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

[bigron]

US drone strike kills 17 in Pakistan


Fri May 6, 2011 12:37PM

A non-UN sanctioned US drone strikes has killed at least 17 people and wounded several others in Pakistan's troubled northwestern tribal region.

MORE

http://presstv.com/detail/178532.html

[bigron]

Did Osama really die here?

By Imran Khan

May 5, 2011

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/asia/2011/05/05/did-osama-really-die-here

Abbotabad is a very schizophrenic town. The centre houses the seat of military learning. Its military academy teaches officers everything from warfare to dining etiquette.

As a garrison town, everything is very neat and prim. The grass is cut just so, the military regalia polished and signs dot the landscape proclaiming "Pakistan is beautiful".

Then around the corner Pakistan explodes in a riot of colour and mayhem. Buses that look like wheeled rainbows and smell of street food assault the senses in a very agreeable manner.

Abbotabad, named after a British general in the British Indian colonial army is a unique town because of those contrasts.

As I drive its streets, I can scarcely believe that this is where bin Laden met his fate.

Piecing together what happened that night from eyewitness accounts has been tough.

Some claim four helicopters were involved, others say trucks with US soldiers pulled up outside the house.

The one thing everyone is in universal agreement on is that what happened was extraordinary.

To mount an attack like this on Pakistani soil opens a very prickly subject for the Pakistanis.

Some of India's most wanted live within Pakistan's borders.

It's not beyond the realm that India right now is mulling over the consequences of such an action.

The leader of the Afghan Taliban is rumoured to be in Quetta, southwest Pakistan. There are some in the US administration that would love to get him.

Once you violate a country's borders like that, what's to stop others from doing it?

That's a question that's now being uttered in private.

The Pakistani army is by far its strongest institution. This attack has not only embarrassed the army but has shown it to be weak in the face of US power.

That it hasn't publicly reacted to the incident is only adding to the public sense that the army is in panic mode.

Its central command, according to my sources, is holding crisis meetings to formulate a public response.

Its day four and the silence from the army is deafening.

Add to that the US government's refusal to release a picture of the bin Laden's body and you have a boiling cauldron of doubt, disbelief, anger and frustration. A heady brew indeed.

The longer that goes on, the more people will simply sigh and ask the same question in two slightly different ways.

Did Osama really die, here in the heart of the Pakistan army? Or did Osama really die?


http://blogs.aljazeera.net/asia/2011/05/05/did-osama-really-die-here


 

[bigron]

Pakistan: Radars were inactive, not jammed: air chief


by Hamid Mir

May 7, 2011

http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=5806&Cat=13&dt=5/7/2011

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Air Force has assured the government that no foreign helicopters or fighter planes will be allowed to violate the Pakistani air space in future and if ordered, the PAF can shoot down the US drones.

Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman has accepted the responsibility of air surveillance failure but informed the government that the entry of American helicopters into the Pakistani air space was not detected because the radars deployed on the western borders were not active on May 2. He dispelled the impression that the Pakistani radars were jammed.

The success of American operation against Osama bin Laden has raised many questions about the capability of Pakistan Army and Air Force. Tension between Pakistan and the US further increased on Friday after another drone attack in the tribal area. The PAF clearly told the government that they never perceived any threat for urban areas of Pakistan from Afghanistan and that was why the radars deployed close to the western borders were “on rest�. It was learnt that radars deployed on the borders with India and the LoC with the Indian occupied Kashmir are active 24 hours and that was why Pakistan came to know about a possible Indian attack in December 2008 immediately after the Mumbai attacks. It was the evening of December 21, 2008 when Pakistan came to know about the unusual movement of Indian Army and Air Force. When the threat was confirmed, then within minutes Pakistan Air Force night fighters were ordered to fly.

Pakistan has two kinds of radars, high-level radars and low-level radars. High-level radars are meant to protect the air space. Low-level radars are used for training flights. The maximum life of high-level radars is 25,000 hours. These radars need overhauling after three years and they cannot work after nine years. Due to the expensive nature of high-level radars, Pakistan Air Force does not use these machines 24 hours on western borders and that was the reason the American helicopters entered Pakistan without challenge.

It was also learnt that Pakistan Air Force informed the government long ago for the need of a modern surveillance system, which could cover all the areas of Pakistan. On the request of the PAF, the former government made a deal with Sweden and China for the purchase of modern aircraft with radar systems.

The PAF has received three Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) planes from Sweden and one more will come in June 2011. China has provided one ZDK-03 Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEWC) plane and three more will come at the end of this year. These modern machines will be activated soon and it will cover the whole of Pakistan. In the meanwhile, PAF activated all radars deployed on the western borders after the May 2 incident, which means that foreign forces present in Afghanistan will now be considered as a threat to the security of Pakistan.

Defence sources are of the view that the CIA chief’s statement about Pakistan had forced them to think objectively and honestly about our real friends and real enemies. These sources clearly said: “Osama bin Laden declared war not only against America but also against Pakistan Army, we lost 3,500 soldiers, we arrested most of his close comrades but Americans never took us into confidence about the May 2 operation and even after the success of their unilateral operation, they tried to humiliate us in their traditional arrogant style but we will not tolerate their arrogance in future.�

When asked why there was another drone attack in North Waziristan on Friday, the defence sources said, “We can stop the drones like we destroyed one Indian drone a few years back at the night time, let the political government allow us and we will not disappoint our countrymen.� They insist: “We were not sure about the identity of intruders on May 2 but when the PAF chief came to know about the presence of some helicopters in Abbottabad through the Army, he immediately ordered his night fighters to shoot down the unknown helicopters. Night fighters were in the air within 15 minutes but when they reached Abbottabad, by that time the unknown helicopters had disappeared�.

These sources say: “Let them come again from the west or even from the east and the world will see our real action.�

http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=5806&Cat=13&dt=5/7/2011




 

[bigron]

The Fog of War and the Murder of Osama Bin Laden –

the inevitable war against Pakistan


by Irfan Salah Butt

Cageprisoners, May 8, 2011

http://www.cageprisoners.com/our-work/opinion-editorial/item/1529-the-fog-of-war-and-the-murder-of-osama-bin-laden-%E2%80%93-the-inevitable-war-against-pakistan


Will Obama not be able to declare war on Pakistan who have a stated nuclear capability and have admitted to having caught terrorists on their own soil?

The raid on 2nd May 2011 is about as mysterious as the attack on the twin towers on 9/11 itself. If conspiracy theorists and people all over the world do not fully trust the Obama administration can they be blamed? This is not the first time an American administration has been caught fabricating stories and events around the world in the name of national security and foreign policy. The events of 2nd May 2011 perfectly fit Obama’s policy of bringing Osama bin Laden to "justice" and widening the War on Terror into Pakistan, as people who understand the mechanics of US foreign policy should be fully aware. Was it a great intelligence plan and befitting reply to the ISI for their audacity in dismantling the terror network of Raymond Davis in Pakistan or just a simple raid to kill the world’s most wanted terrorist?

The raid that took place in Abbotabad in the early hours of the morning of 2 May 2011 was reported more like a Hollywood script as opposed to a professional operation staged by the ever so brave, wonderful, elite, perfect, Rambo-esque, no mistakes Navy Seals. The professional reality makers went to work as the might of the Obama media machine went into full swing. There is no doubt that Osama bin Laden was killed in that house on that day by the best elite within the elite commando force in the world. This was the objective of the press briefings and that is how the western media followed sheep like into the clutches of the Obama administration.

Three days later, however, and the world is realising that the story that was told on the morning of the 2nd May 2011 is changing. You can fool most of the American people most of the time but you cannot fool the rest of the world all the time. America lost the moral high ground years ago: Extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo Bay, Bagram, Abu Ghraib, Waterboarding, Drone attacks, Aafia Siddiqui, Blackwater, Raymond Davis – the list is endless. Most people outside of the West do not trust the US administration and they have every right not to. American lies and cover ups have become the norm in the War on Terror which Muslims around the world feel is a war on Islam where lawlessness and anarchy reign supreme and where a blood-thirsty American people will accept anything the US administration does on its behalf. There is no place for chivalry in this war as the enemy is not an enemy but an evil ideology that threatens the very way of life of the Western world. The rhetoric has worked so much that the invasion of a sovereign country and the cold blooded murder of an unarmed man "identified" as Osama Bin Laden and the attempted kidnap of women and children is tolerated by the freedom loving people of the West as justified. Is it surprising if the rest of the world does not share the idealistic vision of human rights, freedom and justice as interpreted by the US administration?

The fire fight that took place between the Navy Seals and Osama bin Laden was very quickly ditched for a different story altogether. Maybe the lack of bullet holes in the building after a 40 minute fire fight was a fog of war too far. Going down in a blaze of glory and martyrdom may not have whetted the appetite of the American people even if it was falsely claimed that he was using women as human shields. In fact the change of heart is so embarrassing that it only further indicates the fabrication and lies that the US administration have concocted to gain maximum political leverage from the whole affair.

The conflict of statements between Obama and Leon Panetta (the serving head of the CIA) was never more telling than in their respective responses to the killing and the events on the ground. Panetta opines that had Osama surrendered he would have been taken alive as per CIA policy (one wonders how and when that is exactly followed). Obama clearly stated that the mission was a search and kill type operation. If the former is believed and as we are now told that Osama bin Laden was not armed, then why was a second shot required to make sure he was dead? Surely he could have been shot in the leg as was his alleged wife and taken alive. The reality is that nobody is quite sure what the law is anymore as it can only be interpreted by those that are prosecuting the War on Terror. One would have the thought that the head of the CIA and the President of the USA (a Harvard trained lawyer) would be well briefed on the position in law – but then again the US has always dealt with the war as one where its actions are lawful in domestic and international law so long as they fulfil national interests. No surprise then that the Attorney General defended the killing yet Geoffrey Robertson QC (international and criminal law expert) has pointed to the dangers of the precedent that is set. Others would say what he found difficult to – that it was cold blooded murder.

Accordingly as Obama himself has argued it could be said that those killed on 911 did not have burials and were shown no mercy. If that is a principle which creates a basis for what the "elite and brave" unit of the Navy Seals did then the entire system of justice in the USA is undermined or fails to exist – or maybe this is another exceptional case in an exceptional war? When those accused of crimes are murdered by the state something that is fundamentally wrong with the world is perpetrated by those pretending to defend it. With it comes the demise and inevitable end of the American empire. Oppression and injustice has never in the history of the world led to freedom and liberty.

If one is to believe the astonishing story of the body of Osama bin Laden being thrown into the sea the US administration could not have done a better job to add insult to injury and incite further violence against itself. The amazing deference shown by the US in burying the body within a few hours of the raid in the middle of the sea must break all records in the history of Islam. It also shows the utter hatred of the enemy and fear of a man that dared to challenge the might of the superpower of our times. Sea burials are as much from Islam as is eating pork. Both situations are permissible where it is borne out of necessity. The body was taken from land to sea and so no such necessity existed. As the Mufti of Dubai correctly stated he could have been buried on any piece of land anywhere in the world in secret. No "shrine" would have been created. Was this not a deliberate attempt to humiliate the sensitivities of the enemies of the USA while at the same time appease the blood thirsty, feed-him-to-the-sharks, American public?

The sea burial however is the most mystifying aspect to the whole episode and perhaps gives us a clue as to what really happened on 2nd May 2011. The fact of the matter is that the US administration has decided not to release pictures of the murdered body of Osama bin Laden and nobody will ever be able to verify his death or body as it is now allegedly sitting somewhere at the bottom of the Arabian Sea. The only "evidence" we have of his killing is from the US administration which has historically lied to the world and covered up its actions in the name of national interests.

The ongoing conflict between the CIA and the ISI in the war on terror and the recent Raymond Davis debacle points to a theory that is plausible to those familiar with the ground realities in Pakistan. It is inconceivable that the ISI would be unaware that the most wanted man, perhaps in the history of the world, was a few metres from the Pakistan Military academy. The whole foreign policy dispute of the entire region is that Pakistan is harbouring terrorists. India and Afghanistan were the first to say "we told you so" and now Pakistan is under immense pressure to give explanations. It is thus out of the question that the ISI was complicit in giving safe passage to Osama bin Laden. There are better places than an obvious three 3 storey house on a main road that was once allegedly used by Abu Faraj Al-Libi (the ISI captured high ranking Al Qaeda operative) as a hideout in May 2005. Pakistan has aided the USA more than any other country in the War on Terror and thus it makes no sense that it would harbour Osama bin Laden. Equally if for some other reason he was being given a safe haven he would not have been found even if a thousand Raymond Davis’ were on the ground in Abbotabad or any other city in Pakistan. Osama bin Laden would have been kept in a secret prison within a secret prison with no contact to the outside world whatsoever. The ISI would not risk the international condemnation and reprisals by putting him in a safe house on a main road in an open district of Abbotabad. It is simply not possible.

The audacity of the ISI in breaking the CIA network with the capture of Raymond Davis (who many believe was the Station Head of the CIA) and subsequent arrest of hundreds of operatives which would have been built up after years of hard work and the loss of many lives is the real reason this mission took place. The biggest drone attack to date against civilians in Waziristan followed the day after the release of Raymond Davis as the US released its anger and frustration at its "strategic partner". It is interesting to note that Raymond Davis (a possible nom de guerre used by the CIA) shares his name with a nuclear Physicist and Nobel Prize in Physics laureate. Was this a mere coincidence?

With the sea burial and lack of photographic evidence is it not entirely plausible that Osama bin Laden was not in the house that was raided on 2nd May 2011? The US administration has already accepted they did not know for sure that he was there prior to the raid and initial reports suggested that they were only sure of a high value target. It is plausible that the raid was successful in killing members of his family or another high value target. It may be that the US administration has very credible intelligence that Osama Bin Laden was killed in a previous battle or of natural causes. They may have obtained video evidence of the same which would lead to the confidence in assuring that he "will never walk on the face of the world again".

To gain maximum political leverage Obama "informs" the whole world that Osama bin Laden is dead and phase two of the inevitable war against Pakistan is activated (phase one being the drone attacks): the use of select ground operations against targets within Pakistan. The fact that this constitutes an act of war in violation of international law seems to be under the radar as the law givers once again re-interpret domestic and international law to suit their national interests.

One would expect a sovereign Pakistan to demand evidence for the murder of Osama bin Laden and warn the US not to violate its airspace and sovereignty again. Further if we are to believe the last account of what happened, Osama bin Laden was shot "above the left eye with part of his skull blown off". Surely some of his DNA can be found in the house that he purportedly lived in for 6 months. Hair, skin fibres, fingerprints can easily be taken by the ISI to verify his presence. Failure to provide any evidence whatsoever renders the whole episode a figment of a defeated American imagination.

If the Pakistani government can prove that Osama Bin Laden was not there in the first place it may well give them the diplomatic offensive it so desperately needs to prevent the war that Obama so desperately craves. Failing to stop phase two of the war will merely mean that the US administration is ever emboldened to carry out more drone attacks and commando type raids in violation of international law and the sovereignty of Pakistan. In due course this could escalate to sanctions, air strikes and an all out war which looks all the more inevitable if the strategic objective of neutralising the nuclear assets of Pakistan is to be realised. Bush went to war with Iraq under the pretext of terror and weapons of mass destruction with no evidence whatsoever and in violation of international law without the support of the international community. Will Obama not be able to declare war on Pakistan who have a stated nuclear capability and have admitted to having caught terrorists on their own soil? Perhaps the real shots that were fired on 2nd May 2011 were political in nature, setting the new rules of engagement that the US administration is prepared to take in the next phase of the War on Terror.

