakistan’s potential to be the energy corridor between Iran and China. Selig Harrison has emerged as a top US advocate for Baluchistan succession.

Since May 1, six reported US Predator drones attacks have slain some 42 Pakistani civilians, goading public opinion into a frenzy of anti-US hatred. In response, a joint session of the Pakistani parliament voted unanimously on May 14 to demand an end to American missile strikes, calling on the government to cut NATO’s supply line to Afghanistan if the attacks should continue.14 Since the Karachi to Khyber Pass supply line carries as much as two thirds of the supplies needed by the Afghanistan invaders, such a cutoff would cause chaos among the NATO forces. All of this points to the inherent insanity of provoking war with the country your supply line runs through.

US Wants to Use Taliban Boss Mullah Omar Against Pakistan

The State Department dropped all preconditions for negotiating with the Taliban back in February, and the US is now reported by the Washington Post to be talking with envoys of Mullah Omar, the legendary one-eyed leader of the Quetta Shura or Taliban ruling council. It is apparent that the US is offering the Taliban an alliance against Pakistan. US regional envoy Grossman is hostile to the Pakistanis, but when it comes to the Taliban he has been nicknamed “Mr. Reconciliation.”15 By contrast, the US is said to be determined to assassinate the head of the Haqqani network using a Bin Laden-type raid. The Pakistanis are equally determined to keep the Haqqani as an ally.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

If China stands behind Pakistan, then Russia might be said to stand behind China. Looking forward to the upcoming June 15 meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Chinese President Hu praised Sino-Russian relations as being “at an unprecedented high point,” with an “obvious strategic ingredient.” In a press conference this week, Russian President Medvedev was obliged indirectly to acknowledge that the much-hyped Obama “reset” with Russia had amounted to very little, since the US ABM missile program in Romania and the rest of eastern Europe, so obviously directed against Russia, means that the START treaty is of dubious value, thus raising the specter of a “new Cold War.” Given the NATO assault on Libya, there would be no UN resolution against Syria, said Medvedev. Putin has been right all along, and Medvedev is trying to imitate Putin to salvage some chance of remaining in power.

Are We in July 1914?

The crisis leading to World War I began with the Sarajevo assassinations of June 28, 1914, but the first major declaration of war did not occur until August 1. In the interim month of July 1914, large parts of European public opinion retreated into a dreamlike trance, an idyllic la-la land of elegiac illusion, even as the deadly crisis gathered momentum. Something similar can be seen today. Many Americans fondly imagine that the alleged death of Bin Laden marks the end of the war on terror and the Afghan War. Instead, the Bin Laden operation has clearly ushered in a new strategic emergency. Forces which had opposed the Iraq war, from MSNBC to many left liberals of the peace movement, are variously supporting Obama’s bloody aggression in Libya, or even celebrating him as a more effective warmonger than Bush-Cheney because of his supposed success at the expense of Bin Laden. In reality, if there were ever a time to mobilize to stop a new and wider war, this is it.

This post first appeared on Webster Tarpley’s website.

References

1 http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/china-asks-us-to-respect-paks-sovereignty-independence/articleshow/8454577.cms

2 “China-Pakistan alliance strengthened post bin Laden,” AFP, May 15, 2011, http://www.sundaytimes.lk/index.php/analysis/7546-china-pakistan-alliance-strengthened-post-bin-laden

3 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/asia/20pakistan.html?_r=3

4 http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/05/08/Gilani-China-best-most-trusted-friend/UPI-96101304911435/

5 http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/pakistani_pm_regrets_unilateral_GAOWNTpBXGJaJtwzWaZu0K?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=

6 Rowan Scarborough,”U.S. Has Plan to Secure Pakistan Nukes if Country Falls to Taliban, Fox News, May 14, 2009.

7 “US ‘To Protect Pakistan,” London Sunday Express, May 15, 2011, http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/246717/US-to-protect-Pakistan-

8 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/17/us-pakistan-nato-idUSTRE74G0PS20110517

9 “US refuses to assure it will not act unilaterally,” http://thenews.jang.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=15758

10 “No US assurance on unilateral ops,” http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/20-May-2011/No-US-assurance-on-unilateral-ops

11 “Getting leaner and meaner? Army practices blitzkrieg to strike hard at enemy,” Times of India, May 10, 2011, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-10/india/29527731_1_three-strike-corps-army-and-iaf-transformational

12 “CIA has created own Taliban to wreak terror havoc on Pakistan, claims Pak paper,” ANI, May 12, http://my.news.yahoo.com/cia-created-own-taliban-wreak-terror-havoc-pakistan-091621821.html

13 “New al-Qaeda chief in North Waziristan,” May 19, 2011

14 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43033985/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

15 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8519535/US-steps-up-face-to-face-peace-talks-with-Taliban.html

>

http://tarpley.net/2011/05/21/us-pakistan-near-open-war-chinese-ultimatum-warns-washington-against-attack/

>

The US-Pakistan war

Struggle over A’stan heats up

Last Updated: 11:30 PM, October 3, 2011

Posted: 10:34 PM, October 3, 2011

headshotAmir Taheri

We can’t hide the fact: America and Pakistan are at war over Afghanistan.

The Pakistanis want a big voice in the government in Kabul. The United States backs Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who’s determined to prevent that.

Initially, this was a proxy war. The Pakistanis recruited, armed and deployed Afghans who wished to fight America. In the last year or so, however, we’ve seen more direct Pakistani involvement both in command and control and as an actual presence in anti-American operations, such as the recent attacks on the US embassy and other targets in Kabul.

An open enmity: As US-Pakistan relations grow even more sour, Pakistanis protested American policies in Hyperabad on Sunday.

Demotix
An open enmity: As US-Pakistan relations grow even more sour, Pakistanis protested American policies in Hyperabad on Sunday.

The US side of the war initially was limited to drone attacks against suspected Afghan and Arab terrorist hideouts in Pakistani-administered tribal areas. But that changed when a US special-ops team went into Pakistan proper to kill Osama bin Laden.

Reports also say that the US military is preparing for “search and snatch” operations in Pakistani Baluchistan, where the Taliban has its headquarters.

According to the doctrine taught at Pakistani military colleges, Afghanistan provides the “hinterland” that Pakistan needs to face its historic enemy, India. Afghanistan is also the vital link between Pakistan and Islamic Central Asia.

More important, a hostile Afghanistan could play the Pushtun card against Pakistan. Under the British Empire, the Pushtuns were divided between Afghanistan and what was to become Pakistan in 1947. Since the 1950s, a pan-Pushtun movement has thrived on both sides of the border.

Thus, Pakistan feels it must have a say in Kabul, if only to keep the pan-Pushtun demons under control.

Pakistani doctrine also doesn’t allow for an Afghanistan allied to hostile powers, so Pakistan supported the Afghan “mujahedin” against the Soviet-backed communist regime in Kabul.

When that regime collapsed in 1992, the new Afghan government, led by Burhaneddin Rabbani, denied Pakistan a share in the spoils of victory. So Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence raised an Afghan force — the Taliban, which came to power in 1996.

In 2001, Pakistan ended up the loser when Americans ousted the Taliban and installed forces hostile to Islamabad.

Despite that setback, then-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf thought America, his putative ally, would prevent such hostile powers as India and Iran from dominating Afghanistan and would secure Pakistan a voice in the new Afghan government.

The Musharraf calculation lost all logic when the Obama administration chose what amounts to a cut-and-run strategy in Afghanistan. Faced with the prospect of a total US military withdrawal by 2013, the Afghan power elite, including the Karzai clan, is looking for new allies and protectors — leading to a dramatic upsurge in Iranian, Indian and even Russian influence in Kabul. Iran and India are the second- and third-biggest aid donors to Afghanistan, just behind America. Tehran also delivers large sums of cash to Karzai and other senior Afghan politicians.

All that concerns the ISI — so Pakistan has abandoned the Musharraf policy.

The ISI has allowed the Taliban leadership, known as the Quetta Shura (Council), to operate fairly openly in Pakistani Baluchistan. (All the new phone numbers for Taliban spokesmen start with the country code for Pakistan.)

The Pakistanis have also revived several dormant non-Taliban armed groups, including the Haqqani network, rooted in the southern province of Paktia and responsible for several recent terror attacks in Kabul.

The Haqqanis allied themselves to the Taliban in 1996, when leader Jalaleddin Haqqani was appointed interior minister. In its new incarnation, however, the Haqqanis are more a Pakistani tool than a Taliban ally.

The ISI also has revived the Hizb Islami (Islamic Party) of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The terror network recently distanced itself from Iran and tried to make a deal with the Americans. One of Hekmatyar’s sons even met a CIA representative during a “seminar” in the Maldives. Yet no deal materialized, because America did not want to antagonize Karzai. Disappointed, Hekmatyar turned to his old allies in the ISI.

The Pakistanis plan to create a broad front of the Taliban, the Haqqani network, the Hizb Islami and several smaller groups that could bid for power once the Americans have left.

Several Arab countries support that plan, notably Saudi Arabia, which prefers to see Afghanistan dominated by Sunni Pakistan than Shiite Iran and Hindu India. The Haqqanis maintain their family home in Abu Dhabi and use United Arab Emirates banks for their transactions.

So far, the US-Pakistan war has been low-intensity. The problem, as always, is that wars are easy to start but hard to end.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_us_pakistan_war_FCOmmNlf7RotH3HJwgVLQK#ixzz1ZrNe9sXD

>

October 3, 2011 6:09 AM EDT

Afghanistan, The U.S. and Pakistan: Where Will the War of Words Lead?

By Anissa Haddadi
Afghanistan, The U.S. and Pakistan:  Where Will the War of Words  Lead?Pakistan is still hitting back at allegations from Afghan officials that its intelligence agency masterminded the assassination of Kabul’s chief peace negotiator with the Taliban, threatening the region’s stability and pointing the finger at their neighbour rather than looking at the lack of efficiency of domestic forces.As accusations from both the U.S. and the Afghan authorities are angering Pakistan, tensions between the country risks creating more regional instability as alliances could shifts.An investigative delegation recently set up by President Hamid Karzai has said it had obtained evidence and a confession by a man involved in Burhanuddin Rabbani’s killing on September 20.The man, they said, sustain the bomber was Pakistani and the assassination had been plotted in Pakistan.However hitting back at the accusations, the Pakistani authorities instead questioned the Afghan’s authorities’ ability to pre-empt the Taliban’s attacks and fight off the movement.”Instead of making such irresponsible statements, those in positions of authority in Kabul should seriously deliberate as to why all those Afghans who are favourably disposed toward peace and toward Pakistan are systematically being removed from the scene and killed,” Pakistan’s foreign ministry said in a statement.”There is a need to take stock of the direction taken by Afghan Intelligence and security agencies.”Rabbani’s killing came just as the U.S. and Afghan authorities had renewed efforts to forge dialogue with the Taliban as despite foreign troop’s involvement, insurgency against the government and those considered to be on its side has seen an increase.Meanwhile, anti-Pakistani feeling in Afghanistan is also rising, and hundreds of demonstrators took to the streets of Kabul on Sunday to condemn recent shelling of border areas by Pakistan’s army and accuse the country’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) spy agency of involvement in Rabbani’s killing.Also, the Peace Council, which was previously headed by Rabbani is now calling for negotiations to be held with Pakistan rather than with the Taliban, implying Islamabad is directly involved in supporting some militants from behind the scenes.Afghan leaders are following on the U.S. suit in becoming increasingly suspicious of Pakistan’s ability to help them fight militants group, especially the Haqqani network.While some analysts have warned Pakistan might use the group as a strategic tool to counterweight he influence of its main regional rival India in Afghanistan, ISI officials have denied ever supporting the Haqqani network.The Afghan accusations came after a the top U.S. military officer, admiral Mike Mullen, had accused Pakistani intelligence of supporting an attack on the U.S. embassy in Kabul on September 13, which was allegedly carried out by the Haqqani group.Pakistan retorted angrily, which later on led to the White house trying to distance itself from the remarks but it seems unlikely relations could now return to the level of cooperation seen when the two countries started their alliance to fight against the war on terror.Pakistan says it has sacrificed more than any other country that joined the U.S.-led global campaign against militancy after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, losing thousands of soldiers and security forces.Meanwhile, adding to the confusion and despite accusations, leaders from the Haqqani group have kept on denying being responsible for killing Rabbani or having links with the Pakistani ISI.Siraj Haqqani a leader for the group also told the BBC that the U.S. had been in touch to try to persuade him to enter talks with the Afghan government.The Haqqanis “have been contacted and are being contacted by intelligence agencies of many Islamic and non-Islamic countries, including the US, asking us to leave the sacred jihad and take an important part in the current government”, the BBC quoted him as saying.With the Haqqani regime intensely denying any involvement or support by the Pakistani authorities the war of words between the U.S., Afghanistan and Pakistan is set to continue and risks exchanges risks becoming even more tensed.The Afghan authorities it seems have followed the U.S. in turning the heat on Pakistan and becoming more straightforward and direct on accusing the authorities of supporting militants’ network.While Washington has been very vocal of its suspicions towards Pakistan, the Afghan authorities have also a lot of questions to answer as security in the country has been more than volatile and government forces also accused of corruption and having close ties with militants.With the war of words between Pakistan and Afghanistan set to increase, the Karzai government has failed to realise that once foreign troops will leave the country it will need Pakistan’s help more than ever.

>

The economic reality of US threats

October 3, 2011

A Pak-US war is an empty threat, given the interests of China and India plus the economic condition of America.

There has been a wave of American threats of war against Pakistan if the latter does not take action against the Haqqani network reportedly operating from the Pak-Afghan border. There is, thus, widespread concern among already economically miserable and politically devastated Pakistanis if an open US-Pak war is about to take place or the current threats are another jugglery of the US to put forward a new do-more agenda.

This distress among Pakistanis is feeding upon the ongoing discourse on local and international print and electronic media, and the latter are doing their jobs pretty well to fatten the fear. Let’s see if the war ground can really be extended to Pakistani mainland, given the vulnerable interests of other fast growing economic players of the region, specifically China and India.

The 2011 report titled “Asia 2050: Realizing the Asian Century” by the Asian Development Bank notes that Asia is expected to contribute 50% of world’s total GDP in 2050 and 70% of the world’s added capital stock in 2030. On deeper investigation it is not difficult to find that China and India are the main contributors in this emerging Asian economic boom. The report notes that India’s GDP per capita will rise by more than three times, and that of China by more than double. Looking at the given statistics and explicit aspirations of India to become, as she says, the Asian tiger and the current international status of China, I believe that there are too dear and powerful stake holders to overlook for the US to extend this war into Pakistan’s mainland.

India is always perceived as an interested party in any warfare expedited against Pakistan. However, this time, India, which is living in the glassy economic walls, would not want to indulge with conventional war against Pakistan.

Indian defence minister has explicitly expressed the same a few days after the US allegations against Pakistani intelligence agencies. India has much more to lose economically than it had a couple of decades ago. Wars are not good for economic growth, which India has seen recently. The region is growing as a manufacturing hub for the world and India is the second largest country in this setup. The war in Pakistan’s mainland would immediately harm Indian economic interests, even if India does not engage itself directly.

So far Pakistan has been serving as a buffer between the US lead Afghan war and Indian Territory and the buffer is paying the war cost. If war is brought into Pakistan’s mainland, it will directly expose India with war’s economic side effects. If India wants to sustain its speed of growth it must demonstrate to the world, which is investing heavily in India since a couple decades, that the Indian market place is not vulnerable to any sort of war damages.

China, emerging as a powerful state in the world, has strategic economic interests in Pakistan. Pakistan provides access to rich Middle East market through Gawadar Port. China’s route to Middle East’s market will become inoperable in case of any expedition of US on Pakistan. Also, Pakistan provides a defence to China against India, which has burning territorial dispute on China-India border.

If the US lead war is extended into Pakistan’s mainland, the action would kill both advantages which China enjoys currently.  The presence of the US army in Pakistan will also create the US-India joint venture on the Chinese border, which is never acceptable to China in the long run. As a result, the world has recently witnessed China’s immediate response against US war threats to Pakistan and a following visit of Chinese Premier to Pakistan. China owns the veto power and economic muscle, which it will use to keep the presence of the US army away from its border.

How could I ignore to include the implications of current bailed-out economic position of the US?

Frankly speaking, America cannot afford to trigger a new war, at least at this point of time, when it is seeking capital investment from a third world country like India to create employment in American job market. Its economy cannot afford a new war except the war slogans in efforts to retain Obama’s vote bank until the upcoming elections in the US. The current administration has to take back their faces to their voters and this time, since Osama is apparently not available, they have chosen Pakistani shoulder to put off their burden.

Also, this is a good time to push another list of do-more in the same blow.

The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of The Express Tribune

>

Op-Ed Contributor

Take the War to Pakistan

By SETH G. JONES
Published: December 3, 2009

Kabul, Afghanistan

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S decision on a timetable for withdrawal of American troops only makes official what everyone here has known for a while: the clock is ticking in Afghanistan. The Taliban have long recognized this, and many captured militants have reminded their interrogators that “you have the watches, but we have the time.”

As we quicken the pace, the top American commander here, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has repeatedly noted that there are many issues to focus on: building more competent Afghan Army and police forces, adopting more effective anticorruption measures and reintegrating “moderate” Taliban and other insurgent fighters into Afghan society and politics.

But perhaps the most difficult issue is largely outside of General McChrystal’s control (and got short shrift in President Obama’s speech at West Point): undermining the Taliban’s sanctuary in Pakistan. Thus far, there has been no substantive action taken against the Taliban leadership in Baluchistan Province, south of the Pashtun-dominated areas of Afghanistan. This is the same mistake the Soviets made in the 1980s, when they failed to act against the seven major mujahadeen groups headquartered in Pakistan.

This sanctuary is critical because the Afghan war is organized and run out of Baluchistan. Virtually all significant meetings of the Taliban take place in that province, and many of the group’s senior leaders and military commanders are based there. “The Taliban sanctuary in Baluchistan is catastrophic for us,” a Marine told me on a recent trip to Afghanistan’s Helmand Province, across the border from Baluchistan. “Local Taliban fighters get strategic and operational guidance from across the border, as well as supplies and technical components for their improvised explosive devices.”

Like a typical business, the Taliban in Pakistan have an organizational structure divided into functional committees. It has a media committee; a military committee; a finance committee responsible for acquiring and managing funds; and so forth. The Taliban’s inner shura, or governing council, exerts authority over lower-level Taliban fighters. It is composed of the supreme Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, his principal deputy, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, his military commander, Abdullah Zakir, and roughly a dozen other key leaders. Many Taliban leaders have moved their families to Baluchistan, and their children attend Pakistani schools.

Mullah Baradar is particularly important because he runs many of the shuras involving senior Taliban commanders, virtually all of which are in Pakistan. “Omar is reclusive and unpolished,” one Taliban figure recently said to me, “and has preferred to confide in a small number of trusted advisers rather than address larger groups.”

Yet Pakistan and the United States have failed to target them systematically. Pakistani Army and Frontier Corps forces have conducted operations in Pakistan’s tribal areas to the north, and the United States has conducted many drone strikes there. But relatively little has been done in Baluchistan.

The United States and Pakistan must target Taliban leaders in Baluchistan. There are several ways to do it, and none requires military forces.

The first is to conduct raids to capture Taliban leaders in Baluchistan. Most Taliban are in or near Baluchi cities like Quetta. These should be police and intelligence operations, much like American-Pakistani efforts to capture Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other Qaeda operatives after 9/11. The second is to hit Taliban leaders with drone strikes, as the United States and Pakistan have done so effectively in the tribal areas.

The cost of failing to act in Baluchistan will be enormous. As one Russian diplomat who served in the Soviet Army in Afghanistan recently told me: “You are running out of time. You must balance counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan by targeting the leadership nodes in Pakistan. Don’t make the same mistake we did.”

Seth G. Jones, the author of “In the Graveyard of Empires: America’s War in Afghanistan,” is a civilian adviser to the American military and a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation.

More Articles in Opinion » A version of this article appeared in print on December 4, 2009, on page A35 of the New York edition.

>

Pakistan: USA’s next war zone

Friday, September 26, 2008 – 10:00

Washington’s next war is already on the go. “Classified orders”, according to the September 11 New York Times, were passed by US President George Bush in July. And the target is not “axis of evil”-famed Iran. It is Washington’s close ally in the “war on terror”, Pakistan.

On September 17, a US attack on the Waziristan (tribal areas) region of Pakistan left another five “Taliban” dead. Only a week earlier, 20 were killed in another US attack. Between August 13 and September 12, at least 79 people were killed in nine US attacks on Pakistan’s tribal areas. Since January 29, more than 150 people have been killed.

Besides the rising death toll, a large-scale displacement is taking place. From Bajour district alone, more than 30,000 people have migrated to the relative safety of the neighbouring North West Frontier Province (NWFP).

The massive military operation launched against the Taliban by the Pakistani army under US pressure since 2003 has driven many people out of their homes. The Taliban’s successful attempt to capture and turn Pakistan’s tribal areas into “Talibanistan” has inflicted misery — including beheadings, amputations and harsh dress codes — on the residents, also leading to displacement.

However it was the US invasion of Afghanistan that reduced the tribal areas to a battlefield for multi-pronged war, with Shias fighting Sunnis, the Taliban pitched against the Pakistan military and US missiles and air drones pounding Pakistan.

The Taliban’s strategy is to Talibanise at gunpoint — politically and administratively — the tribal areas. Talibanised Sharia (Islamic law) has been instituted and Taliban militias have replaced the state apparatus (the police, civil administration and courts) with their own courts. They have established tolls to levy road taxes on transport, which is a major source of income. Maliks (tribal elders) who might pose a challenge to Taliban authority have been eliminated or silenced.

The Shia tribes are alarmed at the Taliban occupation of the tribal areas, remembering the reported massacre in Afghanistan of some 5000 Shias by the Taliban when in power in the late 1990s. They have decided to resist tooth and nail.

The Taliban have encountered many acts of resistance. A brave woman refused to quit her job as a school teacher and stay home. Villagers formed militias and resisted, though unsuccessfully. The local tribes at first were no match for the Taliban and al Qaeda cadre, trained in the 1980s with CIA-provided manuals.

However, the Shia resistance became an impetus for others. The tribes have now formed their own militia and have begun liberating their villages from the Taliban.

While tribes have been left on their own to defend themselves against the Taliban, the NYT on September 11 quoted a senior US official as saying that the Pakistan government had “privately assented to the general concept of limited ground assaults by [US] Special Operations forces against significant militant targets, but that it did not approve each mission”.

Though the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) government has denied such assertions, there is a general feeling in Pakistan that this is the case. During the rule of Pervez Musharraf, every time the US attacked inside Pakistan, the regime would claim responsibility. Now every US attack is followed by a protest statement by Pakistan’s government and every protest statement is followed by another US attack.

The US has not always considered the Taliban enemies. In the wake of the radical 1978 “Saur [April] revolution” in Afghanistan, the CIA turned the tribal areas and parts of the NWFP bordering Afghanistan into a safe haven for the “Mujahideen”, the Taliban’s forerunners.

The tribal areas were brutalised, criminalised and militarised as the weapon and drug trades became a major source of funding for the anti-Soviet “jihad”.

When the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, Afghan leader Mohammed Najibullah was able to hold the Mujahideen out for another three years. The Mujahideen then reduced Afghanistan to rubble as they turned against each other in the battle to capture Kabul.

The chaos ended when the Taliban took power in 1996 with imperial help. Assassinated PPP leader Benazir Bhutto once claimed: “Weapons were supplied to the Taliban by the USA and Britain with money from Saudi Arabia … Pakistan’s territory was used to train solely the Afghan refugees — Pushtoons, who made up the backbone of Taliban movement.”

The Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s notorious military intelligence service, was the architect of the Taliban victory.

Then in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks, Washington launched its invasion of Afghanistan. Pakistan GHQ (military headquarters) reluctantly obeyed US orders to give the Taliban up. However a section of the military refused.

US pressure to target the Taliban as they regrouped in Pakistan pitched the sections of the Pakistani military following US dictates against those patronising the Taliban in the tribal areas.

The Taliban, being blocked westward, will most likely spread eastward. Already, districts neighbouring the tribal areas, particularly the scenic valleys of Swat, have become a venue for pitched battles between the Taliban and the Pakistani military.

However, neither successful Talibanisation nor the presence of Taliban hide-outs should serve as an excuse for an imperialist invasion of Pakistan. It will further plunge this region into chaos. The stability of the region cannot be guaranteed until the US occupation of Afghanistan is ended.

Talibanisation can be best fought against by the masses. The US presence in the region will only delay the Taliban’s defeat.

[This article is abridged from a September 17 article by Farooq Sulehria, a member of the Labour Party Pakistan residing in Sweden. For an extended version, visit http://www.links.org.au.]

>

Blackwater (Xe): The Secret US War in Pakistan

Top 25 of 2011

117Share

At a covert forward operating base run by the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in the Pakistani port city of Karachi, members of an elite division of Blackwater are at the center of a secret program in which they plan targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda operatives inside and outside Pakistan. The Blackwater operatives also gather intelligence and help direct a secret US military drone bombing campaign that runs parallel to the well-documented CIA predator strikes, according to a well-placed source within the US military intelligence apparatus.

Student Researchers:

  • Andrew Hobbs, Kelsea Arnold, and Brittney Gates (Sonoma State University)

Faculty Evaluators:

  • Elaine Wellin and Peter Phillips (Sonoma State University)

Captain John Kirby, the spokesperson for Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Nation, “We do not discuss current operations one way or the other, regardless of their nature.” Meanwhile a defense official specifically denied that Blackwater performs work on drone strikes or intelligence for JSOC in Pakistan. “We don’t have any contracts to do that work for us. We don’t contract that kind of work out, period,” the official said. “There has not been, and are not now, contracts between JSOC and that organization for these types of services.” The Pentagon has stated bluntly, “There are no US military strike operations being conducted in Pakistan.”

Blackwater’s founder Erik Prince contradicted this statement in an interview, telling Vanity Fair that Blackwater works with US Special Forces in identifying targets and planning missions, citing an operation in Syria. The magazine also published a photo of a Blackwater base near the Afghanistan–Pakistan border.

Jeremy Scahill’s military intelligence source said that the previously unreported program is distinct from the CIA assassination program, which the agency’s director, Leon Panetta, announced he had canceled in June 2009. “This is a parallel operation to the CIA,” said the source. “They are two separate beasts.” The program puts Blackwater at the epicenter of a US military operation within the borders of a nation against which the US has not declared war—knowledge that could further strain the already tense relations between the US and Pakistan. In 2006, the two countries struck a deal that authorized JSOC to enter Pakistan to hunt Osama bin Laden with the understanding that Pakistan would deny it had given permission. Officially, the US is not supposed to have any active military operations in that country.

Blackwater, which also goes by the names Xe Services and US Training Center, has denied that the company operates in Pakistan. “Xe Services has only one employee in Pakistan performing construction oversight for the US government,” Blackwater spokesperson Mark Corallo said in a statement to the Nation, adding that the company has “no other operations of any kind in Pakistan.”

A former senior executive at Blackwater confirmed the military intelligence source’s claim that the company is working in Pakistan for the CIA and JSOC. He said that Blackwater is also working for the Pakistani government on a subcontract with an Islamabad-based security firm that puts US Blackwater operatives on the ground with Pakistani forces in “counterterrorism” operations, including house raids and border interdictions, in the North-West Frontier Province and elsewhere in Pakistan. This arrangement allows the Pakistani government to utilize former US Special Operations forces that now work for Blackwater while denying an official US military presence in the country. He also confirmed that Blackwater has a facility in Karachi and has personnel deployed elsewhere in Pakistan.

The covert program in Pakistan dates back to at least 2007. The current head of JSOC is Vice Admiral William McRaven, who took over the post from General Stanley McChrystal, who headed JSOC from 2003 to 2008 before being named the top US commander in Afghanistan. Blackwater’s presence in Pakistan is “not really visible, and that’s why nobody has cracked down on it,” said Scahill’s military source. Blackwater’s operations in Pakistan, he adds, are not done through State Department contracts or publicly identified defense contracts. “It’s Blackwater via JSOC, and it’s a classified no-bid [contract] approved on a rolling basis.”

Blackwater’s first known contract with the CIA for operations in Afghanistan was awarded in 2002 and was for work along the Afghanistan–Pakistan border.

According to Scahill’s source, Blackwater has effectively marketed itself as a company whose operatives have “conducted lethal direct action missions and now, for a price, you can have your own planning cell. JSOC just ate that up.” Blackwater’s Pakistan JSOC contracts are secret and are therefore shielded from public oversight, he said.

In addition to planning drone strikes and operations against suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in Pakistan for both JSOC and the CIA, the Blackwater team in Karachi also helps plan missions for JSOC inside Uzbekistan against the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.

