Civil War is being Incited in Pakistan - a new murderous phase begins

[bigron]

U.S. Raids on Pakistan

Violations of Sovereignty

By Brian Cloughley

http://www.counterpunch.org/cloughley09262008.html

27/09/08 "Counterpunch" -- - Henry Kissinger was no amateur when it came to illegally bombing and invading countries that he and the evil President Nixon considered did not meet American requirements of unconditional servility, but even he must be intrigued about the latest antics of Washington’s finest. The vice president of the United States, a charmless and despotic bully, and his president, he of the close-set eyeballs and pretensions to dignity, recently excelled themselves in self-delusion concerning their unlawful invasion of Iraq and their fury with nations whose governments fail to toe the Washington line.

In their latest spasm of bizarre fantasy both Bush and Cheney condemned Russia for its military reply to Georgia's merciless rocketing of South Ossetia and the killing of scores of its citizens. There is no doubt that Russia had been waiting for an opportunity to teach Georgia a lesson for its treatment of Russian-origin inhabitants of the enclave, and when the US-educated, US-supported Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, was so stupid as to send in troops following his slaughter of civilians, the Russians gave them a hiding. In spite of all the training they received over the past five years from US instructors, and the generous amounts of equipment they acquired, they fled the Russian advance. But Washington intends to have Georgia continue as a US-supporting military base area along Russia’s border, and in order to emphasize its anti-Russian stance Washington arranged for NATO to hold a high level meeting in Georgia last week (which, it was claimed, was planned “a=2 0long time ago.”).

As usual, rather than trying to engage Russia through diplomacy, Washington chose confrontation. And this is where the funny bit is, because Cheney declared that “We believe in the right of men and women to live without the threat of tyranny, economic blackmail or military invasion or intimidation.”

It is difficult to believe that the man was being serious, but there was no shade of irony in his delivery. He believed what he was saying, while ignoring the fact that the US has manipulated the UN to impose savage sanctions (economic blackmail) on countries that don’t toe the US line. Of even more importance he ignored the fact that only a few days before his pronouncement there had been gross violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty by the US when its troop s crossed Pakistan’s border and killed civilians. The people of North West Frontier Province – the people of Pakistan – suffered “military invasion and intimidation.”

Last month Bush declared that “We insist that Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity be respected” which might have been a fairly good point to make were it not for the fact that he has no respect for the sovereignty or territorial integrity of any country when criminal violation suits his purpose. The illegal cowboy foray into Pakistan was not denied by Washington; it was merely ignored with that degree of would-be-majestic superiority that is the hallmark of colossal colonial arrogance. Associated Press reported that “a spokesman for the US-led coalition in Afghanistan said it had "no information to give" about the alleged operation, while a spokesman for NATO troops denied any involvement. The US embassy in Islamabad declined to comment.” No surprises there.

It doesn’t seem to matter to Americans that the blitz conducted by their troops resulted in the deaths of six women and two children, citizens of Pakistan. There has been no indication of regret or sympathy ; not a shred of remorse for killing children. For how long can the non-American world tolerate this sort of barbaric malevolence? In America it doesn’t matter, because ‘Support Our Troops!’ is the American mantra, especially in election year, and if a US citizen doesn’t wave the flag and say that American troops are wonderful, even when killing kids in Pakistan, then they are regarded as unpatriotic, which is a dreadful crime.

To justify the slaughter the usual highly-placed anonymous US official told20the New York Times that “The situation in the tribal areas is not tolerable. We have to be more assertive. Orders have been issued.”

You can hear the Hitlerian resonance in this, straight from Cheney and Bush. It has hideous echoes of “My patience is exhausted,” before Fascist Germany invaded its neighbors – and of the justification that “Befehl ist Befehl” : “an order is an order,” as the Gestapo herded terrified women and children into concentration camps and then to gas chambers. (In fact some of the victims in the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp would welcome death by gassing, it being preferable to the vicious torture they are undergoing.) The American attitude, under Bush, is one of intolerance and macho contempt for any who dare to display independence. “We have to be more assertive” is a chilling declaration of what motiva tes the Washington administration. It is unlikely to change, irrespective of who is the next president.

President Zardari of Pakistan showed considerable courage last week when he said that “We will not tolerate the violation of our sovereignty and territorial integrity by any power in the name of combating terrorism,” if only because we have learned what happens to presidents and countries who offend the mighty empire. Pakistan has been dumped before by America. It appears that it is important for the moment, but neither sovereignty not diplomacy are of concern to Washington. Pakistan's government had better be very careful.

Brian Cloughley lives in France. His website is www.briancloughley.com

A version of the above appeared in The daily Times (Pakistan).

[bigron]

US steps up Pakistan raids to thwart al-Qaeda 'October surprise' plot

US secret forces are intensifying their cross-border raids into Pakistani tribal areas because of fears of a high-profile al-Qaeda attack during the American election campaign, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.
 
By Philip Sherwell in New York and Massoud Ansari in Islamabad
Last Updated: 12:20AM BST 28 Sep 2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/3092548/US-steps-up-Pakistan-raids-to-thwart-al-Qaeda-October-surprise-plot.html

The Pentagon has ordered that raids on suspected terrorist targets within Pakistan be stepped up to pressurise al-Qaeda leaders and distract them from preparing attacks on American targets elsewhere.

"The aim is to disrupt their scope for planning and keep their leaders on the move so that it is more difficult for them to co-ordinate complicated plots," a senior US intelligence official told The Sunday Telegraph.

The operations launched from neighbouring Afghanistan have led to sharply increased tensions with Pakistan's armed forces since President George W.Bush recently authorised assaults involving "boots on the ground" without prior approval by Pakistan's government, a supposed US ally.

Those hostilities almost turned lethal last week when Pakistani troops shot at two clearly marked US helicopters, and the two sides then traded fire. The Pentagon said the aircraft were just inside Afghan air space but Pakistani officials insisted they had crossed the volatile border.

There were no injuries in the clash but US and Pakistani officers have arranged meetings this week to discuss the tensions. While new Pakistani president Asif Zardari praised US support for his country as a "blessing" on Friday in New York, senior officials in Islamabad angrily warned US troops not to intrude on its territory.

The US has been increasingly alarmed about the growth of attacks on Nato forces in Afghanistan launched from safe havens established by Islamic terror groups in the lawless mountainous tribal districts just inside Afghanistan.

Robert Gates, the defence secretary, told lawmakers last week that an estimated 30 to 40 per cent of attacks in Afghanistan were staged by fighters based in, or commanded from, Pakistan - a significant rise on previous years.

The approach of the US election has fuelled fears that al Qaeda or its allies, including the increasingly active Haqqani network, will seek a headline-grabbing strike against a symbolic American target such as an overseas embassy.

Last week's devastating truck bomb attack on Islamabad's Marriott Hotel further highlighted security concerns in Pakistan. The blast claimed the lives of 53 people, including two US military personnel, the Czech ambassador and a Danish intelligence officer.

"The level of sophistication and destruction was a message to the international community and the Pakistanis that we can pretty much hit you any place, any time," said Seth Jones, a senior regional analyst with the Rand Corporation, a leading security think-tank.

Kamran Bokhari, Middle East director at Stratfor, an intelligence analysis company, said that the scale of the attack - involving up to 1,000 kilogrammes of explosives - was a clear indication that al Qaeda or its allies were involved.

"The target and modus operandi have the signature of a sophisticated jihadi operation," he said. "The hotel is in a very sensitive area. If they can hit the Marriott, why can't they hit courts or ministries or the prime minister's house?"

Against this backdrop, a senior US intelligence official said that al Qaeda was seeking to stafe a major attack on an American target close to the election, to test the new president-elect.

"Their goal would not be to influence the election but merely to send a message that they are still a force to be reckoned with," the official said. "They know that a successful attack in the election season will have maximum impact, and they want to give the new president the jitters."

Any attack in the weeks before the Nov 4 election - what is known in American political circles as an "October surprise" - would almost certainly give a decisive boost to John McCain, the Republican candidate who already holds a commanding lead on questions of national security.

The US has for several years attacked suspected militant bases inside Pakistan with missiles fired from Predator drones. Tribesmen regularly shoot at the unmanned aircraft, although both the US and Pakistan rejected claims that a drone that crashed near the border last week was broight down by gunfire.

But in July, Mr Bush approved classified orders authorising special operations forces to conduct ground assaults inside Pakistan without seeking Islamabad's approval after his commanders presented him with evidence about the militants' increasingly secure bases in the tribal areas. Small commando units are flown in and out by helicopter for precisions raids.

"To tackle the insurgency in Afghanistan, you have to deal with what's happening in Pakistan," said Mr Bokhari. "It's not just the border now.

Pakistan increasingly feels like a state under siege."

Mr Jones said: "The US has been increasingly aware that the command and control networks for groups such as Al Qaeda and its allies in the Haqqani network conducting attacks in Afghanistan are based in Pakistan."

The new US approach has infuriated senior Pakistani commanders who feel freer to express their anger since President Pervez Musharraf was forced from office. New army chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani has told his US counterparts that US incursions without prior approval are "unacceptable".

Pakistan is also mounting a major ground offensive against militants in the Bagaur region and claims to have killed 1,000 fighters in an operation that may have prompted the Marriott attack in retaliation.

But Gen Kiyani's combative approach has taken the US aback. "He is trying to assert himself more than they (US) expected and sooner than they expected," a Western diplomat said.

Relations plummeted after US commandos landed by helicopter on a raid in early September in Pakistan and killed seven innocent civilians, according to the Pakistanis. The mood was already raw after a US missile fired from Afghanistan killed several Pakistani soldiers at a border post in June.

Pakistani army officials said that the Americans do not understand that Gen Kiyani is already facing major obstacles in deploying his soldiers against the militants.

"It is just adding to the problem for him to engage these soldiers against the militants when they are being taunted by their fellow Muslims that they are working for the US against the Muslims," said a senior army official.

Scores of soldiers have deserted in the past few years especially when they were stationed in the tribal areas after refusing to fight. Nearly 1200 Pakistani soldiers have died since in the tribal region since 2001.

"There is a limit to what one could cooperate and army chief alone knows how difficult it is for his to keep the morale of his soldiers," the same official said.

[bigron]

Pakistan facing financial crisis 



Pakistanis have seen commodity prices rise dramatically in recent months [EPA]
 
International efforts are under way to stop Pakistan from defaulting on its debts after its foreign reserves dropped to just $3bn.

With about $1bn a month needed to provide its people with basic requirements there are fears that Pakistan could run out of money before the end of the year.

Saquib Sherani, the economic adviser to Yusuf Reza Gilani, Pakistan's prime minister, said on Sunday that the country urgently needed about $7bn to bridge the expected financing gap for the year.

"Its large and we need it quite fast ... the reserves are down to covering one month of imports," he told Al Jazeera.

"We started talking in June with our development partners but unfortunately the delay has cost Pakistan quite a bit."

Foreign ministers of Pakistan's major donors agreed on Friday to form a partnership with Islamabad "to develop a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to the security, development, and political needs of the border".

'Friends of Pakistan'

The so-called Friends of Pakistan acknowledged the need for the country "to undertake serious economic reform and agreed to look at improved trade access for Pakistan to their markets", according to a statement issued at the end of the meeting.

"Pakistan is the central front in the war against terror, internationally, and you cannot have such a vital country go down"

Saquib Sherani,
economic adviser to Pakistan's prime minsiter
 

The group includes Britain, France, Germany, the US, China, the UAE, Canada, Turkey, Australia and Italy plus the UN and the European Union.

However, the donors did not pledge any financial assistance and another meeting will now take place in the UAE capital Abu Dhab in October.

Sherani said it was in every country's interests for Pakistan to receive the support it was appealling for.

"Pakistan is the central front in the war against terror, internationally, and you cannot have such a vital country go down, its economy go down the way it would without support, he said.

"If this trend continues, and Pakistan is not able to get a handle on it, then certainly it will be a big, big victory for the elements that want to destabilise Pakistan."

Security fears

More than 50 people were killed in a lorry-bomb explosion at the Marriot Hotel in the Pakistani capital Islamabad on Saturday and Haroon Sharif, an economic policy expert, told Al Jazeera that the security situation has "a tremendous impact" on the cost of doing business.

"The security budgets have really gone up, the travel advisory and the frequency of travel will go down," he said.

"People will call Pakistani entrepreneurs to go to places like Dubai or Thailand to do deals."

Al Jazeera's Kamal Hyder, reporting from Islamabad, said that Pakistanis were already reeling under the pressure of spiralling prices, some commodities rising by more than 100 per cent in recent months.

He said that the dire financial situation and security concerns have only served to heighten people's concerns and shoppers were staying away from the markets even as they approach the Eid holidays.
 
 Source: Al Jazeera and agencies 
 
 
 
 
   

[bigron]

Weekend Edition
September 27 / 28, 2008

Pakistan, the Media and the Politics of Nuclear Weapons
The Unspoken War


By ANTHONY DiMAGGIO
http://www.counterpunch.org/dimaggio09272008.html

"We're on the brink of war with Pakistan…the fact remains that American forces have and are violating Pakistani sovereignty…the Bush administration's decision to step up attacks in Pakistan is fatally reckless, because the cross-border operations' chances of capturing or killing al Qaeda's leadership are slim.  American intelligence isn't good enough for precision raids like this, Pakistan's tribal regions are a black hole that even Pakistani operatives can't enter and come back alive. Overhead, surveillance and intercepts do little good in tracking down people in a backward, rural part of the world like this…our going into Pakistan, risking a full-fledged war with a  nuclear power, isn't going to stop them…Finally, there is Pakistan itself, a country that truly is on the edge of civil war. Should we be adding to the force of chaos?"

- Robert Baer, September 17, 2008

As a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, Robert Baer has many important insights to add to American foreign policy deliberation.  Too bad his warnings have been systematically ignored throughout the mainstream media.  The comments above, cited from Time magazine, are the only commentary I've managed to find in all of the American press that warn about the dangerous game the U.S. is playing in destabilizing Pakistan.

The Pakistani political situation has heated up with the September 21st bombing of the Islamabad Hotel, which many suspect was undertaken by radical Islamists.  The massive attack, detonating over one ton of explosives, killed at least 60 civilians, injured hundreds more, and may have been intended for Pakistan's Prime Minister, President, and military leaders (who had reportedly planned to meet for dinner at the Hotel).

This attack on Pakistan's government is merely one of many that have been attempted against major officials in recent months.  Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in a suspected Islamist attack in December of 2007, while former President Pervez Musharraf was also the target of attempted assassination.  Pakistan's political leaders are caught between the terrorist attacks of Islamist forces on one side, and the increasingly cavalier bombings of the United States, which have further inflamed hostility toward Pakistani officials close to American political leaders.

In recent years, the U.S. military has increased its aggressive attacks against Pakistan.  These attacks have typically led to civilian casualties, rather than to the neutralization of Al Qaeda- affiliated or Islamist terrorists.  The basis for this extended, low-intensity conflict arose in January 2006, when the U.S. attempted to assassinate Al Qaeda's number two political leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri, in an attack on the village of Damadola on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan.  The attack failed in killing Zawahiri, instead resulting in the deaths of 18 civilians.  The policy of U.S. aggression was formalized in July of 2007, when the Bush administration issued a presidential order that authorized American attacks inside Pakistan without the approval of Pakistan's government.

The enunciation of the Bush administration's Pakistan position was followed by numerous attacks on alleged terrorist targets, with dire results.  Various attacks in recent years using unmanned predator drones resulted in dozens of deaths, and led thousands of Pakistanis to protest the attacks as unwarranted, terrorist incursions into their sovereign territory.  Recent U.S. attacks in September 2008 in the mountainous Waziristan region in Northwest Pakistan have left dozens of civilians dead, consistently failing to kill suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives.

The U.S. has long treated Pakistani leaders as if they were commanded by Washington.  Following 9/11, the Bush administration threatened to bomb Pakistan "back into the Stone Age" if it did not cooperate with the war against Afghanistan.   Pakistan's assistance was demanded, considering the Pakistani Secret Intelligence's (the ISI) lengthy history of working with the Taliban and radical Islamists in Afghanistan.  The cooperation of Pakistani presidents Musharraf and Zardari resulted in intense skepticism on the part of the country's public, which views them as corrupt figureheads serving the United States. It's not difficult to see why considering the United State's long history of opposing democracy in Pakistan.  As Time magazine aptly admits:

"For much of Pakistan's history, Washington has preferred doing business with military dictators, who don't answer to voters and, at least on the surface, seem more eager than their citizenry is to cooperate with Washington."  Popular discontent has become even further entrenched in light of Islamist terrorist attacks, increased political instability, a sluggish economy, and the escalated assault from the United States.

Media reactions to U.S. attacks against Pakistan have varied tremendously depending upon the country reporting the developments.  Pakistani and American media coverage differ night-and-day in their framing of the issues.  Pakistan's Nation newspaper condemned a September 4th border raid by the U.S. military as an act of "tyranny" and "ruthless aggression and crude pressure" against its people.   The paper condemned the U.S. for its unmanned predator drone attacks as a "violation of our sovereignty and territorial integrity" – and as part of a larger "killing spree" that has been undertaken in the name of fighting terrorism.

American media coverage, conversely, is driven by a warmongering that's remarkably indifferent to the dangers involved in escalating the conflict.  U.S. attacks on Pakistan inevitably carry the risk of further inciting Pakistani anger against the U.S.  Such anger takes on a renewed urgency in light of widespread political and military instability, and the recent emboldening of anti-governmental Islamist forces.  All of this, we should remember, is happening in a country that possesses nuclear weapons.  The U.S. has attacked this nuclear power with no regard for the consequences of the possible use of Pakistan's weapons, should they fall into the hands of anti-American forces.