Irfan Salah Butt
Barrister at Law
Legal Advisor to Cageprisoners


http://www.cageprisoners.com/our-work/opinion-editorial/item/1529-the-fog-of-war-and-the-murder-of-osama-bin-laden-%E2%80%93-the-inevitable-war-against-pakistan



 

[bigron]

It's All About Pakistan


America's latest villain - and future victim


by Justin Raimondo

Antiwar.com, May 9, 2011

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/05/08/it%E2%80%99s-all-about-pakistan/


With the assassination of Osama bin Laden, US foreign policy - or, rather, the rationale for it - has a giant hole in its very center: the task of the War Party is to fill it, and quickly.

Without a human face to put on the Terrorist Threat, without an ever-elusive target to lure us even deeper into the Muslim world, domestic political support for our post-9/11 multi-trillion-dollar excursion will quickly dry up. In a sense, the War Party is facing the same prospect they faced when the Soviet Union collapsed: total and complete irrelevance. That is particularly true at this conjuncture, with the US hurtling toward economic catastrophe and Americans getting noticeably restive in the face of cutbacks and severe economic straits.

What's a warmonger to do?

Simple: come up with a new enemy, a fresh face - or, better yet, an entire nation that can be demonized and made to play the role of stand-in for bin Laden. That nation, as you've probably already guessed, is Pakistan.

"I've not seen any evidence, at least to date, that the political, military or intelligence leadership of Pakistan knew about Osama bin Laden at Abbottabad, Pakistan," said national security adviser Thomas Donilon on the Sunday talk show circuit. Normally, such a statement would absolve the Pakistanis, or seem to: I'll only note that the "leadership" could be taken to refer to the upper echelons of the Pakistani political and military establishment, clearly leaving open the possibility some in the mid-to-lower levels might have been in on the secret of bin Laden's whereabouts.

Furthermore, Donilon's words belie the US government's actions, which were to demand from Pakistan the names of its intelligence operatives - an unusual request, to say the least. Rather than come out and say what they apparently believe, US officials - speaking "on background" - are accusing the Pakistanis of de facto complicity. "It's hard to believe that [Pakistan's top military commander Ashfaq Parvez] Kayani and [ISI director-general Lt. Gen. Ahmad Shuja] Pasha actually knew that Bin Laden was there," a "senior administration official" told The New York Times. "But, added the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic sensitivity of the issue, 'there are degrees of knowing, and it wouldn't surprise me if we find out that someone close to Pasha knew.'"

Pasha is expected to resign shortly, but the effort to target him as a secret terrorist sympathizer dates back to last year, when accusations surfaced that he personally met with the militants of Lashkar e Taiba (LET), and gave them money just before they pulled off the Mumbai attacks. The larger campaign to portray the Pakistanis, and the ISI in particular, as secretly aiding and abetting bin Laden has a longer history, and a very strange one.

The narrative being sold by the American "mainstream" media reads like the script of a very bad made-for-TV movie, or the kind of "thriller" that skips the theaters entirely and only comes out on DVD. This tall tale is intertwined with the murky, film-noir -esque saga of David Headley.

Headley has pleaded guilty to charges of acting as a scout for the perpetrators of the Mumbai terrorist attack, as well as having plotted to bomb the offices of a Danish newspaper that printed cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed. He faces a sentence of life in prison, and his story of having collaborated with Pakistani military intelligence, who supposedly directed and financed both plots, is apparently the price he paid for the terms of the deal he made with US prosecutors - life in jail in the US, instead of India, which has demanded his extradition.

While Headley's complicated tale of international intrigue and transcontinental terrorism is pretty much swallowed whole by the Western media, in India skepticism abounds. This jaundiced view stems from Headley's rather interesting personal history.

The 48-year-old Headley was born in Washington, D.C., to a Pakistani father, Sayed Salim Gilani, who worked for Voice of America, and Alice Headley, daughter of former football star L. Coleman Headley. Headley's half-brother, Danyal, was formerly the official spokesman for Pakistan's Prime Minister. Headley/Gilani is the latest in a growing list of high-profile Western converts to Islamist terrorist organizations: "Azzam the American," Anwar Awlaki, and a surprising number of others who play prominent roles in Headley's narrative.

He trained at a military academy in Pakistan before being brought back to America by his mother, who had by that time obtained a divorce. His first drug arrest occurred in 1987, where he made a deal with the DEA in return for a lighter sentence. In 1997 he was arrested on drug charges again, accused of smuggling heroin in from Pakistan. Again, he cooperated with the feds, in exchange for information about his Pakistani contacts, and got off with fifteen months in a resort-style prison for law enforcement's favorite criminals at Fort Dix. According to the terms of his sentence, this was to be followed by a period of supervised release. However, the US Justice Department cut that short, requesting his immediate discharge: the feds had other plans for Headley, who was sent to Pakistan - the first of several US government-paid trips - to engage in undercover work for the Drug Enforcement Agency. From there it was but a hop, a skip, and a short jump to a Lashkar-e-Taiba training camp.

Oh, and by the way, Headley, never a religious type - he left behind a trail of embittered and apparently quite battered wives - somewhere along the line experienced a miraculous "conversion" to the puritanical strain of Islam embraced by LET. The perfect religion for a former drug pusher, ex-con, and consistent womanizer who just happened to work for the DEA - don't you think?

Headley's rap sheet has some other interesting items: in 2005, he was arrested in New York City after battering one of his many wives. She told authorities about his involvement with LET, and his shopping for night goggles on behalf of his terrorist patrons. However, somehow her testimony fell through the cracks - or perhaps she wasn't telling federal agents anything they didn’t already know.

As Headley tells it, he "trained" a total of five times at a LET camp in Pakistan, and his testimony is backed up by that of yet another Western convert to radical Islam, Willie Brigitte - another "character," similar in many ways to Headley, whose personal history seems like something out of a novel â€" not a very good novel, one might add. Born in Guadeloupe, a sunlit isle in the Caribbean, he moved to Paris to study, but joined the French navy instead, deserting twice in three years. In time, having gone through several careers and two wives, he suddenly saw the light and decided to become an Islamic militant. He trained in the French countryside with suspected members of al-Qaeda's Algerian franchise, and before long wound up in - you guessed it - the very same LET training camp where Headley had taken up residence.

Also at this training camp: the handler of the Mumbai operation, one Sajid Mir - one of his classmates at the Pakistani military school. That's too much synchronicity for a good novel, but what do you expect from amateurs?

Having been recruited into LET's terrorist network, Brigitte was spirited off to Australia, where his handlers arranged for him to marry yet another Western convert to radical Islam, one Melanie Brown, who is described in news accounts as a former member of the Australian army, having served in military operations in East Timor, an officer with access to classified information. An interesting choice of spouse for a terrorist, to say the least.

Something about this wild and murky tale is just not right, and the Indians - especially the Indian opposition parties - have picked up on it big time. Major Indian media routinely depict Headley as a CIA agent who knew about the Mumbai attacks in advance while his bosses in Washington kept this information close to their vests.

Which reminds me: a month after 9/11, Fox News reported that Israeli agents operating in the US had advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks and failed to inform us. As Carl Cameron put it:

"Since September 11, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained, either under the new patriot anti-terrorism law, or for immigration violations. A handful of active Israeli military were among those detained, according to investigators, who say some of the detainees also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the United States. There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that they Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are "tie-ins." But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, "evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information.'"

When one examines the breadth of material unearthed by Fox News in that chilly winter of 2001, and absorbs Cameron's analysis over the course of a lengthy four-part series, and then compares this carefully researched reporting to Headley's cock-and-bull story, the imbalance is all too evident. Yet Cameron's story fell like a stone into the journalistic ether, while Headley's fanciful malarkey garners serious attention.

Go figure.

The campaign to nominate Pakistan as the villain of the moment conveniently comes at a time when the Obama administration has stepped up its military operations in that country - and shows every sign of wanting to go further. This is the perfect excuse to intervene more openly.

Faced with the irrefutable arguments of war opponents that the ten-year occupation of Afghanistan has achieved nothing and no longer has much point (if it ever did), the defenders of US policy among our national security theoreticians have fallen back on the contention that the real value of our military presence is the supposedly stabilizing effect it has on Pakistan, which would otherwise fall to the terrorists, or terrorist-sympathizers at the very least. It's all about Pakistan, they aver, ominously noting the country's status as a member of the nuclear club.

Pakistan, like Libya, is yet another Western fiction, created by the British in the course of their imperial self-dissolution - an inherently unstable combination of affluence and shocking poverty, modernity and medievalism, perpetually teetering on the brink of disorder. US officials are no doubt all too aware of this fragility, and it's hard to believe anyone with an ounce of responsibility would deliberately act to upset that delicate balance. In public, the White House lauds the Pakistanis - who have, after all, actually apprehended far more top-level terrorists than we have. In his announcement of the raid, the President went out of his way to mention how instrumental Pakistan's cooperation had been to bin Laden's undoing. Yet he also went out of his way to mention that we didn't tell anyone in advance - including the Pakistanis, presumably - about "Operation Geronimo."

This administration is playing a truly dishonorable game, making friendly noises at Islamabad in public, while anonymous officials accuse Pakistan of treachery. Donilon's remark that he saw no evidence of Pakistan's guilt "at least to date" is similarly ambiguous. If the serpent-tongued minions of this administration don't have the courage to come out and say what they mean, then I expect some Republicans will.

Don't forget that election season is upon us - not for all you normal people, but for the professionals, those whose lives revolve around Washington and its power plays. If you think 9/11 is going to fade away as a living issue because we've reached "closure" with bin Laden's summary execution, then you don't know politicians, and you don't know the War Party: as far as they're concerned, we're never going to reach closure. If we've gotten bin Laden, then let's go after his alleged collaborators and purported enablers - heck, let's go after his wives!

A program of perpetual war requires a constant supply of fresh enemies: bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic - and, hey, whatever happened to Manuel Noriega, anyway? Bin Laden was good for the War Party as long as he lasted, and they'll no doubt wring as much advantage out of his ghost before it fades into history. Yet one can be sure a suitable, and even more dramatically satisfying replacement will soon be found. After all, we must have a justification for spending trillions [.pdf] overseas while our citizens are thrown out of their homes by the millions and forced to stand in line for food stamps.

This is the sort of behavior one expects from politicians, for whom the road to war is the road to power. The real crime is that our "news" media, which is supposed to stand guard against the routine deceptions of our public officials, instead functions as a mere court stenographer, transcribing the official version of events no matter how far-fetched, as in Headley's case. As US government prosecutors take Headley's "testimony" as holy writ and use it as a basis for further prosecutions, the accusation that the Pakistani military and intelligence authorities are really just a front for al-Qaeda - or is that vice-versa? - will gain momentum, not to mention the imprimatur of the US Justice Department. The groundwork for an outright invasion of Pakistan will be laid, paving the way for yet another war - this time against a nation armed with nukes.

Even John McCain, you'll recall, balked at Obama's declared intention of going into Pakistan. Now that we've done it in such a spectacular manner, one can only wonder if, next time, our visit isn't quite so brief.

The case against Pakistan rests on the "suspicion" that they must have known about bin Laden's headquarters in Abbottabad because, after all, the Pakistani equivalent of West Point is within walking distance, and Abbottabad is a "garrison city," as the news accounts put it. Yet what, exactly, is it about a "garrison city" that would make it impregnable to a determined infiltrator - especially in Pakistan, where the poverty rate makes corruption a way of life? If al-Qaeda had the wherewithal to successfully infiltrate the US, and train for their deadly mission right under our noses for a period of years, penetrating Abbottabad shouldn't have proved impossible, as indeed it was not. Once in, bin Laden and his household could hide in plain sight, an ingenious and - for six years - very successful plan that required nothing but boldness, which bin Laden, whatever his other characteristics, surely possessed in abundance.

The mainstream media disdains "conspiracy theories" - unless they are being pushed by powerful people and talked about in Washington. Then these theories become "facts," and are reported as such.

We've seen this time and again, most vividly in the run-up to the Iraq war â€" indeed, in the run up to practically every war we've ever had. It used to be, however, that we only found out later how we were lied to, and what the true facts are - years later. Today, with the rise of the internet and the technology of instant communication, the lies of the War Party are no sooner uttered than they're debunked.

And that's why we here at Antiwar.com have kept chugging along, for all these years - because, after all, somebody has to do it.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/05/08/it%E2%80%99s-all-about-pakistan/

 

[bigron]

The Predators: Where is Your Democracy?


By Kathy Kelly

Voices for Creative Nonviolence, May 9, 2011

http://uruknet.com/?p=m77558&hd=&size=1&l=e

On May 4, 2011, CNN World News asked whether killing Osama bin Laden was legal under international law. Other news commentary has questioned whether it would have been both possible and advantageous to bring Osama bin Laden to trial rather than kill him.

World attention has been focused, however briefly, on questions of legality regarding the killing of Osama bin Laden. But, with the increasing use of Predator drones to kill suspected "high value targets" in Pakistan and Afghanistan, extrajudicial killings by U.S. military forces have become the new norm.

Just three days after Osama bin Laden was killed, an attack) employing remote-control aerial drones killed fifteen people in Pakistan and wounded four. CNN reports that their Islamabad bureau has counted four drone strikes over the last month and a half since the March 17 drone attack which killed 44 people in Pakistan's tribal region. This most recent suspected strike was the 21st this year. There were 111 strikes in 2010. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan estimated that 957 innocent civilians were killed in 2010.

I'm reminded of an encounter I had, in May, 2010 ,when a journalist and a social worker from North Waziristan met with a small Voices for Creative Nonviolence delegation in Pakistan and described, in gory and graphic detail, the scenes of drone attacks which they had personally witnessed: the carbonized bodies, burned so fully they could be identified by legs and hands alone, the bystanders sent flying like dolls through the air to break, with shattered bones and sometimes-fatal brain injuries, upon walls and stone.

"Do Americans know about the drones?" the journalist asked me. I said I thought that awareness was growing on University campuses and among peace groups. "This isn't what I'm asking," he politely insisted. "What I want to know is if average Americans know that their country is attacking Pakistan with drones that carry bombs. Do they know this?"

"Truthfully," I said, "I don't think so."

"Where is your democracy?" he asked me. "Where is your democracy?" Ideally, in a democracy, people are educated about important matters, and they can influence decisions about these issues by voting for people who represent their point of view.

Only a handful of U.S. officials have broached the issue of whether or not it is right for the U.S. to use unmanned aerial vehicles to function as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner in the decision to assassinate anyone designated as a "high value target" in faraway Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Would we want unmanned aerial vehicles piloted by another country to fly over the U.S., targeting individuals deemed to be a threat to the safety of their people, firing Hellfire missiles or dropping 500 pound bombs over suspected "high value targets" on the hunch of a soldier or general without evidence and without any consideration of which innocent civilians will also be killed?

Fully informed citizens might be invited to consider the Golden Rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," but they would certainly be involved in the debate over how we will be treated in future years and decades when these weapons have proliferated. In 1945, only one country possessed the atomic bomb, but within decades, the "nuclear club" had expanded to five declared and four non-declared nuclear-armed states in a much less certain world. Besides the risk of nuclear war, this weapon proliferation has consumed resources that could have been directed toward feeding a hungry world or eradicating disease or easing the effects of impoverishment.

As of now, worldwide, 49 companies make 450 different drone aircraft. Drone merchants expect that drone sales will earn 20.2 billion dollars over the next 10 years for aerospace war manufacturers. Who knows? One day drone missiles may be aimed at us.

Also worth noting is the observation that drones will make it politically convenient for any country to order military actions without risking their soldiers' lives, thereby making it easier, and more tempting, to start wars which may eventually escalate to result in massive loss of life, both military and civilian.