Since President Barack Obama was inaugurated, the United States has expanded drone-bombing raids in Pakistan. Obama first ordered a drone strike against targets in North and South Waziristan on January 23, 2009, and the strikes have been conducted consistently ever since. The number of strike orders by the Obama administration has now surpassed the number during the Bush era in Pakistan, inciting fierce criticism from Pakistan and some US lawmakers over civilian deaths.

The military intelligence source also confirmed that Blackwater continues to work for the CIA on its drone-bombing program in Pakistan, as previously reported in the New York Times, but added that Blackwater is working on JSOC’s drone bombings as well. “It’s Blackwater running the program for both CIA and JSOC,” said the source. When civilians are killed, “people go, ‘Oh, it’s the CIA doing crazy shit again unchecked.’ Well, at least 50 percent of the time, that’s JSOC [hitting] somebody they’ve identified through HUMINT [human intelligence] or they’ve culled the intelligence themselves or it’s been shared with them and they take that person out and that’s how it works.”

In addition to working on covert action planning and drone strikes, Blackwater SELECT also provides private guards to perform the sensitive task of security for secret US drone bases, JSOC camps, and Defense Intelligence Agency camps inside Pakistan.

Blackwater’s ability to survive against odds by reinventing and rebranding itself is most evident in Afghanistan, where the company continues to work for the US military, the CIA, and the State Department despite intense criticism and almost weekly scandals.

Sources:

Jeremy Scahill, “The Secret US War in Pakistan,” Nation, November 23, 2009, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091207/scahill.

Jeremy Scahill, “Blackwater Wants to Surge Its Armed Force in Afghanistan,” Antiwar.com, January 20, 2010, http://original.antiwar.com/scahill/2010/01/19/blackwater-wants-to-surge.

David Edwards and Muriel Kane, “Ex-employees Claim Blackwater Pimped Out Young Iraqi Girls,” Raw Story, August 7, 2009.

Similar Posts:

>

note this was deleted – I guess too provocative

Will USA and Pakistan go to war? – Yahoo! UK & Ireland Answers

uk.answers.yahoo.com › … › Current Events

“Will USA and Pakistan go to war?” – Find the answer to this question and millions more on Yahoo! UK & Ireland Answers.

>

US Meddling: Pakistan’s Long War Has Just Begun

Posted by on May 8th, 2011

US Meddling: Pakistan’s Long War Has Just Begun

Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post

 

 

US Meddling: Pakistan’s Long War Has Just Begun

Back in October 2010, I had cautioned Pakistan’s security planners to be on guard for military intervention from the western border. Since then, we’ve had five major attacks on Pakistan from that side. The fortified US and ISAF bases in Afghanistan are now being used against Pakistan.

Brig. SAMSON SIMON SHARAF | Sunday | 8 May 2011 | The Nation
WWW.PAKNATIONALISTS.COM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—For Pakistanis, this is not time to feel embarrassed and to hang heads in shame over the simplicity and quickness of the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. It is rather a time for a long overdue bugle cry that Pakistan is at war. 1/5 was not Pakistan’s Day inasmuch as 9/11 exposed the vulnerabilities in USA’s Homeland Security.

Writing in TheNation in December 2009, I had assessed the next 18 months and beyond as crucial for Pakistan and reiterated that “Pakistan must reassert itself” on February 20. I had written: “The next 18 months and beyond will test Pakistan to the verge.”

Between the 14th and 17th months, we have witnessed the Raymond Davis case, a drone attack on a peaceful jirga, a full-fledged conventional multi-directional night attack on a border outpost in Dir, a border skirmish at Angoor Adda and now the operation to kill Osama bin laden.

Writing an article, Pakistan: A Rudderless State, earlier in TheNation in November 2010, I had cautioned the security planners of Pakistan to beware of the Cold Start-type operations from across the Durand Line. I had also written about the heavily fortified US and ISAF citadels in Afghanistan that would be used as pivots of such operations against Pakistan. No one in our security establishment and the media took notice of the warnings.

2009-2010 had been remarkable years of Pakistan’s fight against militancy. During this time, joint intelligence operations led by Pakistan had resulted in the elimination of numerous prized targets both from TTP and Al-Qaeda. The efficiency of information gathering was such that many high value targets deemed missing and believed to be killed had been brought back into focus and neutralised, some amongst them US nationals. But by mid-2010, this cooperation began to wane due to the direct influx of the CIA agents into Pakistan. Since this influx was not a part of the working agreements between the ISI and CIA, Pakistan’s security establishment felt that they were being stabbed in the back.

Click to enlarge

Counter security efforts, on part of Pakistan, identified hundreds of locations in the country in which the US agents had located themselves inside Pakistan covertly. Some of these locations were heavily fortified and the activities inside them were always dubious. After much rallying, Pakistan was able to force the closure of some of these locations, but not all. Meanwhile, the network of CIA’s local informers was spreading, a reason why the agency forced budgetary reallocations for its operations in Pakistan. With huge funds to play around, the CIA could now buy off anyone, including Al-Qaeda agents whose data Pakistan had shared with the USA. They put tags on many such targets and monitored all their movements and places of visit. Consequently, what they have been able to track with their superior technical resources and heavy monetary disbursements is a trail of redoubts within Pakistan, where the militants have contacts and hiding places. Then came the Raymond Davis shooting and some issues became public.

There is definitely a trove of very important information that the US has extracted from shared sources and double crossing. One such is the hideout of Osama bin Laden, his courier trails and much more. The biggest vulnerability that Pakistan faces is that some of its own assets within this Al-Qaeda trail may have been exposed, or double crossed and could be used to blackmail Pakistan into coercion.

This column appeared in Pakistan’s The Nation. Mr. Sharaf, a retired brigadier of Pakistan Army, can be reached at nicco1988@hotmail.com

© 2007-2011. All rights reserved. Paknationalists.com
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium
without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

>

Inside the war for central asia Twitter Facebook RSS
Daily Brief Latest from the Blog Latest from FP

The U.S.-Pakistan stalemate

By Imtiaz Gul, April 23, 2011 Saturday, April 23, 2011 – 12:26 PM Share

It looks like the proverbial marriage of convenience; although international obligations and strategic considerations continue to serve as the glue for an increasingly volatile partnership between the United States and Pakistan, deep-seated mutual mistrust and conflicting geo-strategic objectives prevent Pakistan and the United States from partnering in a friction-free way. This is how one could characterize the bilateral relationship following Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen’s terse meetings last week with the Pakistan Army high command during his trip to Pakistan, and the unusually blunt remarks by Mullen to several Pakistani media outlets just before the meeting left little doubt that both sides remain divided on some of the most fundamental issues related to Pakistan’s fight against militants.

The interviews Adm. Mullen gave before his talks with his counterpart General Khalid Shameem Wynne, as well as with General Ashfaq Kayani, the Pakistani army chief,  reflected the American frustration with the Pakistani reluctance in dealing with groups such as the Haqqani Network and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) the way Washington (and New Delhi) would want.

“It is fairly well known that ISI had a relationship with the Haqqani network and addressing the Haqqani network from my per spective is critical to the solution set in Afghanistan. … that’s at the core — it’s not the only thing — but that’s at the core that I think is the most difficult part of the relationship,” Admiral Mullen said in an interview with Dawn TV late Wednesday.

This essentially reflected what Mullen said in January this year, when he called Pakistan the “epicenter” of terrorism in the world, and called on the Pakistani safe havens where the Haqqanis, LeT, al-Qaeda and the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban reside. Speaking to reporters the day before his trip to Pakistan, Mullen also said that, “We’re working our way through the relationships that [Pakistani intelligence] has with the Haqqani network and the strain that that creates… and these are issues I address with him (Gen.Kayani) every single time we engage.”

And if the brief press release put out by the U.S. embassy or the stern response from the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi south of Islamabad were any indicator, Mullen’s  “engagement with Kayani” was not a smooth affair at all.

“U.S. Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was in Pakistan today to consult with Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff,” was how Kayani figured at all in the 124- word statement issued after Mullen’s 22nd visit to Pakistan since October 2007. As for Kayani, he “”strongly rejected negative propaganda of Pakistan not doing enough and Pakistan army’s lack of clarity on the way forward” according to the statement released by the Pakistani Army.

Let us now consider why Mullen’s patience has worn thin with Pakistan, after long being known as a defender of the Pakistani military; only a few months away from the scheduled beginning of the phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, the U.S.-Pakistan relationship has been racked by the controversy surrounding CIA operative Raymond Davis after he killed two armed men in Lahore in January. This episode not only exposed the CIA operations in Pakistan that for the most part until Davis’s release had been suspected but not paraded about in broad daylight. It also certainly delivered a serious jolt to the relationship, and provided Pakistan with a wand to wave at the United States in order to extract some concessions on covert CIA activities in Pakistan.

And this has turned it into an ISI-CIA turf-war over their mutually conflicting interests and objectives in the region – namely that the Americans want Pakistan to conclusively move against the Haqqani Network and LeT, while Pakistan wants to secure its future interest in a post-American Afghanistan, while also wanting to maintain some order in North Waziristan, dominated by the Zadran tribe, who are also spread across Afghanistan’s Paktia province and to which the Haqqanis belong.

It would seem that Mullen failed to extract a commitment from Kayani on this front, while Mullen, on the other hand, seems to have failed in committing himself to addressing the Pakistani establishment’s paranoia with the expanding Indian role in Afghanistan, a concern that a senior Pakistani general told me the military has raised on various occasions with their American partners. This failure to openly address Pakistani concerns also reinforces the Pakistani preoccupation with the perceived U.S. tilt towards India.

The generals at army headquarters in Rwalpindi also believe that the Indo-American partnership, with the active support and connivance of a Tajik-dominated Afghan security establishment, wants to deny Pakistan a dominant role in Afghanistan, and believe the United States thinks that the only way to achieve this is to accord India key security responsibilities in that country once the bulk of foreign troops leave. Unless addressed by an increasingly strident American defense establishment upset by the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan, these Pakistani concerns will likely continue to disrupt the bilateral U.S.-Pakistan ties, as well as the keep the regional multi-lateral relations on the boil. The perceived American deference to India works to the detriment of Pakistani interests, the senior general told me, and would hardly provide them with the comfort level that a “strategic partner needs to get fully involved in a war that has cost [Pakistan] a lot.”

Pakistani intelligence, says the military commander, “cannot afford to relent and allow the United States or its security institutions a free hand in shaping the geo-political agenda in the region in league with the Indian and Afghan security establishments.”

The challenge for both the U.S. and Pakistan remains the problem of trying to marry their divergent geo-strategic objectives. As for now, the relationship has soured significantly, with no indication of Pakistan giving in on the issue of support for the Haqqanis or LeT. Nor does the U.S. appear ready to accommodate Pakistani concerns flowing from the surging Indian influence in Afghanistan. And in such an environment, stalemate and tension seem ready to endure.

Imtiaz Gul heads the independent Centre for Research and Security Studies — CRSS-Islamabad — and is the author of The Most Dangerous Place.

>

China to US: Hands off Pakistan

Share262

posted at 12:00 pm on May 24, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

Barack Obama says that if the US has another chance to get a high-value terrorist target like Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, he’ll make the same call as he did earlier this month.  Not so fast, says China.  According to a report from India a few days ago, China has warned that an “attack” on Pakistan will be taken as an attack on China (via Pundit Press):

In the wake of the US raid in Abbottabad that killed Osama bin Laden, China has “warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China”, a media report claimed today.

The warning was formally conveyed by the Chinese foreign minister at last week’s China-US strategic dialogue and economic talks in Washington, The News daily quoted diplomatic sources as saying. China also advised the USa to “respect Pakistan’s sovereignty and solidarity”, the report said.

Chinese Premier Mr Wen Jiabao informed his Pakistani counterpart Mr Yousuf Raza Gilani about the matters taken up with the US during their formal talks at the Great Hall of the People yesterday. The report said China “warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China”. The two premiers held a 45-minute one-on-one meeting before beginning talks with their delegations.

The Chinese leadership was “extremely forthcoming in assuring its unprecedented support to Pakistan for its national cause and security” and discussed all subjects of mutual interest with Mr Gilani, the report said. Mr Gilani described Pakistan-China relations and friendship as “unique”. Talking to Pakistani journalists accompanying him, he said that China had acknowledged his country’s contribution and sacrifices in the war against terrorism and supported its cause at the international level. “China supported Pakistan’s cause on its own accord,” Mr Gilani said with reference to the Sino-US strategic dialogue where the Chinese told the US that Pakistan should be helped and its national honour respected. Mr Gilani said China had asked the US to improve its relations with Pakistan, keeping in view the present scenario.

Pakistan’s diplomatic pilgrimage to Beijing succeeded better than previously thought.  This came about the same time as the “gift” of 50 new jet fighters to Pakistan’s military.   While the US flexes its muscles in the wake of the OBL mission, Pakistan’s shopping for a less troublesome ally.  Not that China needed much prompting here, anyway, since both Afghanistan and Pakistan border China, and American operations in the region have to make Beijing nervous anyway.

This new doctrine from China will pose some difficulties for the US.  For instance, what about the Predator attacks on terrorists in the border regions?  Pakistan has officially protested these attacks while unofficially tolerating them.  If China is serious about its message, will they insist on an end to all operations within Pakistan from now on?  And how will China respond to an attack on Pakistan under a doctrine that’s not dissimilar from NATO’s charter?  Will they attack the US and start a war, or will they react only diplomatically?

This may have one salutary effect.  If Pakistan draws closer to China, then the US will have to draw closer to India, which George Bush started to do and which Obama, to his credit, has continued.  India is more of a natural ally to the US anyway.  However, China’s interference in the Af-Pak region will have serious implications for our ability to prosecute the war in Afghanistan.

>

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://cachef.ft.com/cms/s/0/1f26fc5e-74a9-11e0-8988-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1ZrYJT1JV

US and Pakistan odd bedfellows in ‘war on terror’

By David Pilling

Published: May 2 2011 12:54 | Last updated: May 2 2011 12:54

It was only six weeks ago that Raymond Davis, a CIA contractor accused of murdering two Pakistanis, left the country in a welter of controversy after the payment of $2.3m in “blood money” to secure his release.

At that time, Jamaat-e-Islami, the main Islamist political party, spoke for at least a significant minority of Pakistanis when it complained bitterly that the American had ducked the law and “deeply compromised” the country’s sovereignty.

Now US security forces are being lauded for their daring operation in the heart of the country on a mansion housing the world’s most wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden.

The assassination of the al-Qaeda leader will take the sting out of Pakistani complaints that the US is riding roughshod over the country in its pursuit of Islamist extremists. One Pakistani official conceded on Monday that Washington had given a “backbone-breaking jolt to al-Qaeda and their supporters across the globe”.

Hitherto, many Pakistanis have been angered that the US has operated with apparent impunity inside the country’s borders. In particular, they have criticised the use of drone attacks – carried out with the quiet assent of Islamabad. These, say critics, are recruiting agents for Islamist extremists because of the inevitable civilian casualties associated with unmanned aerial attacks.

Barack Obama, the US president, who has stepped up the number of drone attacks during his term in office, brushed aside questions of extraterritoriality.

“I’ve repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was,” Mr Obama said in announcing the terrorist leader’s death.

The US president did go out of his way to praise Pakistan for its help in locating the whereabouts of bin Laden, saying: “Our counter-terrorism co-operation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding.”

Emphasising that the two countries had a mutual interest in seeing the al-Qaeda leader dead, he added: “Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people.”

Yet those words cannot hide the fact that the US-Pakistan relationship has been deeply troubled. If they have been bedfellows in their fight against terrorism, it has been an extraordinarily lumpy and uncomfortable bed.

US officials have consistently complained in private that the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s equivalent of the Central Intelligence Agency, has been playing a double game.

On the one hand, the ISI has taken money from Washington to fight Islamist extremists. On the other, it has cultivated militants to project Pakistani power against India in Kashmir, and also pursued what Islamabad calls “strategic depth” in Afghanistan.

The fact that bin Laden had been living in a big city, apparently just 500 metres from the prestigious Pakistan Military Academy, will fan suspicion that the country’s intelligence apparatus was not doing all it could to track down al-Qaeda’s leader.

Abdullah Abdullah, the former Afghan foreign minister and presidential candidate, said the location of bin Laden’s death was “very telling”.

“I insisted all along that he was in Pakistan,” said Mr Abdullah. “That shows that the [al-Qaeda] network of support is very strong. And it says something about the ISI’s willingness – or unwillingness – to take a serious look at these issues”.

Indeed, Pakistani officials have a tendency to play down support for extremism in their country, portraying Islamist extremists as a tiny minority.

Salman Taseer, former governor of Punjab, told the Financial Times in November, for example, that Taliban and al-Qaeda supporters were small in number and mainly imports. A few weeks later, he was assassinated by one of his own bodyguards for opposing a blasphemy law that discriminates against Christians.

If anything, the relationship between Pakistan and the US has grown more tense in recent months. Joint intelligence operations in north-west Pakistan had come to a virtual halt, according to a former Pakistani diplomat. Pakistan had also resisted US pressure to invade North Waziristan, suspected by Washington as an al-Qaeda base.

Last week, Pakistani officials even had to deny reports that Yusuf Raza Gilani, Pakistan’s prime minister, had been lobbying Afghanistan to drop its alliance with the US and to look, instead, to Islamabad to help solve its differences with the Taliban. Mr Abdullah, for one, says that bin Laden’s death may change all these calculations.

“The Taliban sacrificed Afghanistan for Osama bin Laden,” Mr Abdullah said, referring to the refusal by the Taliban government of Mullah Mohammed Omar to give up the al-Qaeda leader after the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. That precipitated the US invasion in October, ratcheting up the pressure on Pakistan to fight militancy on its side of the border.

The death of bin Laden, on Pakistani soil, is by far the biggest milestone in the campaign to combat Islamist extremism. Pakistan officials were on Monday saying they were involved in the operation. Yet Mr Obama, though he acknowledged there had been joint intelligence-gathering, insisted the raid itself had been carried out by “a small team of Americans”. Even in their hour of victory, the two uncomfortable allies in the “war on terrorism” could not get their story quite to match.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. You may share using our article tools. Please don’t cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

>

Time for Pakistan to divorce the US

by News Source on May 12, 2011

Shaukat Qadir, a retired brigadier and former president of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute, explains how Pakistan ended up at war with itself dealing with a tribal rebellion.

If we hark back in time, in 2001, the Pakistani Pashtun and all Afghans were celebrating US intervention in Afghanistan. It would liberate them from Taliban oppression. Within a year, American arrogance, their suspicion of all Afghans, their utter disregard for local customs and culture, could result in only one thing: Another Afghan freedom struggle from an oppressive foreign force. The US called it a resurgence of the Taliban and al Qaeda! In time it did become that, because the US converted a legitimate struggle for freedom from an army of occupation into ‘Taliban linked to al Qaeda.’

To return to my question — as they did when Afghans sought their freedom from the Soviet occupation, the Pakistani Pashtuns bordering Afghanistan, girded their loins to assist their Afghan brethren. This time, Pakistan did not want them to. And in 2004, we decided to kill the most outspoken of those Pashtuns, a wazir called Nek Muhammad.

His murder was the watershed. We had a rebellion on our hands because we were preventing our tribal Pashtun from assisting their Afghan brethren in their freedom struggle against an army of occupation: The Americans, of course. So all Pakistan suddenly became American, kafirs, legitimate targets for religious fanatics to kill, and we are more vulnerable and accessible for them to target. So we are faced with an existentialist threat and we die. This was the first gift we got from the US.

Without tracing all the history, where do we stand today as far as the US is concerned? Anybody, who is anybody in the US, is baying for our blood. We are traitors to them and branded American-kafirs by our enemy within. Obama now tells us that when the Navy SEALs came to get Osama, they were “in sufficient numbers and prepared to retaliate to any response by the police or Pakistan’s security forces”.

They also gifted us Raymond Davis, hundreds of him. When we agreed to give him back, it was on the condition that all other Raymonds also leave. The CIA has not forgiven us and recent drone attacks are again killing more civilians than militants. If the Raymonds can no longer stoke unrest in Pakistan, the drones can!

As far as the promised financial aid is concerned, we receive a mere trickle, each time with another threat of severance if we fail to obey our Lords and Masters in DC. Even the Coalition Support Fund (CSF), intended to compensate a small portion of the expense incurred by the military in this war that has been forced on us by the US and Musharaf’s capitulation, is long overdue by well over a billion dollars.

The US has its own litany of complaints but we have ours. Isn’t it time to file for divorce?

Share

ShareThisprint this post print this post

>

September 17, 2011

Is Pakistan At War With the United States?

Possibly, or at least part of its government may be.

The United States government believes it has evidence linking the Haqqani network, a terrorist organization which has repeatedly carried out attacks against US government personnel and positions, with the government of Pakistan. As ABC News (Australia) reports,

The United States says there is evidence linking the Pakistani government to the militant group that carried out last week’s attack on the US embassy in Kabul.

The US ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, claims there are links between the Pakistani government and high-profile terrorist group the Haqqani network.

In blunt comments broadcast by state-run Radio Pakistan, Mr Munter said: “Let me tell you that the attack that took place in Kabul a few days ago that was the work of the Haqqani network,” he said, referring to a deadly miltant attack in on Tuesday.

“There is evidence linking the Haqqani network to the Pakistan government. This is something that must stop.”

During the US Civil War, our ambassador in London, Charles Francis Adams, was increasingly concerned by signs that the British government was tolerating the construction of Confederate warships that would attack Union commerce on the high seas.  “It would be superfluous in me,” he told the British foreign minister of the day, “to observe to your lordship that this is war.”

Britain — at the time, the greatest power in the world — stepped up the enforcement of its neutrality legislation, and after the war paid millions in compensation for the damage the Confederate raiders had done.

You don’t have to read very far between the lines to hear a similar message in Ambassador Munter’s latest remarks. I hope they are listening in Islamabad.  I also hope they are paying attention in Washington.  Via Meadia supports a continued US-Pakistan relationship, but in our view the US has to be ready to walk away for the relationship to have a chance.  As long as Pakistan thinks we have no option, it will continue to play gruesome games.  In fact, we have a number of pretty good options, and it is high time we explored them in depth.

Posted in Quick Takes

>

US should cut aid to Pakistan for its ‘War of Terror’ on women

To push Pakistan’s improved cooperation in fighting terrorists, the US has suspended millions in military aid. Will it also have the spine to cut aid over Pakistan’s abhorrent treatment of women?

By Walter Rodgers / July 13, 2011

To push Pakistan toward more cooperation in fighting terrorists, the United States has suspended hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid. Will it also have the spine to cut aid over Pakistan’s abhorrent treatment of women?

Skip to next paragraph

The fact remains that Pakistan has long been a country that collectively wages a war of terror against 49 percent of its own population: against its wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters. Yet outsiders scarcely hear a whimper about this story.

Rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, honor crimes, abuse, and discrimination against women remain serious problems in Pakistan. TrustLaw, an organization that provides legal aid and information on women’s rights, ranks Pakistan as the third most dangerous country for women (behind Congo and Afghanistan). If successive US administrations and Congress don’t use more muscle against these criminal human rights violations, it is because they don’t want to.

Sexual assault is so common it’s not reported

Recently an elderly Pakistani woman was forcibly paraded naked through a Punjab village. The reason? The woman’s grown son was having an adulterous relationship.

According to the latest Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Report, 3,000 women were raped in 2010 and 791 murdered in so-called “honor killings.”

Azra Rashid, a Canadian-Pakistani women’s rights activist, says those numbers are grossly underestimated. “Sexual assault is so common women don’t even report it. Girls grow up not even knowing it’s sexual assault when they are touched inappropriately.” Ms. Rashid says as a young girl she was often groped and fondled going to the market.

Why don’t Pakistani women report these crimes to police? Not long ago, one young Pakistani woman and her sister went to a police station to report a missing brother. The two girls were detained and repeatedly gang-raped by the police.

Rashid says, “At best Pakistani police don’t believe rape victims, the politicians don’t care, and Pakistanis have come to accept this as part of their daily reality.”

A leading Pakistani politician was recently quoted as saying if a woman is raped, and she can’t bring four independent witnesses who saw the act, she should not bother to report it. This, despite the fact that the law no longer requires four witnesses to prove rape. Pakistan has improved its laws protecting women in recent years, but lack of enforcement and entrenched attitudes block progress.

It’s not just rape

It’s not just rape. The ex-husband of a female Pakistani friend threatened to throw acid in her face if she went out with another man. It is not uncommon to see Pakistani women with faces scarred by such acid attacks. Ireland’s Refugee Document Center reporting on crimes against Pakistani women said that “in extreme cases punishments can include women being buried alive.” Pakistani men are rarely convicted of crimes against women.

Skip to next paragraph

Rural land or cattle disputes are often settled by having one party give the other an underage daughter. Rural Pakistan is the 14th century. The countryside is quite familiar with wealthy landlords locking up nubile young serf girls in pens and using them for their pleasure. Domestic house maids in cities are so vulnerable their condition is said to be worse than that of slaves. “The entire patriarchal society is run by men, and warped,” says Rashid.

In a high-profile case, Mukhtara Mai was gang raped on orders of her village council in 2002 because her brother had allegedly committed adultery with the daughter of a feudal lord in an opposing clan. Yet all but one of the 14 accused men were acquitted this year.

In a 2005 Washington Post interview, then-President Pervez Musharraf acknowledged rape as a problem in Pakistan, but added, “A lot of people say that if you want to go abroad and get a visa or Canadian citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped.”

US should not fear playing hardball

The US government largely winks at all this, giving Pakistan upward of $3 billion a year in economic and military assistance. But why should any American woman’s (or man’s) taxes be used to prop up a Pakistani government that views crimes against its own female population as acceptable?

Some apologists cluck and say “Don’t dump Pakistan. It has 100 nuclear weapons.” Yet in the cold war the United States courageously championed the cause of Soviet Jews when the Russians had thousands of nuclear weapons.

To those worrying that if Washington were to dump Pakistan it might fall into China’s orbit, the appropriate response should be “Good! They deserve each other.”

Fear of an erratic Pakistan and our own shameless political expediency should not be the driving force behind US policy toward Islamabad. Those are the values of moral and political bankruptcy. Great democratic nations do not abandon the weak, the abused, and the raped for political convenience.

Walter Rodgers, a former senior international correspondent for CNN, writes a biweekly column.

>

Pakistan pulls out of talks with U.S. on Afghan war

By pulling out of upcoming talks on the war in Afghanistan, Pakistan signals its anger over an American drone missile strike that it says killed civilians along the Afghan border. The U.S. says it hit a compound where militants were meeting.

March 19, 2011|By Alex Rodriguez, Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan — Pakistan on Friday pulled out of upcoming talks with the U.S. on the war in Afghanistan, a move meant to convey Islamabad’s anger over an American drone missile strike that it says killed a gathering of civilians along the Afghan border.

The U.S. and Pakistan disagree on who was killed in the strike Thursday in North Waziristan, a volatile tribal region that serves as a stronghold for an array of militant groups, including Al Qaeda, the Pakistani Taliban and the Haqqani network, a wing of the Afghan Taliban that regularly attacks U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan.

The U.S. said it struck a compound where militants were meeting. But Pakistani authorities insisted that among the 45 reported dead were tribal elders and other civilians meeting to discuss an ownership dispute over a mine.

The dispute comes at a particularly sensitive time in U.S.-Pakistan relations, when Pakistanis are seething over the release Wednesday of a CIA contractor charged with murdering two motorcyclists in the eastern city of Lahore in late January.

At small protests organized by Islamist parties in Islamabad, Lahore and other cities, demonstrators angrily denounced President Asif Ali Zardari’s government for allowing Raymond Davis to go free. His release was made possible by a “blood money” agreement sanctioned by Pakistani law and negotiated by Islamabad and Washington that allows the accused to pay financial compensation to the victims’ families in exchange for their forgiveness.

In announcing that Pakistan would not take part in talks with Afghanistan and the U.S. scheduled for Brussels on March 26, Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir told U.S. Ambassador Cameron Munter that such drone strikes “constituted a flagrant violation of humanitarian norms and law,” according to a statement by the Foreign Ministry.

Drone strikes are a crucial component in Washington’s strategy against Islamic militant groups hiding out in Pakistan’s largely ungoverned tribal areas, and experts say they have been successful in degrading Al Qaeda and the Taliban’s ability to launch attacks.