Don't expect to hear about many of these warnings in the U.S. press, however.  If political leaders refuse to address the concerns over U.S. aggression (and they haven't), then for all practical purposes these concerns may as well not exist.  Short of occasional media coverage in papers such as the New Yorker, most of the American press has been hesitant to criticize the U.S. too heavily for unwittingly evacuating Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders from Pakistan during "Operation Enduring Freedom" in Afghanistan.  These leaders secretly fled Afghanistan, along with Pakistani intelligence officers when they were evacuated by the U.S. in late 2001 in a plan approved by the Bush administration and promoted by former President Musharraf.   Rather than focusing on this embarrassing incident, blame for Islamist forces' operations in Pakistan has been placed squarely at the feet of the Pakistani government, which is attacked for "turning a blind eye as the militants organize their insurgency" from within the country.   

Star reporters such as Bob Woodward have swallowed hook-line-and-sinker government claims that targets in Pakistan may be pin-point targeted with "newly developed techniques and operations."   In the New York Times, editors depict the conflict in an Orwellian fashion, framing Pakistan, rather than the U.S., as the true threat.  Illegal U.S. attacks are framed innocently as a response to terrorism, with the Pakistani government's promises of reprisals against invading troops seen as "threatening" the safety of U.S. troops.  There is little room under this framework for condemnations of U.S. actions as illegal.  While the New York Times has tactically criticized the Bush administration attacks in Pakistan as a "desperation move," it has also lent strong support to future attacks: "If an American raid captured or killed a top Qaeda or Taliban operative, the backlash might be worth it."  CIA officer Baer's warnings about the severe dangers of such attacks (and their extraordinary likelihood of failure) are unsurprisingly ignored.

A systematic review of the Washington Post's coverage of U.S.-Pakistani relations further demonstrates the tremendous levels that American propaganda has reached.  A review of the paper's coverage of U.S. foreign policy and the dangers of nuclear weapons in relation to North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan reveals a troubling pattern.  From June 1-September 15, 2008 (the period in which American attacks in Pakistan dramatically escalated), coverage of U.S. responsibility for increasing the danger of a nuclear conflict with Pakistan have appeared in not a single story.  In contrast, over thirty stories appeared (one story every three days) regarding U.S. foreign policy and Iran's alleged threat from developing nuclear weapons.  In the case of North Korea, over 55 stories appeared (one story every two days) about U.S. foreign policy and the supposed threat from North Korea. 

What is most striking about the examples of North Korea and Iran is that both countries have pursued a de-escalating of tensions with the U.S., engaging in various negotiations with the U.S. and other parties over the last year over the WMD issue.  Iran itself was found not even to be developing nuclear weapons by the International Atomic Energy Agency and by the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate.  North Korea has recently begun the long process of dismantling its nuclear weapons program, disassembling its nuclear power plant in Yongbyon (in 2007 and 2008).  These stories, regardless of the de-escalation, often condemned Iran and North Korea as nuclear rogues that only disarmed because of U.S. and allied actions.

What reporting has shown up in the Washington Post on Pakistan, the U.S., and nuclear weapons places blame solely on Pakistan's leaders, leaving U.S. officials free from skepticism.  Attention is devoted almost exclusively to the actions of Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan, who admitted to selling nuclear technology and secrets to Iran, North Korea, and Libya during the 1990s.  The late Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto is also lambasted for having allegedly smuggling information on nuclear enrichment to North Korea.   No stories are found criticizing the U.S. for destabilizing Pakistan, or warning about the dire consequences of such instability for Pakistan as a nuclear power.  No attention is devoted to addressing U.S. recklessness in consistently attacking another nuclear power.  In short, nuclear threats from Pakistan arise only from Pakistani actions, not from those of the U.S.

The American media's opposition to printing stories that are critical of the U.S. are not unexpected.  If American political elites refuse to challenge America's dangerous initiatives in Pakistan, there is little reason to expect that the media will do so on its own.  American reporters have long been known for their stenographic role, faithfully reflecting the official debate in Washington, rather than independently promoting their own reasoned, critical dialogue.  Such reliance on, and dissemination of, official propaganda, however, has major effects on public opinion.  In a recent poll released on September 22nd, 68% percent of Americans questioned supported taking military action in Pakistan to kill terrorists and Islamist figures "even if the [Pakistani] government does not give the permission to do so."   Such a commitment to imperial aggression poses major problems, for reasons discussed above.  American survival in a time of terror requires that we refrain from escalating threats with other nuclear powers.  Whether the public will effectively take up this challenge remains an open question in an era of media spin and official propaganda.

Anthony DiMaggio is the author of Mass Media, Mass Propaganda: Understanding American News in the “War on Terror” (2008). He teaches American Government at North Central College in Illinois, and can be reached at: adimag2@uic.edu

Notes

 

     Anil Dawar, "Pakistani President and PM Just Missed Hotel Bomb Blast," Guardian,  September 22, 2008

     Tariq Ali, "The American War Moves to Pakistan," TomDispatch, 16 September 2008

     Jane Perlez and Pir Zubair Shah, "U.S. Attack on Taliban Kills 23 in Pakistan," 9 September 2008; CNN.com, "Suspected U.S. Attack Kills 13 in Pakistan," 12 September 2008.

     David Usborne, "Musharraf: U.S. 'Threatened to Bomb' Pakistan," 22 September 2006,

     Bobby Ghosh, "The U.S. and Democracy in Pakistan," Time, 20 August 2008,

     Editorial, "Defending Sovereignty," Nation, 16 September 2008; Mazhar Qayyum Khan, "Anger at War on Terror," Nation, 16 September 2008.

     Javid Husain, "Impotent Rage," Nation, 16 September 2008; "The Killing Spree," Nation.

     Seymour Hersh, "The Getaway," New Yorker, 28 January 2002.

     Reuters, "Pakistan Condemns 'Cowardly' U.S. Attack," 11 June 2008.

     Steve Weissman, "Bob Woodward's Not-so-Secret Weapon in Iraq," Truthout, 16 September 2008.

     Editorial, "Running Out of Time," New York Times, 22 September 2008.

     Glenn Kessler, "Bhutto Dealt Nuclear Secrets to North Korea, Book Says," Washington Post, 1 June 2008, 16(A); Joby Warrick, "Smugglers had Design for Advanced Warhead," Washington Post, 15 June 2008, 1(A); Joby Warrick, "Nuclear Ring was More Advanced than Thought, U.N. Says," Washington Post, 13 September 2008, A11.

     "New Poll Shows Americans Support Major Changes in U.S. Foreign Policy," Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs, September 22, 2008.

[bigron]

By Andrew J. Bacevich

Bush's third war

U.S. attacks inside Pakistan mark an escalation that may bedevil the next president.

 

September 27, 2008

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/mayfaire/latimes0167.htm

President Bush will leave office without concluding either of the two wars he initiated after 9/11. Now, in the waning months of his administration, the president seems intent on expanding his "global war on terror" still farther. To the existing fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq, he is adding a third: Pakistan.

Eclipsed perhaps only by Iraq, Pakistan ranks in the very top tier of the Bush administration's foreign policy blunders. Even as it vowed following 9/11 to never compromise with evil, the administration wasted no time in forging an alliance with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, the army general who seized power in 1999 through a military coup. Although Musharraf was anything but a democrat, Bush proclaimed him a close friend and ally. Washington quickly began funneling military and economic aid toward Islamabad, the total since 2001 exceeding $13 billion.

Unfortunately, Musharraf was not only a dictator, he was incompetent. Two themes defined his presidency: a gradual erosion of domestic legitimacy that paralyzed and then doomed his regime, and a steady erosion of Pakistan's already shaky control over its frontier provinces bordering Afghanistan. For Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters ousted from their Afghan sanctuaries, the Pakistani Northwest Frontier became a refuge in which to establish training camps and support areas. Although U.S. civilian and military officials pushed and prodded Musharraf to crack down on this Taliban and Al Qaeda presence, little effective action resulted.

As measured by return on investment, Musharraf turned out to be a lousy bet. By the spring of this year, with Musharraf's days obviously numbered, the Bush administration abandoned its friend and ally. In doing so, it found itself without a policy as far as Pakistan was concerned.

To fill the void, Bush turned to the Pentagon. Nearly seven years into the Afghan war and five years into the Iraq war, Pakistan has become the next problem that the president intends to solve through the application of armed force. Without congressional authorization and almost entirely shielded from public view, a new war has begun.

Rather than a partner, Pakistan is becoming an area of operations. Even as Washington denounces Russia for violating Georgian sovereignty, U.S. violations of Pakistani sovereignty have become routine. The most commonly employed tactic relies on missile-firing drones to patrol Pakistani airspace and attack suspected Al Qaeda or Taliban militants. Yet there is also evidence of a growing willingness to put boots on the ground. On Sept. 3, in a widely reported incident, U.S. special operations troops raided a village in South Waziristan, leaving a dozen or more Pakistanis dead.


The Bush administration has seemingly concluded that Pakistan poses the primary obstacle to success in Afghanistan. As long as jihadists can freely infiltrate across the border shared by those two countries, the thinking goes, victory in the Afghan war will remain elusive.

"We can hunt down and kill extremists as they cross over the border from Pakistan," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently remarked. "But until we ... eliminate the safe havens from which they operate, the enemy will only keep coming."

Will raids, however vigorously executed, clean out the Taliban and Al Qaeda havens? Not a chance. At best, they will keep jihadists off-balance. In the meantime, as U.S. operations inevitably produce a stream of noncombatant casualties, they will exacerbate anti-Americanism in Pakistan. As the recent bombing of the Marriott hotel in Islamabad reminds us, one unintended consequence may be to jeopardize Pakistan's already precarious stability.

The real aim of these raids is to goad Pakistan's senior military leadership into action. Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, the chief of the Pakistani army, has declared categorically that "the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country will be defended at all cost." Kayani also insists that "no external force is allowed to conduct operations inside Pakistan." Each time an American aircraft enters Pakistani airspace and fires on some Pakistani village, Kayani is made to look a fool.

The problem with this strategy of goading is twofold. First, U.S. expectations probably exceed Pakistani capabilities: Pakistan's army is large but not notably effective, especially as a counterinsurgent force. Second, Pakistani national security priorities differ from our own. Traditionally, Pakistani generals like Kayani worry more about India than the Taliban. In short, when it comes to doing our bidding, Pakistan's army can't and won't.

Rather than prodding Pakistan to act, the Pentagon over the next several months could again find itself starting something that it cannot finish. In that event, Bush will bestow on his successor an exceedingly unwelcome surprise.

Andrew J. Bacevich is a professor of history and international relations at Boston University and the author of, most recently, "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism."

 

Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times

[bigron]

 
 The fight goes on, militants tell Pakistan

By Syed Saleem Shahzad

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JJ01Df01.html

KARACHI - When United States President George W Bush and British Premier Gordon Brown interacted with their Pakistani and Afghan counterparts on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York last week, they expressed satisfaction for the conflict escalation against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in the South Asian War theater. (See Militants shake off Pakistan's grip Asia Times Online, Sep 29.)

This escalation, particularly in Pakistan's tribal agencies, is a gamble based on the tactics used by the US's chief man in Iraq, General David Petraeus, in 2007. Following a "surge" in the war, the US offered an olive branch to the militants. This created a

 

wedge between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi tribal resistance and led to a significant reduction in the intensity of the resistance.

In Pakistan, there is no sign of this happening. Indeed, the reverse is true.

On Monday, Pakistani security officials warned that the militants battling Pakistani forces, notably in Bajaur Agency, were obtaining weapons and reinforcements from across the border in Afghanistan. "The Pakistan-Afghan border is porous and is now causing trouble for us in Bajaur," a senior security source in the military told a news briefing in Rawalpindi.

The call to arms to join the militants is reverberating across the tribal areas in unprecedented fashion and the flames of war from Afghanistan that have burned for the past seven years could now engulf Pakistan.

This week, the Taliban officially rejected a Saudi Arabian-British backdoor initiative to strike peace deals with the militants. The charm of Islamabad's old comrades (veteran jihadis) and official handlers (secret agents) no longer works with the Taliban.

Back-channel efforts to strike deals with the Taliban and create a wedge between them and al-Qaeda have been going on since September 11, 2001, (see US turns to the Taliban Asia Times Online, June 4, 2003).

However, for the first time, the Taliban have reacted very strongly against such efforts. On Sunday evening, the Taliban issued a press release in Pashto, followed by one in English:
In the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful
All praise and thanks are due to Allah, the lord of all that exists and may peace and prayers be upon the Messenger of Allah, his family, companions in entirety.

The mainstream media are reporting about a "peace process" between the Taliban and the Kabul puppet administration [of President Hamid Karzai] which is being sponsored by Saudi Arabia and supported by Britain, or that there are "unprecedented talks" involving a senior ex-Taliban member who is traveling between Kabul and the alleged bases of the Taliban senior leadership in Pakistan. The ex-members of the Taliban who have surrendered or who are under surveillance are not associated with the of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan rejects all these false claims by the enemy, who is using this propaganda campaign, the aim of this propaganda is to create an atmosphere of disunity among Muslims in order to weaken the ummah. Our struggle will be continued until the departure of all foreign troops. Dr Talib
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan
Afghanistan/Kabul
The message is clear: the Taliban and al-Qaeda are now one and the same and far from being ready to be divided they are fully geared up to themselves escalate the conflict.

Winning a lost war through Pakistan?
With the Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan going from strength to strength, the Western military and political leadership figured on taking on the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Pakistan's tribal areas, where they have strong bases. This would be followed by peace talks.

The military offensive began last month ago in Agency Bajaur, the smallest of Pakistan's seven tribal agencies, semi-autonomous ethnic Pashtun regions. Troops were backed by aerial bombardment, the latter causing hundreds of thousands of people to be displaced.

And contrary to official claims, the militants have not been routed. Instead, all Pakistani pro-Taliban militants who had been rivals as well as foreign fighters have rallied under the command of the Afghan Taliban commander of Nooristan and Kunar provinces, Qari Ziaur Rahman. (See A fighter and a financier Asia Times Online, May 23, 2008.) All groups have accepted Rahman as their commander in chief for the area that spans Kunar, Nooristan, Bajaur and Mohmand Agency.

The Pakistani media have reported that Rahman's engagement in Bajaur has reduced Taliban attacks in Kunar. But this is not expected to last long, with all-out activity expected soon on all fronts.

According to the original plan, Pakistani forces were to make their attack in Bajaur and US troops across the border in Kunar would block any escape routes. The Pakistanis followed their side of the plan, but US ground troops were unable to stop the militants from taking shelter in Kunar.

The fault lay in the plan. Unlike Bajaur, which is relatively developed with a road network, on the Kunar side there are few passable tracks in the thick mountain jungles. There are also many caves from which militants and pro-Taliban villagers could target ground troops.

The Pakistani armed forces took heavy casualties, and despite official claims, the militants say they have only lost a few dozen men - and Rahman is not one of them.

Pakistan's strategic quarters now fear a military defeat could set off a chain reaction into the adjacent troubled Swat Valley, and beyond: there is even talk of relocating the provincial capital of North-West Frontier Province, Peshawar, to a non-Pashtun city such as Abbotabad.

At the same time, the low morale of the soldiers and officers is a worrying factor, especially among the Pashtun military cadre, which forms about 25% of the army. In one instance, in obvious disregard to directions from military headquarters, Pakistani border forces and tribals jointly downed a US Predator drone in the South Waziristan tribal area.

Further, following a clear demand made by Washington last week to President Asif Ali Zardari, the director general of the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Lieutenant General Nadeem Taj, has been replaced by Ahmed Shuja Pasha, who is known for his intimacy with the Americans and anti-Taliban views. The heads of the external and internal security wings of the ISI have also been replaced. (This was predicted by Asia Times Online, see Militancy dogs Pakistan's new president Sep 9, 2008.)

This move will only deepen mistrust of the government as well as pro-American Pakistani army chief General Ashfaq Pervaz Kiani.

Chasing elusive peace deals
The miscalculation over Bajaur means that the second phase of the Pakistan-US plan - the defeated militants forced into peace deals - has not materialized. Yet Pakistan and its Western allies have little choice but to go after peace accords in an attempt to de-escalation the conflict.

Former jihadi leaders who once sat in the Taliban's and al-Qaeda's camp and retired military officers who are regarded as the real fathers of the Taliban are now trying to build bridges between the Pakistan military and the Taliban.

The idea, as per Petraeus' Iraq plan, is that once dialogue is successful, al-Qaeda will be purged from the ranks of the local tribal resistance, with the latter then being offered a role in mainstream politics.

The chief of the banned Harkatul Mujahadeen, Maulana Fazlur Rahman Khalil, has been tasked to reach out to pro-Taliban militants in the Mohmand, Bajaur and Waziristan areas to initiate dialogue between the Taliban and the Pakistani establishment.

A former ISI official and consul general in Herat in Afghanistan in the mid-1990s, Amir Sultan, also known as Colonel Imam and regarded as a father of the Taliban, is another figure who has been shuttling from the tribal areas to Islamabad in an attempt to end the rift between the armed forces and the Taliban.

The militants are not responding positively to these efforts. Various militant commanders have held talks with two pro-Pakistani Taliban figures - Maulana Jalaluddin Haqqani and Hafiz Gul Bahadur of North Waziristan - and urged them to sever all backchannel contacts with the Pakistani security forces.

Earlier, in Mohmand Agency, the militants pursued Taliban commander Abdul Wali to end his impartiality and join hands against the Pakistani armed forces.