Voices for Creative Nonviolence believes that standing alongside people who bear the brunt of our wars helps us gain needed insights. Where you stand determines what you see.

In October and again in December of 2010, while in Afghanistan, I met with a large family living in a wretched refugee camp. They had fled their homes in the San Gin district of the Helmand Province after a drone attack killed a mother there and her five children. The woman's husband showed us photos of his children's bloodied corpses. His niece, Juma Gul, age 9, had survived the attack. She and I huddled next to each other inside a hut made of mud on a chilly December morning. Juma Gul's father stooped in front of us and gently unzipped her jacket, showing me that his daughter's arm had been amputated by shrapnel when the U.S. missile hit their home in San Gin. Next to Juma Gul was her brother, whose leg had been mangled in the attack. He apparently has no access to adequate medical care and experiences constant pain.

It's impossible to conjecture what would have happened had Osama bin Laden been apprehended and brought to appear before a court of law, charged with crimes against humanity because of his alleged role in masterminding the 9/11 attacks. But, I feel certain beyond doubt that Juma Gul posed no threat whatsoever to the U.S., and if she were brought before a court of law and witnesses were helped to understand that she was attacked by a U.S. unmanned aerial vehicle for no reason other than that she happened to live in proximity to a potential high value target, she would be vindicated of any suspicion that she committed a crime. The same might not be true for those who attacked her.

Kathy Kelly (kathy@vcnv.orgkathy@vcnv.org) co-coordinates Voices for Creative Nonviolence. Visit www.vcnv.org for a resource packet on drone warfare http://vcnv.org/drone-resisting-sanitized-remote-control-death

http://uruknet.com/?p=m77558&hd=&size=1&l=e

[bigron]

Full Text: Pak PM Gilani's address in Parliament on Osama raid


Future U.S. raids could be met with 'full force'


by Yousuf Raza Gilani

May 9, 2011

http://uruknet.com/?p=m77568&hd=&size=1&l=e

Islamabad: Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani today addressed his country's Parliament on the Osama operation in Abbottabad.

Here's the full text of Gilani's address:


Honourable Speaker, Honourable Members of the House,

From the Floor of this August House, I wish to take the nation into confidence on the situation arising from the Abbottabad operation and the death of Osama bin Laden.

However, before I do so, I would like to inform you about my visit to France which I undertook on 3rd May. This visit had been pre-scheduled.

I was invited to visit France last year, but had to postpone my visit twice due to volcanic ash clouds and floods in 2010.

France is currently the Chairman of G-8, an influential global power and enjoys prominent position within the European Union.

Pakistan-France relations are close, friendly and cooperative. During this visit, two important Declarations covering economy and security were signed. The visit also provided me an important opportunity to discuss with President Sarkozy and the French leadership the situation arising from the operation leading to death of Osama bin Laden.

President Sarkozy demonstrated complete solidarity with Pakistan and expressed appreciation for the great sacrifices of our people in the war against terror.

Before leaving for France, I had extensive consultations with President Zardari, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, the Chief of Army Staff, Director General ISI and other important stakeholders on issues relating to Pakistan's national security.

The government's position on the Abbottabad operation and death of Osama bin Laden as enunciated in the official statements was based on extensive inter-agency and inter-departmental consultation process.

Honourable Speaker and Members of the House,

In today's age of information explosion, it is important to sift facts from fiction.

Very often it is the virtual or the media reality that obscures the actual. Yet, truth cannot for long be submerged in falsehood.

Fascination for high drama sometimes makes us forget the sequence and context of fast moving events that are splashed on television screens.

However, every development has a context. Its correct appreciation requires a dispassionate view of history. It is well-known that those who forget history are condemned to relive it.

Some of the recent public discourse; narratives and counter narratives, in talk shows and public comments have missed some essential points.

Reaffirmation is necessary.

We are a proud nation. Our people value their honour and dignity. Our nation is resilient. Our real strength is our people and our State institutions.

We all are united and fully committed to sparing no sacrifice to uphold our national dignity and honour; to safeguard our supreme national interests by all means and all resources at our command.

No other nation has successfully met so many challenges. No other people have been put to so many tests by history and by circumstances of geography and geo politics.

No other nation has borne the collective burden of the international community.

Our nation has met all these challenges with supreme confidence, which is borne out of our firm belief in the noble injunctions of our glorious religion Islam, our societal values, our culture and traditions.

Ever since our independence, Pakistan stood up for our values which are also universal: freedom, dignity, equality, tolerance, humanity, harmony and brotherhood.

Pakistan's foreign policy has always reflected our national ethos which, undoubtedly, transcends considerations of narrow interests or politics of expediency.

Pakistan is not only a state but an idea and an ideal that our courageous and talented people strive, in their daily lives, to translate into reality.

Our democratic and pluralistic polity as epitomized by this august House, State institutions, free press, open and intense public discourse are, indeed, our great strengths.

Our friends can from this discourse fathom the depth of our sentiments, the aspirations of our people, the authentic spirit that guides and inspires them to seek equity, justice, security, peace, progress and prosperity.

For over thirty years, Pakistan was impacted by the conflict and strife in Afghanistan. In that struggle we, together with the rest of world, decided to uphold the principle of self-determination for the great Afghan nation.

We opened our homes and our hearts to those who fled the conflict in Afghanistan and also supported the great Jihad.

I talk of a bygone era. However, it is perhaps necessary to remind everyone about that era which has been so well documented including in the CNN series on the Cold War showing video footage of high ranking US officials exhorting the Afghans and Mujahideen to wage Jihad, to go back to their homes, to go back to their mosques, in the name of Islam and as a national duty. For us, all of this was real. We have continued to suffer from its effects.

Is it necessary for us to remind the international community of the decade of the nineties which saw the Arab volunteers, who had joined the Jihad mutate into Al Qaeda? Who was responsible for the birth of Al Qaeda? Who was responsible for making the myth of Osama bin Laden?

To find answers to today's question, it is necessary to revisit the not so distant past. Collectively, we must acknowledge facts and see our faces in the mirror of history.

Pakistan alone cannot be held to account for flawed policies and blunders of others.

Pakistan is not the birth place of Al Qaeda. We did not invite Osama bin Laden to Pakistan or even to Afghanistan. It is fair to ask who was Osama bin Laden and what did he personify?

Osama bin Laden was the most wanted terrorist and enemy number one of the civilized world. Elimination of Osama bin Laden, who launched waves after waves of terrorists attacks against innocent Pakistanis, is indeed justice done.

However, we are not so naive to declare victory; mission accomplished, and turn around.

The myth and legacy of Osama bin Laden remains to be demolished. The anger and frustration of ordinary people over injustice, oppression and tyranny that he sought to harness to fuel the fire of terrorism in the world, needs to be addressed. Otherwise, this rage will find new ways of expression.

Pakistan believes in democracy and pluralism. A society that strives for equality and dignity. An open and transparent society is undoubtedly essential for addressing the rage and anger arising from political or economic injustices.

When we say that in this war against terrorism, Pakistan has lost some 30,000 men, women and children and more than 5,000 armed forces personnel, billions of dollars lost as economic costs; we do not intend to put a price or seek acknowledgement or recognition from any one.

The war against terrorism is our own national priority. Our nation is united in its resolve to eliminate terrorism from our sacred land. Pakistan will not relent in this national cause and is determined not to allow its soil to be used by any one for terrorism.

This national consensus was built by our democracy, this Parliament, and the entire political leadership of this country. Our patriotic citizens and State institutions are all united in their resolve to prosecute this campaign against terror to its logical end. We will utilize all means and resources and Insha Allah succeed.


Honourable Members of the House,

Now, let me briefly retrace the first decade of new millennium. International forces marched into Afghanistan to dismantle the Taliban regime after 9/11. In fact, Taliban had already left Kabul and taken along Al Qaeda to their hideouts in Afghanistan. The Tora Bora bombings resulted in the dispersal of Al Qaeda.

Even at that time we had cautioned the international forces on the consequences of a flawed military campaign could lead to the dispersal of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda leaders and foot soldiers sought hideouts everywhere, in the mountains, and deep inside cities, including Pakistan.

We did not invite Al Qaeda to Pakistan. In fact, for the first time, our armed forces were deployed in the Tirah Valley to form a security cordon to interdict Al Qaeda during the Tora Bora bombings.

In that operation 248 Al Qaeda members were captured by our armed forces. Subsequently, Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence prosecuted the anti-terror strategy with a high degree of professionalism and superb determination.

In fact, some 40 of the key Al Qaeda operatives including Chief Operation Officer Faraj Al Libbi and Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, the master planner of 9/11 were captured by the ISI. Pakistan's armed forces also carried out successful operations in Swat, Malakand, South Waziristan, Mohmand and Bajour Agencies against terrorists and militants.

No other country in the world and no other security agency has done so much to interdict Al Qaeda than the ISI and our armed forces.

This was done with the full support of the nation and in accordance with the political will articulated by the Parliament of Pakistan.

It is disingenuous for anyone to blame Pakistan or State institutions of Pakistan including the ISI and the armed forces for being in cahoots with the Al Qaeda. It was Al Qaeda and its affiliates that carried out hundreds of suicide bombings in nearly every town and city of Pakistan and also targeted political leaders, State institutions, the ISI and the General Headquarters.

The obvious question that has vexed everyone is how could Osama bin Laden hide in plain sight in the scenic surroundings of Abbottabad. Let's not rush to judgment.

Allegations of complicity or incompetence are absurd. We emphatically reject such accusations. Speculative narratives in the public domain are meant to create despondency. We will not allow our detractors to succeed in offloading their own shortcomings and errors of omission and commission in a blame game that stigmatizes Pakistan.

This issue of the hideout needs a rational answer. Recrimination and misplaced rhetoric is self defeating.

Yes, there has been an intelligence failure. It is not only ours but of all the intelligence agencies of the world.

The Al Qaeda chief along with other Al Qaeda operators had managed to elude global intelligence agencies for a long time. He was constantly being tracked not only by the ISI but also by other intelligence agencies.

It was the ISI that passed key leads to CIA that enabled the US intelligence to use superior technological assets and focus on the area in which Osama bin Laden was eventually found. All this has been explained in the statements issued by the Foreign Ministry and the ISPR as well as in the detailed briefing by the Foreign Ministry.

Asymmetrical warfare happens to be the tool in vogue against superior conventional forces. Terrorism falls in that category. Osama bin Laden used terror for whatever cause that he espoused. Hiding in plain
sight, as is evident in this case, is perhaps another technique that could be attributed to Osama bin Laden in the realm of asymmetrical intelligence.

Nonetheless, we are determined to get to the bottom of how, when and why about OBL's presence in Abbottabad. An investigation has been ordered.

Our people are rightly incensed on the issue of violation of sovereignty as typified by the covert US air and ground assault on the Osama hideout in Abbottabad.

This has raised questions about Pakistan's defence capability and the security of our strategic assets.

As the Abbottabad episode illustrates our Military responded to the US Forces covert incursion. The Air Force was ordered to scramble. Ground units arrived at the scene quickly.

Our response demonstrates that our armed forces reacted, as was expected of them.

Abbottabad hosts a routine Military training institution, which does not require any elaborate special defence arrangement. There is no denying the US technological ability to evade our radars. We regret that this unilateral action was undertaken without our concurrence.

Unilateralism runs the inherent risk of serious consequences. Suppose the operation had gone wrong. A US helicopter was abandoned and destroyed on the site. This is a small though important reminder of the risks in such operations.

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

There are of course legal and moral issues that relate to the question of sovereignty. In a generic sense this is a question that continues to vex the international community as a whole. The Security Council while exhorting UN member states to join their efforts against terrorism has repeatedly emphasized that this be done in accordance with international law, human rights and humanitarian law.

The drones are given out as an instrument to fight terror. Yet, as we have repeatedly said these attacks constitute a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and are counter-productive. On this question which relates to operational matters, we have strong differences with the United States.

The media spin masters have tended to portray a false divide between the state institutions of Pakistan. I would like to most emphatically reject the notion of divide.

The political leadership is supportive of the strengthening of all of Pakistan's institutions. We follow a whole government approach.

On all key issues, all stakeholders are consulted through inter-agency processes. The Statements issued by the Foreign Ministry and the Military on the death of Osama bin Laden were authorized by the
Government.

Let me also affirm the Government's full confidence in the high command of the Pakistan Armed Forces and the Inter Services Intelligence. Indeed the ISI, is a national asset and has the full support of the Government. We are proud of its considerable accomplishments in the anti-terror campaign.

Now let me put the present situation in its proper perspective. Our foremost priority is development. This requires security and stability at home and in the region. The pursuit of this objective is the guiding spirit of our engagement with the international community and in particular major powers as well as regional states.

I must say that this endeavour has found resonance and we are well on the road towards giving this vision tangible form. We realize that the world and in particular the Asian region is undergoing a fundamental and fast transformation.

We are delighted that our all weather friend, the Peoples Republic of China has made tremendous strides in economic and technological development that are a source of inspiration and strengthen for the people of Pakistan.

Apprehensions are being voiced about our relations with the United States. Let me dispel any anxiety in this regard. Pakistan attaches high importance to its relations with the US. We have a strategic partnership which we believe serves our mutual interests. It is based on mutual respect and mutual trust.

Pakistan and the US have strategic convergence. The dissonance that finds hype in the media is about operational and tactical matters. It is not unusual to have a different point of view on the methodology to achieve shared objectives.

We have, however, agreed that whenever we find ourselves on "conflictual" paths and disagree, we should make efforts to reach common understanding by deeper and more intense exchange of views.

Our communications at the official and diplomatic levels with the US, during this phase, have been good, productive and straight forward. We have agreed to a calendar of engagements. Most notably Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US have agreed to form a Core Group for promoting and facilitating efforts for reconciliation and peace in Afghanistan.

On 3rd May, Senior Officials of the Three Countries met in Islamabad and held useful and productive talks. Another Trilateral is envisaged in the near future. On the bilateral track we look forward to the visit of Secretary of State Clinton to Islamabad in the near future.

As you know, there has been a sea-change in our relations with Afghanistan. Destiny of Afghanistan and Pakistan is inter-linked. We must assume full ownership and responsibility for realizing our shared vision of stability and prosperity.

With India we are embarked on an important process of engagement that should yield dividends for our two peoples and for peoples of South Asia, as a whole. We will pursue our engagement with India in a positive and constructive manner.

I would like to conclude by underscoring the following:-

One: Pakistan is confident of its bright future.

Two: Our real strength is our people, who are determined to over-come all challenges.

Three: We have an ongoing multi-track process of engagement with all major powers including the United States.

Four: Our engagement with states within our region is being intensified in the interest of shared stability and prosperity.

Five: Counter-Terrorism is a national priority.

Six: Al Qaeda had declared war on Pakistan. Osama Bin Laden's elimination from the scene attests to the success of the anti-terror campaign.

Seven: Intelligence cooperation is critical for the attainment of the goals of anti-terrorism.

Eight: Blame games serve no purpose.

Nine: An investigation in the matter has been ordered which shall be conducted by Adjutant General of the Pakistan Army Lt. Gen. Javed Iqbal.

Ten: Our security policies are constantly reviewed to enhance defence capabilities.

Eleven: There are no differences among the State institutions.

Twelve: Cooperation in counter-terrorism warrants a partnership approach which fully accommodates Pakistan's interests and respect for the clearly stipulated Red Lines.

Thirteen: Pakistan's relations with all States especially immediate neighbours and major powers are in good shape.

Fourteen: Safeguarding and promotion of our national interest is the sole objective of the Government's policies.

Fifteen: The Parliament is the right forum to discuss all important national issues. The will of the people shall prevail.