Pakistan has maintained a policy of publicly condemning the drone strikes while tacitly allowing them to take place. In some instances, the strikes are carried out with the help of Pakistani intelligence-gathering.

alex.rodriguez@latimes.com

>

Alert: U.S. Withdraws All Pakistan Embassy Staff… Prepare for War

Posted on on May 10, 2011 // 6 Comments

5248Share

As being reported in the Foreign Press and on the Alternative News Media on-line, (and not by their main stream corporate media groups) that the U.S. has now withdrawn all of their Embassy Staff, and closed down all Embassies in the country of Pakistan.
http://www.state.gov/cms_images/map_pakistan1.jpgThey are now (implementing) thereof, they are now creating a Global War in the name of the unknowing and unsuspecting American People, and we (The United States of American people) are to be blamed for having allowed for this (Rothschild) Crime Syndicate to literally steal our entire country and it’s destiny.Apparently Rothschildsplan is to now instructing it’s state of Israel and it’s U.S. corporate military intelligence (sock puppets) to begin the attack on Iran in this immediate future.That these Elitists are now beginning their last desperate move to create their (illegal and unwarranted) military actions that surely, will now quickly lead to a confrontation with China and Russia who are in place to counter act this unwarranted attack for the Rothschild global banking crime syndicate. As that they have planned for this global conflictand that they are now getting their way(s) once again and with once again, their mass profiteering at the cost of this time many hundreds of millions of unsuspecting and innocent peoples live worldwide.We have been apparently getting too smart for them with the support of the Internet and the Alternative media and now Rothschild is in a hurry to accelerate their plans for final destructionof the entire planet.Whether they can and or that they cannot steal Iran’s many trillions of dollars in ancient Babylonian (Persian) gold and Iran’s ancient records that explain who Rothschild and the Rothschild’s hidden global (Reptilian-Draconian-Ashkanazi-Karzakian-Zionist) network really is.Apparently the word “draconian,” emerged into our language due to the hidden meaning referring to the Constellation of Draco, whereof hence, apparently these Draconian’s came from the Constellation of Draco and that they are now in the act of fully destroying this entire planet just like they have been doing throughout this entire galaxy for a long time.They will now also apparently begin setting off the New Madrid Fault lines, the subduction zone just off of the coast of Oregon, Washington, and Vancouver Island, as well as Mount Sheridan in Yellow Stone National Park and the Canary Island Volcano-s that will surely send thousand foot high sunami-s to destroy most of the coast lines in Europe, Asia, and North America. Get ready in Hawaii people.Other locations no doubt being (HAARP) will be Mount Si located just east of Seattle, and Mount Tabor located within the city limits of Portland, Oregon.They are apparently also targeting the fault lines located off of the Southern Californiacoastlines, and also realize that Mexico’s fault lines also are now being targeted and most of the Volcanos located all of the way down through Central America will also now begin to erupt.They are using what was discovered many years ago, that they can set off the earths grid lines using very powerful (Tesla) ELF (Extra Low Frequency). Research this for a better explanation at:
http://keelynet.com/ or thereof, the history of the incredible scientific discoveries of another Tesla, named John Worell Keely referring to this great scientific discovery as being “Sympathetic Vibratory Harmonics.”
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ds=yt&sugexp=ldymls&pq=col.+tom+bearden+elf&xhr=t&q=Earth+Grid+ELF&cp=14&biw=1280&bih=885&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=vw#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&pq=earth%20grid%20elf&xhr=t&q=John%20Worell%20Keely%20Sympathetic%20Vibratory%20Harmonics&cp=11&pf=p&sclient=psy&biw=1280&bih=885&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=John+Worell+Keely+Sympathetic+Vibratory+Harmonics&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=c47720ba43ce4197The Earth Grid system ss was originally researched by Dr. Bill Becker and Beth Hagens back in the 1980s and that their work was further supported by the renown scientific scholar Dr. Bob Beck, and later by Adam Trombly, and Col. Thomas Bearden, that they have the technology to literally set off the entire planet’s grid system. And, that is apparently what we are observing at this time.John Worrel Keely Sympathetic Vibration Harmonics
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ds=yt&sugexp=ldymls&pq=col.+tom+bearden+elf&xhr=t&q=Earth+Grid+ELF&cp=14&biw=1280&bih=885&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=vw#hl=en&biw=1280&bih=885&sa=X&ei=ZpPITYCoEKLbiAL_69GJBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CBUQBSgA&q=John+Worrel+Keely+Sympathetic+Vibration+Harmonics&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=c47720ba43ce4197In the 1880s John Worrel Keely flew a piloted Sympathetic Harmonic propelled craft (Gyroscopic Aether) over the U.S. War Department and in front of more then eight hundred governmental observers who afterward had the vehicle stored in the Lime Stone caverns located underneath the University of Florida in Gainesville.Apparently the famous financier named John Jacob Astor had been funding the research of John Worrel Keely.Also, apparently John Jacob Astor was set up to be on the famed Titanic and was lured to bring on board for shipment a array of newly built Tesla technologydevices including Tesla transmitting technologies that would have provided regional electrical energy in unlimited abundance.As was also mentioned by Judge David Wynn Miller (http://www.dwmlc.com) on the All Day Live show (weekly on http://www.scantv.org) during this past week’s All Day Live program that these types of (Tesla) transmitting technologies can be placed on telephone poles and provide an infinite energy source with now pollution or nuclear powersources.So on May 9th, (today) they blanked out the SCANTV station broadcast during this All Day Live broadcast that is also broadcast on local Seattle Comcast cable channel 77, and on Broadstripe cable in South King County, and all on-line streaming Webcast was also blockedThe City of Seattle is one of the most corrupt corrupt political cesspools in the world, being completely controlled by the key MOB families who reside here in the Northwest and they do whatever they deem they want to here. Bobby Kennedy just prior to leaving the Northwest from Portland International Airport in 1967 heading to his final last moments, clearly mentioned that the Northwest (Oregon and Washington states) are the most corrupt states North America.
Don’t forget the phoney Washington State Constitution of 1889 that the established order has tried to enforce as being the Constitution for the State of Washington when in fact, Washington states actually constitution is that of the 1878 Constitution, but during the 1880s these crime families proceeded to burn down all of the originally located state capital buildings in Ellensburg, Washington.These buildings and archives were what had comprised what was the first Washington State capital in Ellensburg, Washington. These same criminal elements then proceeded to murder off more then two thousand people, while also destroying all of the original state of Washington archives.

These crime families then proceeded to steal all of the land and resources in the entire Northwest (after murdering off the original land owners, and this includes the massacre of most of the Chiefs of the Northwest Indian tribes like that of the caucasian appearing Kowlitz Indians) thus having murdered whole tribes and as well as the many generations of these noble Indian Chief’s later generations throughout the entire Northwest.

These crime families prospered in the many billions of dollars under the cover of their Regis (timber) Family, their Weyerhaeuser Family, their Crown Family, their Simpson Family, and other Elitist picked minions, and now their Maxwell Family, tying together by bloodlines, the Northwest’s main political and judicial figureheads.

Not by coincidence, all of the Northwest’s top political, banking, corporate, and judicial figureheads are all cousins and or they are all related to one another through this network of crime syndicate family control over the entire Northwest.

These hidden and all powerful crime family bloodlines also tie to the Bonanno and Gambino crime families (look who owns all of the strip bars and casinos and it is not the Indian reservations like you would think of it as, and most of the native northwest population don’t have a clues as to how these Crime Families control their reservation gambling operations). This crime syndicate and crime family control encompasses as well, the Bank of America founders the Amadeo Giannini crime family who are one of the most powerful crime families in Europe, and this is the means of whence Donald came upon his vast banking and financial power, and casino holdings because Donald Trump is merely their primary banking officers for North America like Warren Buffett is, and why the founders of Microsoft are who they are and who they are all related to and they didn’t just happen to be lucky, they are all a part of this intertwined crime family network linking the Bronfmans and the Guinness (banking) families of Canada.

Sarah Palin is as well a part of these same family infrastructure, linking to the Seattle Mercer family, on of the first God Fathers of the Northwest. Sarah Palin is tied by bloodline to these crime families, or she would not ordained to be who she is being touted by their fake stream corporate media mind control and cover-up operations. Consider the actual parameters of power that these crime families have that give them complete control over their CPS (Child Prostitution Services) networks and their agendas to implement total destruction of most of the families and communities here in the Northwest while simultaneously then trafficking in these millions of stolen children.

That their all powerful networks and crime families that comprise the entire Northwest’s most powerful infrastructures, are, all of the while and behind the scenes running and covering up a gigantic, drugs, prostitution, gambling, pedophile, and murder network, and they select who is in charge here, who is allowed to have or retain their family estates, or who becomes a police chief, or who become a Federal and Superior Court judge, etc., etc, etc, and who controls all of the Northwest media and communications systems.

They then also then proceeded to steal all of the original Stuart family trust estates, here in the Northwest, (holdings that were originally bequeathed to the people of this country and to this region) and then they proceeded to murder off and kidnap the Stuart family heirs and as well as then steal all of the entire port infrastructures in Oregon and Washington.
Nuclear Tipped Cruise Missiles Fired on Orders From Obama?
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=127911
Massive Psychotronic Warfare on the American People.
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=133662;
When America Has Reached La La Land. Pt. 2
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=131386;

So they are getting ready to shut down SCANTV studios this July (illegally) to shut down free speech, to shut down the Northwest whistle blowers capability for bringing out the incredible crimes being committed here in the Northwest and as well as bringing out the real truth concerning what the alternative news reporting community here in the Northwest who have been effectively reporting on the crimes of the now very apparent governmental U.S. corporate crime syndicate and their now immediate plans to fully destroy this entire nation.

After uncovering massive fraud, embezzlement, and extreme illegal administrative affairs that have encompassed the SCANTV studios over this last twelve years. SCANTV: Seattle Community Access Network Television.

Seattle City Council members like that of a Bill Compton are complicit in the mis-allocation and failure to account for the more then fifty million dollars that should have rightfully gone to the SCANTV non profit entity over this past twelve years, due to the original Comcast cable contract with the SCANTV non profit entity, but instead this same Seattle City Council have been covering up their massive fraud and theft.

SCANTV board members whose board contracts had been expired with SCANTV for more then three years, like that of a Stan Emert, who they then illegally Quit Claim Deeded the SCANTV studios over to this same Seattle City Council, who then they have proceeded to deed over the property to their insider network who are planning on building a condominium complex at this soon to the former site of the SCANTV studios. Seattle corruption at it’s usual best. And, right in front of the entire planet.

The SCANTV program has transcended into having world class producers who produce programs that are viewed throughout the world on the Internet due to SCANTV having achieved to being one of the most actively watch on-line streamed broadcasting stations in the world.

So the corporate media groups located here in the Seattle and Northwest region like that of KingTV, KomoTV, KiroTV, KCTS, and Northwest Fox News have been upset that due to SCANTV being a not for profit entity that SCANTV is not in violation of it’s FCC Federal Communications contracts due to it’s non profit status that has allowed for SCANTV to able to successfully broadcasting by streaming media over the Internet.

Thereof, SCANTV has proceeded to create an audience size in the many millions of daily viewers whereas, the corporate media groups had to come up with a means for quietly destroying their Community Access Network competitor. Even though SCANTV is braodcasting on-line, it has become a world leader in on-line broadcast and SCANTV’s actually following is the largest in the Northwest encompassing more then three hundred and fifty thousand regular viewers in just the Western Washington area alone.

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2011/05/10/alert-u-s-withdraws-all-pakistan-embassy-staff-prepare-for-war/

>

Truth hard to find in US-Pakistan war of words over Raymond Davis

Diplomatic and legal situation remains fraught, while the media are engaged in a frenzy of speculation about CIA agent

A flier calling on Pakistanis to demonstrate against attempts to release CIA agent Raymond Davis

A flier calling on Pakistanis to demonstrate against US attempts to secure the release of CIA agent Raymond Davis, who shot dead two Pakistani men. Photograph: Warrick Page/Getty Images

A storm of media speculation has enveloped the case of Raymond Davis, the CIA official charged with murder in Pakistan, as officials from both countries seek to shape public opinion in an increasingly fraught diplomatic and legal standoff.

Since it emerged this week that Davis, who shot two people on a busy street last month, was a working spy, Pakistan’s media has been gripped by lurid stories portraying him as a dangerous provocateur.

One front-page story accused him of working with Taliban bombers to sow chaos across Pakistan; other accounts have variously suggested he is addicted to chewing tobacco, howls during prayers, enjoys jailhouse visits from women and spends hours playing Ludo to fend off depression. US officials continue to insist Davis is a bona-fide diplomat, so immune from prosecution. Conditions are so dangerous at the jail where Davis is being held, they say, that dogs test his food, his guards have been disarmed and he is at constant risk of assassination.

“This issue is mired in so many versions of the truth that it’s hard to know who’s telling the truth and who isn’t,” said Cyril Almeida, a columnist with Dawn.com. “My guess is that all sides are lying.”

The outcome should be settled in court, although resolution seems distant.

Barack Obama insists Davis should be freed under the provisions of the Vienna convention. But Pakistan’s former foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, who lost his job over the issue, says Davis is not covered – as does Ron Mlotek, an experienced former US lawyer.

“The American case is very convoluted and appears to be based on smoke and mirrors,” said Mlotek, who retired two years ago after 25 years of service in the state department examining such cases.

Even if the US can prove that Davis is a diplomat, he argues, Pakistan could challenge immunity on the basis that he was carrying an illegal weapon, worked from a spy agency safe house and was not living in Islamabad, where the embassy claims he was based.

“No matter what the US government says, this is not an open-and-shut case. The facts are far from clear,” he said.

But fact is only one aspect of the issue, which has become enmeshed in a web of nationalist passions and spy agency rivalries. Prompted by selective leaks, newspapers have raised questions about cowboy Americans roaming the country – “How many Davis-type agents are in Pakistan?” asked one headline yesterday – while soap opera-style storylines supplement the publicity frenzy.

On Thursday newspapers reported that the father-in-law of one man killed by Davis had survived a mysterious poisoning attempt; other relatives are said to be under pressure from religious parties to refuse any American offer of compensation. Prison guards have reportedly been fired for trying to smuggle items into Davis’s cell.

But the depth of public hostility is difficult to gauge – the outcry is led by the usual suspects, minority Islamist parties – and some coverage has had a playful tone, drawing parallels between Davis and Jason Bourne, James Bond or, because of his poor spycraft, Mr Bean. One comedian proposed a new television show entitled Everyone Hates Raymond.

A troubled spy agency relationship lies under the media frenzy. Complaining of American arrogance, the ISI says its links to the CIA have been badly damaged by the affair, warning in an unusual press statement this week that it was “hard to predict if the relationship will ever reach [its prior] level”.

It is not just a case of wounded amour propre – analysts say the army is using the controversy to its advantage. “Are they hoping that settling this matter amicably will lead to some concessions or a change in American attitude on other issues? Possibly,” said Almeida.

Amid the noise there is little new light, however, on the 27 January shooting that triggered the crisis. US officials stress that Davis was working in a security role at the time and not in intelligence collection, probably to avoid him also being charged with espionage.

The Pakistani government says it needs until 14 March to decide whether Davis has immunity from prosecution. Given the public uproar, Pakistani analysts say it is hard to see how the government can politically afford to set him free.

“This has become a big mess, for the Americans as well as the Pakistanis,” said Talat Masood, a retired general and analyst. “There’s no easy solution, and both sides need to let things calm down for a while. Otherwise it will get out of hand.”

>

Pakistan and the War on Terror: Conflicted Goals, Compromised Performance

Ashley J. TellisCarnegie Report, January 2008

Resources

Translations

Pakistan and the War on Terror The United States must shift its counterterrorism policy towards Pakistan away from a reciprocal approach—requiring Islamabad to perform desirable actions to receive support—towards one encouraging Pakistan to enact effective counterterrorism policies, not for an immediate payoff, but to strengthen institutionalized trust with the U.S. over time, according to a new report from the Carnegie Endowment.

In Pakistan and the War on Terror: Conflicted Goals, Compromised Performance, Carnegie Senior Associate Ashley J. Tellis points to growing dissatisfaction in the United States with the Musharraf regime’s commitment to counterterrorism operations, given the influx of U.S. aid. But while Pakistan’s performance in the “war on terror” has fallen short of expectations, Islamabad’s inability to defeat terrorist groups cannot simply be explained by neglect or lack of motivation. U.S. policy makers must take into account the specific and complex counterterrorism challenges facing Pakistan and move away from their current unsustainable policies.

Nine strategies for more effective U.S. counterterrorism policies towards Pakistan:

    1. Speak clearly and forcefully to Musharraf in private about U.S. frustrations with Pakistan’s counterterrorism performance to outline the prospective consequences inaction will have on the U.S.-Pakistan relationship.
    1. Continue to encourage Pakistan’s border control efforts, but prioritize the targeting of Taliban leadership operating in Pakistan as part of the current counterterrorism concept of operations.
    1. Restructure the intelligence relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan to allow both the CIA and coalition forces in Afghanistan to acquire greater insight into existing terrorist networks inside Pakistan.
    1. Continue to assist Pakistan with technology and training to prosecute small-unit counterterrorism operations more effectively.
    1. Reform accounting practices to ensure effective oversight and auditing of coalition funds disbursed to Pakistan for counterterrorism operations.
    1. The reestablishment of stable democratic order is essential to stop Pakistan’s spiraling descent into extremism and disorder. The United States must integrate the ongoing political transition in Pakistan, including a return to democracy and rule of law, into the larger war on terrorism.
    1. Commit to long-term assistance for the Karzai government in Afghanistan to address the vacuum of governance, particularly with regards to security, economic development, and narcotics production.
    1. Commit more manpower and material contributions to help NATO live up to its security obligations in Afghanistan.
  1. Accelerate the raising of the Afghan National Army (ANA) as a hedge against the possible failure of NATO to restructure the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to effectively fight and win the war in Afghanistan.

“The Bush administration ought to persist with its current emphasis on the noncoercive engagement of Pakistan at least so long as there is a reasonable hope that the transformation of Pakistan into a moderate Muslim state is not a lost cause, that the Musharraf regime can be persuaded to expand its counterterrorism operations to those groups that have thus far remained beyond reach, and that the United States will have sufficient opportunity to switch to an alternative strategy before the present attempt at engagement is judged to have failed irremediably.”

A limited number of print copies are available.
Request a copy

>

US: On War Path Against Her Ally Pakistan!

Posted on 26. Sep, 2011 by in Pak-US Relations

Unilateral action will dig last nail in coffin of US military

By Brig Asif Haroon Raja

The sole super power priding to be the strongest nation in the world with all its economic indicators in the positive was viciously hit from within by 19 Arab hijackers on fateful day of 11 September 2001. Two hijacked Jumbo aircraft struck Twin Towers in New York in quick succession. Later on, the third aircraft hit part of Pentagon building and the fourth one was shot down short of Pennsylvania.2973 Americans died in the process. The whole American nation sank into state of shock, fear and nervous breakdown. Dignity of the strongest nation lays hatred. Once the clouds of fright dispersed, those at the helm of affairs fumed with anger and put their heads together how to wreak vengeance on the perpetrators of incomprehensible and unforgivable crime.

Zionist controlled media upped the ante to stimulate hatred against Islam and its adherents. Within hours of the tragedy, Israeli former PM Ehud Barak blamed Osama Bin Laden (OBL) and prompted American administration to invade Afghanistan. The whole world went into mourning and termed the terrorist acts as the biggest catastrophe ever happened. All officials, writers and anchors of print and electronic media of the world comity shed copious tears of sympathy over  of lives and trauma caused and condemned the terrorists and their patrons severely.

Based on hearsay and assumptions, OBL led al-Qaeda based in Afghanistan was nominated as the accused even before carrying out investigations and accordingly war preparations were unleashed with frenetic speed and urgency. The US took no time to build an international coalition for the crusade. In order to make the military adventure appear compelling and purposeful, George W Bush led neo-cons coined the theme of ‘war against global terrorism to make the world safe and secure’. On 28 September 2001, the UNSC passed a resolution sanctioning invasion of a sovereign country with a view to combating terrorism.

The US then bluntly demanded physical support from all those willing to be with the US in its hour of crisis instead of offering mere sympathies. Option of staying neutral was ruled out and term ‘you’re with us or against us’ brandished. Gen Musharraf declared as a pariah by USA and western world because of his military coup against a democratic government in October 1999 was put the same question on the night of 12 September by Colin Powel. He had already been briefed by the then DGISI Lt Gen Mahmud who was on a visit to Washington about the ugly mood of American leadership. He had been warned by Richard Armitage that the US would send   Pakistan in to Stone Age if it refused to cooperate. When Musharraf said that he was with the US, he was given seven demands which he promptly accepted. Subsequently he did bring the requirements of Washington to the notice of civil and military policy makers and all agreed with him that he had taken the right decision. It enabled US-NATO military to mount an offensive as early as 7 October 2001which changed the complexion of world dynamics.

Bugles of war were sounded and forces of destruction let loose on a hapless and impoverished nation which had no connection with 9/11. Whole range of destructive weaponry like daisy cutters, cluster bombs, stealth bombers, cruise missiles and depleted uranium were brought into play to rain molten lava from the air.  The only fault of Mullah Omar and his Shura was that they refused to hand over OBL without providing them proof of his complicity. The US couldn’t oblige since it didn’t have any and had engineered the whole drama for altogether different motives. Its ranting and raving was a put up show. It is now widely believed that 9/11 attacks were engineered by Zionists under the framework of Dragon policy, framed by Mossad and RAW in 2001 for carrying out false flag terrorism

New rules on terrorism were formulated which envisaged punishing the terrorist networks and those who harbored, supported or aided them in any form. Thin line between terrorism and freedom struggle was also washed out to benefit Israel and India. Pakistan was a target prior to 9/11 and remained so subsequently but was treacherously made to believe that it was an ally of USA. The proposal of ‘with us or against us’ was a coercive call meant to frighten the military ruler to submit to America’s plan and facilitate its invasion.

Occupation of Afghanistan and formulation of new rules on terrorism gave a godsend opportunity to India to punish its arch rival Pakistan on account of its venture in Kargil and its overall policy of defying Indian hegemony in South Asia. While the US military and NATO got busy in mopping up operation in Afghanistan, India had its own set of priorities. It was desperate to regain its influence in Afghanistan and to bash Pakistan. While the US had politely declined India’s advice that Indian military would attack Pakistan from the west in concert with US-NATO attack on Afghanistan from the north, it agreed to its suggestion to deceive Pakistan by pretending to be its close ally and then forcing it to become frontline state, severing ties with Taliban, sharing intelligence, making available its airbases, airspace, Karachi Port and land routes via Chaman and Torkham for logistic support.

Behind the ruse of helping Pakistan in fighting terrorism nabbing runaway terrorists, CIA and FBI opened outposts in selected regions of FATA and Balochistan and also gained control over immigration department on all major airports. In short time, CIA started dominating ISI in matters of intelligence acquisition since it had superior means at its disposal.

Indian leadership then tasked RAW to chalk out a comprehensive covert war plan to destabilize and emasculate Pakistan’s institutions. In concert with Israel, Dragon Policy was put to use. This highly sophisticated operation is multi-faceted cohesion between intelligence, military, media and politics aimed at fragmenting nations which pose a threat to global agenda of international Zionism.

In order to gauge the reaction capability of Pakistan armed forces after its 70,000 troops had got deployed along western border and also to take the steam out of Kashmir movement, India stage managed a terrorist attack on Indian Parliament in Delhi in December 2001. In return for defusing highly volatile situation after ten-month military standoff, the US pressured Gen Musharraf to let India fence the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir, stop infiltration across LoC, ban Jihadi groups supporting Kashmiri freedom fighters and give a written commitment that Pakistan would not allow its soil to be used for terrorism in neighboring countries or for supporting freedom struggle in occupied Kashmir.

India also decided to bring Pakistan on its knees by building dams and controlling water in three rivers of Jhelum, Chenab and Indus. It had already heavily bribed regional political parties in Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to prevent construction of Kalabagh Dam at all cost since it had the potential to meet future agricultural and energy needs of Pakistan.

In order to subvert Islamic values and to divide the society, India and USA first helped Pakistan in increasing TV channels and then penetrated chosen channels to promote liberalism, secularism and obscenity. Media was also used to spread misgivings and despondency among aggrieved segments and to then instigate dissidents and quislings to pick up arms against the state forces.

RAW didn’t find any difficulty in giving final shape to the plan to destabilize Pakistan covertly since all it had to do was to dig out old files of 1980s in which RAW in collaboration with KGB and KHAD had carried out cross border terrorism against Pakistan using Afghan soil for a decade. KGB’s file on Baloch insurgency in 1970s was also consulted to revive old contacts among Marris and Mengals. RAW teamed up with CIA, Mossad, MI-6 and its own creation RAAM to carryout similar operations in FATA and Balochistan since all had common objectives. CIA facilitated entry of RAW agents in Pakistan and over the years the two agencies established an extensive network all over Pakistan.

Concurrently, Indian military planners started rehashing war plans and speeding up force modernization program. Latest state-of-art weaponry was purchased from advanced countries for all the services and missile and nuclear capabilities were upgraded. Israel not only became the biggest arms supplier of India but also helped India in up-gradation of its nuclear and missile programs and in fighting freedom fighters in Kashmir.

To reciprocate Musharraf’s generosity in defusing Kashmir movement, India agreed to ceasefire along the LoC in Kashmir and signed peace treaty with Pakistan. This was yet another ruse to make Pakistan lower its guards. Once the momentum of freedom struggle waned, Indian planners then began to give final shape to new doctrine of Cold Start which was Pakistan specific and accordingly trained its mechanized battle groups supported by mechanized artillery and air force. Tactical nuclear weapons were manufactured to support independent battle groups. Indian Navy was geared to affect a naval blockade in Arabian Sea at an opportune time.

While India got down in real earnest to prepare its armed forces for the fourth round, Pakistan Army was pushed into the inferno of war on terror in which it was pitched against own people in FATA and Balochistan. In order to keep it embroiled irreversibly, all the five aligned intelligence agencies started funding, training, equipping and launching terrorists from Afghanistan.TTP in FATA, TNSM in Swat-Malakand and BLA-BRA-BLF in Balochistan are foreign supported militias. Members of these outfits belonging to tribal areas are among the best fighters in Pakistan. These assets were bribed and turned into anti-state elements. Drones were also introduced by CIA to further stir up terrorism. Flames of terrorism initially it in South Waziristan and interior Balochistan were gradually spread inwards towards other parts of Pakistan. Foreign hands keep pouring kerosene on embers of terrorism. Consequent to sustained psychological war, Pakistan has been charge sheeted with multiple crimes without providing shred of evidence to substantiate allegations.

Resultantly, Pakistan today is a scene of violence, death and destruction. Whereas Pakistan has suffered the most in US dictated war on terror and is the biggest victim of terrorism, the sponsor of the war instead of sympathizing has declared that Pakistanis the most dangerous country in the world and nursery of terrorism. According to Adm. Mike Mullen, Pakistanis exporter of terrorism and aligned with Haqqani network based in Miranshah, a bustling town of North Waziristan(NW) and epicenter of economic activity. ISI has been directly accused that it had a hand in recent attacks in Kabul. A case has been cleverly built up on the pattern of endgame of Vietnam War in which story of safe havens was played up and Cambodia made a scapegoat to cover up US military’s failure.

The US leaders embarrassed from series of debacles in recent weeks are trying to make Pakistan a sacrificial lamb in order to hide US military’s failures. They are trying to enact 9/11 like situation and have given an ultimatum to Pakistan that it is either with the US or with the Haqqani network. Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Mike Mullen, Petraeus and Panetta who are firing threatening salvos should be realistic and try to understand that the American public as well as the world today is no more ignorant and will not get duped by psychological war again and again. They should know that neither the military and economic situation of USA is as strong as was in 2001, nor Pakistanis under a military dictator who could take decisions on behalf of the nation unilaterally. Rather, the US has become economically impoverished because of global economic meltdown and US excessive defence spending, and militarily weak and timid owing to the beatings it is receiving at the hands of Taliban in Afghanistan. Moreover, after the US lies about WMDs in Iraq were exposed, who would believe its Haqqani network story?

Judging from the barrage of accusations and threatening posture, it can be assumed that the US has finally decided to stick out its neck into North Waziristan where the neck choppers are impatiently waiting. If the US Special Forces opt for another unilateral action, it will undoubtedly add to the woes of Pak security forces, but repercussions of the venture would be unbearable for USA since it would amount to digging the last nail in the coffin of adventurers in Afghanistan. Any hostile act by US forces would greatly help in unifying the otherwise divisive nation.

For a change PM Gilani and FM Hina Rabbani are giving bold and sensible statements and are not showing any signs of weakness. A call for an All Parties Conference has been given by Gilanito solicit support of all political forces. Religious parties and groups are getting restive and have expressed their resolve to stand behind armed forces in case of US physical intervention. As opposed to juvenility displayed by US military leaders, Gen Kayani remained cool, calm and collected and gave measured and sensible statements. Consequent to last Corps Commanders Conference, the Army has readied its response actions in anticipation to all possible options the US could exercise with or without India and has expressed its full determination to face the challenge squarely.