A decisive figure could be Haqqani, a veteran mujahideen commander against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. If he decides to sever his contacts with Pakistan, the conflict in the country will become dire indeed.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com
 

[bigron]

Continuing US losses will lead to military strikes on Pakistan

* Jonathan Landay of McClatchy Newspapers calls situation in Pakistan more serious than that in Iran
* Expert warns that Pakistan and US are on collision course

By Khalid Hasan

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C09%5C30%5Cstory_30-9-2008_pg7_63

WASHINGTON: If the United States forces in Afghanistan continue to suffer casualties inflicted by insurgents crossing over from Pakistan, the next administration, whether Republican or Democratic, will come under tremendous public pressure to make direct strikes on Pakistani targets, according to three South Asia experts.
The observation came at a meeting organised by Khawaja M Ashraf, president of the Pakistani-American Congress, here on Sunday. The three experts who spoke on the prevailing situation in the region were, Walter Andersen of the Johns Hopkins University, Rodney Jones, who runs a local consultancy, and Jonathan Landay of McClatchy Newspapers, who has extensive experience of travelling in and writing about the region.
Andersen said the cross-border movement of insurgents from Pakistan into Afghanistan was a major US concern. As more US troops make their way into Afghanistan from next year, there will be in increase in attacks on them from the insurgents, prompting sharp public reaction in America for strong retaliatory action. The new American policy was no longer going to be confined to hot pursuit but when so warranted, direct military strikes inside the areas from where the attacks were seen to have originated or mounted. He warned that any US president would come under enormous pressure if US troops continued to be killed by Pakistan-based insurgents and regardless of what party he belonged to, he would order strikes at Pakistan. Andersen added that there cannot be a military solution of the Afghanistan situation in the long term, while proposing a joint US-Pakistan policy to deal with the situation. More importantly, Afghanistan and Pakistan need to build a strong and co-operative relationship to meet the challenge posed by extremism. However, given the level of distrust that has marked their relationship, the new government in Pakistan will have to be willing to consider new policy options. He said India too will have to be taken on board because terrorism is affecting the entire region and requires the adoption of a regional approach.

Serious situation:

Jonathan Landay, who spent two years in the region this year, called the situation in Pakistan more serious than that in Iran. He called the Iranian government responsible and its policies logical. Iran may be pursuing nuclear weapons, he added, but Pakistan is already a nuclear state and if it unravelled, it would pose a grave danger to regional and global security. He quoted a recent observation by former Pakistan army chief Gen Mirza Aslam Beg alleging that the US and India are conspiring against Pakistan and planning to destroy it. Unfortunately, he added, Gen Beg is not alone in holding this view. Many others in Pakistan believe in this ‘risible’ notion. India, he pointed out, is spending $1 billion a year in Afghanistan to build roads and other infrastructure projects. The road it is building along the Balochistan border is being built because Pakistan will not allow Indian goods to move into Afghanistan through Pakistan. He also noted that 80 percent of the goods and equipment needed by NATO forces in Afghanistan move through Pakistan. This flow has not been disrupted because it is bringing great profit to Pakistan and its transportation sector. Landay said it should be borne in mind that New Delhi would not like to live next door to a destabilised Pakistan and that being so, it would like Pakistan to be a stable state. India is a regional power and Pakistan can profit from that. He said Pakistan should make up its mind as to what side it is on. Obviously, it cannot be an ally at the same time of the US and a guerrilla leader like Jalaluddin Haqqani. He said to stabilise the region, an international approach based on co-operation is required, accompanied by a regional security network. He said there is insurgency on both sides of the Pak-Afghan border and a ‘new Great Game’ is going on.

Collision course:

Rodney Jones, who was born before independence in what is now Pakistan, warned that Pakistan and the US are on a collision course. Turning to the region, he said there are Pashtuns living on both sides of the Pak-Afghan border, but their number is greater in Pakistan. In Afghanistan, they form 42 percent of the population, but they are ‘first among equals’. He said the Pakistan Army has been preventing the crossover of insurgents into Afghanistan at the instance of the US, but it has to view the rise of extremism as a Pakistani problem. In a question-answer session that followed the three presentations, Landay pointed out that the people in FATA are caught between the Taliban and the Pakistan Army and they are tired of it all. They will turn against the Taliban if they are sure of being backed by the Pakistani government. Andersen in reply to a question said terrorism is a Pakistani problem now and should be so viewed by the Pakistanis and dealt with accordingly.

[Biggs]

Five killed in US drone attack in Pakistan death (2nd Roundup)
South Asia News


Oct 1, 2008, 13:34 GMT
 
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/southasia/news/article_1434233.php/Five_killed_in_US_drone_attack_in_Pakistan_death__2nd_Roundup__

   Islamabad - At least five people were killed and six injured when an unmanned US aircraft attacked a house in Pakistan's border area near Afghanistan, officials said Wednesday.

   The strike came as local and international media reported that Baitullah Mehsud, leader of Pakistan's Taliban militants, had died from an illness.

   A security official said the pilotless drone fired two missiles at a house in a village near the town of Mir Ali in North Waziristan about midnight Tuesday.

   The house, which belonged to a person identified by only his first name, Nawab, was demolished in the strike. Some unconfirmed reports said the US drone had come under fire from the building.

   North Waziristan is regarded as a haven for Taliban militants and members of the al-Qaeda terrorist network. It has seen several US airstrikes in recent months, causing tension between the United States and Pakistan.

   The forces of the two countries have exchanged fire on more than one occasion along the Afghan border. On Thursday, Pakistani border troops fired warning shots when two US Army helicopters allegedly passed into Pakistani territory.

   On May 23, a US drone crashed in South Waziristan. Reportedly, it was shot down by tribesmen and troops.

   In another development, Pakistan's Urdu-language GEO television and the US-based CNN news network, citing unnamed sources, reported that Mehsud, believed to be in his 30s, had passed away.

   He suffered from high blood pressure and kidney disease, the GEO TV said, quoting Pakistani security sources.

   However, his spokesman Maulvi Omar denied the reports. 'He is in good health,' he told BBC Urdu.

   The Taliban leader's deputy and close confidant, Zulfiqar Mehsud, also said Baitullah Mehsud had participated Wednesday in traditional rifle shooting and motor racing during the Muslim Eid al-Fitr festival.

   An army spokesman, Major Murad Khan, also said no confirmation was available of the militant commander's death.

   Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of a united front of smaller Taliban groups called the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, or Pakistan Taliban Movement, was blamed by Pakistan's previous government for the assassination in December of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, a claim he reportedly denied.

   He has also been accused of ordering dozens of suicide attacks across the country over the past one and half years.

   The ethnic Pashtun guerrilla commander is based in South Waziristan, a militant stronghold on the border with Afghanistan.

   Meanwhile, one security officer was killed in another tribal district, the Orakzai Agency, when dozens of militants attacked two security checkpoints and blew them up

[Biggs]

Landmine kills 4 Pakistani troops

The device hit vehicle of security forces at Sui, a town in Balochistan province, when it was on routine patrolling, they said.

Pakistan's huge natural gas reservoirs are in Sui, which supply gas across the country.

Five other soldiers were injured in the incident, officials said.

No group claimed responsibility for the attack.

Authorities blame such attacks on Baloch nationalists, who are fighting security forces and are demanding more rights and share in the province's natural resources.

The vehicle was completely destroyed in the attack.

Inspector General paramilitary force, Frontier Constabulary, Salim Nawaz said that the insurgents are attacking security men despite their announcement to stop attacks.

Nawaz said that security forces will ensure security of the gas installations. --IRNA

[Biggs]

not sure about the info concerning Baitullah's people being arrested in Barcelona, but the rest is worth reading

In life, or death, Baitullah's fight endures
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JJ03Df01.html

KARACHI - As reports swirl about the possible death by illness of Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, 34, the fact is that as long as he is alive, no matter how sick, he will remain an inspiration for regional jihadis; should he die, he will be replaced and the battle that he fights will continue undiminished.

Baitullah died from kidney problems and high blood pressure, Pakistan's GEO Television reported this week. This is disputed in militant and Western circles.

The ethnic Pashtun guerrilla commander from the South Waziristan tribal area rose to prominence after Taliban leader Nek Mohammed was killed in a US Predator drone attack in 2004. In December 2007, a Taliban shura, a 40-member council, chose Baitullah to unify its operations in Pakistan under a united front

 

called the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, or Pakistan Taliban Movement, which is fighting Pakistani security forces in the tribal areas. The area also serves as a haven for militants active in the Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan.

Baitullah has also been linked to a number of attacks in Pakistan, including the assassination of former premier Benazir Bhutto last December, and over the past few years he has gained international notoriety. Time magazine of the US in 2008 voted him one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and another US publication, Newsweek, labeled him "more dangerous than Osama bin Laden".

"The show is still on, so why should Mehsud leave the stage now? It is just an interval and half the show is left. Baitullah is now much better," a laughing senior al-Qaeda figure told Asia Times Online.

US General David McKiernan, the commander of North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces in Afghanistan, commented, "I saw that report, but I can't confirm it. He is a very bad man.''

US intelligence has speculated that the saga of Baitullah's illness is a ploy, while Pakistani security officials are mum. Pro-American President Asif Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gillani and army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani are also not commenting as long as uncertainty remains. In a break with tradition, they are celebrating evening Eidul Fitr prayers for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan in their separate homes.

From foot soldier to leader
In colonial times, the British referred to the Mehsud and Wazir tribes of Waziristan as wolves and panthers of the mountains; these tribal areas have always been a natural breeding ground for militants.

Fighting spirit is highly cherished, and whoever proves himself on the battlefield is elevated through the ranks, no matter their background - be it an Urdu-language teacher like Mirza Ali Khan, alias Faqir of Ipi, who led a jihad against the British government in the early to mid-1900s, or a downtrodden youngster like Baitullah Mehsud.

However, in the long list of celebrated figures from the area, Baitullah is distinctive. It is acknowledged that while he is brave like a panther, he is as cunning as a fox.

Baitullah, who is said to have about 5,000 fighters directly at his disposal, has thrived on luring and then ambushing "invading" Pakistani troops in the narrow mountain passes of Waziristan. He is said to be a skilled marksman and expert in the use of small arms. He also realized the value of taking prisoners to use as bargaining tools with Islamabad in a series of on-off ceasefires, and is renowned for his split-second decisions. In one incident in August 2007, Baitullah�s forces captured more than 240 Pakistani soldiers and held them hostage for two months before exchanging them for 25 militant prisoners.

He made alliances with Arabs and Uzbeks who had settled in the tribal areas after being driven out of Afghanistan, which enhanced his respect and influence. He established links with Pakistani militant groups and expanded his influence into the cities. He also furthered his influence through the savvy use of the media, despite having only a rudimentary education from a madrassa (seminary).

According to Manzar Zaidi, a senior associate editor with The Long War Journal, "Baitullah has established his own parallel government and has set up his own judicial system wherein tribals approach him for delivery of justice rather than resorting to the federal judicial courts. Money to support this operation comes from al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Baitullah uses local clerics and 20 illegal FM radio channels in FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas] to enforce his writ."

The goals of Baitullah, who swears allegiance to Taliban leader Mullah Omar, do not stop at resistance to foreign troops in Afghanistan and taking on Pakistani forces in the tribal areas. He has extended his struggle into the cities and he believes the Afghan war cannot be won until a similar approach is adopted against world powers like Britain and the US, that is, by attacking their cities. In January, Spanish police said a cell of Pakistanis they arrested in Barcelona were planning suicide operations in Spain and possibly elsewhere in Europe. They had allegedly been dispatched by Baitullah.

Pakistan desperately wants the US to eliminate Baitullah, but Islamabad has never been able to provide sufficient specific information on him. The reason is the 100% loyalty he has in those around him and in his Mehsud tribe; he is referred to as emir, or commander.

In an attempt to flush him out, the Pakistani security forces once tried a blockade of several months of Baitullah's tribal area. But despite a severe food crisis and lack of facilities, the tribals managed to force the troops to withdraw. They then expelled all pro-government tribal chiefs from the area. It was during this blockade that Baitullah is believed to have developed diabetes and high blood pressure, which went untreated.

Should Baitullah die, or if he has already died, he does not have any immediate identified successor. But as with former leaders like Nek and the slain Abdullah Mehsud, Baitullah will be replaced by the man who proves himself through his bravery, smartness and charisma - and there are plenty of those from where he comes from.

This man will then inherit the Pakistan Tehrik-i-Taliban, the first organizational unity of regional jihadis, and an outfit with links to the international jihadi cartel.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com
 
 

[bigron]

Weekend Edition
October 3 - 5, 2008
http://www.counterpunch.org/waj10032008.html

An Interview with Tariq Ali

Dueling Partners: Pakistan and the U.S.

By WAJAHAT ALI

A country once callously shrugged off simply as India’s “lesser” neighbor, now commands global attention and scrutiny as the next, crucial battleground on the never ending “war on terror.” Both Senator McCain and Senator Obama discussed Pakistan in last week’s Presidential debates as they detailed their policy initiatives for pacifying the region of its Taliban stronghold. Even Sarah Palin received a surreal crash course in U.S.-Pakistan relations due to a memorable and friendly meeting with newly elected Pakistan president Asif Ali Zardari. However, as respected and prolific commentator, author and critic Tariq Ali observes in his new book “The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power,” the selfish, inequitable relationship between both countries has far reaching, historical roots directly contributing to the tenuous geopolitical stability of modern day Central Asia. In this exclusive interview, TariqAli, a seasoned journalist and Pakistani insider, focuses on all major players, including the Bush Administration, Bhutto, Musharraf, the Pakistani military, and a self centered and oppressive elite as prime contributors to Pakistan’s current volatility. 

W.Ali: Let’s start with a quotation from a PPP [Pakistan People’s Party] spokesman, Farahnaz Ispahani, who recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

“Zardari is the best hope for Pakistan. Mr. Zardari suffered 11 years in prison on politically motivated charges without having been convicted. He went on to lead his party to victory in democratic elections and then skillfully helped to craft a viable democratic coalition. As president he will lead our nation decisively forward in its transition to a stable democracy.”

What’s your response to that quote?

Tariq Ali: My response to that quote is that it’s fantasy politics. The only reason Zardari is where he is, is because of who is he was married to [Benazir Bhutto.] It is well known  - even within People’s Party circles – that had Benazir Bhutto survived he would’ve had no rule whatsoever within the government. He is a figure who was wanted in Swiss courts for money laundering and corruption. He is someone who has, over the years, utilized his wife’s Prime Minister-ship on two occasions to become one of the richest people in the country. And to present him as the best hope for Pakistan is an incredibly sad reflection on the state of Pakistan.

W.Ali: At the same time we’re seeing both McCain and Obama saying that the US will work with Zardari. Essentially, they welcomed him in the international community. Why is the US warming up to a man with such a dubious past?

Tariq Ali: Well because they put him in power. They did a deal with his wife. They hoped he would fulfill the terms of that deal. It would be very surprising given that Pakistan is supposedly a crucial ally in this so called “war against terror” that they would not work with Zardari. I hope both guys – Obama and McCain - are aware of his checkered track record and the fact he is not very popular in the country.
It has to be remembered he was elected indirectly by the parliament and the national assembly. Were there to be direct elections of the presidency in Pakistan and were they to be free, it is unlikely Zardari would win. That’s the first point. The second point is that as far as the US is concerned essentially there is only one serious institution in Pakistan and that is the Pakistan army. They have done business with this institution for a long period of time, and the Pentagon knows fully well this is the only institution that they need and on which they have to rely in that country. So, officially, Zardari will be the official president, but the main force of the country remains the army.

W.Ali: Aren’t we seeing some tension right now? Zardari remains mostly silent on America’s offensive, which killed 20 people recently, and pilot-less drones carried out 4 more missile attacks in Waziristan. Pakistan said US didn’t ask their permission. General Kiyani had harsh words for US, and America pretty much said they will do what they have to do to battle extremism. How will this tension play out between the Pakistani military, the United States and Zardari?

Tariq Ali: Well, I think the tension is between the US and the Pakistan military. Zardari will probably be the fall guy, that is if the tension mounts and were there to be something as foolish and irrational as a US troops entering Pakistan, then the military would be forced to resist. So then what Zardari wants or doesn’t want or what deal he made is completely irrelevant, because at that point the army would be in charge.

You’ve probably heard the news that the largest 5 star hotel in Islamabad, the Marriott, has been blown sky high. It was incredibly well coordinated. I’ve been to that hotel. The security there is incredible. So how that has happened, it remains to be seen. But certainly they’ve created the impression that Pakistan is becoming ungovernable.

W.Ali: Steven Hadley, the head of the NSC, made an interesting comment: “Pakistan is not equipped to combat the militant threat.” He said this officially. What is the repercussion of that? Do you believe it first of all, and does Pakistan need outside help?

Tariq Ali: No, I think if the Pakistani military wished to do it they could certainly crush the organizations. But then again it is something controversial within the army. A) These people are citizens of Pakistan; B) every time the army has engaged action against them a lot of innocents have died; C) whenever the military has attempted to do this, it has created tension inside the military especially amongst the ordinary soldier and junior officers who say they don’t like killing their own people.

So, there is a problem with the Pakistani military doing this. However, were the US to go in and try to do it, they’ve met similar results: they’ve killed innocents, women; children have died. People not connected in anyway to the militants have died. Presumably, I assume we have no real information that some jihadis have died as well. But to transform the North-West Frontier of Pakistan into a large killing field isn’t going to help anyone. Essentially what we are seeing is spillage from the Afghan war, a war that has gone badly wrong. And a war which is being supported by consensual politicians of the Democratic and Republican parties of the US; a war which the politicians contending to power have not paid serious attention to.

W.Ali: Several say that Central Asia, and not Iraq, is the major hot zone right now and needs to be contained. What can be done to destabilize the Taliban who are resurgent both in Afghanistan and now Pakistan? Isn’t any type of offensive going to cause a significant reaction in the form of violence for both countries?

Tariq Ali: Well, look; I don’t accept that Iraq is quiet. You had US raids just last week that killed innocents in that country. And the notion that even Petraeus isn’t saying that the surge is succeeding for all time to come, that there is still a great deal of unrest. The majority of Iraqis don’t want foreign bases there at all. It’s not that Iraq is being pacified successfully; it would be an illusion to imagine that.