A joint session of the Parliament has been called. I have directed the concerned services authorities in the armed forces to impart an in-camera briefing to the joint session on the subject. I look forward to a productive debate in the House.


http://uruknet.com/?p=m77568&hd=&size=1&l=e


 

[bigron]

South Asia
May 12, 2011 
http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ME12Df02.html 
 

US broke deal with Osama hit


By Syed Saleem Shahzad



ISLAMABAD - Pakistan's military and intelligence community was fully aware of and lent assistance to the United States mission to get a high-value target in Abbottabad on May 2. What it did not know was that it was Osama bin Laden who was in the crosshairs of US Special Forces, and what angered the top brass even more was that Washington - in clear breach of an understanding - claimed sole ownership of the operation.

Over the years since Pakistan joined the US in the "war on terror" following the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 to oust the Taliban, the US has conducted numerous covert operations - apart from unleashing the missiles of unmanned Predator drones on militant targets - deep inside Pakistan.

For instance, the Los Angeles Times reported on July 27, 2008, "On occasions, US Special Forces teams have been sent into Pakistan. In 2006, one of the nation's most elite units, Seal Team 6, raided a suspected al-Qaeda compound at Damadola [in the Bajaur Agency of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas]."

Under this arrangement, the US would conduct raids against high-value targets and Pakistan would provide the necessary support, but Pakistan, for political reasons so that nobody would question that its sovereignty had been compromised, would claim responsibility for the raids.

Following the assassination of Bin Laden, though, within a few hours US President Barack Obama in an address to the American nation said that US Navy Seals had single-handedly conducted the operation.

The incident over Raymond Davis, a contractor with the Central Intelligence Agency, strained the understanding between Pakistan and the US over covert operations.

Davis killed two armed men in Lahore in January and although the US said he was protected by diplomatic immunity, he was jailed and charged with murder. He was released in March after the families of the two killed men were paid US$2.4 million in blood money. Judges acquitted him on all charges and Davis immediately departed Pakistan.

Pakistan then demanded a fresh agreement with the US that would better serve its strategic gains; it is already a major recipient of US aid and arms sales - approximately US$20 billion over the past decade. The Americans in turn wanted the continued right to undertake strikes, but specifically against high-value targets such as Taliban leader Mullah Omar, Bin Laden, his deputy Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri and a leading figure in the Taliban resistance, Sirajuddin Haqqani.

The US sent four warning letters to the Pakistan army through diplomatic channels in which it expressed its reservations on Pakistan's cooperation in finding high-value sanctuaries. Pakistan responded by asking for better economic deals and a greater role in the Afghan end game.

The demands on both sides were such that international players were called in to mediate. These included top Saudi authorities and Prince Karim Aga Khan, the spiritual leader of the Shi'ite Ismaili community. They played a pivotal role in fostering a new strategic agreement of which the Abbottabad operation was a part. That is, Pakistan was on board but was kept in the dark over the target on the explicit understanding that it would take ownership.

The Saudis included ex-ambassador to Washington, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who had been sidelined for some years through illness and palace intrigue. He had helped resolve the Davis case and set the parameters for joint surgical strikes inside Pakistan against defiant al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders to pave the way for an end game in Afghanistan.

In the first week of April, the White House released a terror report charging Pakistan with being hand-in-glove with militants. Soon after, the director general of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Lieutenant General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, went to the US for a very short visit that according to the Associated Press centered on "intelligence cooperation". Security sources confirmed to Asia Times Online that the new security arrangement was high on the agenda.

Pasha, instead of returning directly to Pakistan, stopped over in Paris where he met the Aga Khan, and then proceeded to Turkey for talks with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, who was in the country on an official visit, to appraise him of the new agreement.

In the last week of April, the US's top man in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, met with Pakistan Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani and informed him of the US Navy Seals operation to catch a high-value target. The deal was done.

Pakistan was therefore hugely stunned and embarrassed when Obama made his earth-shattering announcement taking all the credit for Osama's death.

In an address to parliament on Monday, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said that unilateral actions such as the US's killing of Bin Laden ran the risk of serious consequences, but he reiterated his earlier stance that the US Special Forces had reached the compound of Bin Laden in Abbottabad with the help of the ISI.

But White House Press Secretary Jay Carney made it clear that even if Pakistan asked for one, it would not receive an apology from the United States. "We obviously take the statements and concerns of the Pakistani government seriously, but we also do not apologize for the action that we took," Carney said.

Despite this setback, Asia Times Online contacts say the spat does not mean the end of operations - they will go on as agreed, with all credit taken by Pakistan.

"This relationship is too important to walk away from," Carney said this week.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief and author of upcoming book Inside al-Qaeda and the Taliban: Beyond Bin Laden and 9/11 published by Pluto Press, UK. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com

http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ME12Df02.html
 
 

[bigron]

The killing of Bin Laden and the threat of a wider war


by Bill Van Auken


WSWS, May 11, 2011

http://uruknet.com/?p=m77640&hd=&size=1&l=e

Reports that the raid organized to kill Osama bin Laden included backup plans for a military confrontation with Pakistani forces underscore the highly reckless character of the entire operation.

According to a front-page story in Tuesday’s New York Times, the special operations force sent into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden on May 1 was substantially beefed up on the orders of President Barack Obama, so as to provide it with the ability to "fight its way out" if confronted by Pakistani forces during or after the attack on the compound in Abbotabad. The city, 35 miles from the capital Islamabad, is a military cantonment and site of the country’s premier military academy.

"No firepower option was off the table," a US official told the CNN television news network. The CNN report added that the US military had a number of warplanes flying "protective missions" in support of the raid, including "fixed wing fighter jets that would have provided firepower if the team came under opposition fire it could not handle."

All of this firepower was deemed necessary to carry out the raid without seeking the cooperation of the Pakistani government, military or intelligence. Obama was determined to make the killing of Bin Laden a unilateral operation for which his White House could claim undiluted credit.

US military and CIA officials characterized the mission as one of the most risky their agencies had ever attempted, while Obama himself, during an interview with the CBS News program "60 Minutes" on Sunday, described the intelligence placing Bin Laden inside the compound as only "55/45." Obama acknowledged that the compound could have been occupied by a "prince from Dubai," and that if the intelligence had proven faulty, "there would have been significant consequences."

The scale of these consequences now becomes more clear. The raid posed the threat of a military confrontation between US and Pakistani troops deep inside Pakistani territory and adjacent to Pakistani military facilities. Such a clash would be roughly analogous to throwing a lighted match at a powder keg. Even without a direct engagement between US and Pakistani troops, the raid has sparked widespread popular anger in Pakistan, directed against both the United States and the country’s own government.

The Pakistani government has been compelled to react accordingly, with Prime Minister Yousaf Gilani warning in a speech to the parliament that Pakistan would "retaliate with full force" to any future violation of its sovereignty. The comment was directed not just at Washington, but also at India, where the American raid sparked widespread calls for New Delhi to mount similar cross-border operations. Such attacks could bring the two nuclear-armed regional adversaries to the brink of war.

US Army Maj. Gen. John Campbell, the senior commander of American occupation forces in eastern Afghanistan, revealed on Tuesday that Pakistan’s military had cut off all communications with the US and NATO for at least two days after the US kill operation against Bin Laden, though contact has since been restored. There were mounting concerns within the Pentagon that Pakistan could once again cut off the supply route from the port of Karachi to the Khyber Pass through which three quarters of the food, fuel, bullets and other basic necessities for the 140,000-strong US-led occupation force in Afghanistan must pass.

The cross-border raid to kill Bin Laden represents a qualitative escalation of the US military operations inside Pakistan that have taken place since Obama came to office and launched his "surge." In 2010, the US administration doubled the number of missile strikes by pilotless drones, which Pakistani human rights groups estimate have killed some 2,500 civilians.

While the Pakistani government and intelligence services had collaborated in these attacks, over the past two months they have demanded both publicly and privately that they cease because of mounting popular anger, which is destabilizing the government in Islamabad. Yet they continue, with two more such attacks having been carried out since the killing of Bin Laden, the latest claiming at least five lives Tuesday in South Waziristan.

The escalation of US militarism against Pakistan threatens to inflame the entire region. Next week, Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani is to visit China, a country which Gilani referred to as an "all-weather friend" and a "source of inspiration" in the same speech in which he blasted the US military raid. Beijing has voiced support for Pakistan in the wake of the Bin Laden killing and no doubt sees the growing friction between Washington and Islamabad as an opportunity to advance its own strategic interests in the region.

According to US media reports, the Pakistani government last month urged the government of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan to deny the US a continuing military presence in that country and orient instead toward Pakistan and China.

China brought Pakistan in as an observer in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which includes Russia and three former Soviet Central Asian republics. Beijing has employed the SCO to advance its interests in the region, which center on control of energy supplies—the same strategic resources that induced the US to go to war for control of Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, President Asif Ali Zardari today begins a three-day visit to Moscow, where he is to discuss with the Russian government mutual concerns, including regional security. Russia also opposes the establishment of permanent US military bases in Afghanistan, seeing them as a beachhead for exerting US control over the Caspian Basin and its energy reserves.

This is the tense international context in which the Obama administration carried out its unilateral raid to kill Bin Laden in Pakistan.

One of the many questions posed by this raid is, "Why now?" There have been no terror alerts either preceding or following the killing of Bin Laden. By most accounts, his Al Qaeda organization had become a spent force, largely irrelevant except to serve as the pretext for ongoing US military operations.

The absence even of claims of an imminent security threat from Bin Laden underscores the fact that the raid was ordered by the Obama White House largely because of domestic concerns. The administration was shaken by the events earlier this year in Wisconsin, where tens of thousands of workers, inspired in part by the revolutionary events unfolding in Egypt, demonstrated every day for weeks on end to protest anti-worker legislation being pushed through by the governor and the state legislature.

Under conditions of a deepening economic crisis, with no prospect of a significant lessening of unemployment, with fuel and food prices soaring, and the federal government, the states and localities carrying out vicious and massively unpopular cuts in jobs, wages and social programs, the Obama administration could only anticipate a growth of social opposition.

The idea was that a successful operation to "take out" the Al Qaeda leader could be utilized to unleash a flood of militarist and jingoistic propaganda, with the aim of diverting and intimidating growing popular anger.

At the same time, it would allow Obama to recast himself as a "wartime president," distancing himself from the promises of "change" made in his 2008 campaign and associating his administration ever more closely with the military, the intelligence agencies and with the most reactionary sections of the ruling elite, thereby providing the White House with a new socio-political base for launching attacks on the working class.

Within the framework of the US war in Afghanistan, the raid served another purpose: to ratchet up pressure on the Pakistani government and military to collaborate more directly and fully in the faltering attempt to suppress the growing resistance to American military occupation.

As with all such reckless adventures, often the most important results are the unintended consequences. In this case, they include the stoking up of tensions in a region where five nuclear-armed countries—the US, China, Russia, India and Pakistan—are competing for power and influence.

As the media-generated fog of patriotic triumphalism wears off, this operation may well be seen as one of a number of US actions in the region that are setting the stage for a far bloodier conflagration.

Bill Van Auken


http://uruknet.com/?p=m77640&hd=&size=1&l=e

[Optimus]

It Begins: US Starting the Baluchi Insurrection
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/05/it-begins-us-starting-baluchi.html
Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Bangkok, Thailand May 13, 2011 – In the shadow of the “Bin Laden” media circus and increasingly aggressive rhetoric between Washington and Islamabad, the corporate-financier funded NGOs that fomented the “Arab Spring” are now cultivating a united Baluchi front ahead of a proposed US-funded Baluchistan insurrection. As early as 2006, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace identified Pakistan’s Baluchistan province as a potential point of leverage against Islamabad and an opportunity to assert foreign intervention.

In a 2006 report by the corporate-financier funded think tank titled, “Pakistan: The Resurgence of Baluch Nationalism,” violence starting as early as 2004-2005 is described. According to the report, 20% of Pakistan’s mineral and energy resources reside in the sparsely populated province. On page 4 of the report, the prospect of using the Baluchi rebels against both Islamabad and Tehran is proposed. In Seymour Hersh’s 2008 article, “Preparing the Battlefield,” US support of Baluchi groups operating against Tehran is reported as already a reality. In Brookings Institution’s “Which Path to Persia?” the subject of arming and sending Baluchi insurgents against Tehran is also discussed at great depth.


Pipelines, ports, and petroleum: destabilizing and carving off a “free Baluchistan” would hobble the development of 4 nations – Pakistan, Iran, India, and China. With Pakistan’s plans to use the Baluchi port of Gwadar to give Central Asian countries access to the sea facing a failure, it may disrupt their development as well. The globalists then get more time to implement their “international system” in the face of a weakened Asia.

The 2006 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report makes special note of the fact that above all, the Baluchistan province serves as a transit zone for a potential Iranian-India-Turkmenistan natural gas pipeline as well as a port, Gwadar, that serves as a logistical hub for Afghanistan, Central Asia’s landlocked nations as well as a port for the Chinese. The report notes that the port was primarily constructed with Chinese capital and labor with the intention of it serving as a Chinese naval station “to protect Beijing’s oil supply from the Middle East and to counter the US presence in Central Asia.”

This point in particular, regarding China, was described in extricating detail in the 2006 Strategic Studies Institute’s report “String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China’s Rising Power across the Asian Littoral.” Throughout the report means to co-opt and contain China’s influence throughout the region are discussed.

The Carnegie Endowment report goes on to describe how the Baluchi rebels have fortuitously begun attacking the development of their province over concerns of “marginalization” and “dispossession.” In particular attacks were launched against the Pakistani military and Chinese facilities. The question of foreign intervention is brought up in this 2006 report, based on accusations by the Pakistani government that the rebels are armed with overly sophisticated weaponry. India, Iran, and the United States are accused as potential culprits.

The report concludes that virtually none of Pakistan’s neighbors would benefit from the insurgency and that the insurgency itself has no possibility of succeeding without “foreign support.” The conflict is described as a potential weapon that could be used against Pakistan and that it is “ultimately Islamabad that must decide whether Baluchistan will become its Achilles’ heel.” This somewhat cryptic conclusion, in the light of recent reports and developments can be deciphered as a veiled threat now being openly played.

Quite clearly when Islamabad accused foreign governments of fueling and arming the unrest in Baluchistan, they were absolutely correct. Seymour Hersh’s report lays to rest any illusions over whether or not America is arming Baluchi rebels. Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?” report also openly calls for arming and sending Baluchi rebels out against Tehran. More recently, longtime proponent of a Baluchi insurgency, Selig Harrison of the Soros funded Center for International Policy, has published two pieces regarding the “liberation” of Baluchistan itself.

Harrison’s February 2011 piece, “Free Baluchistan,” calls to “aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression.” He continues by explaining the various merits of such meddling by stating, “Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces.”

Harrison would follow up his frank call to carve up Pakistan by addressing the issue of Chinese-Pakistani relations in a March 2011 piece titled, “The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis.” He begins by stating, “China’s expanding reach is a natural and acceptable accompaniment of its growing power—but only up to a point. ” He then reiterates his call for extraterritorial meddling in Pakistan by saying, “to counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an Arabian Sea outlet at Gwadar.”

Harrison has made calls for the carving up of Pakistan for years. In href="http://carnegieendowment.org/events/?fa=eventDetail&id=1358&solr_hilite=Baluchistan">2009 he insisted that Pakistan should grant Baluchistan autonomy, citing a laundry list of technicalities that justified such a devolution of power. Quite clearly, Mr. Harrison has become more blunt as of late. And while endless papers and covert support for the Baluchi insurgency have been going on for years, more overt calls, echoing with equal, self-serving hollowness as those for Libya’s foreign-funded rebellion, are being made.