Even the militant groups currently fighting Pak security forces in all probability would turn their gun barrels outwards, as they had done in 2009 when Indian forces were rearing to attack. In short, every Pakistani is firmly of the view that the US is unreliable, double-dealer and a cheat. They agree with Gilani that America and not Pakistan should do more since Pakistan has sacrificed a lot to help USA but the US instead of being grateful  is leaving no stone unturned to degrade Pakistan. They say with one voice that enough is enough and it is high time that Pakistan should distance itself from fair-weather friend and get rid of deceptive US aid tied to harsh conditions. They say that time has come to throw away the crutches provided by unpredictable USA and that Pakistan should learn to stand on its own feet. They also suggest that our policy makers should takeout its eggs from the US basket and shift them into the basket of China who has proved by its deeds to be trustworthy and an all-weather friend. We should also strengthen our backyard by developing very intimate relations with Iran which is in the firing line of USA.

>

US officials slam report on Pakistan drone war dead

The London-based group said 291 CIA drone strikes had taken place in Pakistan since 2004.—Reuters photo

WASHINGTON: US officials on Friday strongly rejected allegations in an independent study that a covert drone war in Pakistan has killed large numbers of civilians, saying the numbers are “way off the mark.”

US officials slammed the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism report’s finding that there had been many more CIA attacks on alleged militant targets and far more civilian deaths than previously reported.

The report said that bombing raids by unmanned aircraft, designed to target Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants, had killed up to 168 children in Pakistan over the last seven years.

“The numbers cited by this organisation are way off the mark,” said a senior US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“In the past year, in the neighborhood of 600 militants —including over two dozen terrorist leaders —have been taken off the battlefield.

“In that same period of time, we can’t confirm any noncombatant casualties,” the official told AFP in an email.

A second US official, who also asked not to be identified, dismissed the report as unfounded, saying: “The numbers are wrong.”

The officials said intelligence agencies took precautions to avoid killing civilians and that the robotic aircraft —equipped with missiles, video cameras and sensors —can linger over a target to ensure accuracy.

“This is a weapon —fueled by good intelligence —that allows us to counter an urgent and deadly threat in otherwise inaccessible places,” said the first official.

“And it’s far more precise than conventional ground operations. What’s the alternative to this kind of rigor, assuming the United States and its allies are unwilling to allow al-Qaeda and its friends to plot and murder freely?”

The London-based group said 291 CIA drone strikes had taken place in Pakistan since 2004, eight per cent more than previously reported, and that under President Barack Obama there had been 236 —one every four days. But the official said the report’s numbers had not been confirmed.

“Credible reports of civilian deaths are taken into account, period. If large numbers of innocent people were being killed, the Pakistanis wouldn’t stand for it. Neither would we. That’s the reality,” the official said.

US officials also cast doubt on one of the report’s sources, Mirza Shahzad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer who is suing the Central Intelligence Agency on behalf of civilians who say they lost loved ones in drone strikes.

“One of the loudest voices claiming all these civilian casualties is a Pakistani lawyer who’s pushing a lawsuit to stop operations against some of the most dangerous terrorists on the planet,” the official said.

“His publicity is designed to put targets on the backs of Americans serving in Pakistan and Afghanistan. His agenda is crystal clear.”

The official said there were concerns about the lawyer’s possible links with Pakistani intelligence, as Akbar had publicly named the CIA’s undercover station chief in the country.

>

developing news

>

4 October 2011 Last updated at 05:20 ET

War of billions: How has Afghanistan changed?

Afghanistan has undergone momentous change in the decade which followed the US-led operation to remove the Taliban from power in October 2001.

Billions of dollars in foreign assistance have poured into the country, most of it spent on military operations. While some aspects of life have improved for some people, the death toll from a decade of violence is high.

Graphic: Afghanistan 10 years on

More on This Story

Afghanistan War – 10 years

>

Iraq Afghanistan wars not worth fighting many vets say

Pew report examines attitudes on conflicts, terrorism and burdens and rewards of military

Below:

    • x

Jump to discuss Loading comments…

5

Advertise | AdChoices

msnbc.com

updated 7 minutes ago

As the United States marks 10 years of war, only a third of the veterans of the post-9/11 era say that the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have both been worth fighting, according to a new Pew Research Center report.

  1. Only on msnbc.com
    1. Knox: ‘I’m really overwhelmed right now’
    2. Wall Street rallies could be left’s Tea Party
    3. As farmers markets thrive, so do concerns
    4. Apathetic Italians moved to anger by verdict
    5. Little bug leads to big prize
    6. Stealing elderly parents’ IDs a common, hidden crime
    7. Cancer kiss-off: Getting dumped after diagnosis

While a majority of veterans are proud of their military service, about half say that relying too much on military might to defeat terrorist organizations fuels hatred and that only begets more terrorism.

They are among the key findings from the Pew Research Center, which explored the experiences and attitudes of post-9/11 veterans, pre-9/11 veterans and the general public. Researchers explored such matters as sacrifice, patriotism, the worth of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the best way to fight terrorism, and the gaps in understanding between the military and civilians. The report, titled “The Military-Civilian Gap,” was to be released Wednesday.

Read the Pew report on veterans attitudes (PDF)

The findings resulted from two nationwide surveys the Pew Research Center conducted late this summer, as the 10th anniversary of the start of the war in Afghanistan approached.

A total of 1,853 veterans were surveyed, including 712 who served in the military after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The general public survey was conducted among 2,003 adult respondents, the Pew Research Center reported.

Key findings:

  • Half of post-9/11 veterans say the war in Afghanistan has been worth fighting, while about 44 percent view the conflict in Iraq the same way. Only one-third (34 percent) say that both wars have been worth fighting and 33 percent say that neither war has been worth the cost.
  • Forty-four percent of post-9/11 veterans report that they have had difficulties readjusting to civilian life, and 37 percent say that — whether or not they have been diagnosed – they have suffered from post-traumatic stress.
  • Eighty-four percent of these modern-era veterans say the general American public has little or no understanding of the problems they face, with 71 percent of the public agreeing.
  • Overall, 16 percent of post-9/11 veterans report they were seriously injured while serving in the military, and most of the injuries were combat-related. Forty-seven percent say they know and have served with someone who was killed while in the military.
  • Many Americans agree that since the terror attacks in the U.S., the military and their families have made more sacrifices than the general public. But even among this group, only 26 percent say this gap is “unfair,” while 70 percent say that it’s “just part of being in the military”.
  • A vast majority, expressed pride in the troops and three-quarters say they thanked someone in the military. But a 45 percent plurality say neither of the post-9/11 wars has been worth the cost and only a quarter say they are following news of the wars closely. Half of the public said the wars have made little difference in their lives.
  • About half (51 percent) of post-9/11 veterans say that the use of military force to fight terrorism creates hatred that breeds more terrorism; 40 percent say it is the best way to defeat terrorism. These views are nearly identical to those of the general public.
  • When asked about the draft, both veterans and the public agreed: The nation should not bring back the military draft, which was ended in 1973. Among post-9/11 veterans, 82 percent said they’re against reinstating the draft, compared with 66 percent of pre-9/11 era veterans and 74 percent of the general public.

© 2011 msnbc.com Reprints

>

>

Ahmed Rashid, the world’s foremost authority on the Taliban, about the very real concerns over potential violence between the United States uneasy ally Pakistan

The Long War: Are We Safer?

By Christiane Amanpour

By Christiane Amanpour | Around the World – Sun, Oct 2, 2011

Around the World with Christiane Amanpour debuts as we approach a decade of war in Afghanistan, and the question on the lips of Americans and Afghans alike is “what’s next?”

Ten years after the attack on World Trade Center, Osama Bin Laden is dead, but how will this chapter in the longest war in American history be written?

ABC News foreign correspondent Nick Schifrin joins Christiane Amanpour from Kabul, Afghanistan, taking the pulse of that country amidst an explosion of violence at the hands of the resurgent Taliban.

Then a revealing interview with Ahmed Rashid, the world’s foremost authority on the Taliban, about the very real concerns over potential violence between the United States uneasy ally Pakistan.

The critical question must be asked: Is war with Pakistan a real possibility?

The Long War: Are We Safer?Around the World with Christiane Amanpour debuts as we approach a decade of war in Afghanistan, and the question on the lips of Americans and Afghans alike is “what’s next?”Ten years after the attack on World Trade Center, Osama Bin Laden is dead, but how will this chapter in the longest war in American history be written?ABC News foreign correspondent Nick Schifrin joins Christiane Amanpour from Kabul, Afghanistan, taking the pulse of that country amidst an explosion of violence at the hands of the resurgent Taliban.Then a revealing interview with Ahmed Rashid, the world’s foremost authority on the Taliban, about the very real concerns over potential violence between the United States uneasy ally Pakistan.The critical question must be asked: Is war with Pakistan a real possibility?By Christiane Amanpour | Around the World

 Liberals are the ones

who want you to walk in lock-step with them

or you are ostracized…

Reply to Message

Mark Message Unread

(Msg Id: 535768:773623)

>

Jeremy Scahill

Dispatches on wars, the military-industrial complex and national security.

Text Size A | A | A

The (Not So) Secret (Anymore) US War in Pakistan

Jeremy Scahill on December 1, 2010 – 12:18pm ET

Despite sustained denials by US officials spanning more than a year, US military Special Operations Forces have been conducting offensive operations inside Pakistan, helping direct US drone strikes and conducting joint operations with Pakistani forces against Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in north and south Waziristan and elsewhere in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, according to secret cables released as part of the Wikileaks document dump. According to an October 9, 2009 cable classified by Anne Patterson, the US ambassador to Pakistan, the operations were “almost certainly [conducted] with the personal consent of [Pakistan’s] Chief of Army Staff General Kayani.” The operations were coordinated with the US Office of the Defense Representative in Pakistan. A US special operations source told The Nation that the US forces described in the cable as “SOC(FWD)-PAK” were “forward operating troops” from the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the most elite force within the US military made up of Navy SEALs, Delta Force and Army Rangers.

The cables also confirm aspects of a Nation story from November 2009, “The Secret US War in Pakistan,” which detailed offensive combat operations by JSOC in Pakistan. In response to the Nation story, Pentagon spokesperson Geoff Morrell called it “conspiratorial” and explicitly denied that US special operations forces were doing anything other than “training” in Pakistan. More than a month after the October 2009 cable from the US embassy in Pakistan confirming JSOC combat missions, Morrell told reporters: “We have basically, I think, a few dozen forces on the ground in Pakistan who are involved in a train-the-trainer mission.  These are Special Operations Forces.  We’ve been very candid about this.  They are—they have been for months, if not years now, training Pakistani forces so that they can in turn train other Pakistani military on how to—on certain skills and operational techniques.  And that’s the extent of our—our, you know, military boots on the ground in Pakistan.” According to the October 2009 cable, Morrell’s statement was false.

In one operation in September 2009, four US special operations forces personnel “embedded with the [Pakistani] Frontier Corps (FC)…in the FATA,” where the Americans are described as providing “ISR”: intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. The support from the US forces, according to the cable, “was highly successful, enabling the FC to execute a precise and effective artillery strike on an enemy location.” A month later, according to the cable, the Pakistan Army again “approved deployment of US special operation elements to support Pakistani military operations.” To the embassy staff, this was documented in the cable as a “sea change” in Pakistan’s military leaders’ thinking, saying they had previously been “adamantly opposed [to] letting us embed” US special ops forces with Pakistani forces. According to the cable, “US special operation elements have been in Pakistan for more than a year, but were largely limited to a training role,” adding that the Pakistani units that received training from US special operations forces “appear to have recognized the potential benefits of bringing US SOF personnel into the field with them.”

In another operation cited in the cables, the US teams, led by JSOC, were described as providing support to the Pakistani Army’s 11th Corp and included “a live downlink of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) full motion video.” Whether the drones were used for surveillance or as part of a joint offensive is unclear from the documents. While the US government will not confirm US drone strikes inside the country and Pakistani officials regularly deride the strikes, the issue of the drones was discussed in another cable from August 2008. That cable describes a meeting between Ambassador Patterson and Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani. When the issue of US drone strikes came up, according to the cable, Gillani said, “I don’t care if they do it as long as they get the right people. We’ll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it.”

The ability of US special operations forces to operate in Pakistan is clearly viewed as a major development by the US embassy. “Patient relationship-building with the military is the key factor that has brought us to this point,” according to the October 2009 cable. It also notes the potential consequences of the activities leaking: “These deployments are highly politically sensitive because of widely-held concerns among the public about Pakistani sovereignty and opposition to allowing foreign military forces to operate in any fashion on Pakistani soil. Should these developments and/or related matters receive any coverage in the Pakistani or US media, the Pakistani military will likely stop making requests for such assistance.”

Such statements might help explain why Ambassador Richard Holbrooke lied to the world when he said bluntly in July 2010: “People think that the US has troops in Pakistan, well, we don’t.”

A US special operations veteran who worked on Pakistan issues in 2009 reviewed the Wikileaks cables for The Nation. He said he was taken aback that the cable was not classified higher than “SECRET” given that it confirms the active involvement of US soldiers from the highly-secretive, elite Joint Special Operations Command engaging in combat—not just training—in Pakistan. And offensive combat at that. JSOC operations are compartmentalized and highly classified.

Pentagon spokespeople have repeatedly insisted that the US military’s activities in Pakistan are restricted to training operations. Even after the October 2009 cable and multiple JSOC operations in Pakistan, US and Pakistani officials continued to hold official meetings to discuss “potential” joint operations. In January 2010 in Washington DC, US and Pakistani military officials gathered under the umbrella of the “US-Pakistan Land Forces Military Consultative Committee.” According to notes from the meeting, they discussed US military operations in Pakistan aiming to “enhance both US and Pakistan Army COIN [counterinsurgency] capabilities” and “potential US COIN Center/Pakistan Army interactions.” Among the participants were representatives of the Special Operations Command, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs’ Pakistan-Afghanistan Coordination Cell, the Office of Defense representative-Pakistan and a Pakistan delegation led by Brigadier General Muhammad Azam Agha, Pakistan’s director of military training.

A special operations veteran and a former CIA operative with direct experience in Pakistan have told The Nation that JSOC has long engaged in combat in Pakistan—which raises a question: How in-the-loop is the US embassy about the activities of JSOC in Pakistan? Just because Ambassador Anne Patterson approves a cable saying that US special ops forces have only done two operations with Pakistani forces and plays this up as a major-league development doesn’t make it true. JSOC has conducted operations across the globe without the direct knowledge of the US ambassador. In 2006, the US military and Pakistan struck a deal that authorized JSOC to enter Pakistan to hunt Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders with the understanding that Pakistan would deny it had given permission. JSOC has struck multiple times inside Pakistan over the years, regardless of what Ambassador Patterson’s cables may say.

In 2006, twelve “tactical action operatives” from Blackwater were recruited for a secret JSOC raid inside Pakistan, targeting an Al Qaeda facility. The operation was code-named “Vibrant Fury.” Which raises another issue: the activities described in the October 2009 cable very closely align with what a US military intelligence source, a US special forces source and a former Blackwater executive told The Nation in November 2009, namely that JSOC was running an operation in Pakistan where “members of an elite division of Blackwater are at the center of a secret program in which they plan targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, ‘snatch and grabs’ of high-value targets and other sensitive action inside and outside Pakistan.… The Blackwater operatives also assist in gathering intelligence and help direct a secret US military drone bombing campaign that runs parallel to the well-documented CIA predator strikes.” The arrangement, which involved a web of subcontractors, allowed the Pakistani Frontier Corps—the force cited in the cable—to work with JSOC operators while simultaneously denying that Americans were involved. From the Nation article, “The Secret US War in Pakistan,” in November 2009:

A former senior executive at Blackwater confirmed the military intelligence source’s claim that the company is working in Pakistan for the CIA and JSOC, the premier counterterrorism and covert operations force within the military. He said that Blackwater is also working for the Pakistani government on a subcontract with an Islamabad-based security firm that puts US Blackwater operatives on the ground with Pakistani forces in counter-terrorism operations, including house raids and border interdictions, in the North-West Frontier Province and elsewhere in Pakistan. This arrangement, the former executive said, allows the Pakistani government to utilize former US Special Operations forces who now work for Blackwater while denying an official US military presence in the country. He also confirmed that Blackwater has a facility in Karachi and has personnel deployed elsewhere in Pakistan. The former executive spoke on condition of anonymity.

[…]

According to the executive, Blackwater works on a subcontract for Kestral Logistics, a powerful Pakistani firm, which specializes in military logistical support, private security and intelligence consulting. It is staffed with former high-ranking Pakistani army and government officials. While Kestral’s main offices are in Pakistan, it also has branches in several other countries.

[…]

Blackwater operatives also integrate with Kestral’s forces in sensitive counterterrorism operations in the North-West Frontier Province, where they work in conjunction with the Pakistani Interior Ministry’s paramilitary force, known as the Frontier Corps (alternately referred to as “frontier scouts”). The Blackwater personnel are technically advisers, but the former executive said that the line often gets blurred in the field. Blackwater “is providing the actual guidance on how to do [counterterrorism operations] and Kestral’s folks are carrying a lot of them out, but they’re having the guidance and the overwatch from some BW guys that will actually go out with the teams when they’re executing the job,” he said. “You can see how that can lead to other things in the border areas.” He said that when Blackwater personnel are out with the Pakistani teams, sometimes its men engage in operations against suspected terrorists. “You’ve got BW guys that are assisting…and they’re all going to want to go on the jobs—so they’re going to go with them,” he said. “So, the things that you’re seeing in the news about how this Pakistani military group came in and raided this house or did this or did that—in some of those cases, you’re going to have Western folks that are right there at the house, if not in the house.” Blackwater, he said, is paid by the Pakistani government through Kestral for consulting services. “That gives the Pakistani government the cover to say, ‘Hey, no, we don’t have any Westerners doing this. It’s all local and our people are doing it.’ But it gets them the expertise that Westerners provide for [counterterrorism]-related work.”

The military intelligence source confirmed Blackwater works with the Frontier Corps, saying, “There’s no real oversight. It’s not really on people’s radar screen.”

* * *

In November 2009, Capt. John Kirby, the spokesperson for Adm. Michael Mullen, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told The Nation, “We do not discuss current operations one way or the other, regardless of their nature.” A defense official, on background, specifically denied that Blackwater performs work on drone strikes or intelligence for JSOC in Pakistan. Captain Kirby told The Nation if it published the story it would “be on thin ice.” The US embassy and Pakistan’s interior Minister Rehman Malik both denied Blackwater was operating in Pakistan.

In January 2010, on a visit to Pakistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, appeared to contradict that line, telling a Pakistani TV station, “They [Blackwater and another private security firm, DynCorp] are operating as individual companies here in Pakistan,” according to a DoD transcript of the interview. As Gates’s comments began to make huge news in Pakistan, US defense officials tried to retract his statement. As the Wall Street Journal reported, “Defense officials tried to clarify the comment…telling reporters that Mr. Gates had been speaking about contractor oversight more generally and that the Pentagon didn’t employ [Blackwater] in Pakistan.” The next day, Pakistan’s senior minister for the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), Bashir Bilour, said that Blackwater was operating in Pakistan’s frontier areas. Bilour told Pakistan’s Express News TV that Blackwater’s activities were taking place with the “consent and permission” of the Pakistani government, saying he had discussed the issue with officials at the US Consulate in Peshawar, who told him that Blackwater was training Pakistani forces.

Since the Nation story originally ran, Blackwater has continued to work under the Obama administration. In June, the company won a $100 million global contract with the CIA and continues to operate in Afghanistan, where it protects senior US officials and trains Afghan forces. Earlier this year, Blackwater’s owner, Erik Prince, put the company up for sale and moved to the Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. Whether Blackwater or former Blackwater operatives continue to work in Pakistan is not known. What is clear is that there is great reason to believe that the October 2009 cable from Ambassador Anne Patterson describing US special operations forces activities in Pakistan represents only a tiny glimpse into one of the darkest corners of current US policy in Pakistan.

Like this blog post? Read all Nation blogs on the Nation’s free iPhone App, NationNow.
NationNow iPhone App

>

Coming War between the US and Pakistan !

Posted on June 4, 2011 by wakeupbd

http://www.pro-pakistan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/the_duel.jpg

US, Pakistan Near Open War; Chinese Ultimatum Warns Washington Against Attack !

Obama Has Already Approved Attack on Pakistan’s Nukes rumors say !

http://sabbah.biz/mt/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Gates-Op-Ed_cartoon_america_in_pakistan_small_over.jpg

According to the London Sunday Express, Obama has already approved an aggressive move along these lines: “US troops will be deployed in Pakistan if the nation’s nuclear installations come under threat from terrorists out to avenge the killing of Osama Bin Laden… The plan, which would be activated without President Zardari’s consent, provoked an angry reaction from Pakistan officials… Barack Obama would order troops to parachute in to protect key nuclear missile sites. These include the air force’s central Sargodha HQ, home base for nuclear-capable F-16 combat aircraft and at least 80 ballistic missiles.” According to a US official, “The plan is green lit and the President has already shown he is willing to deploy troops in Pakistan if he feels it is important for national security.”

http://muslimindia.in/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/pic3.jpg

Extreme tension over this issue highlights the brinksmanship and incalculable folly of Obama’s May 1 unilateral raid, which might easily have been interpreted by the Pakistanis as the long-awaited attack on their nuclear forces. According to the New York Times, Obama knew very well he was courting immediate shooting war with Pakistan, and “insisted that the assault force hunting down Osama bin Laden last week be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if confronted by hostile local police officers and troops.”

China has officially put the United States on notice that Washington’s planned attack on Pakistan will be interpreted as an act of aggression against Beijing. This blunt warning represents the first known strategic ultimatum received by the United States in half a century, going back to Soviet warnings during the Berlin crisis of 1958-1961, and indicates the grave danger of general war growing out of the US-Pakistan confrontation.

Any Attack on Pakistan Would be Construed as an Attack on China

Responding to reports that China has asked the US to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty in the aftermath of the Bin Laden operation, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu used a May 19 press briefing to state Beijing’s categorical demand that the “sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan must be respected.” According to Pakistani diplomatic sources cited by the Times of India, China has “warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China.” This ultimatum was reportedly delivered at the May 9 China-US strategic dialogue and economic talks in Washington, where the Chinese delegation was led by Vice Prime Minister Wang  Qishan and State Councilor Dai ingguo.

http://wnnpakistan.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/drop-in-image-slideshow-gallery/gallery//2010/04/Pakistan-and-China-to-celebrate-60th-anniversary.jpgChina has officially put the United States on notice that Washington’s planned attack on Pakistan will be interpreted as an act of aggression against Beijing.

Chinese warnings are implicitly backed up by that nation’s nuclear missiles, including an estimated 66 ICBMs, some capable of striking the United States, plus 118 intermediate-range missiles, 36 submarine-launched missiles, and numerous shorter-range systems.

Support from China is seen by regional observers as critically important for Pakistan, which is otherwise caught in a pincers between the US and India:

“If US and Indian pressure continues, Pakistan can say ‘China is behind us. Don’t think we are isolated, we have a potential superpower with us,’”

Talat Masood, a political analyst and retired Pakistani general, told AFP.

Full Force Retaliation to Defend Pakistan’s Strategic Assets

The Chinese warning to Washington came on the heels of Gilani’s statement to the Pakistan Parliament declaring:

“Let no one draw any wrong conclusions. Any attack against Pakistan’s strategic assets, whether overt or covert, will find a matching response…. Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force. No one should underestimate the resolve and capability of our nation and armed  forces to defend our sacred homeland.”

A warning of full force retaliation from a nuclear power such as Pakistan needs to be taken seriously, even by the hardened aggressors of the Obama regime.

http://shamazkhan.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/504-2002-05-28-india-pakistan-education-war.jpg?w=460&h=335

The strategic assets Gilani is talking about are the Pakistani nuclear forces, the key to the country’s deterrent strategy against possible aggression by India, egged on by Washington in the framework of the US-India nuclear cooperation accord. The US forces in Afghanistan have not been able to conceal their extensive planning for attempts to seize or destroy Pakistan’s nuclear bombs and warheads. According to a 2009 Fox News report, “The United States has a detailed plan for infiltrating Pakistan and securing its mobile arsenal of nuclear warheads if it appears the country is about to fall under the control of the Taliban, Al Qaeda or other Islamic extremists.” This plan was developed by General Stanley McChrystal when he headed the US Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. JSOC, the force reportedly involved in the Bin Laden operation. is composed of Army Delta Force, Navy SEALs and “a high-tech special intelligence unit known as Task Force Orange.”

“Small units could seize [Pakistan’s nukes], disable them, and then centralize them in a secure location,” claimed a source quoted by Fox.

China gives 50 State-Of-The-Art JF/17 Fighters to Pakistan for FREE !

http://en.valka.cz/attachments/12846/JF-17_Thunder1.jpg

The Chinese ultimatum came during the visit of Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani in Beijing, during which the host government announced the transfer of 50 state-of-the-art JF-17 fighter jets to Pakistan, immediately and without cost. Before his departure, Gilani had stressed the importance of the Pakistan-China alliance, proclaiming:

“We are proud to have China as our best and most trusted friend. And China will always find Pakistan standing beside it at all times….When we speak of this friendship as being taller than the Himalayas and deeper than the oceans it truly captures the essence of our relationship.”

These remarks were greeted by whining from US spokesmen, including Idaho Republican senator Risch.

http://rlv.zcache.com/navy_seals_operation_kill_osama_bin_laden_poster-p228723216336777428t5wm_400.jpg

The simmering strategic crisis between the United States and Pakistan exploded with full force on May 1, with the unilateral and unauthorized US commando raid alleged to have killed the phantomatic Osama bin Laden in a compound at Abottabad, a flagrant violation of Pakistan’s national sovereignty. The timing of this military stunt designed to inflame tensions between the two countries had nothing to do with any alleged Global War on Terror, and everything to do with the late March visit to Pakistan of Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian National Security Council chief. This visit had resulted in a de facto alliance between Islamabad and Riyadh, with Pakistan promising troops to put down any US-backed color revolution in the kingdom, while extending nuclear protection to the Saudis, thus making them less vulnerable to US extortion threats to abandon the oil-rich monarchy to the tender mercies of Tehran. A joint move by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to break out of the US empire, whatever one may think of these regimes, would represent a fatal blow for the fading US empire in South Asia.

As for the US claims concerning the supposed Bin Laden raid of May 1, they are a mass of hopeless contradictions which changes from day to day. An analysis of this story is best left to literary critics and writers of theatrical reviews. The only solid and uncontestable fact which emerges is that Pakistan is the leading US target — thus intensifying the anti-Pakistan US policy which has been in place since Obama’s infamous December 2009 West Point speech.

The Shooting Has Already Started

http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/images/apaches.jpg

The shooting between US and Pakistani forces escalated on Tuesday May 17, when a US NATO helicopter violated Pakistani airspace in Waziristan. Pakistani forces showed heightened alert status, and opened fire immediately, with the US helicopter shooting back. Two soldiers at a Pakistani check post on the border in the Datta Khel area were wounded.

Possible Pakistani retaliation for this border incursion came in Peshawar on Friday, May 20, when a car bomb apparently targeted a 2-car US consulate convoy, but caused no American deaths or injuries. One Pakistani bystander was killed, and several wounded. In other intelligence warfare, Ary One television reported the name of the CIA station chief in Islamabad, the second top US resident spook there to have his cover blown in six months.

US Envoy Grossman Rejects Pakistani Calls To Stop Border Violations

US Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman, the replacement for the late Richard Holbrooke, on May 19 arrogantly rejected Pakistani calls for guarantees that no more Abottabad-style unilateral operations would be mounted in Pakistan.In refusing to offer such assurances, Grossman claimed that Pakistani officials had never demanded respect for their border in recent years.

http://wakeupbd.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/ex2bvijayee2bbhava2bin2bprogress-702745.jpg?w=459&h=327

In the midst of this strategic crisis, India has gone ahead with inherently provocative scheduled military maneuvers targeting Pakistan. This is the “Vijayee Bhava” (Be Victorious) drill, held in the Thar desert of north Rajastan,. This atomic-biological-chemical Blitzkrieg drill involves the Second Armored Corps,

“considered to be the most crucial of the Indian Army’s three principal strike formations tasked with virtually cutting Pakistan in two during a full-fledged war.”

A CIA-RAW-Mossad Pseudo-Taliban Countergang

One way to provide the provocation needed to justify a US-Indian attack on Pakistan would be through an increase in terrorist actions attributable to the so-called Taliban. According to the mainstream Pakistani media, the CIA, the Israeli Mossad, and the Indian RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) have created their own version of the Taliban in the form of a terrorist countergang which they control and direct. According to one account,

“Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives have infiltrated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda networks, and have created their own Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) force in order to destabilize Pakistan.”

The former Punjab Regional Commander of the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), retired Brigadier General Aslam Ghuman, commented:

“During my visit to the US, I learned that the Israeli spy agency Mossad, in connivance with Indian agency RAW, under the direct supervision of CIA, planned to destabilize Pakistan at any cost.”