However, it is true that the presidential contenders are concentrating on Afghanistan. But here we have a classic situation, a military occupation led by NATO, led by the US, which is killing too many civilians in its bombing raids. I mean even [Afghan President] Karzai has said too many civilians are being killed. Secondly, you have Hamid Karzai and his cronies running Afghanistan. A situation in which Karzai’s brother is reputed to be the country’s largest drug smuggler and arms bearer. [A situation] in which the people around Karzai are milking the country, milking the money coming in, milking the foreign agencies; growing rich at the expense of the bulk of the population, which has made the occupation very unpopular for all these reasons.

The result of this has been a big rise in Pashtun nationalism. And this rise in Pashtun nationalism takes the form at the moment of swelling the ranks of the old Taliban, which is why it is being called the neo-Taliban by many, many British observers on the ground. They see the composition and character of this organization has changed as a result of the NATO occupation, that is what is going on and the support for the neo-Taliban is increasing every single day. In order to confront this, it is no use that the US and the West say it is the fault of Pakistan.

I’m not saying the Pakistani state is exempt from all blame, it probably isn’t.  But the central issue is the war inside Afghanistan going badly wrong and expanding this war into Pakistan won’t help matters; it would make it much worse. Pakistan is much larger country than Afghanistan, it is a country of 200 million strong with nuclear weapons, so it’s foolish to try to destabilize this country.

W.Ali: Here’s a question many don’t ask. Talk to me about the future response of China and Russia. They are bordering countries that have a vested interest. What should we see, strategically, as their next move in the region?

Tariq Ali: The NATO officials, including the NATO Secretary General, are very open with what they say. They say we’re in Afghanistan for geo political reasons and military reasons. This is a strategically open country which borders China, Central Asia, i.e. Russia and Iran: three crucial countries for the US for different reasons and that there is no way we’re leaving here. This has been said, by the way, publicly and written about that the occupation is not about good governance or even about destroying Al Qaeda or wiping out Al Qaeda. 

In effect, we know the Western countries and Western agents are talking to Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan regularly to try and see if a deal can be sorted out. The Taliban is refusing to play ball until the foreign troops withdraw. Behind all this is a view to try to create a government which would accept foreign military bases in Afghanistan in perpetuity – which no one wants. I mean Karzai has agreed to that but he is not the most popular figure in the country and were Western troops not there he would fall very quickly and that is the problem. And Russia and China is very angry, and so is Iran at the notion that Afghanistan could be occupied permanently or semi permanently. They have been talking to each other about it and the Chinese have made this very clear to the Pakistani military as well

W.Ali: In your book, it seems to imply that since the beginning of Pakistan’s nation-state, Jinnah and his advisors have been following a policy dictated by the US, in the sense that in their relationship, the US has been the one giving the orders and Pakistan has been the one following it. Has this been the case from the beginning and is this what has led to our current situation? This type of mentality?

Tariq Ali: What I argue in my book is that for the first two to three years, it was the Pakistani elite which was pursuing the United States. Because most of the people in charge of Pakistan for its first 10 years were people who collaborated with the British politically and militarily. And once the British left Pakistan, they were desperate for someone else to replace [them]. I cite chapter and verse of the pleas made to the United States in ’47, ’48, ’49, but turned down by the US, who regarded India as a much more important power.

Then, with the heightening of the cold war, and the Indians becoming the central players in the Non-Aligned Movement, then Pakistan was, more or less, taken over by Washington and incorporated in all the security beds along with Iran and Turkey.

Since that time, the Pakistani military has been a very prominent player in the country’s politics. And I sort of argue in my book that Pakistan, being on the flight path of American power from the ‘50s onwards, has actually wrecked the organic development of politics in that country, leading to one crises after another.

Now, after the end of the Cold War, the US abandoned both Afghanistan and Pakistan and left them to their own devices. That was the period in which Benazir Bhutto pushed through the Taliban takeover of Kabul, the Pakistan army got what they called a strategic depth, because without logistic support, there’s no way a ragtag army like the Taliban could have taken Kabul. This is a well-trained force, including many Pakistani officers and soldiers.

Now, with 9/11, the US is back in the region again and the Pakistani military, which had gotten used to taking some of its own decisions, had to cow tow to them. And this is what began to create the tensions inside the country. During the time when the Pakistanis were strong, staunch allies in the war against the Russians, as is well known, that is the time that all these jihadi groups were spawned by the state and sent in to fight in Afghanistan.

W.Ali: We both know the Pakistani mentality when they’re talking about whoever is running the country, they say, “At least he’s the lesser goonda [thug/gangster] than the other.” That seems to be the psyche of the people. Explain to me how Pakistani people can rise up and restore a semblance of a functioning democracy. Or is it impossible? Should we not expect this in the near future?

Tariq Ali: I don’t think so. I think that one of the things you pointed out, aside of Pakistan, which was very under covered in the Western media for a variety of reasons, was the big constitutional movement led by lawyers to demand the separation of the judiciary from the government, as exists in the US Constitution. This movement grew and grew and grew. And Musharraf’s strike against the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on two separate occasions just fueled this movement.
This movement has now been crushed, but not by the Army but by Zardari, who split the Supreme Court, refused to accept the Chief Justice back and got some of the other chief judges of the Supreme Court, who had also been sacked, to break ranks and come back. So this movement suffered a very heavy blow.

But what it showed was a desire on the part of the people for a different order. And there is no doubt in my mind that that is what the people of Pakistan want. But unfortunately, the political parties on top who represent them are corrupt to the core. Most of them – all the major parties – are corrupt.

Now you have a situation, again which I haven’t seen reported in the Western media, that the party of the Bhutto family, the PPP as its official name is, is negotiating behind the scenes with these politicians from Gujarat, who were the lynchpin of the Musharraf regime, pleading with them for a coalition so that they can get rid of the Muslim League Sharif brothers’ government in the Punjab. So it’s back to business as usual in that country and it is extremely depressing because the country is at a critical state at the moment.

W.Ali: It is disappointing that we have the same players. You mentioned Nawaz Sharif in Punjab, who now seems to be spearheading democracy even though his record doesn’t reflect that. And we have Zardari and the PPP, again another feudal dynasty. And we have the Pakistan military. Are these the three players who the US has to play with now?

Tariq Ali: They are the three players. There’s no one else on that level in the country. By the way, Nawaz Sharif is not a feudal guy at all. He represents urban business interests. That has always been. They are not a landed family. The PPP still has a great number of landlords in them, especially from Sindh, but not exclusively. And the Army – these are the three players in Pakistan. You know, there’s no good wishing… of course I wish there were others. These are the people there at the moment and so whoever is talking to Pakistan has to talk to them. You can’t avoid it.

W.Ali: A statement made by many in the West, and also many Pakistani expats is, “See, we should have kept Musharraf. If we had Musharraf, this wouldn’t have happened. Even though he wasn’t the best, at least he fought against the extremists.” What’s the truth in that statement? What’s the legacy of Musharraf in your opinion?

Tariq Ali: Well, I think the legacy of Musharraf is very mixed. It’s not the case at all that he could deal with the militants. Essentially he reached an agreement with them. “Don’t hit us and we won’t hit you.” After the three attempts on Musharraf’s life, that’s basically what happened. These people were called in and were told, “Keep away from us and we will keep away from you and maybe the time will come when we will need you again to do something else.” So the notion that Musharraf was very effective in this regard was, of course, completely false. Secondly, once Musharraf had imposed a state of emergency on the country, just to remove the judiciary from the Supreme Court, his standing completely fell. There was no one who wanted him to stay on. His own power base in the Army no longer existed, because he had been compelled to leave the Army and get out of his uniform. So he was led to be stranded. The only people who kept him in power was the United States. And John Negroponte said that he wanted Musharraf to stay in power at least as long as Bush was in the White House.

But then behind the scenes, a big factional struggle erupted within the American establishment with Cheney’s office and (Zalmay) Khalizad negotiating directly with Zardari, sidelining Musharraf and helping organize the campaign which removed him without informing the State Department, which created real anger. If you read Richard Boucher’s e-mail of Khalizad, it’s very clear that he was very angry at what was being done.

I think the reason Khalizad got rid of Musharraf was that Musharraf and Khalizad’s protégé in Kabul, Hamid Karzai, loathed each other. Musharraf made no secret of it. And Khalizad probably felt that in Zardari, he could have another Karzai figure. Because given the charges against Zardari in a number of foreign courts and his assets abroad, he is a perfect creature for the United States because they can control him.

W.Ali: You have an interesting quotation in your book, which says, “Pakistan has a permanent insecurity complex regarding India.” How do you define that and how will that play out in current affairs, which are very volatile of course?

Tariq Ali: I mean the fact is the Pakistani elite certainly has [an inferiority complex.] Interestingly enough, the last big opinion poll survey in Pakistan carried out by the New America Foundation found that a majority of people regarded the United States as the biggest danger to world peace and only 11 percent of the population regarded India as the enemy. This represents, as far as India is concerned, a massive shift, which I think is very positive. My argument is that Pakistan should shift from Washington time to South Asia time. The future of the subcontinent requires a degree of commonality and collaboration between all the South Asian powers to build that region and help solve some of its problems. That is what needs to be done.

But this permanent enmity with India is dangerous. It’s dangerous for India and Pakistan as nuclear powers. War that is fought between them could easily generate into a nuclear conflict leading to millions and millions of deaths. I think this is recognized now by both sides. 

W.Ali: Last question. Let’s discuss the rise of “fundamentalism” in Pakistan. Pakistan is a religious country. People do espouse religious and spiritual beliefs. How do you see the role of religion being played in Pakistan and how should it be played?

Tariq Ali: I think that Pakistan as a Muslim state is beyond dispute. The bulk of its population are Muslim. But the fact is that the dominant image of Pakistan in the West is that of jihadi terrorists threatening to take over the nuclear facilities is just wrong. The bulk of the country is not in favor of jihadi terrorism. It’s been made clear in election after election.

The religion of people in the countryside in the Punjab, in Sindh is essentially still, to a large extent, a reflection of Sufi existentialism, of each one finding the Creator as an individual, general hostility to organized religion as such, which is still strong in the countryside. It’s your middle and upper-middle classes, like those in India and, not to mention, the United States, who become very religious, attracted to religiosity, joining the Tablighi Jamaat organizations.

But the common people don’t show any signs of that. A tiny minority is attracted to jihadi terrorism, but given the size of the country, this is infinitesimal. So the real problem that confronts Pakistan is not a big rise of religion, but the total and complete failure of a corrupt and callous Pakistani elite to do anything for its people.

The education system is languishing. The health system barely works. There are problems of shelter. There are now large problems of feeding the population with the price of wheat extremely high. We have the UN statistics which tell that malnutrition has reached such levels that 60% of Pakistani kids born are being born stunted. This is the real problem confronting the country.

Unless we have a government that is capable of dealing with this, the country will continue to be in crisis. There is real anger now at the gap between the haves and the have nots, between rich and poor in the country. And it spills over into violence at the slightest excuse. People are really angry now about this.

Wajahat Ali is a Muslim American of Pakistani descent. He is a playwright, essayist, humorist, and Attorney at Law, whose work, “The Domestic Crusaders” is the first major play about Muslim Americans living in a post 9-11 America. His blog is at http://goatmilk.wordpress.com/. He can be reached at wajahatmali@gmail.com

[Biggs]

Pakistan: US airstrike kills 21

Friday, 3 October 2008 18:45

http://www.capitalradio.co.uk/news-travel/world/pakistan-us-airstrike-kills-21/

A US missile strike in a Pakistani tribal region has killed up to 21 people, including 16 foreigners, according to reports.

Intelligence officials said a pilotless drone aircraft launched the attack in the village of Mohammad Khel, 30km (20 miles) west of Miranshah, the main town in North Waziristan.

An official said: "One missile hit the house of Daud Jan."

Pakistani military spokesman Major-General Athar Abbas said he had no information.

One intelligence official said nine people were killed, including foreigners. Taliban sources in the area later said eight were killed and seven wounded. A news report claimed 21 were killed, including 16 foreigners.

In the past month, US forces have carried out eight missile strikes by pilotless drones and a commando raid on the Pakistani side of the border.

The strikes into Pakistan, in particular a September 3 raid by ground troops, have angered Pakistan, straining ties between the allies and leading to tension along the border which Pakistani forces have vowed to defend.

[David Rothscum]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/06/pakistan.terrorism
Suspected Pakistan suicide bomber targets senior MP
Explosion in Punjab province kills at least 12 people and wounds more than 30

At least 12 people died and an opposition MP was wounded along with more than 30 others when a suspected suicide bomber targeted the politician's house in a prosperous province of Pakistan.

The explosion happened in the town of Bhakkar in Punjab province at the home of opposition MP Rasheed Akbar Niwani, who is a member of the minority Shia Muslim community. He is also a member of the former prime minister Nawaz Sharif's party.

"The bomber blew himself up the courtyard when Mr Nawani was sitting with his supporters there," Khadim Hussain, a police officer, told Reuters.

Nawani has spoken out in parliament several times recently against growing sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia.

"It could be a sectarian-related attack as he belongs to the Shia community," said Khan Baig, a senior police officer in the region.

Ehsanul Haq, a medical official at the district hospital in Bhakkar, told the Associated Press that so far, four bodies had been brought in, and that of 35 wounded people, a dozen were seriously hurt. According to Reuters, at least 12 people died in the blast.

An eyewitness described a smoky, dusty and gory scene.

Punjab, in eastern Pakistan, has largely been spared the militant-led violence that has gripped the nation's north-west.

However, Pakistan has experienced a wave of violence in recent weeks, just as the military has stepped up operations in the north-west and the US has stepped up cross-border strikes.

[David Rothscum]

The ultimate way to make the country collapse into chaos:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3147266/Pakistan-facing-bankruptcy.html
Pakistan facing bankruptcy
Pakistan's foreign exchange reserves are so low that the country can only afford one month of imports and faces possible bankruptcy.
 

By Isambard Wilkinson in Islamabad
Last Updated: 6:44PM BST 06 Oct 2008

Officially, the central bank holds $8.14 billion (£4.65 billion) of foreign currency, but if forward liabilities are included, the real reserves may be only $3 billion - enough to buy about 30 days of imports like oil and food.

Nine months ago, Pakistan had $16 bn in the coffers.

The government is engulfed by crises left behind by Pervez Musharraf, the military ruler who resigned the presidency in August. High oil prices have combined with endemic corruption and mismanagement to inflict huge damage on the economy.

Given the country's standing as a frontline state in the US-led "war on terrorism", the economic crisis has profound consequences. Pakistan already faces worsening security as the army clashes with militants in the lawless Tribal Areas on the north-west frontier with Afghanistan.

The economic crisis has already placed the future of the new government in doubt after the transition to a civilian rule. President Asif Ali Zardari has faced numerous but unproven allegations of corruption dating from the two governments led by his wife, Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated last December.

The Wall Street Journal said that Pakistan's economic travails were "at least in part, a crisis of confidence in him".

While Mr Musharraf's prime minister, Shaukat Aziz, frequently likened Pakistan to a "Tiger economy", the former government left an economy on the brink of ruin without any durable base.

The Pakistan rupee has lost more than 21 per cent of its value so far this year and inflation now runs at 25 per cent. The rise in world prices has driven up Pakistan's food and oil bill by a third since 2007.

Efforts to defer payment for 100,000 barrels of oil supplied every day by Saudi Arabia have not yet yielded results, while the government has also failed to raise loans on favourable terms from "friendly countries".

Mr Zardari told the Wall Street Journal that Pakistan needed a bail out worth $100 billion from the international community.

"If I can't pay my own oil bill, how am I going to increase my police?" he asked. "The oil companies are asking me to pay $135 [per barrel] of oil and at the same time they want me to keep the world peaceful and Pakistan peaceful."

The ratings agency Standard and Poor's has given Pakistan's sovereign debt a grade of CCC +, which stands only a few notches above the default level.

The agency gave warning that Pakistan may be unable to cover about $3 billion in upcoming debt payments.

Mr Zardari is expected to ask the international community for a rescue package at a meeting in Abu Dhabi next month.

This gathering will determine whether the West is willing to bail out Pakistan.

[bigron]

October 7, 2008

Pakistan and the US on Brink of War?

by Mustafa Qadri

As the United States steps up border raids into Pakistan, troops from both countries have commenced a deadly game of brinkmanship. Although aimed at asserting each other's military presence along the Pakistan-Afghan border, the skirmishes risk outright hostilities.

U.S. strikes in Pakistan are nothing new. Washington has conducted unilateral missile strikes since soon after its invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001. American pilotless surveillance planes have been flying over the restive border with near impunity for much of the same time.

From Air to Ground

But the tone of the U.S. presence changed this year. In July, President George W. Bush approved covert ground raids into suspected militant hideouts in the Waziristan region of Pakistan, much of which is a Taliban stronghold. Militants use the region as a sanctuary from which to strike foreign and Afghan troops in neighboring Afghanistan. Thus far, U.S. forces attempted at least three ground assaults. The only confirmed ground invasion of Pakistan, on Sept. 3, led to the deaths of around 20 civilians, including women and children. No militant leaders were believed captured or killed in the raid.

This ground assault led to unprecedented rhetoric from Pakistan condemning the United States. Even Chief of Army Staff Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, normally quite evasive with the media, said that the army would defend Pakistan's territory. The Pakistani government summoned the U.S. ambassador to the foreign office and blocked NATO supplies vital to the multinational force's continued operation in Afghanistan.

Pakistan averted two other attempted ground raids when its border forces fired warning shots at U.S. helicopters ferrying commandos into Waziristan. On the most recent occasion, Pakistan and U.S. troops exchanged fire for five minutes. Pakistan's government later claimed that its army fired flares, not bullets, at the helicopters, but this explanation did not sound very convincing.

Ostensibly, Washington fears that Waziristan – and other tribal regions – could become a staging area for further attacks on the United States if the Pakistani army doesn't root out pro-Taliban forces. But Washington doubts whether Islamabad is capable of doing the job.