During the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace sponsored “Balochistan International Conference 2011” held in Washington D.C., calls were made for “international intervention.” Most of the Baluchi opposition leaders live in exile in the US, UK, and France, amongst the myriad of Libyans, Egyptians, Syrians, Thais, Chinese, Iranians, all working with foreign aid to subvert and overthrow the governments in their homelands. A presentation (shown below) gives us a verbatim rehash of the same antics that led up to a military attack on Libya, and similar rhetoric being used to set the ground work for intervention in Syria.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQPD2VMHF_E&feature=player_embedded
Change Baluchistan to Libya, change the Baluchi names to Libyan names and you can see the same US-funded propaganda that led to Western military operations in North Africa.

Selig Harrison is also a regular attendee at the “Balochistan International Conference” and frequently reiterates his calls for a “free Baluchistan.” With him is Washington lobbyist Andrew Eiva, a former special forces operator who took part in supporting the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. He proposes a vision of a bright future where Baluchis will enjoy their gas and oil wealth one day in their own autonomous, free nation. Such encouragement from Harrison, whose Center for International Policy is funded by the Ford Foundation, George Soros’ Open Society Institute, and Rockefeller Family and Associates, or Eiva’s flights of petroleum-fueled fancy at a Carnegie Endowment function – funded by Exxon, Chevron, BP Corporations of North America, the GE Foundation, Shell International, as well as the globalist mainstays of Soros, Rockefeller, and the Smith Richardson Foundation – would be almost laughable if real people weren’t dying and Pakistan’s entire future being put at risk.

There is no question that a concerted effort is being made to build-up a Baluchi front with which to menace Pakistan. With the Chinese already present inside the province and their base at Gwadar completed, and as tensions between Washington and Islamabad escalate, this low intensity rebellion might just get the “foreign support” needed to carve itself off from Pakistan. This would interrupt Pakistan’s use of this resource rich, strategically located province, prevent Iran from sending a pipeline to India, as well as eject the Chinese from the region. For those wondering why America is attempting to escalate tensions in Pakistan over the “Bin Laden” hoax instead of using it as an excuse to leave the region, the Balkanization of Pakistan and the permanent disruption of Pakistan’s, Iran’s, and China’s development is your answer. It isn’t a matter of if, it is now only a matter of how big the insurrection can be grown.

[bigron]

Pakistan: Resolution condemning Abbottabad raid passed

The News International

May 13, 2011

http://www.thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=15518

ISLAMABAD: Parliament adopted a 12-point unanimous resolution calling upon the government to appoint an independent commission on the Abbottabad operation, fix responsibility and recommend necessary measures, including blocking of Nato supplies, to ensure that such an incident does not recur in the future.

It also called upon the government to revisit and review its terms of engagement with the United States. The composition/modalities of the agreed upon independent commission will be settled after consultations between the leader of the house and the leader of the opposition.

The unanimous resolution could be hammered out only after the PML-N backed off from its original demand of a purely judicial commission and agreed on the formation of an independent commission. The judicial commission demand accompanied by a three-day deadline to comply had been given by Nawaz Sharif 48 hours earlier in a press conference.

The resolution was approved after an in-depth discussion, including presentations made on the relevant issues by the DG Inter-Services Intelligence, DG (Military Operations) and deputy air chief (Operations). The resolution condemned the US unilateral action in Abbottabad, which constitutes a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty.

It strongly asserted that unilateral actions, such as those conducted by the US forces in Abbottabad, as well as the continued drone attacks on the territory of Pakistan, are not only unacceptable but also constitute the violation of principles of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and humanitarian norms and such drone attacks must be stopped forthwith, failing which the government will be constrained to consider taking necessary steps, including withdrawal of transit facility allowed to Nato/Isaf forces.

The resolution also said that unilateral actions cannot advance the global cause of elimination of terrorism and the people of Pakistan will no longer tolerate such actions and repeat of unilateral measures could have dire consequences for peace and security in the region and the world.

Parliament reaffirmed the resolve of the people and the Government of Pakistan to uphold Pakistan's sovereignty and national security, which is a sacred duty, at all costs.

It also affirmed the resolve of the people and state institutions of Pakistan to safeguard Pakistan's national interests and strategic assets and, in this context, underscored that any action to the contrary will warrant a strong national response.

Parliament through the resolution expressed its deep distress on the campaign to malign Pakistan, launched by certain quarters in other countries without appreciating Pakistan's determined efforts and immense sacrifices in combating terror and the fact that more than 30,000 Pakistani innocent men, women and children and more than 5,000 security and armed forces personnel had lost their lives, that is more than any other single country, in the fight against terror.

The resolution called upon the government to ensure that the principles of an independent foreign policy must be grounded in strict adherence to the principles of policy, as stated in Article 40 of the Constitution, the UN Charter, observance of international law and respect for the free will and aspirations of sovereign states and their peoples.

It further called upon the government to revisit and review its terms of engagement with the United States, with a view to ensuring that Pakistan's national interests are fully respected and accommodated in pursuit of policies for countering terrorism and achieving reconciliation and peace in Afghanistan.

The resolution affirmed the importance of international cooperation for eliminating international terrorism, which can only be carried forward on the basis of a true partnership approach, based on equality, mutual respect and mutual trust.

It also affirmed full confidence in the defence forces of Pakistan in safeguarding Pakistan's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and in overcoming any challenge to security, with the full support of the people and Government of Pakistan.

Parliament reaffirmed the resolution passed by the joint sitting on national security held on October 22, 2008 and the detailed recommendations made by the Parliamentary Committee on National Security in April 2009.


http://www.thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=15518


 

[bigron]

The secret US war in Pakistan


by Musa Khan Jalalzai


May 19, 2011

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\05\19\story_19-5-2011_pg3_4

General Musharraf had agreed that he would convince his nation that, officially, the US was not allowed to carry out any secret operation inside Pakistan without the consent of the regime, but the JSOC would continue its mission. Blackwater was also directed to deny its presence in Pakistan



There are many stories available in leading Pakistani newspapers about the US’s secret operations, run by the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), in major cities, specifically in Karachi, Peshawar and Lahore. The notorious private contractor, Blackwater, has been at the centre of the killing fields and targeted assassinations in both Afghanistan and Pakistan since 2001. According to well-placed military sources in Pakistan, members of this militia are gathering secret information to help direct the drone attacks in FATA and Waziristan regions. Blackwater also controls drone strikes and gathers intelligence for JSOC in Pakistan. There are debates in the Pakistani press about Blackwater and JSOC military operations and under what law they have retrieved the licence to kill.

Not going into the details of the story, the case is simple. On May 9, 2011, The Guardian reported a secret agreement signed between General Pervez Musharraf and US President George Bush in 2001, which allowed US special forces, the CIA and JSOC to carry out secret operations and drone attacks inside Pakistan. This agreement was renewed in February 2008. Afterwards, The Guardian reported that both sides agreed on the point that Pakistan would protest the incursion. Having referred to the recent Abbottabad operation, a government official in Islamabad said that the US had just implemented the said agreement.

Before signing the deal, General Musharraf had agreed that he would convince his nation that, officially, the US was not allowed to carry out any secret operation inside Pakistan without the consent of the regime, but the JSOC would continue its mission. Moreover, in all major cities of the country, Blackwater was also directed to deny its presence in Pakistan. The deal is still a secret but the recent operation in Abbottabad has exposed the intentions of US imperialism in Pakistan. Political parties criticised the army and ISI for their connivances and some demanded the resignation of the ISI chief, and Mr Pasha himself offered to resign.

At the government level, the prime minister expressed concern over the US operation in his National Assembly address and said that Pakistan had some differences and reservations regarding this operation and complained that US forces had violated the country’s sovereignty. The killing of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad created many doubts and misunderstandings among the politicians, ISI and army generals. This unauthorised operation further dilapidated relations between Pakistan and the US. The Pakistan Army chief conveyed a warning message about future attacks: "Any similar action violating the sovereignty of Pakistan will warrant a review on the level of military/intelligence cooperation with the US." Several questions are being asked such as why the US did not inform the Pakistan Army. Some people ask about the ability of the Pakistan Army to protect the country while it was not even aware of a major military operation taking place a short distance away from one of its top military academies.

The US’s secret operations and the unlawful activities of Blackwater across the country have created some doubts about the US’s secret agenda in Pakistan. Opposition parties have raised some questions about the presence of CIA contractors while Interior Minister Rehman Malik offered his resignation if the presence of the private contractors is proved in Pakistan. According to recent revelations within Blackwater circles, the company’s members are working for the CIA and JSOC in Pakistan. Sources within the company have recently confirmed that it has established various facilities in Karachi, Lahore and Peshawar and has personnel deployed elsewhere in Pakistan.

During the Musharraf regime in 2007, the secret operation programme of JSOC in Pakistan was started under the leadership of William McRaven, who took over the post from General Stanley McChrystal who headed JSOC from 2003 to 2008. Blackwater, as a private military and intelligence force, is operating under the instructions of JSOC in Karachi and coordinating every plan with the task force based in Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. US military intelligence says that Blackwater classified contracts keep getting renewed at the request of JSOC.

Sources in the Afghan defence ministry told this author that Blackwater signed its first contract with the CIA in 2002 for operations in Afghanistan while Afghan intelligence sources say that the company and JSOC operation in Karachi is referred to the base in Qatar as the planning centre for the US invasion of Iraq. Blackwater is not only making strategies for drone attacks in Waziristan, FATA and Afghanistan, but in Karachi it also makes plans for the CIA and JSOC against extremist groups. In August, the New York Times reported Blackwater jobs in hidden bases in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In its underground places, members of Blackwater assemble and load Hellfire missiles and 500-pound laser-guided bombs on remotely piloted Predator aircraft. In September last year, Pakistani newspapers reported a secret ISI report about the suspicious activities of Blackwater and a federal minister who had been providing houses and helping them clear shipments of weapons and vehicles through Port Qasim in Karachi.

The arrest of Raymond Davis in 2011 in Lahore further increased the hurdles of opposition politicians who have often demanded a thorough investigation into the secret deal between the Musharraf regime and CIA. The print and electronic media in Pakistan reported various politicians alleging that the government and military establishment know about the secret activities of Blackwater on their soil but officials vehemently deny these charges. Who is Raymond Davis? Nobody knows in Pakistan but it is clear that he was not a regular diplomat. As we mentioned earlier, Pakistan had already agreed on the diplomatic status of the members of Blackwater during the Musharraf regime, and therefore Raymond Davis was treated as a diplomat as well. According to newspaper reports, Davis also worked for Blackwater. The same story is being repeated in Afghanistan. American secret agencies distribute money among the members of President Hamid Karzai’s administration so as to control the president and his decision making machine.

The recent political inclinations of the president towards China and Russia further increased the headache of American policy makers. The US is reeling under the $ 100 billion package a year and is negotiating a new strategic partnership agreement with the Afghan president. Security in Afghanistan has deteriorated recently, but much of that is due to stepped-up military operations, drone attacks and private criminal militias. The current Afghan structures are untenable and cannot sustain themselves. After the withdrawal of US forces and the winding down of operations, the US may maintain some military bases in Afghanistan.

The writer is the author of Britain’s National Security Challenges and can be reached at zai.musakhan222@gmail.com



http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\05\19\story_19-5-2011_pg3_4



 

[bigron]

[size=108pt]How Dare They Bomb Pakistan, That’s Our Job[/size]

by Scott A. Hill,


May 21, 2011

http://original.antiwar.com/scott-hill/2011/05/20/how-dare-they-bomb-pakistan-thats-our-job/



The hypocrisy is unspeakable. This morning (13th May), 80 Pakistani citizens are dead. These were not terrorists, nor warlords, but harmless civilians who, not for a second, posed a threat to society. The vile attacks in the northwest Pakistan district of Chardassa were perpetrated by suicide bombers belonging to the Pakistani Taliban. They called it the "first revenge" for the killing of Osama Bin Laden, who was shot dead by US forces just a fortnight ago. With 80 dead and a further 140 injured, these are being reported as the deadliest attacks on the nation for some time.


Those who believe this western propaganda are insulting the countless lives lost to the deadly drone strikes that have rained down on Pakistan over the last 7 years. In 2010 alone, 900 innocent civilians lost their lives at the hands of these unmanned aerial vehicles, sent by the US to eradicate al-Qaeda militants. According to the Brookings Institution, for every militant that is killed "10 or so civilians" can also consider themselves victims. It is a little known fact that President Obama has drastically increased these attacks since taking office.


How ironic then, that William Hague, the British foreign secretary who has relentlessly supported American policy, has come out and condemned today’s attacks as "cowardly and indiscriminate." He went on to state that these "extremist groups have no regard for the value of human life." Parallel denouncements have never been offered of America’s drone attacks. They are conveniently forgotten. Brushed under the carpet with the comforting knowledge that mainstream media would never give the game away. 


For too long now, the West has been murdering innocent Pakistani civilians – 2,352 drone strike victims alone according to counterterrorism officials – whilst criticizing Taliban or al-Qaeda attacks that have killed analogous numbers – 9/11 saw approximately 3,000 deaths. That is not to say that al-Qaeda’s attacks are justified and US ones are not. However, those who advocate democracy ought to practice what they so ardently preach before looking disapprovingly on groups that do not follow the rulebook. 


With the threat of "bigger attacks" to come, it is a short sharp reminder of the price paid by Pakistan authorities and security forces in their fight against terrorism. Despite recent suggestions that Pakistan was in some way inattentive for failing to realize Bin Laden was hiding in Abbottabad, their latest losses highlight the country’s staunch support for the US. Pakistan has continually been an active, vigorous participant in the ‘war against terror’, so the accusation that the Pakistanis were purposely concealing Bin Laden’s whereabouts is distasteful in the extreme. 


After all, this is a country that has suffered one of the highest death tolls as a direct result of so-called terrorism. Since the 9/11 attacks, there has been a sharp rise in domestic terrorism, suicide bombings, extremism and sectarianism within Pakistan. It is estimated that Pakistan has lost more than 3,000 soldiers since 2001, all due to their devotion to the fight against al-Qaeda. Despite these fatalities, the US frequently questions Pakistan’s commitment to fighting extremists. How on earth, Pakistan’s critics have asked, could the country’s government and security services not know that the al-Qaeda leader was living within their borders?


Firstly, if Pakistan is guilty, then so are we here in Britain. We too failed to identify al-Qaeda members residing in our country. Let us not forget, the 7/7 bombings were carried out by individuals living in Buckinghamshire and Yorkshire. That aside, it was widely believed that Bin Laden was hiding out in either Afghanistan – that, after all, is supposedly why we invaded – or Yemen, seen by many as Al-Qaeda’s nucleus. Not only was this the belief of Pakistan, but the belief of America as well. 


Secondly, straight after the announcement that Bin Laden had been killed, a spokesman for Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) told Reuters, "Pakistan’s rulers and army will be our first targets." Surely this statement alone suggests that the Pakistani authorities were not involved with al-Qaeda or the Taliban, else why would the Pakistani Taliban come after them specifically. On the contrary, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani, on hearing news of Bin Laden’s demise, responded, "I think it’s a great victory."


The problem with much of the western world is that it blindly accepts the words of governmental figures without challenge. Far too often we fall into the trap of dividing the world into damaging fractions – "them" and "us." Since Bin Laden’s death, Pakistan has unceremoniously fallen into the category, "them." But why? Why are we not showering them with praise and admiration as a result of their unremitting commitment and faithfulness in this on-going war against extremism? There is no easy answer to that, but a wild guess may be fear, paranoia and unjustified mistrust. 