Was this countergang responsible for last week’s double bombing in Waziristan, which killed 80 paramilitary police?

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-cPHOkNBtvNE/TWlKU95EB_I/AAAAAAAAAV4/Mq55m1W49OY/s1600/nexux.JPG

According to the same account,

“Russian intelligence disclosed that CIA contractor Raymond Davis and his network had provided Al-Qaeda operatives with chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, so that US installations may be targeted and Pakistan be blamed….”

Davis, a JSOC veteran himself, was arrested for the murder of two ISI agents, but then released by the Pakistani government after a suspicious hue and cry by the State Department.

CIA Claims The New Al Qaeda Boss Lives in Waziristan

http://saif-al-adel.com/images/saif-al-adel.gif

If the US needs a further pretext for additional raids, it will also be easy to cite the alleged presence in Waziristan of Saif al-Adel, now touted by the CIA as bin Laden’s likely successor as boss of al Qaeda. It is doubtless convenient for Obama’s aggressive intentions that Saif al-Adel can be claimed to reside so close to what is now the hottest border in the world, and not in Finsbury or Flatbush.

http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/asia/latuff-obama_and_bin_ladin.png

In the wake of the unauthorized May 1 US raid, the Pakistani military chief General Kayani had issued his own warning that similar “misadventures” could not be repeated, while announcing that US personnel inside Pakistan would be sharply reduced. In the estimate of one ISI source, there are currently about 7,000 CIA operatives in country, many of them unknown to the Pakistani government. US-Pakistan intelligence sharing has reportedly been downgraded. In response to Kayani’s moves, the CIA limited hangout operation known as Wikileaks once again showed its real nature by attempting to discredit the Pakistan commander with dubious US cable reports that he had demanded more Predator drone attacks, not fewer, in recent years.

Especially since Obama’s West Point speech, the CIA has used Predator drone attacks to slaughter civilians with the goal of fomenting civil war inside Pakistan, leading to a breakup of the country along the ethnic lines of Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan, and Pushtunistan. The geopolitical goal is to destroy Pakistan’s potential to be the energy corridor between Iran and China. Selig Harrison has emerged as a top US advocate for Baluchistan succession.

Since May 1, six reported US Predator drones attacks have slain some 42 Pakistani civilians, goading public opinion into a frenzy of anti-US hatred. In response, a joint session of the Pakistani parliament voted unanimously on May 14 to demand an end to American missile strikes, calling on the government to cut NATO’s supply line to Afghanistan if the attacks should continue. Since the Karachi to Khyber Pass supply line carries as much as two thirds of the supplies needed by the Afghanistan invaders, such a cutoff would cause chaos among the NATO forces. All of this points to the inherent insanity of provoking war with the country your supply line runs through.

US Wants to Use Taliban Boss Mullah Omar Against Pakistan

The State Department dropped all preconditions for negotiating with the Taliban back in February, and the US is now reported by the Washington Post to be talking with envoys of Mullah Omar, the legendary one-eyed leader of the Quetta Shura or Taliban ruling council. It is apparent that the US is offering the Taliban an alliance against Pakistan. US regional envoy Grossman is hostile to the Pakistanis, but when it comes to the Taliban he has been nicknamed “Mr. Reconciliation”. By contrast, the US is said to be determined to assassinate the head of the Haqqani network using a Bin Laden-type raid. The Pakistanis are equally determined to keep the Haqqani as an ally.

If China stands behind Pakistan, then Russia might be said to stand behind China. Looking forward to the upcoming June 15 meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Chinese President Hu praised Sino-Russian relations as being “at an unprecedented high point,” with an “obvious strategic ingredient.” In a press conference this week, Russian President Medvedev was obliged indirectly to acknowledge that the much-hyped Obama “reset” with Russia had amounted to very little, since the US ABM missile program in Romania and the rest of eastern Europe, so obviously directed against Russia, means that the START treaty is of dubious value, thus raising the specter of a “new Cold War.” Given the NATO assault on Libya, there would be no UN resolution against Syria, said Medvedev. Putin has been right all along, and Medvedev is trying to imitate Putin to salvage some chance of remaining in power.

Are We in July 1914?

http://wakeupbd.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/assassination2.jpg?w=460&h=276The Sarajevo Assassinations of June 28, 1914

The crisis leading to World War I began with the Sarajevo assassinations of June 28, 1914, but the first major declaration of war did not occur until August 1. In the interim month of July 1914, large parts of European public opinion retreated into a dreamlike trance, an idyllic la-la land of elegiac illusion, even as the deadly crisis gathered momentum. Something similar can be seen today. Many Americans fondly imagine that the alleged death of Bin Laden marks the end of the war on terror and the Afghan War. Instead, the Bin Laden operation has clearly ushered in a new strategic emergency. Forces which had opposed the Iraq war, from MSNBC to many left liberals of the peace movement, are variously supporting Obama’s bloody aggression in Libya, or even celebrating him as a more effective warmonger than Bush-Cheney because of his supposed success at the expense of Bin Laden. In reality, if there were ever a time to mobilize to stop a new and wider war, this is it.

>

>

US and Pakistan Near Open War

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Webster Tarpley
Infowars.com
May 23, 2011

China has officially put the United States on notice that Washington’s planned attack on Pakistan will be interpreted as an act of aggression against Beijing. This blunt warning represents the first known strategic ultimatum received by the United States in half a century, going back to Soviet warnings during the Berlin crisis of 1958-1961, and indicates the grave danger of general war growing out of the US-Pakistan confrontation.

“Any Attack on Pakistan Would be Construed as an Attack on China”

Responding to reports that China has asked the US to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty in the aftermath of the Bin Laden operation, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu used a May 19 press briefing to state Beijing’s categorical demand that the “sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan must be respected.” According to Pakistani diplomatic sources cited by the Times of India, China has “warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China.” This ultimatum was reportedly delivered at the May 9 China-US strategic dialogue and economic talks in Washington, where the Chinese delegation was led by Vice Prime Minister Wang Qishan and State Councilor Dai Bingguo.1 Chinese warnings are implicitly backed up by that nation’s nuclear missiles, including an estimated 66 ICBMs, some capable of striking the United States, plus 118 intermediate-range missiles, 36 submarine-launched missiles, and numerous shorter-range systems.

Support from China is seen by regional observers as critically important for Pakistan, which is otherwise caught in a pincers between the US and India: “If US and Indian pressure continues, Pakistan can say ‘China is behind us. Don’t think we are isolated, we have a potential superpower with us,’” Talat Masood, a political analyst and retired Pakistani general, told AFP.2

The Chinese ultimatum came during the visit of Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani in Beijing, during which the host government announced the transfer of 50 state-of-the-art JF-17 fighter jets to Pakistan, immediately and without cost.3 Before his departure, Gilani had stressed the importance of the Pakistan-China alliance, proclaiming: “We are proud to have China as our best and most trusted friend. And China will always find Pakistan standing beside it at all times….When we speak of this friendship as being taller than the Himalayas and deeper than the oceans it truly captures the essence of our relationship.”4 These remarks were greeted by whining from US spokesmen, including Idaho Republican Senator Risch.

The simmering strategic crisis between the United States and Pakistan exploded with full force on May 1, with the unilateral and unauthorized US commando raid alleged to have killed the phantomatic Osama bin Laden in a compound at Abottabad, a flagrant violation of Pakistan’s national sovereignty. The timing of this military stunt designed to inflame tensions between the two countries had nothing to do with any alleged Global War on Terror, and everything to do with the late March visit to Pakistan of Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian National Security Council chief. This visit had resulted in a de facto alliance between Islamabad and Riyadh, with Pakistan promising troops to put down any US-backed color revolution in the kingdom, while extending nuclear protection to the Saudis, thus making them less vulnerable to US extortion threats to abandon the oil-rich monarchy to the tender mercies of Tehran. A joint move by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to break out of the US empire, whatever one may think of these regimes, would represent a fatal blow for the fading US empire in South Asia.

As for the US claims concerning the supposed Bin Laden raid of May 1, they are a mass of hopeless contradictions which changes from day to day. An analysis of this story is best left to literary critics and writers of theatrical reviews. The only solid and uncontestable fact which emerges is that Pakistan is the leading US target — thus intensifying the anti-Pakistan US policy which has been in place since Obama’s infamous December 2009 West Point speech.

Gilani: Full Force Retaliation to Defend Pakistan’s Strategic Assets

The Chinese warning to Washington came on the heels of Gilani’s statement to the Pakistan Parliament declaring: “Let no one draw any wrong conclusions. Any attack against Pakistan’s strategic assets, whether overt or covert, will find a matching response…. Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force. No one should underestimate the resolve and capability of our nation and armed forces to defend our sacred homeland.”5 A warning of full force retaliation from a nuclear power such as Pakistan needs to be taken seriously, even by the hardened aggressors of the Obama regime.

The strategic assets Gilani is talking about are the Pakistani nuclear forces, the key to the country’s deterrent strategy against possible aggression by India, egged on by Washington in the framework of the US-India nuclear cooperation accord. The US forces in Afghanistan have not been able to conceal their extensive planning for attempts to seize or destroy Pakistan’s nuclear bombs and warheads. According to a 2009 Fox News report, “The United States has a detailed plan for infiltrating Pakistan and securing its mobile arsenal of nuclear warheads if it appears the country is about to fall under the control of the Taliban, Al Qaeda or other Islamic extremists.” This plan was developed by General Stanley McChrystal when he headed the US Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. JSOC, the force reportedly involved in the Bin Laden operation. is composed of Army Delta Force, Navy SEALs and “a high-tech special intelligence unit known as Task Force Orange.” “Small units could seize [Pakistan’s nukes], disable them, and then centralize them in a secure location,” claimed a source quoted by Fox.6

Obama Has Already Approved Sneak Attack on Pakistan’s Nukes

According to the London Sunday Express, Obama has already approved an aggressive move along these lines: “US troops will be deployed in Pakistan if the nation’s nuclear installations come under threat from terrorists out to avenge the killing of Osama Bin Laden… The plan, which would be activated without President Zardari’s consent, provoked an angry reaction from Pakistan officials… Barack Obama would order troops to parachute in to protect key nuclear missile sites. These include the air force’s central Sargodha HQ, home base for nuclear-capable F-16 combat aircraft and at least 80 ballistic missiles.” According to a US official, “The plan is green lit and the President has already shown he is willing to deploy troops in Pakistan if he feels it is important for national security.”7

Extreme tension over this issue highlights the brinksmanship and incalculable folly of Obama’s May 1 unilateral raid, which might easily have been interpreted by the Pakistanis as the long-awaited attack on their nuclear forces. According to the New York Times, Obama knew very well he was courting immediate shooting war with Pakistan, and “insisted that the assault force hunting down Osama bin Laden last week be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if confronted by hostile local police officers and troops.”

The Shooting Has Already Started

The shooting between US and Pakistani forces escalated on Tuesday May 17, when a US NATO helicopter violated Pakistani airspace in Waziristan. Pakistani forces showed heightened alert status, and opened fire immediately, with the US helicopter shooting back. Two soldiers at a Pakistani check post on the border in the Datta Khel area were wounded.8

Possible Pakistani retaliation for this border incursion came in Peshawar on Friday, May 20, when a car bomb apparently targeted a 2-car US consulate convoy, but caused no American deaths or injuries. One Pakistani bystander was killed, and several wounded. In other intelligence warfare, Ary One television reported the name of the CIA station chief in Islamabad, the second top US resident spook there to have his cover blown in six months.

US Envoy Grossman Rejects Pakistani Calls To Stop Border Violations

US Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman, the replacement for the late Richard Holbrooke, on May 19 arrogantly rejected Pakistani calls for guarantees that no more Abottabad-style unilateral operations would be mounted in Pakistan.9 In refusing to offer such assurances, Grossman claimed that Pakistani officials had never demanded respect for their border in recent years.10

In the midst of this strategic crisis, India has gone ahead with inherently provocative scheduled military maneuvers targeting Pakistan. This is the “Vijayee Bhava” (Be Victorious) drill, held in the Thar desert of north Rajastan,. This atomic-biological-chemical Blitzkrieg drill involves the Second Armored Corps, “considered to be the most crucial of the Indian Army’s three principal strike formations tasked with virtually cutting Pakistan in two during a full-fledged war.”11

The Nation: A CIA-RAW-Mossad Pseudo-Taliban Countergang

One way to provide the provocation needed to justify a US-Indian attack on Pakistan would be through an increase in terrorist actions attributable to the so-called Taliban. According to the mainstream Pakistani media, the CIA, the Israeli Mossad, and the Indian RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) have created their own version of the Taliban in the form of a terrorist countergang which they control and direct. According to one account, “Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives have infiltrated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda networks, and have created their own Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) force in order to destabilize Pakistan.” The former Punjab Regional Commander of the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), retired Brigadier General Aslam Ghuman, commented: “During my visit to the US, I learned that the Israeli spy agency Mossad, in connivance with Indian agency RAW, under the direct supervision of CIA, planned to destabilize Pakistan at any cost.”12 Was this countergang responsible for last week’s double bombing in Waziristan, which killed 80 paramilitary police?

According to the same account, Russian intelligence “disclosed that CIA contractor Raymond Davis and his network had provided Al-Qaeda operatives with chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, so that US installations may be targeted and Pakistan be blamed….” Davis, a JSOC veteran himself, was arrested for the murder of two ISI agents, but then released by the Pakistani government after a suspicious hue and cry by the State Department.

CIA Claims The New Al Qaeda Boss Lives in Waziristan

If the US needs a further pretext for additional raids, it will also be easy to cite the alleged presence in Waziristan of Saif al-Adel, now touted by the CIA as bin Laden’s likely successor as boss of al Qaeda.13 It is doubtless convenient for Obama’s aggressive intentions that Saif al-Adel can be claimed to reside so close to what is now the hottest border in the world, and not in Finsbury or Flatbush.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • FREE Shipping on all orders!

In the wake of the unauthorized May 1 US raid, the Pakistani military chief General Kayani had issued his own warning that similar “misadventures” could not be repeated, while announcing that US personnel inside Pakistan would be sharply reduced. In the estimate of one ISI source, there are currently about 7,000 CIA operatives in country, many of them unknown to the Pakistani government. US-Pakistan intelligence sharing has reportedly been downgraded. In response to Kayani’s moves, the CIA limited hangout operation known as Wikileaks once again showed its real nature by attempting to discredit the Pakistan commander with dubious US cable reports that he had demanded more Predator drone attacks, not fewer, in recent years.

Especially since Obama’s West Point speech, the CIA has used Predator drone attacks to slaughter civilians with the goal of fomenting civil war inside Pakistan, leading to a breakup of the country along the ethnic lines of Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan, and Pushtunistan. The geopolitical goal is to destroy Pakistan’s potential to be the energy corridor between Iran and China. Selig Harrison has emerged as a top US advocate for Baluchistan succession.

Since May 1, six reported US Predator drones attacks have slain some 42 Pakistani civilians, goading public opinion into a frenzy of anti-US hatred. In response, a joint session of the Pakistani parliament voted unanimously on May 14 to demand an end to American missile strikes, calling on the government to cut NATO’s supply line to Afghanistan if the attacks should continue.14 Since the Karachi to Khyber Pass supply line carries as much as two thirds of the supplies needed by the Afghanistan invaders, such a cutoff would cause chaos among the NATO forces. All of this points to the inherent insanity of provoking war with the country your supply line runs through.

US Wants to Use Taliban Boss Mullah Omar Against Pakistan

The State Department dropped all preconditions for negotiating with the Taliban back in February, and the US is now reported by the Washington Post to be talking with envoys of Mullah Omar, the legendary one-eyed leader of the Quetta Shura or Taliban ruling council. It is apparent that the US is offering the Taliban an alliance against Pakistan. US regional envoy Grossman is hostile to the Pakistanis, but when it comes to the Taliban he has been nicknamed “Mr. Reconciliation.”15 By contrast, the US is said to be determined to assassinate the head of the Haqqani network using a Bin Laden-type raid. The Pakistanis are equally determined to keep the Haqqani as an ally.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

If China stands behind Pakistan, then Russia might be said to stand behind China. Looking forward to the upcoming June 15 meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Chinese President Hu praised Sino-Russian relations as being “at an unprecedented high point,” with an “obvious strategic ingredient.” In a press conference this week, Russian President Medvedev was obliged indirectly to acknowledge that the much-hyped Obama “reset” with Russia had amounted to very little, since the US ABM missile program in Romania and the rest of eastern Europe, so obviously directed against Russia, means that the START treaty is of dubious value, thus raising the specter of a “new Cold War.” Given the NATO assault on Libya, there would be no UN resolution against Syria, said Medvedev. Putin has been right all along, and Medvedev is trying to imitate Putin to salvage some chance of remaining in power.

Are We in July 1914?

The crisis leading to World War I began with the Sarajevo assassinations of June 28, 1914, but the first major declaration of war did not occur until August 1. In the interim month of July 1914, large parts of European public opinion retreated into a dreamlike trance, an idyllic la-la land of elegiac illusion, even as the deadly crisis gathered momentum. Something similar can be seen today. Many Americans fondly imagine that the alleged death of Bin Laden marks the end of the war on terror and the Afghan War. Instead, the Bin Laden operation has clearly ushered in a new strategic emergency. Forces which had opposed the Iraq war, from MSNBC to many left liberals of the peace movement, are variously supporting Obama’s bloody aggression in Libya, or even celebrating him as a more effective warmonger than Bush-Cheney because of his supposed success at the expense of Bin Laden. In reality, if there were ever a time to mobilize to stop a new and wider war, this is it.

This post first appeared on Webster Tarpley’s website.

References

1 http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/china-asks-us-to-respect-paks-sovereignty-independence/articleshow/8454577.cms

2 “China-Pakistan alliance strengthened post bin Laden,” AFP, May 15, 2011, http://www.sundaytimes.lk/index.php/analysis/7546-china-pakistan-alliance-strengthened-post-bin-laden

3 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/asia/20pakistan.html?_r=3

4 http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/05/08/Gilani-China-best-most-trusted-friend/UPI-96101304911435/

5 http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/pakistani_pm_regrets_unilateral_GAOWNTpBXGJaJtwzWaZu0K?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=

6 Rowan Scarborough,”U.S. Has Plan to Secure Pakistan Nukes if Country Falls to Taliban, Fox News, May 14, 2009.

7 “US ‘To Protect Pakistan,” London Sunday Express, May 15, 2011, http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/246717/US-to-protect-Pakistan-

8 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/17/us-pakistan-nato-idUSTRE74G0PS20110517

9 “US refuses to assure it will not act unilaterally,” http://thenews.jang.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=15758

10 “No US assurance on unilateral ops,” http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/20-May-2011/No-US-assurance-on-unilateral-ops

11 “Getting leaner and meaner? Army practices blitzkrieg to strike hard at enemy,” Times of India, May 10, 2011, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-10/india/29527731_1_three-strike-corps-army-and-iaf-transformational

12 “CIA has created own Taliban to wreak terror havoc on Pakistan, claims Pak paper,” ANI, May 12, http://my.news.yahoo.com/cia-created-own-taliban-wreak-terror-havoc-pakistan-091621821.html

13 “New al-Qaeda chief in North Waziristan,” May 19, 2011

14 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43033985/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

15 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8519535/US-steps-up-face-to-face-peace-talks-with-Taliban.html

>

http://tarpley.net/2011/05/21/us-pakistan-near-open-war-chinese-ultimatum-warns-washington-against-attack/

>

The US-Pakistan war

Struggle over A’stan heats up

Last Updated: 11:30 PM, October 3, 2011

Posted: 10:34 PM, October 3, 2011

headshotAmir Taheri

We can’t hide the fact: America and Pakistan are at war over Afghanistan.

The Pakistanis want a big voice in the government in Kabul. The United States backs Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who’s determined to prevent that.

Initially, this was a proxy war. The Pakistanis recruited, armed and deployed Afghans who wished to fight America. In the last year or so, however, we’ve seen more direct Pakistani involvement both in command and control and as an actual presence in anti-American operations, such as the recent attacks on the US embassy and other targets in Kabul.

An open enmity: As US-Pakistan relations grow even more sour, Pakistanis protested American policies in Hyperabad on Sunday.

Demotix
An open enmity: As US-Pakistan relations grow even more sour, Pakistanis protested American policies in Hyperabad on Sunday.

The US side of the war initially was limited to drone attacks against suspected Afghan and Arab terrorist hideouts in Pakistani-administered tribal areas. But that changed when a US special-ops team went into Pakistan proper to kill Osama bin Laden.

Reports also say that the US military is preparing for “search and snatch” operations in Pakistani Baluchistan, where the Taliban has its headquarters.

According to the doctrine taught at Pakistani military colleges, Afghanistan provides the “hinterland” that Pakistan needs to face its historic enemy, India. Afghanistan is also the vital link between Pakistan and Islamic Central Asia.

More important, a hostile Afghanistan could play the Pushtun card against Pakistan. Under the British Empire, the Pushtuns were divided between Afghanistan and what was to become Pakistan in 1947. Since the 1950s, a pan-Pushtun movement has thrived on both sides of the border.

Thus, Pakistan feels it must have a say in Kabul, if only to keep the pan-Pushtun demons under control.

Pakistani doctrine also doesn’t allow for an Afghanistan allied to hostile powers, so Pakistan supported the Afghan “mujahedin” against the Soviet-backed communist regime in Kabul.

When that regime collapsed in 1992, the new Afghan government, led by Burhaneddin Rabbani, denied Pakistan a share in the spoils of victory. So Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence raised an Afghan force — the Taliban, which came to power in 1996.

In 2001, Pakistan ended up the loser when Americans ousted the Taliban and installed forces hostile to Islamabad.

Despite that setback, then-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf thought America, his putative ally, would prevent such hostile powers as India and Iran from dominating Afghanistan and would secure Pakistan a voice in the new Afghan government.

The Musharraf calculation lost all logic when the Obama administration chose what amounts to a cut-and-run strategy in Afghanistan. Faced with the prospect of a total US military withdrawal by 2013, the Afghan power elite, including the Karzai clan, is looking for new allies and protectors — leading to a dramatic upsurge in Iranian, Indian and even Russian influence in Kabul. Iran and India are the second- and third-biggest aid donors to Afghanistan, just behind America. Tehran also delivers large sums of cash to Karzai and other senior Afghan politicians.

All that concerns the ISI — so Pakistan has abandoned the Musharraf policy.

The ISI has allowed the Taliban leadership, known as the Quetta Shura (Council), to operate fairly openly in Pakistani Baluchistan. (All the new phone numbers for Taliban spokesmen start with the country code for Pakistan.)

The Pakistanis have also revived several dormant non-Taliban armed groups, including the Haqqani network, rooted in the southern province of Paktia and responsible for several recent terror attacks in Kabul.

The Haqqanis allied themselves to the Taliban in 1996, when leader Jalaleddin Haqqani was appointed interior minister. In its new incarnation, however, the Haqqanis are more a Pakistani tool than a Taliban ally.

The ISI also has revived the Hizb Islami (Islamic Party) of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The terror network recently distanced itself from Iran and tried to make a deal with the Americans. One of Hekmatyar’s sons even met a CIA representative during a “seminar” in the Maldives. Yet no deal materialized, because America did not want to antagonize Karzai. Disappointed, Hekmatyar turned to his old allies in the ISI.

The Pakistanis plan to create a broad front of the Taliban, the Haqqani network, the Hizb Islami and several smaller groups that could bid for power once the Americans have left.

Several Arab countries support that plan, notably Saudi Arabia, which prefers to see Afghanistan dominated by Sunni Pakistan than Shiite Iran and Hindu India. The Haqqanis maintain their family home in Abu Dhabi and use United Arab Emirates banks for their transactions.

So far, the US-Pakistan war has been low-intensity. The problem, as always, is that wars are easy to start but hard to end.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_us_pakistan_war_FCOmmNlf7RotH3HJwgVLQK#ixzz1ZrNe9sXD

>

October 3, 2011 6:09 AM EDT

Afghanistan, The U.S. and Pakistan: Where Will the War of Words Lead?

By Anissa Haddadi
Afghanistan, The U.S. and Pakistan:  Where Will the War of Words  Lead?Pakistan is still hitting back at allegations from Afghan officials that its intelligence agency masterminded the assassination of Kabul’s chief peace negotiator with the Taliban, threatening the region’s stability and pointing the finger at their neighbour rather than looking at the lack of efficiency of domestic forces.As accusations from both the U.S. and the Afghan authorities are angering Pakistan, tensions between the country risks creating more regional instability as alliances could shifts.An investigative delegation recently set up by President Hamid Karzai has said it had obtained evidence and a confession by a man involved in Burhanuddin Rabbani’s killing on September 20.The man, they said, sustain the bomber was Pakistani and the assassination had been plotted in Pakistan.However hitting back at the accusations, the Pakistani authorities instead questioned the Afghan’s authorities’ ability to pre-empt the Taliban’s attacks and fight off the movement.”Instead of making such irresponsible statements, those in positions of authority in Kabul should seriously deliberate as to why all those Afghans who are favourably disposed toward peace and toward Pakistan are systematically being removed from the scene and killed,” Pakistan’s foreign ministry said in a statement.”There is a need to take stock of the direction taken by Afghan Intelligence and security agencies.”Rabbani’s killing came just as the U.S. and Afghan authorities had renewed efforts to forge dialogue with the Taliban as despite foreign troop’s involvement, insurgency against the government and those considered to be on its side has seen an increase.Meanwhile, anti-Pakistani feeling in Afghanistan is also rising, and hundreds of demonstrators took to the streets of Kabul on Sunday to condemn recent shelling of border areas by Pakistan’s army and accuse the country’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) spy agency of involvement in Rabbani’s killing.Also, the Peace Council, which was previously headed by Rabbani is now calling for negotiations to be held with Pakistan rather than with the Taliban, implying Islamabad is directly involved in supporting some militants from behind the scenes.Afghan leaders are following on the U.S. suit in becoming increasingly suspicious of Pakistan’s ability to help them fight militants group, especially the Haqqani network.While some analysts have warned Pakistan might use the group as a strategic tool to counterweight he influence of its main regional rival India in Afghanistan, ISI officials have denied ever supporting the Haqqani network.The Afghan accusations came after a the top U.S. military officer, admiral Mike Mullen, had accused Pakistani intelligence of supporting an attack on the U.S. embassy in Kabul on September 13, which was allegedly carried out by the Haqqani group.Pakistan retorted angrily, which later on led to the White house trying to distance itself from the remarks but it seems unlikely relations could now return to the level of cooperation seen when the two countries started their alliance to fight against the war on terror.Pakistan says it has sacrificed more than any other country that joined the U.S.-led global campaign against militancy after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, losing thousands of soldiers and security forces.Meanwhile, adding to the confusion and despite accusations, leaders from the Haqqani group have kept on denying being responsible for killing Rabbani or having links with the Pakistani ISI.Siraj Haqqani a leader for the group also told the BBC that the U.S. had been in touch to try to persuade him to enter talks with the Afghan government.The Haqqanis “have been contacted and are being contacted by intelligence agencies of many Islamic and non-Islamic countries, including the US, asking us to leave the sacred jihad and take an important part in the current government”, the BBC quoted him as saying.With the Haqqani regime intensely denying any involvement or support by the Pakistani authorities the war of words between the U.S., Afghanistan and Pakistan is set to continue and risks exchanges risks becoming even more tensed.

The Afghan authorities it seems have followed the U.S. in turning the heat on Pakistan and becoming more straightforward and direct on accusing the authorities of supporting militants’ network.

While Washington has been very vocal of its suspicions towards Pakistan, the Afghan authorities have also a lot of questions to answer as security in the country has been more than volatile and government forces also accused of corruption and having close ties with militants.

With the war of words between Pakistan and Afghanistan set to increase, the Karzai government has failed to realise that once foreign troops will leave the country it will need Pakistan’s help more than ever.

>

The economic reality of US threats

October 3, 2011

A Pak-US war is an empty threat, given the interests of China and India plus the economic condition of America.

There has been a wave of American threats of war against Pakistan if the latter does not take action against the Haqqani network reportedly operating from the Pak-Afghan border. There is, thus, widespread concern among already economically miserable and politically devastated Pakistanis if an open US-Pak war is about to take place or the current threats are another jugglery of the US to put forward a new do-more agenda.

This distress among Pakistanis is feeding upon the ongoing discourse on local and international print and electronic media, and the latter are doing their jobs pretty well to fatten the fear. Let’s see if the war ground can really be extended to Pakistani mainland, given the vulnerable interests of other fast growing economic players of the region, specifically China and India.