More broadly, U.S. policy in the region is increasingly shaped by its failure to establish unequivocal dominance in Iraq. With the War on Terror overshadowing U.S. foreign policy for the foreseeable future, the next U.S. president will have to deliver victory in some form to a skeptical public. That is the ultimate legacy of the Sept. 11 hijackers, and the Bush administration.

The Next Target

That victory will most likely not come out of the violence and political mess of Iraq. Although the Bush administration and both presidential candidates support a significant, continued military presence in Iraq, the United States has accepted that it can't control the entire country by direct military force. It may have had some success in marginalizing al-Qaeda in Iraq – after initially spurring its growth – but it has also been forced to accept Shia domination of domestic politics.

Iran was seriously mooted as the next frontline and even now experiences tremendous diplomatic pressure from Washington. But it's difficult for the United States to promote the Shia state as the next front in the War on Terror, however much Israel or its lobby in the United States may favor this path. Iran doesn't pose an immediate threat, nor would it afford a quick and easy military campaign. Rather, war with Iran would almost certainly lead to a severe disruption of global energy supplies and the world economy.

Pakistan, in comparison, is an irresistible target. The United States claims to have evidence that the government supports jihadists that wage war against the United States and NATO in Afghanistan. Even a limited, covert war, directed at militants, not Pakistan's army, is arguably the easiest sell the United States has ever had to make since the 1990 war with Iraq. The only factor preventing all-out conflict is Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Escalation

U.S. raids and missile strikes may be an attempt to see how far it can go with Pakistan. After Pervez Musharraf stepped down as president, the United States felt uninhibited by the concern that its Pakistan interventions were impairing a staunch ally. There have been as many missile strikes this year as in the previous seven.

Pakistan has engaged in loud rhetoric decrying the attacks and asserted it won't tolerate intrusions into its territory. Strong public criticism was inevitable to placate a population deeply resentful of the U.S. presence in the region. Both civilian and military leaders have to guard against forces, such as rival politicians or upstart officers, using the crisis to leverage power.

Even internationally, if Pakistan hadn't condemned the U.S. attacks, it would have tacitly acknowledged that it can't address the militant problem on its own. That would be an open invitation to more interference from foreign armies and, potentially down the road, international isolation as a failed state.

Pakistan, as it currently exists, relies on U.S. patronage for its survival. There's very little it can do if the United States decides to step up its military presence in Pakistan. According to the State Department, the United States has given Pakistan $2.4 billion in "security assistance" and $3.4 billion in economic assistance over the past seven years. Pakistan has obtained a raft of loans and credits from international financial institutions like the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank since its rehabilitation by the United States after Sept. 11.

Despite the cold-headed realism, there's a real danger that future confrontations between Pakistan and U.S. troops could escalate into outright hostilities. The Pakistani army's rank-and-file is deeply uneasy about military operations that have killed several thousand fellow citizens and Muslims at the behest of Washington, not Islamabad. Pakistan border posts may welcome any future U.S. intrusion into Pakistan as an opportunity to assert their country's independence.

U.S. and NATO commanders in Afghanistan also resent what they see as Pakistan's unwillingness to stop militants from attacking their troops from hideouts in Pakistan. U.S. Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright recently told Congress that 30-40 percent of the attacks in Afghanistan come from Pakistan, an increasing proportion. American commanders may not need much persuasion to fire on Pakistani forces if they are seen to be getting in the way of militant targets. Even a standoff could accidentally escalate into all-out hostilities.

If substantial casualties ensue, Islamabad and Washington might be hard-pressed to soothe popular calls for revenge.

Reprinted courtesy of Foreign Policy in Focus.
 
 
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/qadri.php?articleid=13560 
 

[Biggs]

see bolded text at end of article for news of US troops setting up a base in Pakistan and internal problems within Pakistani Army

Pakistan, US await militant showdown

By Syed Saleem Shahzad

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JJ07Df02.html

KARACHI - With Britain's commander in Afghanistan saying the war against the Taliban cannot be won, and with Afghan President Hamid Karzai inviting Taliban leader Mullah Omar back to Afghanistan to join the political process, the Western coalition is trying a new approach of reconciliation.

"We're not going to win this war. It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army," Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith was quoted in the British media at the weekend as saying.

The Taliban, even though they are laying virtual siege to the capital Kabul, are also not sufficiently strong for a military victory. Yet they have dismissed any notion of talks until the last foreign soldier leaves Afghanistan.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization showed its willingness to compromise on core principles by publicly approving Washington-backed Karzai's proposal, made on Friday, that Mullah Omar, who is believed to spend time in Pakistan, return to Afghanistan. Overnight, Mullah Omar has gone from "condemned terrorist" to Karzai's brother.

For the Taliban, though, this does not change anything and the battle will continue, although it is accepted that it will increasingly spill over into Pakistan, where the Taliban already control large chunks of territory in the border areas - and even spread into India.
The executive director of the Pakistani Center for Research and Security Studies, Dr Farrukh Saleem, has claimed that 12,000 square kilometers of Pakistan have already been lost to the Taliban, and that their march continues. Pakistan has tried to counter the Taliban through military offensives, local pro-government militias and through the secular Awami National Party (ANP), which governs North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), all without success.

Last week, on the second day of Eidul Fitr, the Muslim celebration to mark the end of the holy month of Ramadan, a suicide attacker tried to kill Asfandyar Wali Khan, the chief of the Pashtun sub-nationalist ANP, at his home about 20 kilometers from the NWFP capital, Peshawar. Four people were killed, but Wali Khan was unhurt.

Although the main target was missed, the attack had the desired effect - Wali Khan, an important American asset, has taken refuge in the capital Islamabad. Wali Khan had been groomed by the US after the September 11, 2001, attacks through many visits to the US, including this year's trip to Central Command headquarters in Florida.

Pakistan is acutely concerned over the situation in NWFP, as well as in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas which comprise seven tribal areas. Much of the tribal areas is already in the control of the Pakistani Taliban and militants; this is now spreading to NWFP. The attack on Wali Khan was followed on Sunday with rockets being fired on the chief minister's NWFP residence.

With Wali Khan in Islamabad, he attended an urgent meeting with President Asif Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gillani and army chief Parvez Ashfaq Kiani.

A special National Assembly session has been called this week for in-camera briefings on the "real situation" in NWFP, that is, that it has virtually fallen into the hands of the Taliban and the government has no option but to wage war against the Taliban - and with American help. Zardari also admitted in the press that a string of US Predator drone attacks on the Taliban in Pakistani territory had been approved by Pakistan. Islamabad initially expressed outrage at the incursions into its territory.

Earlier, US joint chiefs chairman Admiral Mike Mullen confirmed Asia Times Online's report that American bases would be established in Tarbella, 20 kilometers from Islamabad to train Pakistani troops and to take part in operations in the tribal areas.

According to an interview in the Los Angeles Times, Mullen said the primary stumbling block had been that Pakistan had not been able to build a training site near Peshawar quickly enough. The two sides had therefore agreed to use an alternative base at Tarbella. (See The gloves are off in Pakistan Asia Times Online, September 23, 2008.)

Tarbella houses the brigade headquarters of Pakistan's Special Operations Task Force. Recently, 300 American officials landed at the facility with the official designation of a "training advisory group", according to documents seen by Asia Times Online. However, high-level contacts claim this is not as simple as a training program.

In the mid-1990s, during the government of Nawaz Sharif, a special US Central Intelligence Agency unit was based at the same facility, tasked with catching Osama bin Laden. They left after Pervez Musharraf came to power in a coup in 1999.

Now, the US has bought a huge plot of land at Tarbella, several square kilometers, according to sources directly handling the project. Recently, 20 large containers arrived at the facility. They were handled by the Americans, who did not allow any Pakistani officials to inspect them. Given the size of the containers, it is believed they contain special arms and ammunition and even tanks and armored vehicles - and certainly have nothing to do with any training program.

Dissension in the ranks
Kiani recently visited army camps in the restive tribal areas following growing cases of defiance in the ranks, including among officers. Incidents include troops near the border with Afghanistan counteracting commands and firing on US helicopters and a drone.

Kiani is expected to purge the dissidents and replace them with more pro-US officers. Asia Times Online has learned that the former garrison officer commanding Kohat, Major General Niaz Khattack, who performed successful operations in the Waziristan tribal areas and who is presently serving in the United Nations' Georgia mission, is likely to return to Pakistan soon. He is tipped to oversee the smooth running of the new Pakistan-US "joint venture" that will take place inside Pakistan.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com
 
 
 

[bigron]

OUR SECRET WAR IN PAKISTAN


Posted: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 8:29 AM
http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/07/1500617.aspx

By Richard Engel, NBC News Chief Foreign Correspondent


 JALALABAD, Afghanistan – U.S. military officials don’t talk about our secret war in Pakistan. 

Don’t even ask, I was told, on U.S. military bases in Afghanistan at Bagram and Jalalabad.

Don’t ask about the remotely-controlled American drones armed with missiles that are now hunting across the Pakistani border, searching through the mountain peaks, valleys and dusty villages inside Pakistan for the leaders of a few dozen networks of al-Qaida fighters, Taliban militants, warlords, weapons smugglers and opium traffickers.

 
VIDEO: Pakistan struggles to maintain power in a Taliban stronghold


And certainly don’t ask about the troops on bases here in Afghanistan who don’t wear uniforms, have long beards (so they can better blend in during covert operations), tattoos and don’t mingle with regular soldiers. 

They eat in their own chow halls, plan their own missions and don’t talk much. They don’t talk at all to the media.  They’re the men who have been called in to cross into Pakistan when the drones can’t get deep enough to find and kill their targets. 

They are elite Special Operations Forces, the most-highly trained and covert of the U.S. military. They are America’s ghost warriors. According to Pakistani villagers who claim to have witnessed their operations, the "Special Ops" work in small teams, fast roping out of helicopters, air assaulting their objective before the enemy can re-group.

Their strengths are rapid violence, stealth, mobility and surprise. The Special Operations Forces don’t receive much attention or credit in the media, but they’re leading America’s secret war inside Pakistan, at least for now.

The Army Times, a military newspaper, recently reported that the U.S. will temporarily halt ground incursions into Pakistan. The newspaper quoted an unnamed Pentagon official as saying, "We are now working with the Pakistanis to make sure that those types of ground-type insertions do not happen, at least for a period of time to give them an opportunity to do what they claim they are desiring to do." The newspaper said the halt did not apply to the incursions by drones.

U.S. perspective
While details of American operations in Pakistan are sparse, several commanders have helped me understand the American motivation for the raids. 

They say the cross-border incursions are necessary because the Pakistani government has failed to contain Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. Pakistan’s tribal region – 10,000 square miles along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan – has become a no-man’s-land where radical militants train, equip, rest, regroup, refit, plan and launch attacks on American troops in Afghanistan and on the Pakistani government in Islamabad. 

Pakistan has taken some action. In August, the Pakistani military launched an offensive in Bajaur, a militant stronghold near the border. The Pakistani army is also building alliances with tribal leaders who have turned on the Taliban and al-Qaida.

But Pakistan’s actions have yet to produce significant results, according to tribal elders, witnesses, and the U.S. military. The border region remains a lawless insurgent safe haven that the United States has decided it can no longer tolerate.

From the U.S. perspective, the military had to act in Pakistan, a U.S. ally, because the Pakistani government and military could not, or would not, crack down on Islamic radicals.

Pakistan’s perspective
Sipping cups of green tea in a villa in Islamabad, I recently spoke for three hours with a Pakistani military official, who also worked for several years in his country’s intelligence service, to get the other side of the story. He argued passionately that both Pakistan and the United States share the same goal – to wipe out the dangerous radicals – but that the U.S. cross-border incursions are counter-productive.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said Pakistan has deployed 120,000 troops along its border with Afghanistan, stationed at 1,000 posts. He compared Pakistan’s force to just over 30,000 U.S. troops at about 100 posts on the Afghan side of the border.

"You see where the insufficiency of forces is?" he asked.  "I don’t understand why [the Americans] don’t just kill the militants on their side of the border. They show us videos as proof of militants crossing into Pakistan. Why don’t they just sort them out there, in Afghanistan, instead of making videos?’"

I asked the Pakistani official about the U.S. cross-border raids. Do they help? Don’t they target the same people who plot attacks against Pakistan? Unlike the U.S. military, he had a lot to say.

The official claimed there have been about 50 drone incursions into Pakistan since this summer, along with roughly 10 "physical incursions." He claimed the raids had killed "several hundred" civilians and were causing panic in the tribal areas.

"The villagers hear the buzzing [of the drones] and are terrified. They are scared to have weddings, funerals or any social gatherings, afraid they will be blown up by the drones," he said.

The official also claimed the U.S. strikes undermine the Pakistani military’s ability to operate in the tribal areas. It’s a problem of logistics and terrain, he explained.

The few roads in the mountainous border area run through villages. Since the Pakistani military lacks aircraft, the roads are the army’s main supply line. The official argued that if the villagers, angered by American air strikes, turn on the Pakistani military – who are after all U.S. allies – they could cut off Pakistani troops.

"We may have to pull them out completely if [the American incursions] continue. We cannot leave the troops there, if we are cut off from supplies and can’t support them."

Human toll
While the United States and Pakistan argue over the incursions, conditions in border villages are rapidly deteriorating. The mountain town of Swat was once known as the Switzerland of Pakistan, a resort where Pakistanis vacationed to escape the bustle of Islamabad and Karachi.  Today it is a battle zone.

According to a Pakistani military spokesman, in Swat Valley Taliban and al-Qaida fighters have burned down 111 girls schools, destroyed 37 government buildings, blown up 29 bridges, incapacitated the main power plant and cut the gas supply. Villagers are often completely without power.  Schools that haven’t been burned down don’t operate.

Not surprisingly, more than a quarter million refugees have escaped areas like Swat and Bajour.  At least 20,000 refugees have crossed into Afghanistan.  Aid workers say tens of thousands more may be coming.

What can be done?
A senior U.S. military official told me he’d heard Pakistan’s argument – leave us alone, we’ll handle it, stay out – a thousand times, but had yet to see results. 

But what can the U.S. actually do? 

It’s difficult to fight a secret war, especially here. The Special Operations Forces must fight in the mountains, far away from their bases in Afghanistan, against a battle-hardened enemy funded by the opium trade.

Since U.S. troops must operate covertly, they also can’t afford to lose a single man, fearing the enemy would drag his body Somalia-style through the streets, exposing their presence. The Americans also can’t leave anything behind, no equipment, no bags of MREs, no tracks, no trace they were there fighting America’s newest, most secret war. 

Both American and Pakistani officials seem to agree that the only long-term solution to combating the militants in the border region is through better coordination.  For now, however, there’s little trust between the two sides, and suspicions are growing.

[bigron]

Pakistan to deport Afghan refugees


http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m47785&hd=&size=1&l=e

October 7, 2008

Pakistan has ordered the deportation of about 50,000 Afghan refugees from a troubled tribal region amid a major military offensive against al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

The government said it was expelling all Afghan refugees in the Bajaur tribal region, alleging many of them have links to armed groups.

Police in the town of Khar in Bajaur arrested 25 Afghans and said they would soon be deported.

"The orders have been issued to the tribal police to push all of them [refugees] out," Abdul Haseeb, a local government official, said on Monday, adding that their homes would be bulldozed to keep them from returning.

A government offensive in Bajaur that began in early August has claimed some 1,000 lives.

It comes amid increased US pressure on the government of Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president, to crackdown on armed groups in the restive border region where al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding.

Washington has long complained Pakistan is unwilling or unable to take strong action against the armed fighters.

Zardari has pledged his co-operation in the US 'war on terror', but he must tread carefully given strong domestic opposition to his country's alliance with Washington.

This balancing act has become increasingly complicated because of increasing US missile attacks against suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban hide-outs in Pakistan's northwest and more recently by Zadari's comments to The Wall Street Journal suggesting he had consented to the strikes.

"We have an understanding, in the sense that we're going after an enemy together," the newspaper quoted him as saying on Saturday.

On Monday, Farhatullah Babar, a Pakistani government spokesman, insisted there was no deal allowing the US to fire missiles at targets in Pakistan, saying the journalist had read too much into Zardari's comment and that the president was talking in generalities about fighting terrorism.

"The official position is that we do not allow foreign incursions into Pakistani territory," Babar said.

In the latest in a string of bombings against government, military and Western targets in Pakistan, a suicide bomber attacked a legislator's home in the east of the country on Monday, killing 15 people and wounding 50.





 

[sociostudent]

Suspected US missile strike reported in Pakistan
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan

[bigron]

Blast hits Pakistan tribal meeting 
 
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2008/10/20081010115916242220.html
 
 
An explosion at a meeting of tribal elders in northwest Pakistan killing at least 15 people, according to witnesses.

The suspected suicide bombing happened on Friday in the Orakzai district, one of Pakistan's seven semi-autonomous tribal regions, security officials said.

"We were busy in raising a lashkar [a tribal militia] to evict Taliban from the region when this attack took place," Qeemat Khan Orakzai, a member of the council, told the Reuters news agency.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility.

Orakzai, which does not share a border with Afghanistan, has been relatively peaceful compared to the other tribal regions.
 
 

[bigron]

Blast hits Pakistan tribal meeting 

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2008/10/20081010131452825883.html

 
 

 
An explosion at a meeting of tribal elders in northwest Pakistan has killed at least 40 people and up to 200 others.

The suspected suicide bombing happened on Friday in the Orakzai district, one of Pakistan's seven semi-autonomous tribal regions, security officials said.

"We were busy in raising a lashkar [a tribal militia] to evict Taliban from the region when this attack took place," Qeemat Khan Orakzai, a member of the council, told the Reuters news agency.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility.

The members of the Alizai tribe had met in the town of Ghaljo in mountainous Orakzai, which is the only one of the tribal regions that does not border Afghanistan.