Has the West, and perhaps more specifically, America grown to mistrust the eastern world so much that they can no longer acknowledge when good is being done out there? Pakistan is as much a victim of extremism as any other nation. They are not deserving of the petty insults that have flown their way following Operation Neptune Spear. Nor were the 2,352 drone victims deserving of their atrocious demise. Moreover, the 80 victims of this latest terrorist attack are undeserving of the patronizing sorrow shown by western officials, who all the while accuse Pakistan of aiding and abetting such deplorable massacres.

http://original.antiwar.com/scott-hill/2011/05/20/how-dare-they-bomb-pakistan-thats-our-job/

[bigron]

Pakistan: The Establishment’s true lies


By Adnan Rehmat | DAWN.COM



May 21, 2011

http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/21/the-establishments-true-lies.html

The WikiLeaks’ cables on drone attacks in Pakistan by the Americans have finally confirmed what’s been an open secret albeit sans official admission: the authority in charge of the security policy in Pakistan – the army and its chief General Pervaiz Kayani – has privately sanctioned them while publicly vociferously opposing them.

While post 9/11, it was General Pervez Musharraf who shaped up the security and foreign policies aligning them with the American war on terrorism, principally against al Qaeda and centered on the Af-Pak theater, there is evidence now that even his successor General Kayani was so convinced of the general efficacy of US drone attacks in the tribal areas that he not only had an agreement on two "air corridors" for strikes identified by the Americans but also put one of his own, the third corridor, on the table. This happened as far back as in early 2008, when he made the request to Centcom chief Admiral Fallon, just a few months after taking over from General Musharraf as the army chief.

On the face of it there is little wrong with a military strategy that works in a time of war with a stated policy objective of eliminating an identified enemy combatant – al Qaeda and its militant supporters. It made sense that if the Pakistani state and its military’s objective was the elimination of this target and if they did not have complete control over some tribal areas’ regions that served as near perfect haven for al Qaeda strategists, coordinators and implementers, and that Pakistan’s ally the US had superior and precise air wherewithal to zoom in on the targets with lethal accuracy that it should be allowed to do so. After all the Pakistanis and Americans are supposed to be on the same side.

It is, therefore, not the success of the policy of effective drone strikes against al Qaeda and its militant supporters in private that has puzzled the people. It is the fact that the frequency of drone attacks has escalated since 2009 and so has the army and the government’s public opposition to them. This 'opposition’ was despite the cooperative agreement in place between Washington and Islamabad that has not run the risk of breaking down until American spy Raymond Davis was nabbed in Lahore on a mission investigating the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba strategy complex.

The burgeoning oddity of public censure of the US drone attacks by General Kayani in a statement describing an attack that killed 38 in one such attack in March 2011 and full support to the policy of the attacks in private (requesting specific attacks) that have confused the public. This was perplexing since Kayani’s officer in charge of the troops in North Waziristan (where Americans have been demanding a full invasion by Pakistani forces), General Ghayyur Mahmood only a few days earlier had publicly attested to the success of the drone attacks strategy saying they were successful in taking out al Qaeda and Taliban militants, not civilians.

It seems that since there has been no discernible effort to reduce or even address the confusion, it serves a tactical purpose for the army, which has a strong tradition of manipulating public opinion to add muscle to its negotiations for tactical shifts with the US. The Raymond Davis saga is a case in point. To negotiate an adjustment in American intelligence presence in Pakistan, the army orchestrated a campaign by rightwing parties and religious and sectarian outfits through unending public demonstrations and rallies as well as by manipulating the electronic media to take anti-American sentiments to dangerous heights.

However, it is telling that when Osama bin Laden was taken out by a unilateral American military operation in the heart of Pakistan in early May 2011, there were no public protests by any groups either against the US action or in support of bin Laden. This is because the military and the intelligence agencies did not activate them as a bargaining tool because they had been caught in the monumental embarrassment of ignorance and worrying ineptitude about bin Laden’s presence right under their nose and the perplexing inability to be on guard against an invasion by even a friendly state.

Activating these pro-Establishment forces would only have shone the light brighter on the military’s shortcomings. The Abbottabad raid blew the lazy lid over Pakistan’s duplicitous approach to policy implementation – opposition and compliance on the same policy: running with the hares and hunting with the hounds. Or to put it bluntly, keeping the public in the dark and keeping up with the Americans in private.

While the WikiLeaks cables tell us little the public has not suspected or known before, they confirm that the government in general and the army in particular have a formal policy of deceiving the public on national security issues. This raises the serious question of legitimacy of the security policy and foreign policies and the actions of the state.

The government must remove the cobwebs of deceit and come clean and openly state the policy of zero tolerance against al Qaeda and its supporters and the support for drone attacks that the army and government admit in private are successful. And the army must stop its unilateral control of the national security policy and provide protection to the president and prime minister for visits to the tribal areas. It is outrageous that they say the region is not secure enough their visit and yet the army chief goes there regularly. While tactical aspects of a security policy need not be consulted with the public, there should be no two versions of truths about policy.

Adnan Rehmat is a journalist, analyst and media development specialist. He heads Intermedia, a Pakistani media support NGO.

 

http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/21/the-establishments-true-lies.html

[bigron]

South Asia
May 24, 2011 
 http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ME24Df02.html
 

Pakistan's military under al-Qaeda attack


By Syed Saleem Shahzad


ISLAMABAD - The brazen al-Qaeda-linked attack on the Pakistan navy's Mehran air base in the southern port city of Karachi on Sunday night marks the violent beginning of an internal ideological struggle between Islamist elements in the Pakistani armed forces and their secular and liberal top brass.

More than 10 heavily armed militants attacked the base from three sides, blowing up several sensitive aircraft including a United States-manufactured surveillance plane. At least 20 security personnel are known to have been killed and as of late Monday morning the militants were still holding hostages in the facility.

The attack has been claimed by the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (Pakistan Taliban), but Asia Times Online contacts are adamant that the operation was orchestrated by al-Qaeda to avenge the killing of Osama bin Laden this month by US Special Forces and carried out by 313 Brigade - the operational arm of al-Qaeda that is headed by Ilyas Kashmiri.

Following Bin Laden's killing in the town of Abbottabad 60 kilometers north of Islamabad on May 2, Asia Times Online wrote that the reaction of the militants would be carefully planned attacks on installations of the armed forces:

This would be the beginning of real fireworks within the military establishment should mid-level cadre - rogue elements - aligned with Sunni militants instigate attacks along the lines of the militant assault on the Indian city of Mumbai in 2008 that resulted in the deaths of more than 150 people. Trouble ahead in Pakistan's new US phase , May 18. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ME18Df03.html


The attack began at about 10.30pm on Sunday night when the militants, carrying guns, rocket-propelled grenades and hand grenades, stormed the base. They blew up guard rooms before heading for a hanger, where they targeted P-3 Orion aircraft with rockets, recently supplied by the US to Pakistan, on which some American officials were working.

A senior security official in Karachi told Asia Times Online that the militants showed a lot of resilience and had pinned down security forces, which have to date made three attempts to eliminate the attackers and release the hostages. Some unconfirmed reports suggested that Chinese workers were among the hostages. A navy spokesman denied this.

The first move against the militants was made on Sunday night by Sindh police and Rangers, but they were immediately repulsed. Then navy commandos entered on early Monday morning, but they took at least 12 casualties. Later, the Special Services Group of the army was deployed and it has also received some casualties.

According to eye witnesses reports, the militants acted in a calm and relaxed way, firing at intervals. They appeared to have complete knowledge of the base and frequently changed their position. Very much like the Mumbai attack, the militants were well-equipped with arms, ammunition, food and drink.

"It was shown several months ago that the Pakistan navy is vulnerable to Islamists when a marine commando unit official was arrested," the security official said. "He was a member of the Mehsud tribe from South Waziristan [tribal area] and was completely indoctrinated by militants. Naval Intelligence never shared the information with the ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] or any other security agency that during interrogation he confessed that militants planned to attack installations during the visit of a foreign delegation. Now, they [intelligence] realize how the organization [navy] is riddled and vulnerable to the influence of militant organizations," the official said.

The attack is similar to other major ones in the South Asian war theater:

-Mumbai on November 26, 2008 - 10 militants went on a three-day rampage.

-Police Academy in Lahore in 2009 - least 23 people dead and hundreds injured.

-The Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore in 2009 - six policemen killed and several injured.

-General Headquarters Rawalpindi in 2009 - several hostages taken and then released.

-Parade Lane Mosque Rawalpindi in 2009 - at least 40 killed.

Pakistani security forces confirmed that at least three of these attacks were carried out by 313 Brigade led by Ilyas Kashmiri while the others were blamed on Pakistani militants trained by Kashmiri (See al-Qaeda's guerrilla chief lays out strategy Asia Times Online, October 15, 2009.)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KJ15Df03.html

Military out of step

After the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, Pakistan's top brass took a policy turn and joined in the US's "war on terror", but a large chunk of officers took retirement and with serving colleagues they helped the Taliban. This changed the dynamics of the Afghan war theater (see Military brains plot Pakistan's downfall Asia Times Online, September 26, 2007).
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/II26Df02.html

This collection of former and serving officers was responsible for a number of attacks on the military, including on military headquarters in 2009 and against ex-president General Pervez Musharraf.

Now, this nexus could become active again to revive regional operations, in addition to a possible mutiny against the top military brass. (See Trouble ahead in Pakistan's new US phase May 18.)

Before the incident in Karachi, Asia Times Online was contacted by militants by telephone to confirm future attacks in the following words: "We don't want any trouble inside Pakistan or in the Pakistan army, but we do want to create an environment in which it would be conducive for pro-Islam and patriotic elements in the armed forces to dislodge incompetent and pro-American military officials."

This is the third attack on a naval installation in the past 30 days - two were launched before Bin Laden's assassination.

"The Pakistan navy constituted a high-level inquiry committee after their bases were targeted last month," a senior security official told Asia Times Online on the condition of anonymity. "The teams arrived to Karachi last month and asked for our input. They were wondering why militants were targeting the navy as they were not involved in any anti-terror operations. We told them that the navy's own staff were hand-in-glove in those two attacks," the official said.

Kashmiri's 313 Brigade, which was earlier focused on Afghanistan, has clearly now turned its sights on Pakistan, where Kashmiri is known to have powerful connections among retired and serving officials in the armed forces. More attacks are inevitable.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief and author of upcoming book Inside al-Qaeda and the Taliban: Beyond Bin Laden and 9/11 published by Pluto Press, UK. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com

 
http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ME24Df02.html
 

[bigron]

 
Pakistan's paradox: Both fighting and supporting the enemy

By Chris Allbritton Chris Allbritton

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110523/india_nm/india572162

Mon May 23, 12:44 pm ET
 
.ISLAMABAD (Reuters) – An attack on a Pakistani naval air force base on Monday heaped further humiliation on a military already stunned by the killing of Osama bin Laden on its territory, and raised further doubts about Pakistan's ability to confront militancy.

The brazen assault on the headquarters of the naval air wing in Karachi fuelled fears about the Taliban's growing capacity to stage attacks and the military's shrinking ability to control extremists -- both inside and outside its own ranks.

"It's a complicated situation, a paradox," said Kamran Bokhari, Middle East and South Asia director for global intelligence firm STRATFOR.

"On the one hand, you've got elements within the security establishment that are helping the militants and at the same time, the militants are attacking that same security establishment."

Pakistan's military has been on the back foot since U.S. special forces killed al Qaeda leader bin Laden on May 2, unable to explain either why they had been unable to catch the world's most wanted man themselves nor why the Americans could launch a raid deep into their territory undetected.

The Pakistani Taliban, however, are on a roll. Their spokesmen promised to sow chaos and avenge the killing of bin Laden. Monday's spectacular attack in Karachi shows that they are making good on their promises.

INSIDE JOB?

The attacks are likely to further deepen the United States concerns and suspicions about Pakistan as a reliable partner in its war against militancy, with no clear answer to the question of whether the Pakistan military is incompetent in fighting militants or complicit with them.

STRATFOR's Bokhari said it was obvious that Monday's attackers had inside help, suggesting that elements of the military, at least, are turning against the state as it comes under unprecedented pressure to roll up the militant networks.

"It is not possible for people with no familiarity with the military establishment to be able to carry out such an attack. Like in Rawalpindi, the militants had inside facilitators who provided access," he said.

In October 2009, a similarly small raiding party of Pakistani Taliban attacked the Army's General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, taking 42 people hostage, including several senior and junior officers. By the end of the day-long ordeal, nine gunmen, 11 soldiers and three hostages were dead.

As far back as 2006, the Pakistani military had to deal with extremist sympathisers in its ranks, with a leaked U.S. State Department cable revealing monthly reports of "acts of petty sabotage" to Pakistan's fleet of F-16s in an attempt to keep them from being deployed in support of operations in Pakistan's tribal badlands to the northwest.

And the biggest question of complicity or sympathy with militants is the case of bin Laden, who lived for years in the shadow of the Pakistan Military Academy in Abbottabad. Suspicions abound that he had help from a network of sympathisers who may have been either retired or serving military officers.

MORE

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110523/india_nm/india572162

[bigron]

.Published on Monday, May 23, 2011 by Inter Press Service

U.S. Rapping Hard Again at Pakistan’s Door


by Zofeen Ebrahim

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/05/23-5

KARACHI - Pakistan defence experts and observers say the country could expect another unilateral raid by U.S. forces, similar to the one they carried out in Abbottabad on May 2, that killed Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

The sentiment emerged after President Barack Obama told the BBC on May 22, just before he left for his European tour, that if there were another high value Al-Qaeda target, the U.S. would not hesitate to repeat a similar attack.

"It has happened and it will happen again," warns veteran journalist Rahimullah Yusufzai, who said he is not surprised at Obama’s statement.

"He had never ruled that out and many in the U.S. administration, including Hillary Clinton, had said so in so many words," said Yusufzai.

Yusufzai and others here believe that bin Laden’s capture in Abbottabad is being seen as a confirmation of Pakistan’s double game, of its ties with militants, and its harboring of terrorists, including Al-Qaeda members.

Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Leon Panetta had earlier said that there was concern that if notified ahead of time, some Pakistani officials could have alerted bin Laden.

The distrust between the U.S. and Pakistan has grown, and the likelihood of other similar covert unilateral attacks to target other Al-Qaeda leaders remains, despite assurances from the U.S. that the Abbottabad incident would not be repeated without notifying Islamabad.

In as strong a statement as it could muster, the Pakistan foreign office said on May 3 the Abbottabad raid "cannot be taken as a rule."

An official statement said, "Such an event shall not serve as a future precedent for any state, including the U.S. Such actions undermine cooperation and may also sometimes constitute a threat to international peace and security."

"I suppose we cannot hope for improvement of relations until the war on terror comes to an end which, in turn, depends on when the U.S. will find those it is chasing," says Ayesha Siddiqa, a defence analyst.

Obama told the BBC that while the U.S. respected Pakistan’s sovereignty, it could not "allow someone who is actively planning to kill our people or our allies’ people…. We can’t allow those kind of active plans to come to fruition without us taking some action.

"I had made no secret. I had said this when I was running for the presidency, that if I had a clear shot at bin Laden... we’d take it."

Defense analysts say that if a repeat of the bin Laden raid happens, Pakistan is unlikely to retaliate. "We can’t react," says Brigadier Asad Munir, a former intelligence chief responsible for the tribal zone. "We can’t fight the U.S. but following this statement, we can surely tell them we cannot cooperate anymore."