The 2011 report titled “Asia 2050: Realizing the Asian Century” by the Asian Development Bank notes that Asia is expected to contribute 50% of world’s total GDP in 2050 and 70% of the world’s added capital stock in 2030. On deeper investigation it is not difficult to find that China and India are the main contributors in this emerging Asian economic boom. The report notes that India’s GDP per capita will rise by more than three times, and that of China by more than double. Looking at the given statistics and explicit aspirations of India to become, as she says, the Asian tiger and the current international status of China, I believe that there are too dear and powerful stake holders to overlook for the US to extend this war into Pakistan’s mainland.

India is always perceived as an interested party in any warfare expedited against Pakistan. However, this time, India, which is living in the glassy economic walls, would not want to indulge with conventional war against Pakistan.

Indian defence minister has explicitly expressed the same a few days after the US allegations against Pakistani intelligence agencies. India has much more to lose economically than it had a couple of decades ago. Wars are not good for economic growth, which India has seen recently. The region is growing as a manufacturing hub for the world and India is the second largest country in this setup. The war in Pakistan’s mainland would immediately harm Indian economic interests, even if India does not engage itself directly.

So far Pakistan has been serving as a buffer between the US lead Afghan war and Indian Territory and the buffer is paying the war cost. If war is brought into Pakistan’s mainland, it will directly expose India with war’s economic side effects. If India wants to sustain its speed of growth it must demonstrate to the world, which is investing heavily in India since a couple decades, that the Indian market place is not vulnerable to any sort of war damages.

China, emerging as a powerful state in the world, has strategic economic interests in Pakistan. Pakistan provides access to rich Middle East market through Gawadar Port. China’s route to Middle East’s market will become inoperable in case of any expedition of US on Pakistan. Also, Pakistan provides a defence to China against India, which has burning territorial dispute on China-India border.

If the US lead war is extended into Pakistan’s mainland, the action would kill both advantages which China enjoys currently.  The presence of the US army in Pakistan will also create the US-India joint venture on the Chinese border, which is never acceptable to China in the long run. As a result, the world has recently witnessed China’s immediate response against US war threats to Pakistan and a following visit of Chinese Premier to Pakistan. China owns the veto power and economic muscle, which it will use to keep the presence of the US army away from its border.

How could I ignore to include the implications of current bailed-out economic position of the US?

Frankly speaking, America cannot afford to trigger a new war, at least at this point of time, when it is seeking capital investment from a third world country like India to create employment in American job market. Its economy cannot afford a new war except the war slogans in efforts to retain Obama’s vote bank until the upcoming elections in the US. The current administration has to take back their faces to their voters and this time, since Osama is apparently not available, they have chosen Pakistani shoulder to put off their burden.

Also, this is a good time to push another list of do-more in the same blow.

The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of The Express Tribune

>

Op-Ed Contributor

Take the War to Pakistan

By SETH G. JONES
Published: December 3, 2009

Kabul, Afghanistan

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S decision on a timetable for withdrawal of American troops only makes official what everyone here has known for a while: the clock is ticking in Afghanistan. The Taliban have long recognized this, and many captured militants have reminded their interrogators that “you have the watches, but we have the time.”

As we quicken the pace, the top American commander here, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has repeatedly noted that there are many issues to focus on: building more competent Afghan Army and police forces, adopting more effective anticorruption measures and reintegrating “moderate” Taliban and other insurgent fighters into Afghan society and politics.

But perhaps the most difficult issue is largely outside of General McChrystal’s control (and got short shrift in President Obama’s speech at West Point): undermining the Taliban’s sanctuary in Pakistan. Thus far, there has been no substantive action taken against the Taliban leadership in Baluchistan Province, south of the Pashtun-dominated areas of Afghanistan. This is the same mistake the Soviets made in the 1980s, when they failed to act against the seven major mujahadeen groups headquartered in Pakistan.

This sanctuary is critical because the Afghan war is organized and run out of Baluchistan. Virtually all significant meetings of the Taliban take place in that province, and many of the group’s senior leaders and military commanders are based there. “The Taliban sanctuary in Baluchistan is catastrophic for us,” a Marine told me on a recent trip to Afghanistan’s Helmand Province, across the border from Baluchistan. “Local Taliban fighters get strategic and operational guidance from across the border, as well as supplies and technical components for their improvised explosive devices.”

Like a typical business, the Taliban in Pakistan have an organizational structure divided into functional committees. It has a media committee; a military committee; a finance committee responsible for acquiring and managing funds; and so forth. The Taliban’s inner shura, or governing council, exerts authority over lower-level Taliban fighters. It is composed of the supreme Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, his principal deputy, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, his military commander, Abdullah Zakir, and roughly a dozen other key leaders. Many Taliban leaders have moved their families to Baluchistan, and their children attend Pakistani schools.

Mullah Baradar is particularly important because he runs many of the shuras involving senior Taliban commanders, virtually all of which are in Pakistan. “Omar is reclusive and unpolished,” one Taliban figure recently said to me, “and has preferred to confide in a small number of trusted advisers rather than address larger groups.”

Yet Pakistan and the United States have failed to target them systematically. Pakistani Army and Frontier Corps forces have conducted operations in Pakistan’s tribal areas to the north, and the United States has conducted many drone strikes there. But relatively little has been done in Baluchistan.

The United States and Pakistan must target Taliban leaders in Baluchistan. There are several ways to do it, and none requires military forces.

The first is to conduct raids to capture Taliban leaders in Baluchistan. Most Taliban are in or near Baluchi cities like Quetta. These should be police and intelligence operations, much like American-Pakistani efforts to capture Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other Qaeda operatives after 9/11. The second is to hit Taliban leaders with drone strikes, as the United States and Pakistan have done so effectively in the tribal areas.

The cost of failing to act in Baluchistan will be enormous. As one Russian diplomat who served in the Soviet Army in Afghanistan recently told me: “You are running out of time. You must balance counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan by targeting the leadership nodes in Pakistan. Don’t make the same mistake we did.”

Seth G. Jones, the author of “In the Graveyard of Empires: America’s War in Afghanistan,” is a civilian adviser to the American military and a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation.

More Articles in Opinion » A version of this article appeared in print on December 4, 2009, on page A35 of the New York edition.

>

Pakistan: USA’s next war zone

Friday, September 26, 2008 – 10:00

Washington’s next war is already on the go. “Classified orders”, according to the September 11 New York Times, were passed by US President George Bush in July. And the target is not “axis of evil”-famed Iran. It is Washington’s close ally in the “war on terror”, Pakistan.

On September 17, a US attack on the Waziristan (tribal areas) region of Pakistan left another five “Taliban” dead. Only a week earlier, 20 were killed in another US attack. Between August 13 and September 12, at least 79 people were killed in nine US attacks on Pakistan’s tribal areas. Since January 29, more than 150 people have been killed.

Besides the rising death toll, a large-scale displacement is taking place. From Bajour district alone, more than 30,000 people have migrated to the relative safety of the neighbouring North West Frontier Province (NWFP).

The massive military operation launched against the Taliban by the Pakistani army under US pressure since 2003 has driven many people out of their homes. The Taliban’s successful attempt to capture and turn Pakistan’s tribal areas into “Talibanistan” has inflicted misery — including beheadings, amputations and harsh dress codes — on the residents, also leading to displacement.

However it was the US invasion of Afghanistan that reduced the tribal areas to a battlefield for multi-pronged war, with Shias fighting Sunnis, the Taliban pitched against the Pakistan military and US missiles and air drones pounding Pakistan.

The Taliban’s strategy is to Talibanise at gunpoint — politically and administratively — the tribal areas. Talibanised Sharia (Islamic law) has been instituted and Taliban militias have replaced the state apparatus (the police, civil administration and courts) with their own courts. They have established tolls to levy road taxes on transport, which is a major source of income. Maliks (tribal elders) who might pose a challenge to Taliban authority have been eliminated or silenced.

The Shia tribes are alarmed at the Taliban occupation of the tribal areas, remembering the reported massacre in Afghanistan of some 5000 Shias by the Taliban when in power in the late 1990s. They have decided to resist tooth and nail.

The Taliban have encountered many acts of resistance. A brave woman refused to quit her job as a school teacher and stay home. Villagers formed militias and resisted, though unsuccessfully. The local tribes at first were no match for the Taliban and al Qaeda cadre, trained in the 1980s with CIA-provided manuals.

However, the Shia resistance became an impetus for others. The tribes have now formed their own militia and have begun liberating their villages from the Taliban.

While tribes have been left on their own to defend themselves against the Taliban, the NYT on September 11 quoted a senior US official as saying that the Pakistan government had “privately assented to the general concept of limited ground assaults by [US] Special Operations forces against significant militant targets, but that it did not approve each mission”.

Though the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) government has denied such assertions, there is a general feeling in Pakistan that this is the case. During the rule of Pervez Musharraf, every time the US attacked inside Pakistan, the regime would claim responsibility. Now every US attack is followed by a protest statement by Pakistan’s government and every protest statement is followed by another US attack.

The US has not always considered the Taliban enemies. In the wake of the radical 1978 “Saur [April] revolution” in Afghanistan, the CIA turned the tribal areas and parts of the NWFP bordering Afghanistan into a safe haven for the “Mujahideen”, the Taliban’s forerunners.

The tribal areas were brutalised, criminalised and militarised as the weapon and drug trades became a major source of funding for the anti-Soviet “jihad”.

When the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, Afghan leader Mohammed Najibullah was able to hold the Mujahideen out for another three years. The Mujahideen then reduced Afghanistan to rubble as they turned against each other in the battle to capture Kabul.

The chaos ended when the Taliban took power in 1996 with imperial help. Assassinated PPP leader Benazir Bhutto once claimed: “Weapons were supplied to the Taliban by the USA and Britain with money from Saudi Arabia … Pakistan’s territory was used to train solely the Afghan refugees — Pushtoons, who made up the backbone of Taliban movement.”

The Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s notorious military intelligence service, was the architect of the Taliban victory.

Then in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks, Washington launched its invasion of Afghanistan. Pakistan GHQ (military headquarters) reluctantly obeyed US orders to give the Taliban up. However a section of the military refused.

US pressure to target the Taliban as they regrouped in Pakistan pitched the sections of the Pakistani military following US dictates against those patronising the Taliban in the tribal areas.

The Taliban, being blocked westward, will most likely spread eastward. Already, districts neighbouring the tribal areas, particularly the scenic valleys of Swat, have become a venue for pitched battles between the Taliban and the Pakistani military.

However, neither successful Talibanisation nor the presence of Taliban hide-outs should serve as an excuse for an imperialist invasion of Pakistan. It will further plunge this region into chaos. The stability of the region cannot be guaranteed until the US occupation of Afghanistan is ended.

Talibanisation can be best fought against by the masses. The US presence in the region will only delay the Taliban’s defeat.

[This article is abridged from a September 17 article by Farooq Sulehria, a member of the Labour Party Pakistan residing in Sweden. For an extended version, visit http://www.links.org.au.]

>

Blackwater (Xe): The Secret US War in Pakistan

Top 25 of 2011

117Share

At a covert forward operating base run by the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in the Pakistani port city of Karachi, members of an elite division of Blackwater are at the center of a secret program in which they plan targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda operatives inside and outside Pakistan. The Blackwater operatives also gather intelligence and help direct a secret US military drone bombing campaign that runs parallel to the well-documented CIA predator strikes, according to a well-placed source within the US military intelligence apparatus.

Student Researchers:

  • Andrew Hobbs, Kelsea Arnold, and Brittney Gates (Sonoma State University)

Faculty Evaluators:

  • Elaine Wellin and Peter Phillips (Sonoma State University)

Captain John Kirby, the spokesperson for Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Nation, “We do not discuss current operations one way or the other, regardless of their nature.” Meanwhile a defense official specifically denied that Blackwater performs work on drone strikes or intelligence for JSOC in Pakistan. “We don’t have any contracts to do that work for us. We don’t contract that kind of work out, period,” the official said. “There has not been, and are not now, contracts between JSOC and that organization for these types of services.” The Pentagon has stated bluntly, “There are no US military strike operations being conducted in Pakistan.”

Blackwater’s founder Erik Prince contradicted this statement in an interview, telling Vanity Fair that Blackwater works with US Special Forces in identifying targets and planning missions, citing an operation in Syria. The magazine also published a photo of a Blackwater base near the Afghanistan–Pakistan border.

Jeremy Scahill’s military intelligence source said that the previously unreported program is distinct from the CIA assassination program, which the agency’s director, Leon Panetta, announced he had canceled in June 2009. “This is a parallel operation to the CIA,” said the source. “They are two separate beasts.” The program puts Blackwater at the epicenter of a US military operation within the borders of a nation against which the US has not declared war—knowledge that could further strain the already tense relations between the US and Pakistan. In 2006, the two countries struck a deal that authorized JSOC to enter Pakistan to hunt Osama bin Laden with the understanding that Pakistan would deny it had given permission. Officially, the US is not supposed to have any active military operations in that country.

Blackwater, which also goes by the names Xe Services and US Training Center, has denied that the company operates in Pakistan. “Xe Services has only one employee in Pakistan performing construction oversight for the US government,” Blackwater spokesperson Mark Corallo said in a statement to the Nation, adding that the company has “no other operations of any kind in Pakistan.”

A former senior executive at Blackwater confirmed the military intelligence source’s claim that the company is working in Pakistan for the CIA and JSOC. He said that Blackwater is also working for the Pakistani government on a subcontract with an Islamabad-based security firm that puts US Blackwater operatives on the ground with Pakistani forces in “counterterrorism” operations, including house raids and border interdictions, in the North-West Frontier Province and elsewhere in Pakistan. This arrangement allows the Pakistani government to utilize former US Special Operations forces that now work for Blackwater while denying an official US military presence in the country. He also confirmed that Blackwater has a facility in Karachi and has personnel deployed elsewhere in Pakistan.

The covert program in Pakistan dates back to at least 2007. The current head of JSOC is Vice Admiral William McRaven, who took over the post from General Stanley McChrystal, who headed JSOC from 2003 to 2008 before being named the top US commander in Afghanistan. Blackwater’s presence in Pakistan is “not really visible, and that’s why nobody has cracked down on it,” said Scahill’s military source. Blackwater’s operations in Pakistan, he adds, are not done through State Department contracts or publicly identified defense contracts. “It’s Blackwater via JSOC, and it’s a classified no-bid [contract] approved on a rolling basis.”

Blackwater’s first known contract with the CIA for operations in Afghanistan was awarded in 2002 and was for work along the Afghanistan–Pakistan border.

According to Scahill’s source, Blackwater has effectively marketed itself as a company whose operatives have “conducted lethal direct action missions and now, for a price, you can have your own planning cell. JSOC just ate that up.” Blackwater’s Pakistan JSOC contracts are secret and are therefore shielded from public oversight, he said.

In addition to planning drone strikes and operations against suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in Pakistan for both JSOC and the CIA, the Blackwater team in Karachi also helps plan missions for JSOC inside Uzbekistan against the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.

Since President Barack Obama was inaugurated, the United States has expanded drone-bombing raids in Pakistan. Obama first ordered a drone strike against targets in North and South Waziristan on January 23, 2009, and the strikes have been conducted consistently ever since. The number of strike orders by the Obama administration has now surpassed the number during the Bush era in Pakistan, inciting fierce criticism from Pakistan and some US lawmakers over civilian deaths.

The military intelligence source also confirmed that Blackwater continues to work for the CIA on its drone-bombing program in Pakistan, as previously reported in the New York Times, but added that Blackwater is working on JSOC’s drone bombings as well. “It’s Blackwater running the program for both CIA and JSOC,” said the source. When civilians are killed, “people go, ‘Oh, it’s the CIA doing crazy shit again unchecked.’ Well, at least 50 percent of the time, that’s JSOC [hitting] somebody they’ve identified through HUMINT [human intelligence] or they’ve culled the intelligence themselves or it’s been shared with them and they take that person out and that’s how it works.”

In addition to working on covert action planning and drone strikes, Blackwater SELECT also provides private guards to perform the sensitive task of security for secret US drone bases, JSOC camps, and Defense Intelligence Agency camps inside Pakistan.

Blackwater’s ability to survive against odds by reinventing and rebranding itself is most evident in Afghanistan, where the company continues to work for the US military, the CIA, and the State Department despite intense criticism and almost weekly scandals.

Sources:

Jeremy Scahill, “The Secret US War in Pakistan,” Nation, November 23, 2009, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091207/scahill.

Jeremy Scahill, “Blackwater Wants to Surge Its Armed Force in Afghanistan,” Antiwar.com, January 20, 2010, http://original.antiwar.com/scahill/2010/01/19/blackwater-wants-to-surge.

David Edwards and Muriel Kane, “Ex-employees Claim Blackwater Pimped Out Young Iraqi Girls,” Raw Story, August 7, 2009.

Similar Posts:

>

note this was deleted – I guess too provocative

Will USA and Pakistan go to war? – Yahoo! UK & Ireland Answers

uk.answers.yahoo.com › … › Current Events

“Will USA and Pakistan go to war?” – Find the answer to this question and millions more on Yahoo! UK & Ireland Answers.

>

US Meddling: Pakistan’s Long War Has Just Begun

Posted by on May 8th, 2011

US Meddling: Pakistan’s Long War Has Just Begun

Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post

 

 

US Meddling: Pakistan’s Long War Has Just Begun

Back in October 2010, I had cautioned Pakistan’s security planners to be on guard for military intervention from the western border. Since then, we’ve had five major attacks on Pakistan from that side. The fortified US and ISAF bases in Afghanistan are now being used against Pakistan.

Brig. SAMSON SIMON SHARAF | Sunday | 8 May 2011 | The Nation
WWW.PAKNATIONALISTS.COM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—For Pakistanis, this is not time to feel embarrassed and to hang heads in shame over the simplicity and quickness of the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. It is rather a time for a long overdue bugle cry that Pakistan is at war. 1/5 was not Pakistan’s Day inasmuch as 9/11 exposed the vulnerabilities in USA’s Homeland Security.

Writing in TheNation in December 2009, I had assessed the next 18 months and beyond as crucial for Pakistan and reiterated that “Pakistan must reassert itself” on February 20. I had written: “The next 18 months and beyond will test Pakistan to the verge.”

Between the 14th and 17th months, we have witnessed the Raymond Davis case, a drone attack on a peaceful jirga, a full-fledged conventional multi-directional night attack on a border outpost in Dir, a border skirmish at Angoor Adda and now the operation to kill Osama bin laden.

Writing an article, Pakistan: A Rudderless State, earlier in TheNation in November 2010, I had cautioned the security planners of Pakistan to beware of the Cold Start-type operations from across the Durand Line. I had also written about the heavily fortified US and ISAF citadels in Afghanistan that would be used as pivots of such operations against Pakistan. No one in our security establishment and the media took notice of the warnings.

2009-2010 had been remarkable years of Pakistan’s fight against militancy. During this time, joint intelligence operations led by Pakistan had resulted in the elimination of numerous prized targets both from TTP and Al-Qaeda. The efficiency of information gathering was such that many high value targets deemed missing and believed to be killed had been brought back into focus and neutralised, some amongst them US nationals. But by mid-2010, this cooperation began to wane due to the direct influx of the CIA agents into Pakistan. Since this influx was not a part of the working agreements between the ISI and CIA, Pakistan’s security establishment felt that they were being stabbed in the back.

Click to enlarge

Counter security efforts, on part of Pakistan, identified hundreds of locations in the country in which the US agents had located themselves inside Pakistan covertly. Some of these locations were heavily fortified and the activities inside them were always dubious. After much rallying, Pakistan was able to force the closure of some of these locations, but not all. Meanwhile, the network of CIA’s local informers was spreading, a reason why the agency forced budgetary reallocations for its operations in Pakistan. With huge funds to play around, the CIA could now buy off anyone, including Al-Qaeda agents whose data Pakistan had shared with the USA. They put tags on many such targets and monitored all their movements and places of visit. Consequently, what they have been able to track with their superior technical resources and heavy monetary disbursements is a trail of redoubts within Pakistan, where the militants have contacts and hiding places. Then came the Raymond Davis shooting and some issues became public.

There is definitely a trove of very important information that the US has extracted from shared sources and double crossing. One such is the hideout of Osama bin Laden, his courier trails and much more. The biggest vulnerability that Pakistan faces is that some of its own assets within this Al-Qaeda trail may have been exposed, or double crossed and could be used to blackmail Pakistan into coercion.

This column appeared in Pakistan’s The Nation. Mr. Sharaf, a retired brigadier of Pakistan Army, can be reached at nicco1988@hotmail.com

© 2007-2011. All rights reserved. Paknationalists.com
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium
without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

>

Inside the war for central asia Twitter Facebook RSS
Daily Brief Latest from the Blog Latest from FP

The U.S.-Pakistan stalemate

By Imtiaz Gul, April 23, 2011 Saturday, April 23, 2011 – 12:26 PM Share

It looks like the proverbial marriage of convenience; although international obligations and strategic considerations continue to serve as the glue for an increasingly volatile partnership between the United States and Pakistan, deep-seated mutual mistrust and conflicting geo-strategic objectives prevent Pakistan and the United States from partnering in a friction-free way. This is how one could characterize the bilateral relationship following Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen’s terse meetings last week with the Pakistan Army high command during his trip to Pakistan, and the unusually blunt remarks by Mullen to several Pakistani media outlets just before the meeting left little doubt that both sides remain divided on some of the most fundamental issues related to Pakistan’s fight against militants.

The interviews Adm. Mullen gave before his talks with his counterpart General Khalid Shameem Wynne, as well as with General Ashfaq Kayani, the Pakistani army chief,  reflected the American frustration with the Pakistani reluctance in dealing with groups such as the Haqqani Network and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) the way Washington (and New Delhi) would want.

“It is fairly well known that ISI had a relationship with the Haqqani network and addressing the Haqqani network from my per spective is critical to the solution set in Afghanistan. … that’s at the core — it’s not the only thing — but that’s at the core that I think is the most difficult part of the relationship,” Admiral Mullen said in an interview with Dawn TV late Wednesday.

This essentially reflected what Mullen said in January this year, when he called Pakistan the “epicenter” of terrorism in the world, and called on the Pakistani safe havens where the Haqqanis, LeT, al-Qaeda and the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban reside. Speaking to reporters the day before his trip to Pakistan, Mullen also said that, “We’re working our way through the relationships that [Pakistani intelligence] has with the Haqqani network and the strain that that creates… and these are issues I address with him (Gen.Kayani) every single time we engage.”

And if the brief press release put out by the U.S. embassy or the stern response from the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi south of Islamabad were any indicator, Mullen’s  “engagement with Kayani” was not a smooth affair at all.

“U.S. Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was in Pakistan today to consult with Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff,” was how Kayani figured at all in the 124- word statement issued after Mullen’s 22nd visit to Pakistan since October 2007. As for Kayani, he “”strongly rejected negative propaganda of Pakistan not doing enough and Pakistan army’s lack of clarity on the way forward” according to the statement released by the Pakistani Army.

Let us now consider why Mullen’s patience has worn thin with Pakistan, after long being known as a defender of the Pakistani military; only a few months away from the scheduled beginning of the phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, the U.S.-Pakistan relationship has been racked by the controversy surrounding CIA operative Raymond Davis after he killed two armed men in Lahore in January. This episode not only exposed the CIA operations in Pakistan that for the most part until Davis’s release had been suspected but not paraded about in broad daylight. It also certainly delivered a serious jolt to the relationship, and provided Pakistan with a wand to wave at the United States in order to extract some concessions on covert CIA activities in Pakistan.

And this has turned it into an ISI-CIA turf-war over their mutually conflicting interests and objectives in the region – namely that the Americans want Pakistan to conclusively move against the Haqqani Network and LeT, while Pakistan wants to secure its future interest in a post-American Afghanistan, while also wanting to maintain some order in North Waziristan, dominated by the Zadran tribe, who are also spread across Afghanistan’s Paktia province and to which the Haqqanis belong.

It would seem that Mullen failed to extract a commitment from Kayani on this front, while Mullen, on the other hand, seems to have failed in committing himself to addressing the Pakistani establishment’s paranoia with the expanding Indian role in Afghanistan, a concern that a senior Pakistani general told me the military has raised on various occasions with their American partners. This failure to openly address Pakistani concerns also reinforces the Pakistani preoccupation with the perceived U.S. tilt towards India.

The generals at army headquarters in Rwalpindi also believe that the Indo-American partnership, with the active support and connivance of a Tajik-dominated Afghan security establishment, wants to deny Pakistan a dominant role in Afghanistan, and believe the United States thinks that the only way to achieve this is to accord India key security responsibilities in that country once the bulk of foreign troops leave. Unless addressed by an increasingly strident American defense establishment upset by the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan, these Pakistani concerns will likely continue to disrupt the bilateral U.S.-Pakistan ties, as well as the keep the regional multi-lateral relations on the boil. The perceived American deference to India works to the detriment of Pakistani interests, the senior general told me, and would hardly provide them with the comfort level that a “strategic partner needs to get fully involved in a war that has cost [Pakistan] a lot.”

Pakistani intelligence, says the military commander, “cannot afford to relent and allow the United States or its security institutions a free hand in shaping the geo-political agenda in the region in league with the Indian and Afghan security establishments.”

The challenge for both the U.S. and Pakistan remains the problem of trying to marry their divergent geo-strategic objectives. As for now, the relationship has soured significantly, with no indication of Pakistan giving in on the issue of support for the Haqqanis or LeT. Nor does the U.S. appear ready to accommodate Pakistani concerns flowing from the surging Indian influence in Afghanistan. And in such an environment, stalemate and tension seem ready to endure.

Imtiaz Gul heads the independent Centre for Research and Security Studies — CRSS-Islamabad — and is the author of The Most Dangerous Place.

>

China to US: Hands off Pakistan

Share262

posted at 12:00 pm on May 24, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

Barack Obama says that if the US has another chance to get a high-value terrorist target like Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, he’ll make the same call as he did earlier this month.  Not so fast, says China.  According to a report from India a few days ago, China has warned that an “attack” on Pakistan will be taken as an attack on China (via Pundit Press):

In the wake of the US raid in Abbottabad that killed Osama bin Laden, China has “warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China”, a media report claimed today.

The warning was formally conveyed by the Chinese foreign minister at last week’s China-US strategic dialogue and economic talks in Washington, The News daily quoted diplomatic sources as saying. China also advised the USa to “respect Pakistan’s sovereignty and solidarity”, the report said.

Chinese Premier Mr Wen Jiabao informed his Pakistani counterpart Mr Yousuf Raza Gilani about the matters taken up with the US during their formal talks at the Great Hall of the People yesterday. The report said China “warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China”. The two premiers held a 45-minute one-on-one meeting before beginning talks with their delegations.

The Chinese leadership was “extremely forthcoming in assuring its unprecedented support to Pakistan for its national cause and security” and discussed all subjects of mutual interest with Mr Gilani, the report said. Mr Gilani described Pakistan-China relations and friendship as “unique”. Talking to Pakistani journalists accompanying him, he said that China had acknowledged his country’s contribution and sacrifices in the war against terrorism and supported its cause at the international level. “China supported Pakistan’s cause on its own accord,” Mr Gilani said with reference to the Sino-US strategic dialogue where the Chinese told the US that Pakistan should be helped and its national honour respected. Mr Gilani said China had asked the US to improve its relations with Pakistan, keeping in view the present scenario.

Pakistan’s diplomatic pilgrimage to Beijing succeeded better than previously thought.  This came about the same time as the “gift” of 50 new jet fighters to Pakistan’s military.   While the US flexes its muscles in the wake of the OBL mission, Pakistan’s shopping for a less troublesome ally.  Not that China needed much prompting here, anyway, since both Afghanistan and Pakistan border China, and American operations in the region have to make Beijing nervous anyway.

This new doctrine from China will pose some difficulties for the US.  For instance, what about the Predator attacks on terrorists in the border regions?  Pakistan has officially protested these attacks while unofficially tolerating them.  If China is serious about its message, will they insist on an end to all operations within Pakistan from now on?  And how will China respond to an attack on Pakistan under a doctrine that’s not dissimilar from NATO’s charter?  Will they attack the US and start a war, or will they react only diplomatically?

This may have one salutary effect.  If Pakistan draws closer to China, then the US will have to draw closer to India, which George Bush started to do and which Obama, to his credit, has continued.  India is more of a natural ally to the US anyway.  However, China’s interference in the Af-Pak region will have serious implications for our ability to prosecute the war in Afghanistan.

>

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://cachef.ft.com/cms/s/0/1f26fc5e-74a9-11e0-8988-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1ZrYJT1JV

US and Pakistan odd bedfellows in ‘war on terror’

By David Pilling

Published: May 2 2011 12:54 | Last updated: May 2 2011 12:54

It was only six weeks ago that Raymond Davis, a CIA contractor accused of murdering two Pakistanis, left the country in a welter of controversy after the payment of $2.3m in “blood money” to secure his release.

At that time, Jamaat-e-Islami, the main Islamist political party, spoke for at least a significant minority of Pakistanis when it complained bitterly that the American had ducked the law and “deeply compromised” the country’s sovereignty.