'Hideouts' destroyed

A security official said that the attack came a day after tribesmen had targeted two hideouts belonging to pro-Taliban groups operating in the area.

"The tribesmen blew up two hideouts of the militants a day earlier and it is possible this attack was in revenge for their actions," a security official told the AFP news agency on condition of anonymity.

The bombing came a day after four tribal elders in Bajaur, a tribal region north of Orakzai, were abducted and beheaded after attending another pro-government meeting, officials said.

"People will tell you that Pakistan is already in a state of war. Every day there are suicide bombings," Al Jazeera's Kamal Hyder, reporting from the North West Frontier province, said.

"The violence is escalating at a time that the national assembly is not able to come to grips with the situation.

"The death toll could rise further," he said.

Violence has intensified across Pakistan in recent months since the army began an offensive against the pro-Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in the Bajaur and Swat regions.

Orakzai, near the main northwest city of Peshawar, has been relatively peaceful compared to the other tribal regions.
 
 

[Biggs]

death toll from the above mentioned suicide attack on an anti-taliban tribal meeting rises to 32

Suicide blast kills 32 in Pakistan: officials

Fri Oct 10, 12:07 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081010/ts_afp/pakistanafghanistanunrestblasttoll_081010160712

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AFP) - The toll from a suicide blast at an anti-Taliban tribal meeting in a restive Pakistani region near the Afghan border Friday has more than doubled to 32, a local government said. ADVERTISEMENT



"The death toll from the attack on the jirga has risen to at least 32," local government official Afzal Khan told AFP, updating an earlier toll of 15 killed when the bomber blew himself up at a meeting of anti-Taliban leaders.

More than 2,000 tribesmen had gathered on open ground in the town of Ghaljo in mountainous Orakzai, which is the only one of Pakistan's lawless tribal regions that does not border Afghanistan.

[Biggs]

meanwhile Pakistan's economy is collapsing

Pakistan seeks $10bn bailout from US, UK to avoid bankruptcy
10 Oct 2008, 1756 hrs IST,PTI
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Business/Intl_Business/Pakistan_seeks_10bn_bailout_from_US_UK_to_avoid_bankruptcy/articleshow/3581189.cms

LONDON: Facing imminent bankruptcy, terror-stricken Pakistan has dispatched its top

finance officials to Washington, London and other friendly
world capitals seeking a
lifeline of over USD 10 billion in emergency aid.

The mission to secure a six billion pound (USD 10.18 billion) bailout package is led by Shaukat Tareen, Pakistan prime minister's finance adviser and Shamshad Akhtar, the governor of Pakistan's central bank, Daily Telegraph reported.

The Pakistani delegation is seeking an American and British-backed lifeline to tide over the current crisis.

Oil-rich Gulf states have also been tapped to match Western funds with extra billions to ensure that Pakistan, which until recently touted itself as the 'next Asian Tiger', avoids a balance of payments crisis, the report said.

Tareen, a suave former banker, was appointed this week to spearhead the last ditch bid to avert the possible bankruptcy after it was revealed that state reserves had halved since democratic elections were held in March this year and a coalition government led by the Pakistan People's Party was formed.

"Tareen has given himself four weeks to salvage the economy. High oil prices have combined with endemic corruption and mismanagement to push Pakistan to the brink of bankruptcy," the report said.

Pakistan's middle class shifted massive amounts of capital overseas as a crisis of confidence in Pakistan's long term future took hold following the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto last December, it said, analysing the cause for the latest crisis facing the nation.

[bigron]

Pakistan seeks $10bn bailout from US, UK to avoid bankruptcy


10 Oct 2008, 1756 hrs IST,PTI
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Business/Intl_Business/Pakistan_seeks_10bn_bailout_from_US_UK_to_avoid_bankruptcy/articleshow/3581189.cms

 
LONDON: Facing imminent bankruptcy, terror-stricken Pakistan has dispatched its top finance officials to Washington, London and other friendly world capitals seeking a lifeline of over USD 10 billion in emergency aid.

The mission to secure a six billion pound (USD 10.18 billion) bailout package is led by Shaukat Tareen, Pakistan prime minister's finance adviser and Shamshad Akhtar, the governor of Pakistan's central bank, Daily Telegraph reported.

The Pakistani delegation is seeking an American and British-backed lifeline to tide over the current crisis.

Oil-rich Gulf states have also been tapped to match Western funds with extra billions to ensure that Pakistan, which until recently touted itself as the 'next Asian Tiger', avoids a balance of payments crisis, the report said.

Tareen, a suave former banker, was appointed this week to spearhead the last ditch bid to avert the possible bankruptcy after it was revealed that state reserves had halved since democratic elections were held in March this year and a coalition government led by the Pakistan People's Party was formed.

"Tareen has given himself four weeks to salvage the economy. High oil prices have combined with endemic corruption and mismanagement to push Pakistan to the brink of bankruptcy," the report said.

Pakistan's middle class shifted massive amounts of capital overseas as a crisis of confidence in Pakistan's long term future took hold following the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto last December, it said, analysing the cause for the latest crisis facing the nation.
 
 
 
 
 

[bigron]

Heeding the lessons of another war !
 
11/10/2008 06:02:00 PM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=169917

 
 Ground incursions by U.S. troops across the border into Pakistan in search of the Taliban and Al Qaeda risk drastically undermining the Pakistani state, society and army.


By Maleeha Lodhi


Ground incursions by U.S. troops into Pakistan risk undermining the Pakistani state.


Boston, Massachsuetts/London - Forty years ago, the United States began to mount raids into Cambodia and to undermine the government of King Sihanouk in order to cut Vietcong supply lines.

As a result, America’s war with Vietnamese Communism spread into Cambodia, leading to the triumph of the Khmer Rouge and the Cambodian genocide. But these horrors occurred after the United States itself had quit Vietnam and after the U.S.-backed regime in South Vietnam had collapsed. Washington’s widening of the war benefited neither America nor its local allies.

The United States is now making the same mistake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If continued, ground incursions by U.S. troops across the border into Pakistan in search of the Taliban and Al Qaeda risk drastically undermining the Pakistani state, society and army.

Many Pakistanis are berating their new civilian government and the military for being too supine in their response to the American actions. There have also been public calls for NATO supply lines through Pakistan to be cut, which could cripple the Western military effort in Afghanistan. The latest dreadful terrorist attack in Islamabad illustrates the danger of a wider conflagration and the price Pakistan is paying for its role as a U.S. ally.

The dangers involved in Pakistan are greater even than in Cambodia, where the disasters were contained in one country. The current war has already been driven into the Pakistani heartland. If turmoil increases in Pakistan then the forces of extremism will be strengthened, in the region and the world. Thus the long-term implications of “losing” Afghanistan pale into insignificance when set against the risk of “losing” Pakistan.

Nor would undermining Pakistan, whether intentionally or not, in any way help the U.S. and NATO mission in Afghanistan. Pakistan has six times Afghanistan’s population and is a nuclear state. The Pashtun population of Pakistan is greater than that of Afghanistan, and provides a large number of Pakistani soldiers. Far from saving Afghanistan, present U.S. strategy toward Pakistan will only risk sinking Afghanistan itself in a whirlpool of regional anarchy.

Instead of this approach, the U.S. and NATO should adopt a radically new strategy for Afghanistan that relies more on soft power. The approach should be based on the recognition that Afghanistan cannot be transformed along Western lines and that the United States cannot maintain an open-ended presence in that country without destabilising the entire region.

Afghanistan must sooner or later be left to the Afghans themselves to run. Local actors should take the lead in carrying out counter-insurgency, as Western forces and an overwhelming reliance on military force are liable only to multiply enemies.

The terrible effects of bombardment on the civilian population have become a potent factor behind the will of many Afghans to resist what they see as an alien military occupation.

The next U.S. administration therefore should announce a return to America’s original objective, that of hunting international terrorist networks and preventing them from creating safe havens in Afghanistan. This should in fact be America’s only core objective.

The attempt of the West to “transform” Afghanistan is already meeting the same fate as the Soviet attempt to do so. It is strengthening the insurgency, by creating the impression of a threat to the Islamic way of life and local tradition.

Instead of continuing with what is in effect a purely Western approach, Washington should initiate serious regional talks on Afghanistan’s future.

The United States and the West need to remember that however long their forces stay in Afghanistan, sooner or later they will leave, while Afghanistan’s neighbours will always remain. Tragically, their policies in the past have generally been directed against each other, with disastrous results for the people of Afghanistan.

The United States should instead seek to shape a regional concert that will stand some chance of at least containing Afghanistan’s problems in the long term. None of this will be easy; but a continuation of present U.S. strategy promises only widening turmoil in the region, or at best war without end.

-- Maleeha Lodhi is a fellow at Harvard and former Pakistani ambassador to the United States and England. Anatol Lieven is a professor at King’s College in London and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. This article first appeared in the International Herald Tribune and is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (GCNews).





-- Middle East Online

 

[bigron]

Missile strike reported in Pakistan 
 
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2008/10/20081011184826882921.html



Pro-government tribesemen and security forces are a favoured target of pro-Taliban fighters [AFP]

 
At least three people have been killed in a missile attack by suspected US drones in Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal region on the Afghan border, according to a Pakistani intelligence sources.

"Three people have been killed. We don't know whether they are militants or civilians," an intelligence official in the region told the Reuters news agency late on Saturday.

The AFP news agency quoted Pakistani security officials as saying that the missile strike hit a compound, killing four people.

The US is suspected in at least 11 missile strikes on the Pakistan side of the Afghan border since mid-August, killing more than 100 people, most of them alleged fighters, according to an Associated Press (AP) count based on figures provided by Pakistan intelligence officials.

Orakzai burials

Elsewhere in Pakistan, mourners on Saturday buried victims of a suicide bombing near the border that targeted anti-Taliban tribesmen moving to evict fighters from their region.

Asghar Khan, a government official, told AP that authorities had tallied at least 34 bodies, but that as many as 25 other bodies may have been taken away by relatives in Orakzai, one of Pakistan's seven semi-autonomous tribal regions.

Some media reports put the death tally from the Friday attack much higher.

One unconfirmed TV report late on Saturday said 113 people died in the bombing.

'Hideouts' destroyed

A security official said that Friday's attack occurred a day after tribesmen had targeted two hideouts belonging to pro-Taliban groups operating in the area.

It also came a day after four tribal elders in Bajaur, a tribal region north of Orakzai, were abducted and beheaded after attending another pro-government meeting, officials said.

"People will tell you that Pakistan is already in a state of war. Every day there are suicide bombings," Al Jazeera's Kamal Hyder, reporting from the North West Frontier province, said.

"The violence is escalating at a time that the national assembly is not able to come to grips with the situation."
 
 

[Biggs]

'US missiles' hit Pakistan town
 
The US military has been using drones armed with missiles in Afghanistan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7665620.stm

At least four people have died in a suspected US missile attack on a Pakistani tribal region near the Afghan border, local officials say.

They say two unmanned US aircraft were spotted above the town of Miran Shah in North Waziristan before the strikes.

There has been no comment from the Pentagon on the reports.

The United States has launched several missile strikes against suspected militant targets in the border region with Afghanistan in recent weeks.

On Thursday, a suspected US missile strike killed at least eight people in another North Waziristan village.

The United States rarely confirms or denies such attacks.

American military commanders blame militants based in the tribal areas for the increase in attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan.

[bigron]

Published on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 by McClatchy Newspapers


New intelligence Report says Pakistan Is 'On The Edge'


by Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott


Pakistani troops patrol in the troubled Bajaur agency in September. Troops and helicopter gunships killed about 40 Taliban militants while four people were injured in a roadside bomb in northwest Pakistan. The NIE on Pakistan, along with others being prepared on Afghanistan and Iraq, will underpin a "strategic assessment" of the situation that Army Gen. David Petraeus, who's about to take command of all U.S. forces in the region, has requested. (AFP/File/Aamir Qureshi)



WASHINGTON - A growing al Qaida-backed insurgency, combined with the Pakistani army's reluctance to launch an all-out crackdown, political infighting and energy and food shortages are plunging America's key ally in the war on terror deeper into turmoil and violence, says a soon-to-be completed U.S. intelligence assessment.

Pakistani troops patrol in the troubled Bajaur agency in September. Troops and helicopter gunships killed about 40 Taliban militants while four people were injured in a roadside bomb in northwest Pakistan. The NIE on Pakistan, along with others being prepared on Afghanistan and Iraq, will underpin a "strategic assessment" of the situation that Army Gen. David Petraeus, who's about to take command of all U.S. forces in the region, has requested. (AFP/File/Aamir Qureshi)A U.S. official who participated in drafting the top secret National Intelligence Estimate said it portrays the situation in Pakistan as "very bad." Another official called the draft "very bleak," and said it describes Pakistan as being "on the edge."

The first official summarized the estimate's conclusions about the state of Pakistan as: "no money, no energy, no government."

Six U.S. officials who helped draft or are aware of the document's findings confirmed them to McClatchy on the condition of anonymity because NIEs are top secret and are restricted to the president, senior officials and members of Congress. An NIE's conclusions reflect the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.

The NIE on Pakistan, along with others being prepared on Afghanistan and Iraq, will underpin a "strategic assessment" of the situation that Army Gen. David Petraeus, who's about to take command of all U.S. forces in the region, has requested. The aim of the assessment - seven years after the U.S. sent troops into Afghanistan - is to determine whether a U.S. presence in the region can be effective and if so what U.S. strategy should be.

The findings also are intended to support the Bush administration's effort to recommend the resources the next president will need for Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan at a time the economic crisis is straining the Treasury and inflating the federal budget deficit.

The Afghanistan estimate warns that additional American troops are urgently needed there and that Islamic extremists who enjoy safe haven in Pakistan pose a growing threat to the U.S.-backed government of Afghan Prime Minister Hamid Karzai.

The Iraq NIE is more cautious about the prospects for stability there than the Bush administration and either John McCain or Barack Obama have been, and it raises serious questions about whether the U.S. will be able to redeploy a significant number of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan anytime soon.

Together, the three NIEs suggest that without significant and swift progress on all three fronts - which they suggest is uncertain at best - the U.S. could find itself facing a growing threat from al Qaida and other Islamic extremist groups, said one of the officials.

About the only good news in the Pakistan NIE is that it's "relatively sanguine" about the prospects of a Pakistani nuclear weapon, materials or knowledge falling into the hands of terrorists, said one official.

However, the draft NIE paints a grim picture of the situation in the impoverished, nuclear-armed country of 160 million, according to the U.S. officials who spoke to McClatchy.

The estimate says that the Islamist insurgency based in the Federally Administered Tribal Area bordering Afghanistan, the suspected safe haven of Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, is intensifying.

However, according to the officials, the draft also finds that the Pakistani military is reluctant to launch an all-out campaign against the Islamists in part because of popular opposition to continuing the cooperation with the U.S. that began under Pervez Musharraf, the U.S.-backed former president, after the 9/11 attacks.

Anti-U.S. and anti-government sentiments have grown recently, stoked by stepped-up cross-border U.S. missile strikes and at least one commando raid on suspected terrorist targets in the FATA that reportedly have resulted in civilian deaths.

The Pakistani military, which has lost hundreds of troops to battles and suicide bombings, is waging offensives against Islamist guerrillas in the Bajaur tribal agency and Swat, a picturesque region of the North West Frontier Province bordering Afghanistan. U.S. officials said insurgent attacks on Pakistani security forces provoked the Pakistani army operations.

The Pakistan general staff also remains concerned about what it considers an ongoing threat to its eastern border from its traditional foe, India, the draft NIE finds, according to the U.S. officials.

For these reasons, they said, the army chief of staff, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, wants the new civilian coalition government of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani to provide the military with political cover by blessing a major anti-insurgency crackdown.

However, the ruling coalition, in which President Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of the late prime minister Benazir Bhutto, holds the real authority, has been preoccupied by other matters, according to the draft NIE.

These include efforts to consolidate its power after winning a struggle that prompted its main rival, the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, to leave the ruling coalition.

Moreover, widespread anti-U.S. anger has left the coalition deeply divided over whether to unleash a major military assault on the Islamists, the U.S. officials said.

The government is also facing an accelerating economic crisis that includes food and energy shortages, escalating fuel costs, a sinking currency and a massive flight of foreign capital accelerated by the escalating insurgency, the NIE warns.

The Pakistani public is clamoring for relief as the crisis pushes millions more into poverty, giving insurgent groups more opportunities to recruit young Pakistanis.

Warren P. Strobel and Nancy A. Youssef contributed to this article.

 

© 2008 McClatchy Newspapers

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org

URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/10/15-2

[sociostudent]

Published on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 by McClatchy Newspapers


New intelligence Report says Pakistan Is 'On The Edge'


by Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott


Pakistani troops patrol in the troubled Bajaur agency in September. Troops and helicopter gunships killed about 40 Taliban militants while four people were injured in a roadside bomb in northwest Pakistan. The NIE on Pakistan, along with others being prepared on Afghanistan and Iraq, will underpin a "strategic assessment" of the situation that Army Gen. David Petraeus, who's about to take command of all U.S. forces in the region, has requested. (AFP/File/Aamir Qureshi)



WASHINGTON - A growing al Qaida-backed insurgency, combined with the Pakistani army's reluctance to launch an all-out crackdown, political infighting and energy and food shortages are plunging America's key ally in the war on terror deeper into turmoil and violence, says a soon-to-be completed U.S. intelligence assessment.

Pakistani troops patrol in the troubled Bajaur agency in September. Troops and helicopter gunships killed about 40 Taliban militants while four people were injured in a roadside bomb in northwest Pakistan. The NIE on Pakistan, along with others being prepared on Afghanistan and Iraq, will underpin a "strategic assessment" of the situation that Army Gen. David Petraeus, who's about to take command of all U.S. forces in the region, has requested. (AFP/File/Aamir Qureshi)A U.S. official who participated in drafting the top secret National Intelligence Estimate said it portrays the situation in Pakistan as "very bad." Another official called the draft "very bleak," and said it describes Pakistan as being "on the edge."