"The army will never shoot down a U.S. helicopter or even a drone as it may lead to a wider confrontation which they cannot afford," says Yusufzai. "It’s not the first time; our military said there will be ‘no U.S. boots on the ground’. Yet we all know of their presence in the tribal areas of both North and South Waziristan."

Munir acknowledged the presence of those forces and identified them as ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) teams but, he said, "never once has any American soldier ever shot anyone on our soil."

Munir says the recent statements coming from the Obama administration are creating more problems given the prevalent anti-U.S. sentiments in Pakistan.

"The raid itself was wrong, but the statements afterwards were undermining Pakistan," Munir said. "While I understand the secrecy for this bin Laden operation, they need not have cut down the Inter- Services Intelligence (ISI) to size."

Increasingly, within Pakistan, there is much hopelessness and despair. Analysts say the government has lost credibility, as has the military, and that the two have deceived the people for too long with hollow statements.

"The people will be very angry if another incident happens," says Yusufzai who finds "no real light at the end of the tunnel.

"Because they have lost faith in democratic institutions, violence will ensue which may even result in overthrowing of the present government. People have now come to believe that only violence can bring change."

For now, there are clear signals that the U.S. is hell-bent on dismantling the Haqqani network, the most powerful of the Afghan Taliban group with bases in North Waziristan in north-west Pakistan. The U.S. had long been pushing the Pakistan army to take action, something like a military operation that was carried out in the Swat Valley in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in 2009.

On his last visit, in April, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen was persistent in demanding that Pakistan act against the Haqqani network. He even accused Pakistan of maintaining a "long standing relationship" with the militant group, stressing that this issue remained central to the strain between the U.S. and Pakistan.

"The U.S. wants to win the war in Afghanistan at any cost," says Yusufzai. "A superpower like the U.S. can’t be seen losing to a ragtag group like the Taliban. So there will be pressure on everyone, especially Pakistan from the U.S. to support it. But we have to see our interest as well. We cannot be giving into each and every demand made by the U.S. specially at the cost of destabilizing our country and getting into internal strife."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/05/23-5

[bigron]

Channel 4 News



Channel 4 , May 24, 2011

The former head of Pakistan's ISI, Hamid Gul, tells Channel 4 News that he is "100 per cent sure" a Taliban attack on a major naval air base in Karachi was an "American operation".

MUCH MORE

http://www.channel4.com/news/karachi-attack-a-us-operation-claims-ex-pakistan-general






 

[bigron]

Terrorists, US destabilising Pakistan, says Nawaz

The Nation, Pakistan

http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/25-May-2011/Terrorists-US-destabilising-Pakistan-says-Nawaz/1

May 25, 2011

MANSEHRA (INP) - PML-N Quaid Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif has said that Pakistan’s sovereignty was being attacked from two fronts i.e. terrorists and the United States, to destabilise it but vowed that his party would defend the dignity and sovereignty of the country and if needed, they would sacrifice their lives.

Addressing the party workers convention here on Tuesday, he said that there are forces other than terrorists who want to destroy Pakistan but we are not sleeping to these dangers.

He said the attack at the Mehran Naval base in Karachi was an attack on the roots of Pakistan and there were inimical forces behind it.

He questioned as to why the terrorists destroyed two P3C Orion aircraft which had the capability to track down under sea submarines of the enemy.
Without naming India, Mian Nawaz Sharif asked who can hit these aircrafts to deny Pakistan from modern day naval warfare capability.

He said the attackers at the Mehran base were not ordinary terrorists but they had deliberate designs to weaken and destabilise Pakistan. He vowed to defeat and eliminate the menace of terrorism from the country.

He said today Pakistan has been isolated across the world and there is no respect for our green passport.

Nawaz said that incidents of terrorism and suicide bombings were never heard of in Pakistan 10 years ago.

He said the terrorist attack in Karachi must open the eyes of everybody and those responsible for leading to this situation must be made accountable.
He questioned as to why people are afraid of setting the tradition of accountability.

He regretted that the government has not implemented the Parliament Resolution for establishment of a Commission to investigate into the Abbottabad raid by the US forces.

He said had he been the Prime Minister of the country, he would have ensured accountability of the concerned persons.

He again demanded a full inquiry into Abbottabad incident. He said while the wounds of Abbottabad were still fresh, the country suffered another humiliation with attack in Karachi.

He said the honour of the country has been hit hard with these two incidents.
He said Pakistan was offered $5 billion aid by the US in return for not carrying out the nuclear tests but he refused to budge.

Nawaz said even sanctions were imposed on Pakistan but they faced them with courage and never compromised on the honour, dignity and sovereignty of the country.

He said they would live with honour and respect and confront those who want to play with the sovereignty of the country. He said if need arose, they will sacrifice their lives.

PML-N,JI electoral alliance in AJK

Meanwhile, PML-N Quaid Nawaz Sharif has given go-ahead to the election alliance between the PML-N and Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) Azad Kashmir chapters.

Well placed sources in the PML-N told INP on Tuesday that the PML-N will support the JI’s candidate from Bagh, Abdur Rasheed Turabi and will not field a candidate against him.

JI’s Noorul Bari will also get the support of the N-League from Valley.
Regarding Dherkot Gharbi Bagh area, it has been decided that the local leadership of both the parties in the constituency will be authorised to take decision.

On Rawalakot 3 constituency, it was decided to left it open and both the JI and PML-N candidates will be given an open run to contest the election from this constituency.

The JI’s Sardar Ijaz Afzal and N-League’s Rasheed Khan will contest the polls from this constituency.

A JI spokesman, when contacted, confirmed that the PML-N Azad Kashmir chief organiser Farooq Haider has informed Rasheed Turabi about the approval of Nawaz Sharif. However, he said, no written agreement has been made so far.
He said the PML-N has also promised to give JI a council seat and a woman seat after the general elections.


http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/25-May-2011/Terrorists-US-destabilising-Pakistan-says-Nawaz/1

 

[bigron]

South Asia
May 27, 2011 
 http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ME27Df06.html
 

AN ASIA TIMES ONLINE EXCLUSIVE


Al-Qaeda had warned of Pakistan strike


By Syed Saleem Shahzad

This is the first article in a two-part report.


ISLAMABAD - Al-Qaeda carried out the brazen attack on PNS Mehran naval air station in Karachi on May 22 after talks failed between the navy and al-Qaeda over the release of naval officials arrested on suspicion of al-Qaeda links, an Asia Times Online investigation reveals.

Pakistani security forces battled for 15 hours to clear the naval base after it had been stormed by a handful of well-armed militants.

At least 10 people were killed and two United States-made P3-C Orion surveillance and anti-submarine aircraft worth US$36 million each were destroyed before some of the attackers escaped through a cordon of thousands of armed forces.

An official statement placed the number of militants at six, with four killed and two escaping. Unofficial sources, though, claim there were 10 militants with six getting free. Asia Times Online contacts confirm that the attackers were from Ilyas Kashmiri's 313 Brigade, the operational arm of al-Qaeda.

Three attacks on navy buses in which at least nine people were killed last month were warning shots for navy officials to accept al-Qaeda's demands over the detained suspects.

The May 2 killing in Pakistan of Osama bin Laden spurred al-Qaeda groups into developing a consensus for the attack in Karachi, in part as revenge for the death of their leader and also to deal a blow to Pakistan's surveillance capacity against the Indian navy.

The deeper underlying motive, though, was a reaction to massive internal crackdowns on al-Qaeda affiliates within the navy.

Volcano of militancy

Several weeks ago, naval intelligence traced an al-Qaeda cell operating inside several navy bases in Karachi, the country's largest city and key port.

"Islamic sentiments are common in the armed forces," a senior navy official told Asia Times Online on the condition of anonymity as he is not authorized to speak to the media.

"We never felt threatened by that. All armed forces around the world, whether American, British or Indian, take some inspiration from religion to motivate their cadre against the enemy. Pakistan came into existence on the two-nation theory that Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations and therefore no one can separate Islam and Islamic sentiment from the armed forces of Pakistan," the official said.

"Nonetheless, we observed an uneasy grouping on different naval bases in Karachi. While nobody can obstruct armed forces personnel for rendering religious rituals or studying Islam, the grouping [we observed] was against the discipline of the armed forces. That was the beginning of an intelligence operation in the navy to check for unscrupulous activities."

The official explained the grouping was against the leadership of the armed forces and opposed to its nexus with the United States against Islamic militancy. When some messages were intercepted hinting at attacks on visiting American officials, intelligence had good reason to take action and after careful evaluation at least 10 people - mostly from the lower cadre - were arrested in a series of operations.

"That was the beginning of huge trouble," the official said.

Those arrested were held in a naval intelligence office behind the chief minister's residence in Karachi, but before proper interrogation could begin, the in-charge of the investigation received direct threats from militants who made it clear they knew where the men were being detained.

The detainees were promptly moved to a safer location, but the threats continued. Officials involved in the case believe the militants feared interrogation would lead to the arrest of more of their loyalists in the navy. The militants therefore made it clear that if those detained were not released, naval installations would be attacked.

It was clear the militants were receiving good inside information as they always knew where the suspects were being detained, indicating sizeable al-Qaeda infiltration within the navy's ranks. A senior-level naval conference was called at which an intelligence official insisted that the matter be handled with great care, otherwise the consequences could be disastrous. Everybody present agreed, and it was decided to open a line of communication with al-Qaeda.

Abdul Samad Mansoori, a former student union activist and now part of 313 brigade, who originally hailed from Karachi but now lives in the North Waziristan tribal area was approached and talks begun. Al-Qaeda demanded the immediate release of the officials without further interrogation. This was rejected.

The detainees were allowed to speak to their families and were well treated, but officials were desperate to interrogate them fully to get an idea of the strength of al-Qaeda's penetration. The militants were told that once interrogation was completed, the men would be discharged from the service and freed.

Al-Qaeda rejected these terms and expressed its displeasure with the attacks on the navy buses in April.

These incidents pointed to more than the one al-Qaeda cell intelligence had tracked in the navy. The fear now was that if the problem was not addressed, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) supply lines could face a new threat. NATO convoys are routinely attacked once they begin the journey from Karachi to Afghanistan; now they could be at risk in Karachi port. Americans who often visit naval facilities in the city would also be in danger.

Therefore, another crackdown was conducted and more people were arrested. Those seized had different ethnic backgrounds. One naval commando came from South Waziristan's Mehsud tribe and was believed to have received direct instructions from Hakeemullah Mehsud, the chief of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (Pakistan Taliban). Others were from Punjab province and Karachi, the capital of Sindh province.

After Bin Laden was killed by American Navy Seals in Abbottabad, 60 kilometers north of Islamabad, militants decided the time was ripe for major action.

Within a week, insiders at PNS Mehran provided maps, pictures of different exit and entry routes taken in daylight and at night, the location of hangers and details of likely reaction from external security forces.

As a result, the militants were able to enter the heavily guarded facility where one group targeted the aircraft, a second group took on the first strike force and a third finally escaped with the others providing covering fire. Those who stayed behind were killed.

Next: Recruitment and training of militants


Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief and author of Inside al-Qaeda and the Taliban: Beyond Bin Laden and 9/11 published by Pluto Press, UK. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com




 
 
 

[bigron]

South Asia
May 27, 2011 
  http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ME27Df02.html
 
Timing is key in Pakistan-China aerobatics


By Chris Zambelis

The recent headlines have been dominated by the progressively deteriorating relationship between the United States and Pakistan. The killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden on Pakistani territory in May by US forces exacerbated the widening rift and further overshadowed the recent staging of a sensitive military exercise involving Pakistani and Chinese forces.

It is against this backdrop that China's strong ties with Pakistan in the diplomatic, economic, and military realms have gained salience. Indeed, the timing of Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani's four-day visit to China, which commenced on May 17 - the third series of meetings between Gilani and Chinese leaders in less than 17 months - illustrates the extent to which

 
Islamabad counts on Beijing for support during this historic low point in US-Pakistan relations.

Rumors that Pakistan seriously considered allowing China to access remnants of a secret US stealth helicopter that went down during the raid against Bin Laden, thus allowing China a firsthand looking into the latest stealth technology employed by the US military - Pakistan has since agreed to return the remnants of the helicopter to the United States - also reflect the priority Pakistan places on proving its worth to China.

While news of cooperation between the armed forces of longtime allies would normally come as no surprise, details surrounding "Shaheen 1" ("Eagle" in Urdu) remain scant. The exercise was composed of what both sides acknowledged to be "operational" aerial maneuvers involving the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) and the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), held over a period of a few weeks in March 2011.

The exercise represented the first time PLAAF combat aircraft deployed to Pakistan and joined alongside their Pakistani counterparts in operational maneuvers in Pakistani airspace. In addition to "Shaheen 1," both countries also plan to stage joint ground maneuvers involving the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and its Pakistani counterpart in Pakistan later in 2011.

The exercise also took place against the backdrop of the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Pakistan and the recognition of 2011 by both countries as the "Year of Pakistan-China Friendship".

China's participation in "Shaheen 1" marks another milestone in its limited but expanding expeditionary military capability. Perhaps most importantly, China's involvement in "Shaheen 1" reflects its growing eagerness to showcase its expeditionary capability in countries the United States considers strategic allies [1].

Despite the current crisis in relations, the United States continues to count Pakistan as a vital ally. In regard to the war in Afghanistan, for instance, Pakistan is indispensable. The main supply line that sustains US-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces in Afghanistan originates in the port of Karachi. At the same time, the central role of Pakistan in US operations in Afghanistan has not precluded Beijing from extending its hand to Islamabad.

The exercise

Designed to foster enhanced joint air capabilities and to underscore the priority both sides place on preserving bilateral military ties, the maneuvers executed during "Shaheen 1" featured combat aircraft from the PAF and PLAAF, as well as technicians and other participants.

Specifics involving the exercise, including the types of aircraft deployed by both forces, the total number of aircraft and personnel involved, the exact nature and scope of the missions performed and the location of the maneuvers, have not been disclosed by either Pakistan or China.

A press release issued by the PAF, however, did contain a photograph of Pakistani and Chinese pilots and other personnel participating in "Shaheen 1" dated March 11; 13 Pakistani and 12 Chinese officers appear in the photograph. Concerns that the PAF may have deployed its fleet of advanced US-built F-16 Fighting Falcons alongside PLAAF combat aircraft likely raised concerns in Washington.

In addition to potentially exposing sensitive US technology to Beijing, the PLAAF also stands to gain great insights into the operating performance of the aircraft in relation to their own. The PAF currently boasts a fleet of 63 F-16s of different variants (45 A/Bs and 18 C/Ds) in its inventory and it recently entered into negotiations with the United States for additional planes.

The PAF's current fleet of F-16s is also scheduled to undergo comprehensive upgrades. Despite of the expected concerns in the United States about the potential deployment of F-16s during "Shaheen 1," there is no evidence to otherwise indicate that Pakistan deployed F-16s during the exercise [2].

The absence of detailed official statements by Islamabad and Beijing or other publicly available information regarding the dynamics of "Shaheen 1" did not prevent outside observers from making their own estimates about what transpired during the exercise.

A number of official photographs showing Pakistani and Chinese pilots preparing for flight missions and engaging in other activities during "Shaheen 1," which circulated on websites and online discussion forums dedicated to Pakistani defense and foreign policy issues such as Pakistan Air Force Falcons and Pakistan Defense, however, elicited extensive commentary, including among many claiming to be Pakistanis, Chinese, Indians, or in some way affiliated to (or at least knowledgeable of) Pakistani military issues [3].

Some of the photographs posted online showed Pakistani and Chinese pilots seated inside the cockpit of what appeared to be a Chinese-built Shenyang J-11BS air superiority fighter. The J-11BS is regarded as an indigenous version of Russia's Su-30 Flanker fighter series; while relying on the Su-30's mainframe, the aircraft is said to be equipped with Chinese-designed and manufactured engines, avionics, radar and weaponry.