Now US security forces are being lauded for their daring operation in the heart of the country on a mansion housing the world’s most wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden.

The assassination of the al-Qaeda leader will take the sting out of Pakistani complaints that the US is riding roughshod over the country in its pursuit of Islamist extremists. One Pakistani official conceded on Monday that Washington had given a “backbone-breaking jolt to al-Qaeda and their supporters across the globe”.

Hitherto, many Pakistanis have been angered that the US has operated with apparent impunity inside the country’s borders. In particular, they have criticised the use of drone attacks – carried out with the quiet assent of Islamabad. These, say critics, are recruiting agents for Islamist extremists because of the inevitable civilian casualties associated with unmanned aerial attacks.

Barack Obama, the US president, who has stepped up the number of drone attacks during his term in office, brushed aside questions of extraterritoriality.

“I’ve repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was,” Mr Obama said in announcing the terrorist leader’s death.

The US president did go out of his way to praise Pakistan for its help in locating the whereabouts of bin Laden, saying: “Our counter-terrorism co-operation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding.”

Emphasising that the two countries had a mutual interest in seeing the al-Qaeda leader dead, he added: “Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people.”

Yet those words cannot hide the fact that the US-Pakistan relationship has been deeply troubled. If they have been bedfellows in their fight against terrorism, it has been an extraordinarily lumpy and uncomfortable bed.

US officials have consistently complained in private that the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s equivalent of the Central Intelligence Agency, has been playing a double game.

On the one hand, the ISI has taken money from Washington to fight Islamist extremists. On the other, it has cultivated militants to project Pakistani power against India in Kashmir, and also pursued what Islamabad calls “strategic depth” in Afghanistan.

The fact that bin Laden had been living in a big city, apparently just 500 metres from the prestigious Pakistan Military Academy, will fan suspicion that the country’s intelligence apparatus was not doing all it could to track down al-Qaeda’s leader.

Abdullah Abdullah, the former Afghan foreign minister and presidential candidate, said the location of bin Laden’s death was “very telling”.

“I insisted all along that he was in Pakistan,” said Mr Abdullah. “That shows that the [al-Qaeda] network of support is very strong. And it says something about the ISI’s willingness – or unwillingness – to take a serious look at these issues”.

Indeed, Pakistani officials have a tendency to play down support for extremism in their country, portraying Islamist extremists as a tiny minority.

Salman Taseer, former governor of Punjab, told the Financial Times in November, for example, that Taliban and al-Qaeda supporters were small in number and mainly imports. A few weeks later, he was assassinated by one of his own bodyguards for opposing a blasphemy law that discriminates against Christians.

If anything, the relationship between Pakistan and the US has grown more tense in recent months. Joint intelligence operations in north-west Pakistan had come to a virtual halt, according to a former Pakistani diplomat. Pakistan had also resisted US pressure to invade North Waziristan, suspected by Washington as an al-Qaeda base.

Last week, Pakistani officials even had to deny reports that Yusuf Raza Gilani, Pakistan’s prime minister, had been lobbying Afghanistan to drop its alliance with the US and to look, instead, to Islamabad to help solve its differences with the Taliban. Mr Abdullah, for one, says that bin Laden’s death may change all these calculations.

“The Taliban sacrificed Afghanistan for Osama bin Laden,” Mr Abdullah said, referring to the refusal by the Taliban government of Mullah Mohammed Omar to give up the al-Qaeda leader after the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. That precipitated the US invasion in October, ratcheting up the pressure on Pakistan to fight militancy on its side of the border.

The death of bin Laden, on Pakistani soil, is by far the biggest milestone in the campaign to combat Islamist extremism. Pakistan officials were on Monday saying they were involved in the operation. Yet Mr Obama, though he acknowledged there had been joint intelligence-gathering, insisted the raid itself had been carried out by “a small team of Americans”. Even in their hour of victory, the two uncomfortable allies in the “war on terrorism” could not get their story quite to match.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. You may share using our article tools. Please don’t cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

>

Time for Pakistan to divorce the US

by News Source on May 12, 2011

Shaukat Qadir, a retired brigadier and former president of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute, explains how Pakistan ended up at war with itself dealing with a tribal rebellion.

If we hark back in time, in 2001, the Pakistani Pashtun and all Afghans were celebrating US intervention in Afghanistan. It would liberate them from Taliban oppression. Within a year, American arrogance, their suspicion of all Afghans, their utter disregard for local customs and culture, could result in only one thing: Another Afghan freedom struggle from an oppressive foreign force. The US called it a resurgence of the Taliban and al Qaeda! In time it did become that, because the US converted a legitimate struggle for freedom from an army of occupation into ‘Taliban linked to al Qaeda.’

To return to my question — as they did when Afghans sought their freedom from the Soviet occupation, the Pakistani Pashtuns bordering Afghanistan, girded their loins to assist their Afghan brethren. This time, Pakistan did not want them to. And in 2004, we decided to kill the most outspoken of those Pashtuns, a wazir called Nek Muhammad.

His murder was the watershed. We had a rebellion on our hands because we were preventing our tribal Pashtun from assisting their Afghan brethren in their freedom struggle against an army of occupation: The Americans, of course. So all Pakistan suddenly became American, kafirs, legitimate targets for religious fanatics to kill, and we are more vulnerable and accessible for them to target. So we are faced with an existentialist threat and we die. This was the first gift we got from the US.

Without tracing all the history, where do we stand today as far as the US is concerned? Anybody, who is anybody in the US, is baying for our blood. We are traitors to them and branded American-kafirs by our enemy within. Obama now tells us that when the Navy SEALs came to get Osama, they were “in sufficient numbers and prepared to retaliate to any response by the police or Pakistan’s security forces”.

They also gifted us Raymond Davis, hundreds of him. When we agreed to give him back, it was on the condition that all other Raymonds also leave. The CIA has not forgiven us and recent drone attacks are again killing more civilians than militants. If the Raymonds can no longer stoke unrest in Pakistan, the drones can!

As far as the promised financial aid is concerned, we receive a mere trickle, each time with another threat of severance if we fail to obey our Lords and Masters in DC. Even the Coalition Support Fund (CSF), intended to compensate a small portion of the expense incurred by the military in this war that has been forced on us by the US and Musharaf’s capitulation, is long overdue by well over a billion dollars.

The US has its own litany of complaints but we have ours. Isn’t it time to file for divorce?

Share

ShareThisprint this post print this post

>

September 17, 2011

Is Pakistan At War With the United States?

Possibly, or at least part of its government may be.

The United States government believes it has evidence linking the Haqqani network, a terrorist organization which has repeatedly carried out attacks against US government personnel and positions, with the government of Pakistan. As ABC News (Australia) reports,

The United States says there is evidence linking the Pakistani government to the militant group that carried out last week’s attack on the US embassy in Kabul.

The US ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, claims there are links between the Pakistani government and high-profile terrorist group the Haqqani network.

In blunt comments broadcast by state-run Radio Pakistan, Mr Munter said: “Let me tell you that the attack that took place in Kabul a few days ago that was the work of the Haqqani network,” he said, referring to a deadly miltant attack in on Tuesday.

“There is evidence linking the Haqqani network to the Pakistan government. This is something that must stop.”

During the US Civil War, our ambassador in London, Charles Francis Adams, was increasingly concerned by signs that the British government was tolerating the construction of Confederate warships that would attack Union commerce on the high seas.  “It would be superfluous in me,” he told the British foreign minister of the day, “to observe to your lordship that this is war.”

Britain — at the time, the greatest power in the world — stepped up the enforcement of its neutrality legislation, and after the war paid millions in compensation for the damage the Confederate raiders had done.

You don’t have to read very far between the lines to hear a similar message in Ambassador Munter’s latest remarks. I hope they are listening in Islamabad.  I also hope they are paying attention in Washington.  Via Meadia supports a continued US-Pakistan relationship, but in our view the US has to be ready to walk away for the relationship to have a chance.  As long as Pakistan thinks we have no option, it will continue to play gruesome games.  In fact, we have a number of pretty good options, and it is high time we explored them in depth.

Posted in Quick Takes

>

US should cut aid to Pakistan for its ‘War of Terror’ on women

To push Pakistan’s improved cooperation in fighting terrorists, the US has suspended millions in military aid. Will it also have the spine to cut aid over Pakistan’s abhorrent treatment of women?

By Walter Rodgers / July 13, 2011

To push Pakistan toward more cooperation in fighting terrorists, the United States has suspended hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid. Will it also have the spine to cut aid over Pakistan’s abhorrent treatment of women?

Skip to next paragraph

The fact remains that Pakistan has long been a country that collectively wages a war of terror against 49 percent of its own population: against its wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters. Yet outsiders scarcely hear a whimper about this story.

Rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, honor crimes, abuse, and discrimination against women remain serious problems in Pakistan. TrustLaw, an organization that provides legal aid and information on women’s rights, ranks Pakistan as the third most dangerous country for women (behind Congo and Afghanistan). If successive US administrations and Congress don’t use more muscle against these criminal human rights violations, it is because they don’t want to.

Sexual assault is so common it’s not reported

Recently an elderly Pakistani woman was forcibly paraded naked through a Punjab village. The reason? The woman’s grown son was having an adulterous relationship.

According to the latest Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Report, 3,000 women were raped in 2010 and 791 murdered in so-called “honor killings.”

Azra Rashid, a Canadian-Pakistani women’s rights activist, says those numbers are grossly underestimated. “Sexual assault is so common women don’t even report it. Girls grow up not even knowing it’s sexual assault when they are touched inappropriately.” Ms. Rashid says as a young girl she was often groped and fondled going to the market.

Why don’t Pakistani women report these crimes to police? Not long ago, one young Pakistani woman and her sister went to a police station to report a missing brother. The two girls were detained and repeatedly gang-raped by the police.

Rashid says, “At best Pakistani police don’t believe rape victims, the politicians don’t care, and Pakistanis have come to accept this as part of their daily reality.”

A leading Pakistani politician was recently quoted as saying if a woman is raped, and she can’t bring four independent witnesses who saw the act, she should not bother to report it. This, despite the fact that the law no longer requires four witnesses to prove rape. Pakistan has improved its laws protecting women in recent years, but lack of enforcement and entrenched attitudes block progress.

It’s not just rape

It’s not just rape. The ex-husband of a female Pakistani friend threatened to throw acid in her face if she went out with another man. It is not uncommon to see Pakistani women with faces scarred by such acid attacks. Ireland’s Refugee Document Center reporting on crimes against Pakistani women said that “in extreme cases punishments can include women being buried alive.” Pakistani men are rarely convicted of crimes against women.

Skip to next paragraph

Rural land or cattle disputes are often settled by having one party give the other an underage daughter. Rural Pakistan is the 14th century. The countryside is quite familiar with wealthy landlords locking up nubile young serf girls in pens and using them for their pleasure. Domestic house maids in cities are so vulnerable their condition is said to be worse than that of slaves. “The entire patriarchal society is run by men, and warped,” says Rashid.

In a high-profile case, Mukhtara Mai was gang raped on orders of her village council in 2002 because her brother had allegedly committed adultery with the daughter of a feudal lord in an opposing clan. Yet all but one of the 14 accused men were acquitted this year.

In a 2005 Washington Post interview, then-President Pervez Musharraf acknowledged rape as a problem in Pakistan, but added, “A lot of people say that if you want to go abroad and get a visa or Canadian citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped.”

US should not fear playing hardball

The US government largely winks at all this, giving Pakistan upward of $3 billion a year in economic and military assistance. But why should any American woman’s (or man’s) taxes be used to prop up a Pakistani government that views crimes against its own female population as acceptable?

Some apologists cluck and say “Don’t dump Pakistan. It has 100 nuclear weapons.” Yet in the cold war the United States courageously championed the cause of Soviet Jews when the Russians had thousands of nuclear weapons.

To those worrying that if Washington were to dump Pakistan it might fall into China’s orbit, the appropriate response should be “Good! They deserve each other.”

Fear of an erratic Pakistan and our own shameless political expediency should not be the driving force behind US policy toward Islamabad. Those are the values of moral and political bankruptcy. Great democratic nations do not abandon the weak, the abused, and the raped for political convenience.

Walter Rodgers, a former senior international correspondent for CNN, writes a biweekly column.

>

Pakistan pulls out of talks with U.S. on Afghan war

By pulling out of upcoming talks on the war in Afghanistan, Pakistan signals its anger over an American drone missile strike that it says killed civilians along the Afghan border. The U.S. says it hit a compound where militants were meeting.

March 19, 2011|By Alex Rodriguez, Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan — Pakistan on Friday pulled out of upcoming talks with the U.S. on the war in Afghanistan, a move meant to convey Islamabad’s anger over an American drone missile strike that it says killed a gathering of civilians along the Afghan border.

The U.S. and Pakistan disagree on who was killed in the strike Thursday in North Waziristan, a volatile tribal region that serves as a stronghold for an array of militant groups, including Al Qaeda, the Pakistani Taliban and the Haqqani network, a wing of the Afghan Taliban that regularly attacks U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan.

The U.S. said it struck a compound where militants were meeting. But Pakistani authorities insisted that among the 45 reported dead were tribal elders and other civilians meeting to discuss an ownership dispute over a mine.

The dispute comes at a particularly sensitive time in U.S.-Pakistan relations, when Pakistanis are seething over the release Wednesday of a CIA contractor charged with murdering two motorcyclists in the eastern city of Lahore in late January.

At small protests organized by Islamist parties in Islamabad, Lahore and other cities, demonstrators angrily denounced President Asif Ali Zardari’s government for allowing Raymond Davis to go free. His release was made possible by a “blood money” agreement sanctioned by Pakistani law and negotiated by Islamabad and Washington that allows the accused to pay financial compensation to the victims’ families in exchange for their forgiveness.

In announcing that Pakistan would not take part in talks with Afghanistan and the U.S. scheduled for Brussels on March 26, Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir told U.S. Ambassador Cameron Munter that such drone strikes “constituted a flagrant violation of humanitarian norms and law,” according to a statement by the Foreign Ministry.

Drone strikes are a crucial component in Washington’s strategy against Islamic militant groups hiding out in Pakistan’s largely ungoverned tribal areas, and experts say they have been successful in degrading Al Qaeda and the Taliban’s ability to launch attacks.

Pakistan has maintained a policy of publicly condemning the drone strikes while tacitly allowing them to take place. In some instances, the strikes are carried out with the help of Pakistani intelligence-gathering.

alex.rodriguez@latimes.com

>

Alert: U.S. Withdraws All Pakistan Embassy Staff… Prepare for War

Posted on on May 10, 2011 // 6 Comments

5248Share

As being reported in the Foreign Press and on the Alternative News Media on-line, (and not by their main stream corporate media groups) that the U.S. has now withdrawn all of their Embassy Staff, and closed down all Embassies in the country of Pakistan.
http://www.state.gov/cms_images/map_pakistan1.jpgThey are now (implementing) thereof, they are now creating a Global War in the name of the unknowing and unsuspecting American People, and we (The United States of American people) are to be blamed for having allowed for this (Rothschild) Crime Syndicate to literally steal our entire country and it’s destiny.Apparently Rothschildsplan is to now instructing it’s state of Israel and it’s U.S. corporate military intelligence (sock puppets) to begin the attack on Iran in this immediate future.That these Elitists are now beginning their last desperate move to create their (illegal and unwarranted) military actions that surely, will now quickly lead to a confrontation with China and Russia who are in place to counter act this unwarranted attack for the Rothschild global banking crime syndicate. As that they have planned for this global conflictand that they are now getting their way(s) once again and with once again, their mass profiteering at the cost of this time many hundreds of millions of unsuspecting and innocent peoples live worldwide.We have been apparently getting too smart for them with the support of the Internet and the Alternative media and now Rothschild is in a hurry to accelerate their plans for final destructionof the entire planet.Whether they can and or that they cannot steal Iran’s many trillions of dollars in ancient Babylonian (Persian) gold and Iran’s ancient records that explain who Rothschild and the Rothschild’s hidden global (Reptilian-Draconian-Ashkanazi-Karzakian-Zionist) network really is.Apparently the word “draconian,” emerged into our language due to the hidden meaning referring to the Constellation of Draco, whereof hence, apparently these Draconian’s came from the Constellation of Draco and that they are now in the act of fully destroying this entire planet just like they have been doing throughout this entire galaxy for a long time.They will now also apparently begin setting off the New Madrid Fault lines, the subduction zone just off of the coast of Oregon, Washington, and Vancouver Island, as well as Mount Sheridan in Yellow Stone National Park and the Canary Island Volcano-s that will surely send thousand foot high sunami-s to destroy most of the coast lines in Europe, Asia, and North America. Get ready in Hawaii people.Other locations no doubt being (HAARP) will be Mount Si located just east of Seattle, and Mount Tabor located within the city limits of Portland, Oregon.They are apparently also targeting the fault lines located off of the Southern California coastlines, and also realize that Mexico’s fault lines also are now being targeted and most of the Volcanos located all of the way down through Central America will also now begin to erupt.

They are using what was discovered many years ago, that they can set off the earths grid lines using very powerful (Tesla) ELF (Extra Low Frequency). Research this for a better explanation at:
http://keelynet.com/ or thereof, the history of the incredible scientific discoveries of another Tesla, named John Worell Keely referring to this great scientific discovery as being “Sympathetic Vibratory Harmonics.”
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ds=yt&sugexp=ldymls&pq=col.+tom+bearden+elf&xhr=t&q=Earth+Grid+ELF&cp=14&biw=1280&bih=885&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=vw#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&pq=earth%20grid%20elf&xhr=t&q=John%20Worell%20Keely%20Sympathetic%20Vibratory%20Harmonics&cp=11&pf=p&sclient=psy&biw=1280&bih=885&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=John+Worell+Keely+Sympathetic+Vibratory+Harmonics&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=c47720ba43ce4197

The Earth Grid system ss was originally researched by Dr. Bill Becker and Beth Hagens back in the 1980s and that their work was further supported by the renown scientific scholar Dr. Bob Beck, and later by Adam Trombly, and Col. Thomas Bearden, that they have the technology to literally set off the entire planet’s grid system. And, that is apparently what we are observing at this time.

John Worrel Keely Sympathetic Vibration Harmonics
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ds=yt&sugexp=ldymls&pq=col.+tom+bearden+elf&xhr=t&q=Earth+Grid+ELF&cp=14&biw=1280&bih=885&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=vw#hl=en&biw=1280&bih=885&sa=X&ei=ZpPITYCoEKLbiAL_69GJBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CBUQBSgA&q=John+Worrel+Keely+Sympathetic+Vibration+Harmonics&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=c47720ba43ce4197

In the 1880s John Worrel Keely flew a piloted Sympathetic Harmonic propelled craft (Gyroscopic Aether) over the U.S. War Department and in front of more then eight hundred governmental observers who afterward had the vehicle stored in the Lime Stone caverns located underneath the University of Florida in Gainesville.

Apparently the famous financier named John Jacob Astor had been funding the research of John Worrel Keely.

Also, apparently John Jacob Astor was set up to be on the famed Titanic and was lured to bring on board for shipment a array of newly built Tesla technology devices including Tesla transmitting technologies that would have provided regional electrical energy in unlimited abundance.

As was also mentioned by Judge David Wynn Miller (http://www.dwmlc.com) on the All Day Live show (weekly on http://www.scantv.org) during this past week’s All Day Live program that these types of (Tesla) transmitting technologies can be placed on telephone poles and provide an infinite energy source with now pollution or nuclear power sources.

So on May 9th, (today) they blanked out the SCANTV station broadcast during this All Day Live broadcast that is also broadcast on local Seattle Comcast cable channel 77, and on Broadstripe cable in South King County, and all on-line streaming Webcast was also blocked

The City of Seattle is one of the most corrupt corrupt political cesspools in the world, being completely controlled by the key MOB families who reside here in the Northwest and they do whatever they deem they want to here. Bobby Kennedy just prior to leaving the Northwest from Portland International Airport in 1967 heading to his final last moments, clearly mentioned that the Northwest (Oregon and Washington states) are the most corrupt states North America.
Don’t forget the phoney Washington State Constitution of 1889 that the established order has tried to enforce as being the Constitution for the State of Washington when in fact, Washington states actually constitution is that of the 1878 Constitution, but during the 1880s these crime families proceeded to burn down all of the originally located state capital buildings in Ellensburg, Washington.

These buildings and archives were what had comprised what was the first Washington State capital in Ellensburg, Washington. These same criminal elements then proceeded to murder off more then two thousand people, while also destroying all of the original state of Washington archives.

These crime families then proceeded to steal all of the land and resources in the entire Northwest (after murdering off the original land owners, and this includes the massacre of most of the Chiefs of the Northwest Indian tribes like that of the caucasian appearing Kowlitz Indians) thus having murdered whole tribes and as well as the many generations of these noble Indian Chief’s later generations throughout the entire Northwest.

These crime families prospered in the many billions of dollars under the cover of their Regis (timber) Family, their Weyerhaeuser Family, their Crown Family, their Simpson Family, and other Elitist picked minions, and now their Maxwell Family, tying together by bloodlines, the Northwest’s main political and judicial figureheads.

Not by coincidence, all of the Northwest’s top political, banking, corporate, and judicial figureheads are all cousins and or they are all related to one another through this network of crime syndicate family control over the entire Northwest.

These hidden and all powerful crime family bloodlines also tie to the Bonanno and Gambino crime families (look who owns all of the strip bars and casinos and it is not the Indian reservations like you would think of it as, and most of the native northwest population don’t have a clues as to how these Crime Families control their reservation gambling operations). This crime syndicate and crime family control encompasses as well, the Bank of America founders the Amadeo Giannini crime family who are one of the most powerful crime families in Europe, and this is the means of whence Donald came upon his vast banking and financial power, and casino holdings because Donald Trump is merely their primary banking officers for North America like Warren Buffett is, and why the founders of Microsoft are who they are and who they are all related to and they didn’t just happen to be lucky, they are all a part of this intertwined crime family network linking the Bronfmans and the Guinness (banking) families of Canada.

Sarah Palin is as well a part of these same family infrastructure, linking to the Seattle Mercer family, on of the first God Fathers of the Northwest. Sarah Palin is tied by bloodline to these crime families, or she would not ordained to be who she is being touted by their fake stream corporate media mind control and cover-up operations. Consider the actual parameters of power that these crime families have that give them complete control over their CPS (Child Prostitution Services) networks and their agendas to implement total destruction of most of the families and communities here in the Northwest while simultaneously then trafficking in these millions of stolen children.

That their all powerful networks and crime families that comprise the entire Northwest’s most powerful infrastructures, are, all of the while and behind the scenes running and covering up a gigantic, drugs, prostitution, gambling, pedophile, and murder network, and they select who is in charge here, who is allowed to have or retain their family estates, or who becomes a police chief, or who become a Federal and Superior Court judge, etc., etc, etc, and who controls all of the Northwest media and communications systems.

They then also then proceeded to steal all of the original Stuart family trust estates, here in the Northwest, (holdings that were originally bequeathed to the people of this country and to this region) and then they proceeded to murder off and kidnap the Stuart family heirs and as well as then steal all of the entire port infrastructures in Oregon and Washington.
Nuclear Tipped Cruise Missiles Fired on Orders From Obama?
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=127911
Massive Psychotronic Warfare on the American People.
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=133662;
When America Has Reached La La Land. Pt. 2
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=131386;

So they are getting ready to shut down SCANTV studios this July (illegally) to shut down free speech, to shut down the Northwest whistle blowers capability for bringing out the incredible crimes being committed here in the Northwest and as well as bringing out the real truth concerning what the alternative news reporting community here in the Northwest who have been effectively reporting on the crimes of the now very apparent governmental U.S. corporate crime syndicate and their now immediate plans to fully destroy this entire nation.

After uncovering massive fraud, embezzlement, and extreme illegal administrative affairs that have encompassed the SCANTV studios over this last twelve years. SCANTV: Seattle Community Access Network Television.

Seattle City Council members like that of a Bill Compton are complicit in the mis-allocation and failure to account for the more then fifty million dollars that should have rightfully gone to the SCANTV non profit entity over this past twelve years, due to the original Comcast cable contract with the SCANTV non profit entity, but instead this same Seattle City Council have been covering up their massive fraud and theft.

SCANTV board members whose board contracts had been expired with SCANTV for more then three years, like that of a Stan Emert, who they then illegally Quit Claim Deeded the SCANTV studios over to this same Seattle City Council, who then they have proceeded to deed over the property to their insider network who are planning on building a condominium complex at this soon to the former site of the SCANTV studios. Seattle corruption at it’s usual best. And, right in front of the entire planet.

The SCANTV program has transcended into having world class producers who produce programs that are viewed throughout the world on the Internet due to SCANTV having achieved to being one of the most actively watch on-line streamed broadcasting stations in the world.

So the corporate media groups located here in the Seattle and Northwest region like that of KingTV, KomoTV, KiroTV, KCTS, and Northwest Fox News have been upset that due to SCANTV being a not for profit entity that SCANTV is not in violation of it’s FCC Federal Communications contracts due to it’s non profit status that has allowed for SCANTV to able to successfully broadcasting by streaming media over the Internet.

Thereof, SCANTV has proceeded to create an audience size in the many millions of daily viewers whereas, the corporate media groups had to come up with a means for quietly destroying their Community Access Network competitor. Even though SCANTV is braodcasting on-line, it has become a world leader in on-line broadcast and SCANTV’s actually following is the largest in the Northwest encompassing more then three hundred and fifty thousand regular viewers in just the Western Washington area alone.

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2011/05/10/alert-u-s-withdraws-all-pakistan-embassy-staff-prepare-for-war/

>

Truth hard to find in US-Pakistan war of words over Raymond Davis

Diplomatic and legal situation remains fraught, while the media are engaged in a frenzy of speculation about CIA agent

A flier calling on Pakistanis to demonstrate against attempts to release CIA agent Raymond Davis

A flier calling on Pakistanis to demonstrate against US attempts to secure the release of CIA agent Raymond Davis, who shot dead two Pakistani men. Photograph: Warrick Page/Getty Images

A storm of media speculation has enveloped the case of Raymond Davis, the CIA official charged with murder in Pakistan, as officials from both countries seek to shape public opinion in an increasingly fraught diplomatic and legal standoff.

Since it emerged this week that Davis, who shot two people on a busy street last month, was a working spy, Pakistan’s media has been gripped by lurid stories portraying him as a dangerous provocateur.

One front-page story accused him of working with Taliban bombers to sow chaos across Pakistan; other accounts have variously suggested he is addicted to chewing tobacco, howls during prayers, enjoys jailhouse visits from women and spends hours playing Ludo to fend off depression. US officials continue to insist Davis is a bona-fide diplomat, so immune from prosecution. Conditions are so dangerous at the jail where Davis is being held, they say, that dogs test his food, his guards have been disarmed and he is at constant risk of assassination.

“This issue is mired in so many versions of the truth that it’s hard to know who’s telling the truth and who isn’t,” said Cyril Almeida, a columnist with Dawn.com. “My guess is that all sides are lying.”

The outcome should be settled in court, although resolution seems distant.

Barack Obama insists Davis should be freed under the provisions of the Vienna convention. But Pakistan’s former foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, who lost his job over the issue, says Davis is not covered – as does Ron Mlotek, an experienced former US lawyer.

“The American case is very convoluted and appears to be based on smoke and mirrors,” said Mlotek, who retired two years ago after 25 years of service in the state department examining such cases.

Even if the US can prove that Davis is a diplomat, he argues, Pakistan could challenge immunity on the basis that he was carrying an illegal weapon, worked from a spy agency safe house and was not living in Islamabad, where the embassy claims he was based.

“No matter what the US government says, this is not an open-and-shut case. The facts are far from clear,” he said.

But fact is only one aspect of the issue, which has become enmeshed in a web of nationalist passions and spy agency rivalries. Prompted by selective leaks, newspapers have raised questions about cowboy Americans roaming the country – “How many Davis-type agents are in Pakistan?” asked one headline yesterday – while soap opera-style storylines supplement the publicity frenzy.

On Thursday newspapers reported that the father-in-law of one man killed by Davis had survived a mysterious poisoning attempt; other relatives are said to be under pressure from religious parties to refuse any American offer of compensation. Prison guards have reportedly been fired for trying to smuggle items into Davis’s cell.

But the depth of public hostility is difficult to gauge – the outcry is led by the usual suspects, minority Islamist parties – and some coverage has had a playful tone, drawing parallels between Davis and Jason Bourne, James Bond or, because of his poor spycraft, Mr Bean. One comedian proposed a new television show entitled Everyone Hates Raymond.

A troubled spy agency relationship lies under the media frenzy. Complaining of American arrogance, the ISI says its links to the CIA have been badly damaged by the affair, warning in an unusual press statement this week that it was “hard to predict if the relationship will ever reach [its prior] level”.