The first official summarized the estimate's conclusions about the state of Pakistan as: "no money, no energy, no government."

Six U.S. officials who helped draft or are aware of the document's findings confirmed them to McClatchy on the condition of anonymity because NIEs are top secret and are restricted to the president, senior officials and members of Congress. An NIE's conclusions reflect the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.

The NIE on Pakistan, along with others being prepared on Afghanistan and Iraq, will underpin a "strategic assessment" of the situation that Army Gen. David Petraeus, who's about to take command of all U.S. forces in the region, has requested. The aim of the assessment - seven years after the U.S. sent troops into Afghanistan - is to determine whether a U.S. presence in the region can be effective and if so what U.S. strategy should be.

The findings also are intended to support the Bush administration's effort to recommend the resources the next president will need for Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan at a time the economic crisis is straining the Treasury and inflating the federal budget deficit.

The Afghanistan estimate warns that additional American troops are urgently needed there and that Islamic extremists who enjoy safe haven in Pakistan pose a growing threat to the U.S.-backed government of Afghan Prime Minister Hamid Karzai.

The Iraq NIE is more cautious about the prospects for stability there than the Bush administration and either John McCain or Barack Obama have been, and it raises serious questions about whether the U.S. will be able to redeploy a significant number of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan anytime soon.

Together, the three NIEs suggest that without significant and swift progress on all three fronts - which they suggest is uncertain at best - the U.S. could find itself facing a growing threat from al Qaida and other Islamic extremist groups, said one of the officials.

About the only good news in the Pakistan NIE is that it's "relatively sanguine" about the prospects of a Pakistani nuclear weapon, materials or knowledge falling into the hands of terrorists, said one official.

However, the draft NIE paints a grim picture of the situation in the impoverished, nuclear-armed country of 160 million, according to the U.S. officials who spoke to McClatchy.

The estimate says that the Islamist insurgency based in the Federally Administered Tribal Area bordering Afghanistan, the suspected safe haven of Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, is intensifying.

However, according to the officials, the draft also finds that the Pakistani military is reluctant to launch an all-out campaign against the Islamists in part because of popular opposition to continuing the cooperation with the U.S. that began under Pervez Musharraf, the U.S.-backed former president, after the 9/11 attacks.

Anti-U.S. and anti-government sentiments have grown recently, stoked by stepped-up cross-border U.S. missile strikes and at least one commando raid on suspected terrorist targets in the FATA that reportedly have resulted in civilian deaths.

The Pakistani military, which has lost hundreds of troops to battles and suicide bombings, is waging offensives against Islamist guerrillas in the Bajaur tribal agency and Swat, a picturesque region of the North West Frontier Province bordering Afghanistan. U.S. officials said insurgent attacks on Pakistani security forces provoked the Pakistani army operations.

The Pakistan general staff also remains concerned about what it considers an ongoing threat to its eastern border from its traditional foe, India, the draft NIE finds, according to the U.S. officials.

For these reasons, they said, the army chief of staff, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, wants the new civilian coalition government of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani to provide the military with political cover by blessing a major anti-insurgency crackdown.

However, the ruling coalition, in which President Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of the late prime minister Benazir Bhutto, holds the real authority, has been preoccupied by other matters, according to the draft NIE.

These include efforts to consolidate its power after winning a struggle that prompted its main rival, the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, to leave the ruling coalition.

Moreover, widespread anti-U.S. anger has left the coalition deeply divided over whether to unleash a major military assault on the Islamists, the U.S. officials said.

The government is also facing an accelerating economic crisis that includes food and energy shortages, escalating fuel costs, a sinking currency and a massive flight of foreign capital accelerated by the escalating insurgency, the NIE warns.

The Pakistani public is clamoring for relief as the crisis pushes millions more into poverty, giving insurgent groups more opportunities to recruit young Pakistanis.

Warren P. Strobel and Nancy A. Youssef contributed to this article.

 

© 2008 McClatchy Newspapers

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org

URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/10/15-2

Is it just me or does the beard on the guy on the left look fake?

[bigron]

Thursday, October 16, 2008
11:05 Mecca time, 08:05 GMT   
News CENTRAL/S. ASIA
 http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2008/10/2008101672724503831.html
 
'US missiles' hit Pakistan village 
 
   
 
At least four people have been killed by a suspected US drone that fired two missiles into a Pakistani tribal area bordering Afghanistan, security officials say.

The missiles hit a house in the village of Sam in South Waziristan, an area known to be a stronghold of Baitullah Mehsud, the head Pakistan's pro-Taliban movement.

"There may be casualties, we are checking," a Pakistani intelligence official, who declined to be identified, said.

A second official said that drones are still flying in the area.

"No one is going close as they fear more missiles could be fired," he said.

According to a local resident in Sam, two big explosions had shaken the village.

US-operated pilotless drones have stepped up strikes in Pakistan since the beginning of September, firing missiles at suspected fighters 11 times and killing dozens of people, Pakistani security officials have said.
 
 Source: Agencies 
 
Feedback Number of comments : 4

 
Joe
Australia  16/10/2008
   
Pakistani consent
   
It seems Pakistan is all right with the US constantly firing missiles into its territory and killing its people. If they are so outraged by this attacks then why is there no retribution on their behalf? I do not mean in a military way, but by denouncing it at the United Nations or even better, by cutting support for the aggressors on their so called war on terror. Close the darn supply routes the US so need to carry fuel into Afghanistan.

 
ali
Pakistan  16/10/2008
   
usa the terror
   
usa is well known terrorists.they have bombarded many mosques in iraq and more than 8 in pakistan.bompbrading mosques,schools and killing muslims is the basic objective of crusaders.As dr abdul qadir khan said "usa is a crusader .they are enemies of islam"

 
Bigmel1981
Malaysia  16/10/2008
   
US missiles hit Pakistan village
   
Why is Pakistan so lenient with the US ? Use the x band radar or what ever you have to monitor drones and just shoot them down.

 
Bigmel1981
Malaysia  16/10/2008
   
US missiles hit Pakistan village
   
Pakistan is to soft with the US Monitor the drones and shoot it down.

 
 
 
 

[bigron]

Oct 18, 2008 
 
 Pakistan does some US dirty work

By Syed Saleem Shahzad

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JJ18Df01.html

KARACHI - Pakistan's seven-year association with the United States' "war on terror" has moved to a new and dangerous level: the US has given it a contract to build 1,000 Humvees for use by troops in Afghanistan against the Taliban-led insurgency.

The fact that Pakistan is now providing the hardware for the "war on terror" is a highly sensitive issue, given the already inflammatory situation that exists in the country over Islamabad siding with Washington in this fight against terrorism.

Asia Times Online has learned that Pakistan's Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) has been given the order for an undisclosed sum for the Humvees - high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles. HIT, located 35 kilometers to the west of the capital Islamabad, is the

 

leading engineering and manufacturing center for the armed forces in Pakistan, with a workforce of over 6,000.

Work on the Humvees has already begun, although the task is being undertaken in secret. HIT has the capabilities to build main battle tanks, armored recovery vehicles, armored personnel carriers and other military equipment. Humvees are currently produced by AM General, an American heavy vehicle manufacturer based in South Bend, Indiana.

According to contacts at the plant who spoke to ATol, the Humvees are just the first of many orders to come for the manufacture of armaments for use in Afghanistan.

ATol contacted the Ministry of Defense Production, under which HIT operates, and was directed by a Major Raza Hasan to the director general of Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), Major General Athar Abbas, as the minister was not available. Abbas said he had no knowledge of the matter of the Humvees and would call back after speaking with HIT. At time of publication, he had not done so.

A widening war
The winter season has begun, but the heat of fighting is not getting any cooler in the South Asian war theater, indeed, it is becoming cauldron-hot.

The Taliban have shown unprecedented resilience and the scope of the battlefield has broadened from the border provinces with Pakistan to the main urban centers of Afghanistan. Whether it is newly formed American bases in Nuristan and Khost provinces, or the British base in Lashkar Gah, they have either been overrun or placed under constant siege by the Taliban.

Now, the strategic backyard of the "war on terror", Pakistan, is feeling the heat. Just as Kabul is under siege by the Taliban and communication links leading to Kabul have been disrupted by the Taliban, Islamabad is under siege by the Taliban and militants in the tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan.

Increasingly frequent raids by US special forces into Pakistan from Afghanistan and the use of Predator drones to target militants has angered many in Pakistan, and even caused dissent within the ranks of the armed forces.

That Pakistan is now producing hardware that could conceivably be used inside Pakistan against its people will rankle even more.

Further, as reported by ATol, the US is establishing a large base inside Pakistan at Tarbella, 20 km from Islamabad, officially said to be used to train Pakistani troops and to take part in operations in the tribal areas. (See Pakistan, US await militant showdown Asia Times Online, October 7, 2008.)

However, it is suspected the base will be used for US operations inside Pakistan and Afghanistan. American trainers are working out an arrangement for joint ventures with a selective group of Pakistani Frontier Corps.

The US already plans a military surge in Afghanistan with an additional brigade (4,000 to 5,000 troops) in January and possibly two or three more brigades later in the year. These will be reinforcements, not replacements. This will further "Americanize" the North Atlantic Treaty Organization mission in Afghanistan. Already, 26,000 of the 63,000 total international forces in the country are American. At the same time, the Afghan National Army is being expanded to 122,000 personnel and a rudimentary air force is being created.

It is against this backdrop that the US has turned to Pakistan for the manufacture of armaments to supply these new demands both within Pakistan and in Afghanistan.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com

 
 
 

[Biggs]

At least 60 militants killed in airstrikes in north-west Pakistan
Posted : Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:51:28 GMT
Author : DPA
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/237556,at-least-60-militants-killed-in-airstrikes-in-north-west-pakistan.html
 

Islamabad - At least 60 militants were killed as Pakistani jets and helicopter gunships pounded several suspected Taliban hideouts in north-west Pakistan, officials said. The army claimed that two hideouts were bombarded in Piochar and surrounding areas of restive Swat district in the North West Frontier Province.

"According to preliminary information gathered from local sources, up to 60 miscreants have died in the strikes," said Major Nasir Ali, a military spokesman in the area.

The airstrikes came hours after one of two Chinese engineers kidnapped by Taliban two months ago escaped from captivity and reached a security post. His colleague was recaptured in the same district.

However, it was not immediately clear whether the strikes were linked to the Chinese engineer's escape or were part of regular military action against militants.

The engineers were abducted on August 29 together with their local driver and a security guard in Dir after repairing a communications tower of the China Mobile Pakistan Company.

Swat valley, formerly a popular tourist destination, has seen increasing violence since 2007 when thousands of troops moved in to quell the armed campaign launched by radical cleric Maulana Fazlullah and his followers to enforce Taliban rule in the region.

A brief lull in the violence came earlier this year when the new civilian government started peace talks with the Swat militants and reached an agreement with them in April.

[Optimus]

Pakistan condemns US incursions
http://www.thenational.ae/article/20081018/NATIONAL/561383454/1138
Praveen Menon

Last Updated: October 18. 2008 11:58PM UAE / October 18. 2008 7:58PM GMT

DUBAI // Pakistan’s foreign minister condemned US attacks that have killed large numbers of Pakistanis along the border with Afghanistan, saying that his country can control its Taliban problem without foreign intervention.

“Innocent people have lost their lives. Women and children have lost their lives in these attacks and we have openly spoken out about this to the US,” Shah Mahmood Qureshi told Pakistani community leaders and businessmen in Dubai on Friday evening.

“Nato have distanced themselves from these attacks.

“If there is action required, the Pakistan army will do it.”

Yesterday, Islamabad reported the Pakistan army had killed 60 fighters in the Swat valley during the previous day.

In the past few months increasing attacks by missile-firing US drones have killed many civilians as well as suspected Taliban militants in the border regions.

Mr Qureshi told an audience of expatriate Pakistani community leaders and businessmen at a hotel in Dubai Marina that Pakistan stood firmly against “Talibanisation”.

He said Pakistan continued to have a good relationship with the US, despite the recent incursions by its forces along the border area in North Waziristan.

The US provides Pakistan with US$80 million (Dh294m) a month in aid.

“Pakistan is in the front of the fight against extremism and terrorism that the world faces,” he said.

[bigron]

The Duel – Pakistan on the flight path of American power 


19/10/2008 08:40:00 PM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=172377
 
 Pakistan is a country of 200 million strong with nuclear weapons, so it’s foolish to try to destabilize it.


By Jim Miles


(Reuters) Pakistanis chant anti-U.S. slogans to condemn U.S. strikes in tribal areas .


Book review: The Duel – Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power by Tariq Ali.  Scribner (Simon & Schuster Inc.) New York, 2008.

Pakistan is becoming more and more important in the news media (excepting the current scares with the financial markets) and its interactions with the Taliban are becoming more prominently known. 

Predator drones have been used more frequently in the Northwest Frontier Provinces and the almost semi-autonomous Federally Administered Tribal Areas, both consisting mainly of the Pashtun, a people divided by the artificial and not fully recognized Durrand Line that forms the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.  These same people compose a significant per centage of the military forces in Pakistan. 
 
What is not true is that these areas are fully in the Taliban camp, and recent and historical electoral votes indicate a strong secular sentiment with the voters (recognizing within that secularity that Pakistan is officially a Muslim state). 

An unauthorized U.S. led military assault on September third into South Waziristan killed twenty civilians. When reports come in later about both the Taliban and the Pakistan military forces firing warning shots at American helicopters heading towards Pakistani territory, the reality of future possibilities should the U.S. continue its incursions into Pakistani territory become quite frightening.
 
Pakistan is nominally an independent and democratic state, although it has had a ‘civilian’ government for only fifteen of its sixty years, the other years served under military dictatorship.  When ‘democracy’ reins, it is rife with clan disputes, cronyism, bribery, fraud, and U.S. influence.  When the military reins, the same holds true, and in spite of U.S. rhetoric about global freedom and democracy, they have never hesitated to support any client Pakistani regime.   

As reported by Tariq Ali in his clearly written new work, “The Duel”, “U.S. priorities determined Pakistan’s domestic and foreign policies from 1951 onward.”
 
The current situation is no different other than that the military situation is increasingly tense as the Bush government has publicly identified Pakistan as being in the centre of the fight against terror and promises to support their independence and sovereignty. 

Given the history of U.S. interventions globally and in its manipulations in relationship to Pakistan in particular, this rhetoric is both disingenuous and frightening.  Emphasizing that the world’s sixth most populous state and a nuclear state is “not on the verge of a jihadi takeover,” Ali acknowledges the possibility of a self-fulfilling prophecy if the U.S. tries to “occupy parts of Pakistan, destroy its nuclear facilities, and impose a puppet regime.  The hell that is Iraq would rapidly shift eastward.  Definitely not recommended.”
 
Ali argues, “the only way a terrorist group could penetrate the nuclear facilities would be if the army wanted them to.”  That would only happen if the army would “rupture” as a result of occupation and bombing by U.S. forces. In a more recent interview since the writing of the book, Ali reiterated the same idea, “Pakistan is much larger country than Afghanistan, it is a country of 200 million strong with nuclear weapons, so it’s foolish to try to destabilize this country.”[1] 
 
In “The Duel” Ali provides the history that leads up to this current crisis. The actual duel is described as one “between a U.S. backed politico-military elite and the citizens of the country” a duel shaped by the formation of the state itself and the relationships between India, China, Russia and the U.S.’ perception of its strategic needs.

The most important aspect of the duel “is not the highly publicized conflict in Waziristan, but the divide between the majority of the people and their corrupt, uncaring rulers.”  It is a duel in which “The people cannot be blamed for the tragedies that have afflicted the country.” 

While that is true of just about any national history as ‘the people’ simply want to get on with their lives, in Pakistan it presents a particularly tragic and morbid picture of what occurs when imperial strategies (British, Russian, U.S. or any other) ride roughshod over any group of national people. 

That Pakistan was founded as an Islamic state (identified by Ali as possibly an unintended outcome of negotiations on the British withdrawal from India) and covers an area inhabited by several national groups with the Punjabi military and bureaucratic dominance as the strongest focus, instability is not surprising. 
 
Accordingly, as “there is no serious political alternative to military rule…The outlook is bleak.”  The main issues in Pakistan are not (or were not until recently) the Taliban and the war but social and economic inequality.  The solutions for a successful Pakistan have commonalities globally.
 
First and most obvious for the Pakistanis would be the withdrawal of NATO forces n Afghanistan, and even more so, from all Middle east territories, as the “recent Islamist movements with their extremist factions is a modern phenomenon….It’s a phase that will whither away…if the military occupations of Muslim lands are ended.”  As has been proven in Iraq and other areas of the world, the strongest recruiter for any military insurgency is occupation and attacks on civilians. 
 
Along with the disencumberment of the military serious social and economic changes would be required: land reform, military power controlled, the globalization rules of the IMF need to be altered, the social infrastructure, in particular education, health, and affordable housing, needs to be reformed, and the legal system needs it independence as does the media.
 
“The Duel” is a strongly written, well argued, and readily accessible work.  Ali is quite clear in his opinions and supports them well with the history of intrigues and manipulations that have kept the military and political bureaucracy in place over millions of citizens, half of whom live in poverty.   The United States has been alongside the power groups all the way, always looking for a compliant regime for whatever label to further its foreign policy and strategic interests.
 
For both the interested citizen and the concerned politician, “The Duel” will go a long way towards providing information for a country that has until recently been only on the sidelines with the current war on terror. The members of governments of the ‘western’ world, who openly professed ignorance of Afghanistan, tend to be quite ignorant of much of what has taken place in the Middle East and South Asia.

Tariq Ali provides a history and social-political perspective that should be known before more aggressive moves are made in spreading the war on terror into this complex and dynamic country.
 