It is not just a case of wounded amour propre – analysts say the army is using the controversy to its advantage. “Are they hoping that settling this matter amicably will lead to some concessions or a change in American attitude on other issues? Possibly,” said Almeida.

Amid the noise there is little new light, however, on the 27 January shooting that triggered the crisis. US officials stress that Davis was working in a security role at the time and not in intelligence collection, probably to avoid him also being charged with espionage.

The Pakistani government says it needs until 14 March to decide whether Davis has immunity from prosecution. Given the public uproar, Pakistani analysts say it is hard to see how the government can politically afford to set him free.

“This has become a big mess, for the Americans as well as the Pakistanis,” said Talat Masood, a retired general and analyst. “There’s no easy solution, and both sides need to let things calm down for a while. Otherwise it will get out of hand.”

>

Pakistan and the War on Terror: Conflicted Goals, Compromised Performance

Ashley J. TellisCarnegie Report, January 2008

Resources

Translations

Pakistan and the War on Terror The United States must shift its counterterrorism policy towards Pakistan away from a reciprocal approach—requiring Islamabad to perform desirable actions to receive support—towards one encouraging Pakistan to enact effective counterterrorism policies, not for an immediate payoff, but to strengthen institutionalized trust with the U.S. over time, according to a new report from the Carnegie Endowment.

In Pakistan and the War on Terror: Conflicted Goals, Compromised Performance, Carnegie Senior Associate Ashley J. Tellis points to growing dissatisfaction in the United States with the Musharraf regime’s commitment to counterterrorism operations, given the influx of U.S. aid. But while Pakistan’s performance in the “war on terror” has fallen short of expectations, Islamabad’s inability to defeat terrorist groups cannot simply be explained by neglect or lack of motivation. U.S. policy makers must take into account the specific and complex counterterrorism challenges facing Pakistan and move away from their current unsustainable policies.

Nine strategies for more effective U.S. counterterrorism policies towards Pakistan:

    1. Speak clearly and forcefully to Musharraf in private about U.S. frustrations with Pakistan’s counterterrorism performance to outline the prospective consequences inaction will have on the U.S.-Pakistan relationship.
    1. Continue to encourage Pakistan’s border control efforts, but prioritize the targeting of Taliban leadership operating in Pakistan as part of the current counterterrorism concept of operations.
    1. Restructure the intelligence relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan to allow both the CIA and coalition forces in Afghanistan to acquire greater insight into existing terrorist networks inside Pakistan.
    1. Continue to assist Pakistan with technology and training to prosecute small-unit counterterrorism operations more effectively.
    1. Reform accounting practices to ensure effective oversight and auditing of coalition funds disbursed to Pakistan for counterterrorism operations.
    1. The reestablishment of stable democratic order is essential to stop Pakistan’s spiraling descent into extremism and disorder. The United States must integrate the ongoing political transition in Pakistan, including a return to democracy and rule of law, into the larger war on terrorism.
    1. Commit to long-term assistance for the Karzai government in Afghanistan to address the vacuum of governance, particularly with regards to security, economic development, and narcotics production.
    1. Commit more manpower and material contributions to help NATO live up to its security obligations in Afghanistan.
  1. Accelerate the raising of the Afghan National Army (ANA) as a hedge against the possible failure of NATO to restructure the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to effectively fight and win the war in Afghanistan.

“The Bush administration ought to persist with its current emphasis on the noncoercive engagement of Pakistan at least so long as there is a reasonable hope that the transformation of Pakistan into a moderate Muslim state is not a lost cause, that the Musharraf regime can be persuaded to expand its counterterrorism operations to those groups that have thus far remained beyond reach, and that the United States will have sufficient opportunity to switch to an alternative strategy before the present attempt at engagement is judged to have failed irremediably.”

A limited number of print copies are available.
Request a copy

>

US: On War Path Against Her Ally Pakistan!

Posted on 26. Sep, 2011 by in Pak-US Relations

Unilateral action will dig last nail in coffin of US military

By Brig Asif Haroon Raja

The sole super power priding to be the strongest nation in the world with all its economic indicators in the positive was viciously hit from within by 19 Arab hijackers on fateful day of 11 September 2001. Two hijacked Jumbo aircraft struck Twin Towers in New York in quick succession. Later on, the third aircraft hit part of Pentagon building and the fourth one was shot down short of Pennsylvania.2973 Americans died in the process. The whole American nation sank into state of shock, fear and nervous breakdown. Dignity of the strongest nation lays hatred. Once the clouds of fright dispersed, those at the helm of affairs fumed with anger and put their heads together how to wreak vengeance on the perpetrators of incomprehensible and unforgivable crime.

Zionist controlled media upped the ante to stimulate hatred against Islam and its adherents. Within hours of the tragedy, Israeli former PM Ehud Barak blamed Osama Bin Laden (OBL) and prompted American administration to invade Afghanistan. The whole world went into mourning and termed the terrorist acts as the biggest catastrophe ever happened. All officials, writers and anchors of print and electronic media of the world comity shed copious tears of sympathy over  of lives and trauma caused and condemned the terrorists and their patrons severely.

Based on hearsay and assumptions, OBL led al-Qaeda based in Afghanistan was nominated as the accused even before carrying out investigations and accordingly war preparations were unleashed with frenetic speed and urgency. The US took no time to build an international coalition for the crusade. In order to make the military adventure appear compelling and purposeful, George W Bush led neo-cons coined the theme of ‘war against global terrorism to make the world safe and secure’. On 28 September 2001, the UNSC passed a resolution sanctioning invasion of a sovereign country with a view to combating terrorism.

The US then bluntly demanded physical support from all those willing to be with the US in its hour of crisis instead of offering mere sympathies. Option of staying neutral was ruled out and term ‘you’re with us or against us’ brandished. Gen Musharraf declared as a pariah by USA and western world because of his military coup against a democratic government in October 1999 was put the same question on the night of 12 September by Colin Powel. He had already been briefed by the then DGISI Lt Gen Mahmud who was on a visit to Washington about the ugly mood of American leadership. He had been warned by Richard Armitage that the US would send   Pakistan in to Stone Age if it refused to cooperate. When Musharraf said that he was with the US, he was given seven demands which he promptly accepted. Subsequently he did bring the requirements of Washington to the notice of civil and military policy makers and all agreed with him that he had taken the right decision. It enabled US-NATO military to mount an offensive as early as 7 October 2001which changed the complexion of world dynamics.

Bugles of war were sounded and forces of destruction let loose on a hapless and impoverished nation which had no connection with 9/11. Whole range of destructive weaponry like daisy cutters, cluster bombs, stealth bombers, cruise missiles and depleted uranium were brought into play to rain molten lava from the air.  The only fault of Mullah Omar and his Shura was that they refused to hand over OBL without providing them proof of his complicity. The US couldn’t oblige since it didn’t have any and had engineered the whole drama for altogether different motives. Its ranting and raving was a put up show. It is now widely believed that 9/11 attacks were engineered by Zionists under the framework of Dragon policy, framed by Mossad and RAW in 2001 for carrying out false flag terrorism

New rules on terrorism were formulated which envisaged punishing the terrorist networks and those who harbored, supported or aided them in any form. Thin line between terrorism and freedom struggle was also washed out to benefit Israel and India. Pakistan was a target prior to 9/11 and remained so subsequently but was treacherously made to believe that it was an ally of USA. The proposal of ‘with us or against us’ was a coercive call meant to frighten the military ruler to submit to America’s plan and facilitate its invasion.

Occupation of Afghanistan and formulation of new rules on terrorism gave a godsend opportunity to India to punish its arch rival Pakistan on account of its venture in Kargil and its overall policy of defying Indian hegemony in South Asia. While the US military and NATO got busy in mopping up operation in Afghanistan, India had its own set of priorities. It was desperate to regain its influence in Afghanistan and to bash Pakistan. While the US had politely declined India’s advice that Indian military would attack Pakistan from the west in concert with US-NATO attack on Afghanistan from the north, it agreed to its suggestion to deceive Pakistan by pretending to be its close ally and then forcing it to become frontline state, severing ties with Taliban, sharing intelligence, making available its airbases, airspace, Karachi Port and land routes via Chaman and Torkham for logistic support.

Behind the ruse of helping Pakistan in fighting terrorism nabbing runaway terrorists, CIA and FBI opened outposts in selected regions of FATA and Balochistan and also gained control over immigration department on all major airports. In short time, CIA started dominating ISI in matters of intelligence acquisition since it had superior means at its disposal.

Indian leadership then tasked RAW to chalk out a comprehensive covert war plan to destabilize and emasculate Pakistan’s institutions. In concert with Israel, Dragon Policy was put to use. This highly sophisticated operation is multi-faceted cohesion between intelligence, military, media and politics aimed at fragmenting nations which pose a threat to global agenda of international Zionism.

In order to gauge the reaction capability of Pakistan armed forces after its 70,000 troops had got deployed along western border and also to take the steam out of Kashmir movement, India stage managed a terrorist attack on Indian Parliament in Delhi in December 2001. In return for defusing highly volatile situation after ten-month military standoff, the US pressured Gen Musharraf to let India fence the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir, stop infiltration across LoC, ban Jihadi groups supporting Kashmiri freedom fighters and give a written commitment that Pakistan would not allow its soil to be used for terrorism in neighboring countries or for supporting freedom struggle in occupied Kashmir.

India also decided to bring Pakistan on its knees by building dams and controlling water in three rivers of Jhelum, Chenab and Indus. It had already heavily bribed regional political parties in Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to prevent construction of Kalabagh Dam at all cost since it had the potential to meet future agricultural and energy needs of Pakistan.

In order to subvert Islamic values and to divide the society, India and USA first helped Pakistan in increasing TV channels and then penetrated chosen channels to promote liberalism, secularism and obscenity. Media was also used to spread misgivings and despondency among aggrieved segments and to then instigate dissidents and quislings to pick up arms against the state forces.

RAW didn’t find any difficulty in giving final shape to the plan to destabilize Pakistan covertly since all it had to do was to dig out old files of 1980s in which RAW in collaboration with KGB and KHAD had carried out cross border terrorism against Pakistan using Afghan soil for a decade. KGB’s file on Baloch insurgency in 1970s was also consulted to revive old contacts among Marris and Mengals. RAW teamed up with CIA, Mossad, MI-6 and its own creation RAAM to carryout similar operations in FATA and Balochistan since all had common objectives. CIA facilitated entry of RAW agents in Pakistan and over the years the two agencies established an extensive network all over Pakistan.

Concurrently, Indian military planners started rehashing war plans and speeding up force modernization program. Latest state-of-art weaponry was purchased from advanced countries for all the services and missile and nuclear capabilities were upgraded. Israel not only became the biggest arms supplier of India but also helped India in up-gradation of its nuclear and missile programs and in fighting freedom fighters in Kashmir.

To reciprocate Musharraf’s generosity in defusing Kashmir movement, India agreed to ceasefire along the LoC in Kashmir and signed peace treaty with Pakistan. This was yet another ruse to make Pakistan lower its guards. Once the momentum of freedom struggle waned, Indian planners then began to give final shape to new doctrine of Cold Start which was Pakistan specific and accordingly trained its mechanized battle groups supported by mechanized artillery and air force. Tactical nuclear weapons were manufactured to support independent battle groups. Indian Navy was geared to affect a naval blockade in Arabian Sea at an opportune time.

While India got down in real earnest to prepare its armed forces for the fourth round, Pakistan Army was pushed into the inferno of war on terror in which it was pitched against own people in FATA and Balochistan. In order to keep it embroiled irreversibly, all the five aligned intelligence agencies started funding, training, equipping and launching terrorists from Afghanistan.TTP in FATA, TNSM in Swat-Malakand and BLA-BRA-BLF in Balochistan are foreign supported militias. Members of these outfits belonging to tribal areas are among the best fighters in Pakistan. These assets were bribed and turned into anti-state elements. Drones were also introduced by CIA to further stir up terrorism. Flames of terrorism initially it in South Waziristan and interior Balochistan were gradually spread inwards towards other parts of Pakistan. Foreign hands keep pouring kerosene on embers of terrorism. Consequent to sustained psychological war, Pakistan has been charge sheeted with multiple crimes without providing shred of evidence to substantiate allegations.

Resultantly, Pakistan today is a scene of violence, death and destruction. Whereas Pakistan has suffered the most in US dictated war on terror and is the biggest victim of terrorism, the sponsor of the war instead of sympathizing has declared that Pakistanis the most dangerous country in the world and nursery of terrorism. According to Adm. Mike Mullen, Pakistanis exporter of terrorism and aligned with Haqqani network based in Miranshah, a bustling town of North Waziristan(NW) and epicenter of economic activity. ISI has been directly accused that it had a hand in recent attacks in Kabul. A case has been cleverly built up on the pattern of endgame of Vietnam War in which story of safe havens was played up and Cambodia made a scapegoat to cover up US military’s failure.

The US leaders embarrassed from series of debacles in recent weeks are trying to make Pakistan a sacrificial lamb in order to hide US military’s failures. They are trying to enact 9/11 like situation and have given an ultimatum to Pakistan that it is either with the US or with the Haqqani network. Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Mike Mullen, Petraeus and Panetta who are firing threatening salvos should be realistic and try to understand that the American public as well as the world today is no more ignorant and will not get duped by psychological war again and again. They should know that neither the military and economic situation of USA is as strong as was in 2001, nor Pakistanis under a military dictator who could take decisions on behalf of the nation unilaterally. Rather, the US has become economically impoverished because of global economic meltdown and US excessive defence spending, and militarily weak and timid owing to the beatings it is receiving at the hands of Taliban in Afghanistan. Moreover, after the US lies about WMDs in Iraq were exposed, who would believe its Haqqani network story?

Judging from the barrage of accusations and threatening posture, it can be assumed that the US has finally decided to stick out its neck into North Waziristan where the neck choppers are impatiently waiting. If the US Special Forces opt for another unilateral action, it will undoubtedly add to the woes of Pak security forces, but repercussions of the venture would be unbearable for USA since it would amount to digging the last nail in the coffin of adventurers in Afghanistan. Any hostile act by US forces would greatly help in unifying the otherwise divisive nation.

For a change PM Gilani and FM Hina Rabbani are giving bold and sensible statements and are not showing any signs of weakness. A call for an All Parties Conference has been given by Gilanito solicit support of all political forces. Religious parties and groups are getting restive and have expressed their resolve to stand behind armed forces in case of US physical intervention. As opposed to juvenility displayed by US military leaders, Gen Kayani remained cool, calm and collected and gave measured and sensible statements. Consequent to last Corps Commanders Conference, the Army has readied its response actions in anticipation to all possible options the US could exercise with or without India and has expressed its full determination to face the challenge squarely.

Even the militant groups currently fighting Pak security forces in all probability would turn their gun barrels outwards, as they had done in 2009 when Indian forces were rearing to attack. In short, every Pakistani is firmly of the view that the US is unreliable, double-dealer and a cheat. They agree with Gilani that America and not Pakistan should do more since Pakistan has sacrificed a lot to help USA but the US instead of being grateful  is leaving no stone unturned to degrade Pakistan. They say with one voice that enough is enough and it is high time that Pakistan should distance itself from fair-weather friend and get rid of deceptive US aid tied to harsh conditions. They say that time has come to throw away the crutches provided by unpredictable USA and that Pakistan should learn to stand on its own feet. They also suggest that our policy makers should takeout its eggs from the US basket and shift them into the basket of China who has proved by its deeds to be trustworthy and an all-weather friend. We should also strengthen our backyard by developing very intimate relations with Iran which is in the firing line of USA.

>

US officials slam report on Pakistan drone war dead

The London-based group said 291 CIA drone strikes had taken place in Pakistan since 2004.—Reuters photo

WASHINGTON: US officials on Friday strongly rejected allegations in an independent study that a covert drone war in Pakistan has killed large numbers of civilians, saying the numbers are “way off the mark.”

US officials slammed the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism report’s finding that there had been many more CIA attacks on alleged militant targets and far more civilian deaths than previously reported.

The report said that bombing raids by unmanned aircraft, designed to target Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants, had killed up to 168 children in Pakistan over the last seven years.

“The numbers cited by this organisation are way off the mark,” said a senior US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“In the past year, in the neighborhood of 600 militants —including over two dozen terrorist leaders —have been taken off the battlefield.

“In that same period of time, we can’t confirm any noncombatant casualties,” the official told AFP in an email.

A second US official, who also asked not to be identified, dismissed the report as unfounded, saying: “The numbers are wrong.”

The officials said intelligence agencies took precautions to avoid killing civilians and that the robotic aircraft —equipped with missiles, video cameras and sensors —can linger over a target to ensure accuracy.

“This is a weapon —fueled by good intelligence —that allows us to counter an urgent and deadly threat in otherwise inaccessible places,” said the first official.

“And it’s far more precise than conventional ground operations. What’s the alternative to this kind of rigor, assuming the United States and its allies are unwilling to allow al-Qaeda and its friends to plot and murder freely?”

The London-based group said 291 CIA drone strikes had taken place in Pakistan since 2004, eight per cent more than previously reported, and that under President Barack Obama there had been 236 —one every four days. But the official said the report’s numbers had not been confirmed.

“Credible reports of civilian deaths are taken into account, period. If large numbers of innocent people were being killed, the Pakistanis wouldn’t stand for it. Neither would we. That’s the reality,” the official said.

US officials also cast doubt on one of the report’s sources, Mirza Shahzad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer who is suing the Central Intelligence Agency on behalf of civilians who say they lost loved ones in drone strikes.

“One of the loudest voices claiming all these civilian casualties is a Pakistani lawyer who’s pushing a lawsuit to stop operations against some of the most dangerous terrorists on the planet,” the official said.

“His publicity is designed to put targets on the backs of Americans serving in Pakistan and Afghanistan. His agenda is crystal clear.”

The official said there were concerns about the lawyer’s possible links with Pakistani intelligence, as Akbar had publicly named the CIA’s undercover station chief in the country.

>

Pakistan Breaks Away

Monday, July 25, 2011 – by Staff Report

Pakistan: Fortifying Our Civilizational Heritage … These are very challenging times for the Pakistani nation, blessed with national resilience, sense of honour and the civilizational heritage, drawn from the four oldest civilizations of the world – Central Asia, West Asia, South Asia and East Asia (China), with whom it shares common borders. Itself being the ‘Cradle of Indus Civilization’, no other country in the world can boast of such assets, which determine the ‘Geo-historical Blend’ of the Pakistani nation and can rightly be called the ‘Land of the Rainbow Civilization”; yet, these very civilizational assets have so carelessly been sacrificed for the geo-political expediencies of the past. Instead of getting closer to our immediate neighbours, we made friends and allies with the United States of America, a distant land, with whom we share no civilizational values. And for this faulty decision, Pakistan has suffered immensely, during the last five decades. There is a strong realization now to ‘correct the course’ and create a more pragmatic geo-political environment of national security, most suited, to strengthen our civilizational linkages, with our immediate neighbours. – Opinion Maker/General Mirza Aslam Beg

Dominant Social Theme: Ignore the shifting strategic implications. Pakistan is a friend of the US.

Free-Market Analysis: One of the biggest reasons the Anglo-American elite lost the war in Afghanistan is because the wealthy families that make up Pakistan’s elite were distrustful of both NATO and the US military-industrial comlex. In this article, excerpted above, we can see how the perception of Pakistan’s interests are changing.

The British virtually carved Pakistan out of India, but that doesn’t mean they incurred any gratitude for it. The latest Afghan war foundered in Afghanistan because the Pakistan elites would not expel the Pashtun Taliban from “safe havens.” Of course, what was never explained in mainstream Western media was that these were not safehavens so much as regional areas in Pakistan where the Pashtuns had lived for thousands of years.

With good reason, the Pakistan elites were reluctant to invade. The Pashtuns practice private, tribal justice. The families of victims remember and may take vengeance “unto the seventh generation.” What Western propagandists have demeaned as “lynch mob” (private) justice turns out to have a good deal of logic behind it after all. It discourages unwarranted attacks.

Now comes General Mirza Aslam Beg to propose a regional strategy to bring Pakistan back to health. Beg, like General Hamid Gul speaks for Pakistan’s elite families. In Pakistan, where civil rule is weak, top military men are comfortable speaking on large issues of statecraft. Gul is exceptionally powerful and well-placed. Beg seems so, too. The piece may merely be a rhetorical gambit aimed at the US, but some of its arguments are convincing nonetheless. Here’s the recipe he recommends for Pakistan:

After six decades of conflict and distrust, India and Pakistan now have realized the need to resolve the outstanding issues through dialogue and discussion. The forces of globalization also demand that the existing developed trade and commerce infrastructure between the two countries, which have remained closed for over six decades, must be opened now, for the free flow of trade and commerce throughout the entire Asian region.

Since 1979, Iran has been subjected to sanctions and embargos by the United States and has been demonized for the alleged weaponisation of its nuclear programme, creating a state of panic amongst its immediate neighbours, who, during the last ten years have purchased military hardware from USA, worth over US$ 150 billions, to face the Iranian threat, yet Iran poses no threat to them. Iran has joined hands with Pakistan to evolve a common strategy for peace and stability in Afghanistan, after the American exit, which is a very healthy development towards strengthening the historic linkage between Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan …

With the rise of China, the ‘global centre of gravity’ has shifted from the Atlantic to the Pacific and China, now is a factor of stability for the Pacific and Asian regions. Chinese policy of Peace, Cooperation and Engagement, projects Chinese ‘Soft Power’ and neutralizes, without fighting, the American military ‘Hard Power’ vying for global domination and emerges as the most successful policy in today’s multi-polar world. China is a reliable friend of Pakistan. It has stood by Pakistan and is a source of strength, radiating the civilizational virtues of peace and harmony.

This indicates what may be a significant strategic adjustment by the great Pakistan families. US policy-makers like Hillary Clinton have been using a carrot-and-stick approach to try to shove Pakistan’s leadership toward an all-out invasion of Pashtun/Taliban areas in Pakistan. This policy instead seems to have galvanized a new political direction.

Is the Western mainstream media reporting it? The idea seems to be that if it is not being written about, then it is not happening. This principle is being applied to the larger Afghan war. The war effort seems to be in a virtual free fall. Hamid Karzai‘s brother – perhaps the most single important man in Afghanistan – was gunned down just the other day.

But there have been a number of other deaths of top pro-American bureaucrats and military men in recent months. And what also was not reported by the media with any great vigor (that we could tell) was at the funeral of Ahmed Wali Karzai ANOTHER bomb went off. After the initial attack, a further one. The violence is totally out of control.

The man behind the strategy of winning Afghan “hearts and minds” – General David Petraeus – has been shuffled over to the CIA, and this is no promotion. He was given credit he didn’t deserve for winning the war in Iraq (which is won by no means) but he is richly deserving of the blame (part of it anyway) for “losing” Afghanistan. His presidential aspirations, if he had any, are likely over.

His recent comment (also unreported in the West) that Afghan parents were “burning” their children to gain American dollar compensation made the rounds and further poisoned relationships. His insistence on continuing the night raids that were increasingly killing Afghan civilians are further evidence of this dysfunction.

The Pakistanis are well aware of what has taken place, even if the West is not informed. Beg writes that Afghanistan is the epicenter of Global Islamic Resistance “against the forces of aggression for the last thirty years.” He makes the bold statement in his article that this resistance has defeated both the Soviets and the Americans.

Those who resisted, he adds, “have suffered immensely, yet in their resolve to defeat the mightiest of the mighty, they remain so steadfast, self-composed and confident of their victory, that has unnerved the occupation forces.” He is also well aware that the fall-back plan of the US military in Afghanistan is to create civil war in order to weaken the Taliban on an ongoing basis. Beg has a response:

Conspiracies are therefore being hatched to divide the country and create a condition of a civil war, as in 1989, but the Afghans are much wiser now and know how to deal with such machinations. China, now stands solidly behind Afghanistan to protect the civilizational heritage so ruthlessly trampled by foreign invaders.

Beg and others seem to believe that the Taliban will sweep back to power in Afghanistan. We are not so sure. The British successfully partitioned Afghanistan in the past and there are two power nexuses in Afghanistan – the Pashtuns and other ethnicities that have traditionally opposed Pashtun dominance.

The US has exploited this division, funneling money and weapons to the “Northern Allliance” – those tribes that have historically opposed the Pashtun. These tribes make up the “army” that the US is creating as well as the civilian police force. It is all for show. The idea that the Northern Alliance will pacify and “police” the Southern Pashtun/Taliban is simply ludicrous.

There are other plans afoot. As we have reported before, the intention now is to create a nation-state around the Alliance while leaving the South to the Pashtuns. The idea as well will be to harass the Pashtuns in the South with drones and mercenary forces. While this is also a ridiculous idea, it will no doubt contribute to a low-level, simmering civil war between north and south.

The Anglo-American power elites still hope, apparently, to build a functional Western state in Afghanistan, one with a central bank, central taxation and the other accoutrements of Western authoritarianism. But one must kill the King, and this has not taken place. Without “pacifying” the Pashtuns, the idea that a Western nation-state can blossom in Afghanistan is questionable in the extreme.

And now Pakistan’s elite families have decided to make the break as well. Always uneasy – as an Islamic nation-state – with its embrace of the US, those that run Pakistan have decided to reinforce regional ties with India, Iran and China. Perhaps this is rhetoric but it is decidedly not empty. Diplomatic shifts are already taking place. And Beg is clear about what is occurring and why.

Pakistan opted to be an ally of the United States of America who failed to correctly gauge the ‘inner strength’ of the Pakistani nation and tried to play the ‘role of a Master’, changing regimes at will and installing military dictators, who played their game so shamelessly. The break-up of Pakistan in 1971; the war against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the immoral decision of the Pakistani government to join the American war against Afghanistan in 2001, turning Pakistan into a ‘rentier states’, happened during the reign of the military dictators.

As if this was not enough, the USA decided to establish Indian hegemony over the region from Afghanistan to Sri Lanka, trying to beat-down Pakistan to submission, through deceit and conspiracies, pressures and proxy war. Pakistan took the stand, rejecting Indian hegemony and submission to American demands, which happens to be the turning point now, where the new contours of Pak-US relations will be determined, under the geo-historical pull of the old civilizations, determined to banish foreign aggression and establish peace in Afghanistan and the region.

The Afghan war against the Pashtuns was the high-water point of the British empire. They couldn’t defeat the Pashtuns 150 years ago and have not done so today. Afghanistan is truly the graveyard of empires. It was to be the site of NATO’s greatest triumph – the establishment of a truly global army supported by the Anglosphere elites’ craven allies – capable of portmanteau violence anywhere in the world.

Instead we see the slow subsidence of NATO. Having failed in Afghanistan, it is now failing in Libya as well. The Germans don’t want it; in fact, Northern Europe generally rejects it. Eventually, once Nicolas Sarkozy is gone, the French may reject it too.

As we have written in the past, the unfolding debacle of Afghanistan cannot be overstated; we stand by our analysis. The seeming collapse of the war effort should have important ramifications on the authoritarianism throughout the Western world.

We have pointed out that the reason to pacify all parts of the world is to ensure that the laws and regulations passed in the West cannot be subverted. There is to be nowhere to run, and for this reason the CIA and FBI have blossomed throughout the world. But the “stans” are necessary to subdue for such a global strategy to work. And now that subduing has seemingly failed. You can read another analysis of ours here: Turning Points of Empires End.

The kind of fascist dictatorship that Anglosphere elites have planned for the West (and the world) has taken a heavy blow. One can argue that all is planned – as was the defeat in Vietnam – but sometimes things are what they appear to be. The Pentagon cannot be a happy place these days (was it ever). The coming budget cuts combined with defeat in the defining war of the 21st century may spell a near-term end to the aggressive militarism that was in the planning stages to enforce the insanity of world government.

We are not trying to be Pollyannaish about this. We are well aware that the US and NATO can still pursue the phony “war on terror” wherever they wish it to lead – and that may lead to a regional (nuclear) war with Iran.

But no matter the outcome of a wider war, Afghanistan has already seemingly withstood the worst that the West can do. The seed of doubt has been planted. The Western military machine (which is now at the service of the elites not its citizens) is not all-powerful. The ramifications have yet to sort themselves out.

The break-away of Pakistan from the Western orbit – if that is what it is – is but one example of changes that will be occurring. For concerned citizens of the West this is not a bad thing. The days when the Anglo-American military-industrial complex simply decides where and when to invade may be coming to a close.

Conclusion: The unwinding of this power nexus may have a knock-off effect on the industrial-Intel complex as well in American, Britain and Israel. Victory may have many fathers; but defeat gives birth to uncertainty about establishment power structures. The Internet Reformation gathers strength.

ShareThis
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) :   View Glossary Description  l  View Site Contributions
Military-Industrial Complex :   View Glossary Description  l  View Site Contributions
>

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s