 
[1] Wajahat Ali,  “Dueling Partners: Pakistan and the U.S.”  October 3, 2008. 
http://www.counterpunch.org/waj10032008.html
 
-- Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist of opinion pieces and book reviews for The Palestine Chronicle.  Miles’ work is also presented globally through other alternative websites and news publications.
 
 
 




-- AJP

 

[Biggs]

Pakistan muzzles its guns
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JJ21Df02.html

KARACHI - Cash-strapped Pakistan, after the failure of operations against militants in Bajaur Agency and the Swat Valley, has had to call off an offensive in the North Waziristan tribal area, and instead negotiate ceasefire deals.

Nevertheless, relentless pressure from the United States will not allow Islamabad to remain inactive for too long. This would have been the message relayed by US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, who made an unscheduled visit to Pakistan at the weekend. The US is all too aware how militant strongholds in Pakistan's tribal areas fuel the Taliban-led insurgency across the border in Afghanistan.

Pakistan is in a deep financial hole, however, and the best it can

 

do is buy time with the militants until the crisis eases.

Both China and the United States appear reluctant to bail out Pakistan, which is in danger of defaulting on debt worth US$3 billion in the next few months. Saudi Arabia, too, has not offered deferred payment on oil or any cash relief and at the weekend Pakistan said it might have to seek assistance from the unpopular International Monetary Fund.

Troops stop in their tracks Last week, Pakistan mobilized troops for an offensive in North Waziristan, forcing hundreds of residents to flee to the city of Bannu as they feared a mass ground and air onslaught of the kind that had earlier forced thousands to flee from Bajaur.

But Pakistan suddenly approached the militants and urged a ceasefire. Two militants leaders - Hafiz Gul Bahadur from North Waziristan and Moulvi Nazir of neighboring South Waziristan, both rivals of Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud - agreed to implement ceasefire agreements.

Bahadur issued a statement in which he said that fighting against Pakistani forces damaged the cause for support of the Afghan national resistance and hence it had been decided that if the Pakistani security forces did not advance, the tribes would observe a ceasefire.

For militants elsewhere, though, the ceasefire agreements play into their hands as they can consolidate their bases in Pakistan in preparation for more action in Afghanistan, where they have already achieved unprecedented success in their seven-year battle against foreign forces. Indeed, the Taliban are as resilient as ever in the Pakistani tribal areas, where they have reinforced their positions.

Qari Ziaur Rahman, who recently emerged as the regional commander-in-chief of all pro-Taliban groups in Kunar and Nooristan provinces in Afghanistan and the Pakistani Bajaur and Mohmmand Agency areas, spoke to Asia Times Online in a telephone interview.

"The mujahideen have completely gained control on the ground [in Bajaur]. The American agenda to destroy the mujahideen and all the [Pakistan] government options have failed to defeat us."

Rahman spoke on a land line from Bajaur, which makes a mockery of the government claim that he had been forced to flee to Afghanistan after being injured.

Rahman is an Afghan national, first introduced by Asia Times Online as the most important regional commander of the future (see A fighter and a financier May 23, 2008). He is leading all local, foreign and Afghan Taliban fighting against Pakistani troops in Bajaur.

"I am completely healthy and in Bajaur. I never retreated into Afghanistan nor sustained any injury. It is the propaganda of the Pakistan army to demoralize the mujahideen," Rahman said.

"Initially, Pakistan succeeded in instigating the local tribes against us and there were a few incidents of setting the property of the Taliban on fire, but now all the tribes have pulled out from the government-led militias and except for a few areas like Khar, the Taliban command complete ground control.

"The Pakistan army does not have any option but to send gunship helicopters three to four times a day to fire shells, or send aircraft once a day for indiscriminate bombing for half an hour. In such operations, the mujahideen sustain no losses," Rahman said.

Rahman maintained that the Taliban are now in a position to put up resistance to the Pakistani security forces as well as to initiate successful attacks against US forces in the Kunar Valley.

"We have started our operations in the Kunar Valley and, except for interruptions of a few weeks, these are as normal as they were before the Bajaur operations [began two months ago]," Rahman said.

He was adamant that the ceasefire agreements in North Waziristan would not create any rifts. "It was a strategic decision by the Taliban in North Waziristan. At the end of the day we will all be one in our broader strategies.”

Pakistan may have bought itself some time with the ceasefires, but the battle - let alone the war - is a long way from over, even as US unmanned Predator drones begin sorties in the skies of North Waziristan.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com

[Biggs]

100 feared dead in Swat aerial blitz

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=17903

Monday, October 20, 2008

By Delawar Jan & Musa Khankhel

PESHAWAR/MINGORA: Some 100 people, including militants, were feared dead and scores of others injured when jet fighters targeted Barthana village in the militant-infested Matta Tehsil of Swat Valley on Sunday.

Confirmed reports, however, said at least 30 people, including 25 militants, were killed and scores of others injured in the air strike on Sunday morning in Barthana area. Dozens of houses were flattened by the bombardment and efforts were on to retrieve the dead and injured from the rubble by the local people.

After receiving tip-off about the presence of militants in Barthana village, the security forces targetted it from jet fighters. Though there were conflicting reports about the number of casualties due to suspension of communication system, there were confirmed reports of 30 casualties.

A press release of the ISPR-run Swat Media Centre (SMC) claimed that 25 militants were killed in the attack. It said that the forces also destroyed the Hujra of a militant commander, Alamgir, which was being used as a den in Barthana area of the Matta Tehsil, besides the destruction of an ammunition depot.

Spokesman for the Swat chapter of the banned Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Muslim Khan, told The News from an undisclosed location that they had retrieved more than 30 bodies from the rubble of the houses.

He said that 35 houses had been destroyed in the aerial strike and dozens of people were still feared to be stranded under the rubble. However, he was quick to claim that none of the Taliban fighters had been killed in the attack and all the victims were civilians, mostly children and women.

“Jets hit a house in Barthana, killing scores of people. While the people were engaged in retrieving the bodies of the people when jets reappeared and attacked the rescuers,” he alleged.

Some reports suggested that 100 people, including Taliban fighters and their commanders, were killed. Local sources said that 15 civilians, including women and children, also died in the attack while another 35 sustained serious injuries. A mosque and several shops were also destroyed in the bombing.

Sources told The News that a linesman, Adam Khan and six members of his family, four persons of another linesman Mian Gul’s family, 10 members of Ghulam Rabbani’s family and six of a family in the nearby Pishtonai and Qawi area were killed in the blitzkrieg.

In a separate incident, a soldier and three militants were killed in exchange of fire following an improvised explosive device (IED) attack on the security forces’ convoy in Sarsinai area of the adjoining Kabal Tehsil.

The militants attacked a convoy of the security forces with IED but they suffered no casualty. Following the blast, an exchange of fire between the insurgents and the security forces took place in which, according to the SMC, three militants, including the operator of the IED, were gunned down while a soldier also died in the incident.

In the same area, two children, Irfan and Shagufta, were killed and six others, including two women, injured when their houses were hit by mortar shells. Meanwhile, Cheena Market comprising 1,200 shops remained closed for the second straight day on Sunday in the wake of threats to owners to stop women from shopping or the whole market would be blown up.

The militants blew up a tourist resort owned by central leader of the Awami National Party and former federal minister, Afzal Khan Lala, in Jali Gudar area of the Matta Tehsil. In Totano Bandai, the militants fired seven rockets at a checkpost of the security forces but no human and material loss was reported in the incident.

[bigron]

How the U.S. Military Turned Me into a Terrorist

A powerful excerpt from 'Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan' lays bare the racism at the core of the Iraq occupation

By Aaron Glantz, Haymarket Books.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21055.htm


In March of this year, a courageous group of veterans brought the war home, at a historic event held in Silver Spring, Md., inspired by Vietnam veterans a generation before. "Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan" convened more than 200 soldiers who have served in the so-called "War on Terror;" like their fellow soldiers before them, who shared stories that laid bare the nightmare of Vietnam, these veterans bore witness to the crimes that have been committed in Americans' names during the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The hearings lasted four days; in their testimony, soldiers described how the discarding of the military's rules of engagement and its systematic dehumanization of Iraqi and Afghan civilians has led to horrible acts of violence against innocent men, women and children. "These are not isolated incidents," was a common refrain, even as the episodes they described seemed exceptionally brutal. For many of the veterans, it was the first time they had told their stories.

Now, the searing testimony has been compiled in an important new book: Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan: Eyewitness Accounts of the Occupation, edited by Aaron Glantz and published by Haymarket Books. I strongly encourage you to buy the book, preferably though the Web site of Iraq Veterans Against the War, which organized the Winter Soldier hearings and continues to hold similar events in cities across the country. All proceeds of books purchased through IVAW will go to support its crucial work.

The following excerpt comes from Michael Prysner, a corporal in the Army Reserve who came home in February 2004.

-- Liliana Segura, Editor, War on Iraq Special Coverage

20/10/08 "Alternet" -- - When I first joined the army, I was told that racism no longer existed in the military. A legacy of inequality and discrimination was suddenly washed away by something called the Equal Opportunity Program. We would sit through mandatory classes, and every unit had an EO representative to ensure that no elements of racism could resurface. The army seemed firmly dedicated to smashing any hint of racism.

Then September 11 happened, and I began to hear new words like "towel-head," and "camel jockey," and the most disturbing, "sand nigger." These words did not initially come from my fellow lower-enlisted soldiers, but from my superiors: my platoon sergeant, my first sergeant, my battalion commander. All the way up the chain of command, these viciously racist terms were suddenly acceptable.

When I got to Iraq in 2003, I learned a new word, "haji." Haji was the enemy. Haji was every Iraqi. He was not a person, a father, a teacher, or a worker. It's important to understand where this word came from. To Muslims, the most important thing is to take a pilgrimage to Mecca, the Hajj. Someone who has taken this pilgrimage is a haji. It's something that, in traditional Islam, is the highest calling in the religion. We took the best thing from Islam and made it into the worst thing.

Since the creation of this country, racism has been used to justify expansion and oppression. Native Americans were called "savages," the Africans were called all sorts of things to excuse slavery, and Vietnam veterans know the multitude of words used to justify that imperialist war.

So haji was the word we used. It was the word we used on this particular mission I'm going to talk about. We've heard a lot about raids and kicking down the doors of people's houses and ransacking their houses, but this was a different kind of raid.

We never got any explanation for our orders. We were only told that a group of five or six houses was now property of the U.S. military, and we had to go in and make those families leave their houses.

We went to these houses and informed the families that their homes were no longer theirs. We provided them no alternative, nowhere to go, no compensation. They were very confused and very scared. They did not know what to do and would not leave, so we had to remove them.

One family in particular, a woman with two small girls, a very elderly man, and two middle-aged men; we dragged them from their house and threw them onto the street. We arrested the men because they refused to leave, and we sent them off to prison.

A few months later I found out, as we were short interrogators and I was given that assignment. I oversaw and participated in hundreds of interrogations. I remember one in particular that I'm going to share with you. It was the moment that really showed me the nature of this occupation.

This particular detainee was already stripped down to his underwear, hands behind his back and a sandbag on his head. I never saw this man's face. My job was to take a metal folding chair and smash it against the wall next to his head -- he was faced against the wall with his nose touching it -- while a fellow soldier screamed the same question over and over again. No matter what his answer, my job was to slam the chair against the wall. We did this until we got tired.

I was told to make sure he kept standing up, but something was wrong with his leg. He was injured, and he kept falling to the ground. The sergeant in charge would come and tell me to get him up on his feet, so I'd have to pick him up and put him against the wall. He kept going down. I kept pulling him up and putting him against the wall. My sergeant was upset with me for not making him continue to stand. He picked him up and slammed him against the wall several times. Then he left. When the man went down on the ground again, I noticed blood pouring down from under the sandbag. I let him sit, and when I noticed my sergeant coming again, I would tell him quickly to stand up. Instead of guarding my unit from this detainee, I realized I was guarding the detainee from my unit.

I tried hard to be proud of my service, but all I could feel was shame. Racism could no longer mask the reality of the occupation. These are human beings. I've since been plagued by guilt. I feel guilt any time I see an elderly man, like the one who couldn't walk who we rolled onto a stretcher and told the Iraqi police to take him away. I feel guilt any time I see a mother with her children, like the one who cried hysterically and screamed that we were worse than Saddam as we forced her from her home. I feel guilt any time I see a young girl, like the one I grabbed by the arm and dragged into the street.

We were told we were fighting terrorists; the real terrorist was me, and the real terrorism is this occupation. Racism within the military has long been an important tool to justify the destruction and occupation of another country. Without racism, soldiers would realize that they have more in common with the Iraqi people than they do with the billionaires who send us to war.

I threw families onto the street in Iraq, only to come home and find families thrown onto the street in this country, in this tragic and unnecessary foreclosure crisis. Our enemies are not five thousand miles away, they are right here at home, and if we organize and fight, we can stop this war, we can stop this government, and we can create a better world.

Aaron Glantz is the author of two upcoming books on Iraq: The War Comes Home: Washington's Battle Against America's Veterans (UC Press) and Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan (Haymarket). He edits the Web site WarComesHome.org.

[David Rothscum]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7685593.stm
A suspected US missile strike has killed at least eight students at a religious school in north-western Pakistan, witnesses say.
The school, in North Waziristan, is close to the residence of a fugitive Taleban leader, Jalaluddin Haqqani, witnesses told the BBC Urdu Service.

At least two missiles, reportedly fired by pilotless US drones, hit the school early on Thursday.

The Pakistani army is investigating the incident. The US has made no comment.

The attack comes hours after the Pakistani parliament unanimously adopted a resolution calling on the government to defend its sovereignty and expel foreign fighters from the region.

The resolution also called upon the government to prevent the use of Pakistani territory for attacks on another country.

There have been persistent US accusations that Pakistan is not doing enough to eliminate Taleban and al-Qaeda sanctuaries in the border region.

Growing tension

Witnesses told the BBC that the missiles destroyed nearly half of the school building in the Dande Darpakhel area near Miranshah, the main town in the North Waziristan tribal region.

At least six people were injured in the attack, witnesses say. It is still not clear whether there were any foreign fighters among the dead students or whether it is linked to Mr Haqqani or his son, Sirajuddin.

Local people have said that most of the injured were local students at the seminary.

Some madrassas in Pakistan have been accused of promoting militancy.

The residential complex of Jalaluddin Haqqani was targeted in a missile attack in September. At least 14 people were killed and 15 injured.

Taleban and al-Qaeda fighters use North Waziristan and other tribal areas to launch attacks in Afghanistan.

Foreign fighters from Uzbekistan, Afghanistan and the Middle East are all thought to be based there.

In recent weeks the United States has launched many missile strikes against suspected militant targets in the Afghan border region.

Washington says the strikes are used against militant targets, but correspondents say that intelligence failures have sometimes led to civilian casualties.

Figures compiled by the BBC Urdu service show that some 80 people have been killed in a number of suspected US missile strikes in South and North Waziristan region over the past month.

Earlier in October a suspected pilotless American drone fired missiles in North Waziristan, killing at least six people, Pakistani intelligence officials said.

The United States rarely confirms or denies such attacks.

Tensions between the US and Pakistan have increased over the issue of cross-border incursions against militants by American forces based in Afghanistan.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has said he will not tolerate violations of his country's territory.

The US state department has affirmed "its support for Pakistan's sovereignty, independence, unity, and territorial integrity".

[bigron]

Thursday, October 23, 2008
14:09 Mecca time, 11:09 GMT    
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2008/10/200810237421951159.html

News CENTRAL/S. ASIA  
 
'US raid' targets Pakistani village  


North Waziristan is one of several tribal areas where the Taliban is said to enjoy strong local support  [AFP]
 
A suspected US drone has fired a missile into a Pakistani village, killing at least seven tribesmen, Al Jazeera's correspondent Dan Nolan says from Islamabad.

Foreigners are believed to be among those killed, sources said.

The strike, which took place early on Thursday, aimed at a stronghold of Jalaluddin Haqqani, a veteran Taliban commander.

The missile targeted a village in the North Waziristan tribal region near the Afghan border where Haqqani, an old friend of Osama bin Laden, had established a madrasa or religious school.

  
 
"A large number of militants are rushing towards the area in vehicles," a Reuters witness said by telephone from Miranshah, the main town of North Waziristan.

Zardad Khan, a villager, later said four people were killed and three wounded in the attack.

"They were all local people," he said.

Previous attack

Twenty-three people, mostly relatives of Haqqani, were killed in a similar attack on the same village in September.

One of the sons of Haqqani had told Reuters that his father was in Afghanistan when the village was hit in September.

 
 
US forces, frustrated over growing cross-border attacks from the Pakistani side, have carried out around a dozen missile strikes and a commando raid in Pakistani tribal areas since the start of September.



A large number of fighters have been killed in these attacks but no senior al-Qaeda or Taliban commander is reported to have died so far.

Haqqani is a veteran of the US-backed Afghan war against the Soviet invasion in the 1970s and '80s and his extended family had been living in North Waziristan since then.

Haqqani's links with bin Laden go back to the late 1980s.

Taliban sources say he is in ill-health and his son, Sirajuddin, has been leading the Haqqani group.

Late on Wednesday, Pakistan's parliament called for a review of the nation's security strategy and talks with fighters who meet certain conditions.

But it stopped short of demanding a halt in its own military operations against pro-Taliban fighters.

'Historic moment'

The resolution was adopted during an unusual, closed-door, joint session of parliament called by the government.

"This is a historic moment for the country as the nation's representatives unanimously adopted a resolution," Sherry Rehman, the information minister, said.

"This will definitely help to improve the situation and to rid the country of the menace of terrorism."

The Pakistani army is engaged in two major offensives in the northwest - one in the Swat valley and one in the Bajaur tribal area.

The latter has killed more than 1,000 fighters, officials say.
 
 Source: Al Jazeera and agencies  
 
  
 
 
 

[HYDROGENPAL]

Our US. GOV is trying to stir the bee's nest

Time for the black flag here also.