Political and military Implications

In many respects, "Shaheen 1" represents a continuation of what is already a broad and multifaceted bilateral military relationship that has been cultivated over decades. While both Pakistan and China deny that the exercise was designed to "target" any third parties, aspects of the exercise, as well as its timing, illuminate the trajectory of wider trends that are having far-reaching geopolitical impacts on South and East Asia. In this context, the implications of "Shaheen 1" are best understood in political as well as military strategic terms.

The timing of "Shaheen 1" must be considered against the background of the current poor state of US-Pakistan relations. Pakistan has watched nervously as the United States expanded its ties with India in recent years while the latter continues to make impressive inroads into Afghanistan, a country Pakistan sees as vital to its concept of strategic depth and its overall security posture relative to its rival India.

Bin Laden's presence and subsequent death in Pakistan - and the likely existence of a support network within the echelons of state power that allowed him to remain there - adds another layer of complexity to Pakistan's predicament. Losing faith in the durability of its alliance with the United States, an increasingly insecure Pakistan feels compelled to act; Islamabad may have once calculated that navigating a fine line between Beijing and Washington represented the most prudent path to protect its national interests, but a tilt away from the United States and toward China may prove more beneficial down the line.

The symbolism underlying Islamabad's willingness to host Chinese combat aircraft on its territory in the current political climate was clear. Such a bold measure is indicative of China's evolution in recent years and the confidence it has nurtured among its allies as both a reliable and credible partner. Pakistan sees China as a country that delivers on its promises, an "all-weather friend," according to Gilani.

The United States, on the other hand, is viewed as impervious to Pakistani concerns and a meddler in its affairs. For its part, China is eager to exploit the widening diplomatic chasm between the United States and Pakistan. In light of the circumstances behind the killing of Bin Laden on Pakistani soil and the concomitant threats by Washington to cut financial aid to Islamabad, China found an opportunity to offset US criticism of Pakistan's conduct.

Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao seized the occasion of Gilani's latest visit to China to acknowledge the "huge sacrifices" endured by Pakistan in "the international fight against terrorism" while adding that Pakistan's "independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity must be respected".

Rhetoric aside, China has backed up its words with substance. During the Pakistan-China Business Cooperation Summit held in Islamabad in December 2010, Jiabao declared that China would "never give up" on Pakistan; the meetings culminated in the signing of 35 agreements and memorandums of understanding regarding cooperation in numerous sectors, including energy, banking, technology, construction, defense, and security, totaling $35 billion.

The volume of Sino-Pakistan bilateral trade hovered close to $7 billion in 2010, an over 30% increase over bilateral trade in 2009; Pakistan and China are aiming to achieve bilateral trade by volume of at least $15 billion by 2015.

While the United States remains a critical source of arms to Pakistan, especially advanced weapons platforms such as the F-16, the politics behind US arms transfers to Pakistan and the strict terms that accompany the sales of weapons systems - a humiliating reality, in Pakistan's perspective, especially in light of the perceived special treatment India receives by the United States and international community in areas related to defense - have driven it further into the arms of China. When it comes to arms exports, Pakistan is China's biggest customer.

Over 40% of China's arms exports are destined for Pakistan. Moreover, China has jointly developed the JF-17 Thunder (known as FC-1 Fierce Dragon in China) multi-role fighter plane with Pakistan. A joint venture between China's Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation (CAC) and Pakistan's Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC), the JF-17 is currently in operation and available for export.

China has also recently agreed to supply Pakistan with an additional 50 JF-17 fighters and to expedite their transfer to the PAF, a move aimed to demonstrate China's capacity to fill the vacuum if the United States decides to reduce or eliminate economic and military aid - the United States has provided Pakistan with over $20 billion in economic and military aid over the last decade - to Pakistan.

Reports that both sides plan to jointly develop a stealth variant of the JF-17 indicate that future Sino-Pakistan cooperation in this area is in the works. Sino-Pakistan cooperation in the aerospace industry is also seen by Islamabad as a counter to its rival India's similar cooperation with Russia, as both India and Russia cooperate on a number of joint defense projects involving combat aircraft. China is also keen to keep pace with its rival India in the military sphere.

As the United States continues to pressure Pakistan over its nuclear weapons arsenal, China remains a dependable source of nuclear technology. China has also agreed to build additional nuclear reactors in Pakistan. With China's assistance, Pakistan is believed to be on the cusp of overtaking the United Kingdom as the world's fifth-largest nuclear weapons power.

A recent report in the Pakistani media also alleged that China declared in "unequivocal terms" during the recent US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue meetings held in Washington in May that any US attack on Pakistan would be "construed as an attack against China".

The diplomatic, economic and military support China has given Pakistan during the period of heightened U.S.-Pakistan tensions has not gone unnoticed in Islamabad. Leader of the opposition in Pakistan's National Assembly, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, issued the following words: "I pay tribute to China for supporting and assisting Pakistan in every difficult time. I on behalf of the parliament and the people of Pakistan pay tribute to China for supporting Pakistan at this critical time."

Conclusion

As US-Pakistan relations continue to plummet, the implications of events such as "Shaheen 1" will rightfully be examined through a broader geopolitical lens, particularly in the context of their impacts on US-Sino relations. China is poised to earn considerable strategic benefits by enhancing its relationship with Pakistan.

At the same time, however, there are no indications to suggest that it is willing to jeopardize its relationship with the United States over Pakistan. In spite of its opposition to US policy toward Taiwan and the robust US military presence and US-led alliance architecture in East Asia - a region China deems to be part of its rightful sphere of influence - Beijing is likely to operate a pragmatic foreign policy with respect to Pakistan so as to not overly disrupt the balance of power in South Asia and, as a result, alienate the United States.

China will also continue to view Pakistan as a crucial strategic ally, and a potential lever over the United States (as well as India), strengthening the bond underpinning Sino-Pakistan relations for years ahead.

For all of its rhetoric, Pakistan lacks the leverage to outmaneuver the United States, even considering the convergence of interests between it and China on issues such as India and the US presence in Afghanistan, and it surely understands this. Nevertheless, Islamabad's diplomatic campaign and other activities showcasing its potential to downgrade its relationship with Washington in favor of Beijing may earn it the attention (and concessions) it desires from the United States.

Notes

1. In a related point, the PLAAF's participation in Turkey's "Anatolian Eagle 2010" aerial exercise in October 2010, an event marking the first instance of Chinese participation in joint military exercises with a NATO member shortly followed by a likewise unprecedented demonstration of Sino-Turkish military cooperation in the form of ground maneuvers in Turkey - the first instance of Chinese ground forces operating jointly with a NATO member on NATO soil - appeared to set a precedent for increased Chinese military activities involving U.S. allies on their territories. For more details, see Chris Zambelis, "Sino-Turkish Strategic Partnership: Implications of Anatolian Eagle 2010, China Brief, January 14, 2011.

2. Considering Turkey's fleet of advanced F-16s, it is worth noting that the United States expressed similar concerns during "Anatolian Eagle 2010."

3. For examples of the official photographs posted online of some of the purported Pakistani and Chinese participants in "Shaheen 1," aircraft deployed during the exercise, and accompanying commentary, see "PAF-PLAAF undertaking joint Air Exercise - Shaheen-1," Pakistan Air Force Falcons, click here (accessed May 2011); http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/www.paffalcons.com/news/2011/PAF-PLAAF-undertaking-joint-Air-Exercise-Shaheen-1_3182011.php
 also see "PAF-PLAAF undertaking joint Air Exercise - Shaheen-1," here (accessed May 2011).
http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/www.defence.pk/forums/military-photos-multimedia/105146-paf-plaaf-undertaking-joint-air-exercise-shaheen-1-a.html

Chris Zambelis is an author and researcher with Helios Global, Inc, a risk management group based in the Washington, DC area. The opinions expressed here are the author's alone and do not necessarily reflect the position of Helios Global, Inc.

(This article first appeared in The Jamestown Foundation. Used with permission.)

http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ME27Df02.html





 
 

[bigron]

Pakistan Bombing Leaves Dozens Dead  


RIAZ KHAN   05/26/11 10:25 AM ET   

 PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A suicide bomber in a pickup truck detonated his explosives near several government offices Thursday in northwest Pakistan, killing at least 24 people in the latest violence to roil the country since the U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

MORE

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/26/pakistan-bombing-leaves-d_n_867421.html

[bigron]

Manufacturing Consent For Attack On Pakistan:

Anti-Americanism rife in Pakistan army institution:

http://www.courant.com/news/nation-world/sns-rt-us-anti-americanismtre74o1ea-20110525,0,5757861.story


NATO concern over Pakistan nuclear arsenal:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2011/05/201152494846175324.html


 Fighters massing on Pakistan border to launch assaults on NATO forces in Afghanistan: report

http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/151964/20110525/nato-al-qaeda-pakistan-afghanistan.htm

[bigron]

Weekend Edition
May 27 - 29, 2011
http://counterpunch.com/pirbhai05272011.html

US / Pakistani Relations, Then and Now

The Trust Deficit

By M. REZA PIRBHAI

For more than a decade, Americans have been wondering if they can trust Pakistan. Their primary concern is whether the Pakistani establishment (or elements within it), which receives financial aid and publically proclaims allegiance, is privately acting against US global interests expressed in the ‘War on Terror.’ Obviously, Usama bin Laden’s long residency and final demise in Pakistan has only amplified the alarm.

Pakistanis, meanwhile, are also fretful. The government is hurrying to contain the damage. President Zardari is busy reminding everyone (as in a letter penned for the Washington Post) that his wife – Benazir Bhutto – sacrificed herself for this joint US-Pakistani cause. Bin Laden’s presence in Pakistan was an intelligence failure. The US raid on his compound without Pakistani knowledge was uncalled-for. This leaves one basic question for the Pakistani public to answer on its own. Is the military and/or civilian establishment too incompetent to secure Pakistan’s sovereignty against the US and al-Qaida? No matter the direction individual Pakistani media outlets spin the answer, the policies pursued by the US and Pakistani establishment are held responsible for the obvious demise, along with Bin Laden, of Pakistani sovereignty.
The virtual absence of concern for Pakistani sovereignty in the mainstream US discourse, and its centrality in Pakistan’s, echoes the vast gulf in power between these states. For the US, it is all very simple. It is a global power with limited interest in Pakistan. It pays Pakistan for certain services and, whether by Pakistani duplicity or incompetence, payment has not yielded desired results. Thus, by this logic, all conventions – including the concept of Pakistani sovereignty – are of no consequence at all. By way of contrast, the complexity of the Pakistani discourse, including the plethora of options and opinions offered, highlights Pakistan’s subordinate position. The imperious right of US rhetoric is met with Pakistani bombast and jitter, anger and apologia, and, in some cases, outright embarrassment. There is no debate on whether sovereignty is lost. Every commentator simply gropes for a coherent response now that that loss, mutedly acknowledged for years, is being broadcast around the world.   

This gulf in power is closely related to the deficits in trust plaguing US-Pakistani relations. Field Marshal Ayub Khan (d. 1974) was the first military dictator of Pakistan, seizing power in a bloodless coup in 1958. He was also the first Pakistani leader – military or civilian - to place his country firmly on the US side of a war; the Cold War. His reasoning was spelled out in his autobiography. Provide the US strategic and military support through such organs as the Central Treaty Organization (with Iran, Iraq, Turkey and the UK); receive a super-power umbrella and a steady supply of first-rank weapons to shore up defenses against Soviet-leaning India and Afghanistan. His only reservation was that by entering into an alliance with a global power, Pakistan’s regional interests may be overshadowed by US global interests. In fact, he was concerned enough to title his autobiography Friends not Masters (1967).

By the late 1960’s, when Ayub Khan published his autobiography, he clearly felt let down. The US had not only sold weapons to India in the wake of the Sino-Indian War of 1962, it remained neutral in the 1965 Indo-Pak War. Much to his dismay, the US had argued that the Central Treaty Organization only guaranteed military mobilization in the case of conflict with the Soviet Union, not India. A deficit in trust, rooted in divergent global and regional interests, had arisen. Ayub Khan’s response was to keep close to the US, but warm relations with China and thaw those with the USSR. One way to avoid falling prey to a powerful master was to have many powerful friends.

Ayub Khan’s trust deficit – one essentially rooted in asymmetries of power and divergent interests - has echoed through the history of Pakistan. In 1971, India and Pakistan went to war again. The US response was much the same as in 1965, particularly once the USSR displayed strong support for India. As Foreign Minister in Ayub’s Khan’s regime, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (d. 1979) had played a part in crafting the post-1965 strategy of tacit non-alignment. As Prime Minister, then President, from 1972 to 1978, Bhutto progressed further down the same foreign policy path, participating in the Central Treaty Organization while furthering ties with China. Two important innovations, however, followed the rise of new regional conditions. First, Bhutto responded to India’s 1974 nuclear weapons tests by launching Pakistan on the nuclear road. Second, seeking to ease the financial ruin in which post-war Pakistan found itself, he accentuated pan-Islamic rhetoric to cement relations with the emerging oil-rich, labour-poor Arabian Peninsula states.

A decade after the military regime of Ayub Khan fell amid mass agitation, the opposite happened: mass agitation provided the pretext for a military coup. Domestic authoritarianism and the unfulfilled party promise of roti-kapra-makan (food-clothing-shelter) led many Pakistanis to abandon Bhutto, too. The beleaguered leader responded by rigging the 1977 general elections, adding fuel to the fire. The military saw its chance to regain political pre-eminence, partially eroded by the humiliation Bhutto had heaped on it after the losses of 1971. General Zia ul-Haq (d. 1988), therefore, deposed Bhutto in 1978, on the same pretext that Ayub Khan had taken power 20 years before. The military would save Pakistan from its corrupt and ineffectual politicians. Of course, the Zia ul-Haq’s first step was Bhutto’s execution in 1979.

Although it made the world’s headlines, Bhutto’s execution was overshadowed by greater conflagrations. Prime among them were Iran’s ‘Islamic’ revolution, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The first hammered the last nail in the coffin of the Central Treaty Organization; the second reinvigorated bi-lateral ties between the US and Pakistan, otherwise on the wane since 1971. US military aid to Pakistan boomed, again. Cooperation between US and Pakistani intelligence reached its zenith. Neither came at the expense of Pak-Chinese relations, as US-China relations had considerably improved over the 1970’s.

Furthermore, regional ties with the Arabian Peninsula states could be strengthened. As mutual friends with the US and Pakistan, the latter’s relationship with the Arabian Peninsula states ballooned beyond oil and labor, to include extensive financial, trade, military and, crucially for Pakistani society, ideological ties. From mujahidin for Afghanistan to legitimation for a military regime at home, all was packaged under the ideology of ‘Islamization’; that is, an interpretation of Islam helpful to the US in Afghanistan, acceptable to regional allies like Saudi Arabia and represented in Pakistan by religio-political parties open to military rule.   

Entering the 1980’s, it must have seemed to the Zia-regime that it had achieved what Ayub Khan first sought through enhanced relations with the US. Although not a formal super-power umbrella such as the Central Treaty Organization, bi-lateral relations had provided informal cover. As long as the US perceived its interests to lie in Pakistan, the threat of Indian aggression abated.  A steady supply of US weapons must also have eased the Pakistan military’s nerves. As well, the extension of Pakistani influence through ‘Islamization’ in Afghanistan under US auspices provided much sought after ‘strategic depth’ in relation to India. And, perhaps most reassuringly for Pakistan’s military planners, their nuclear weapons program could make great strides without US objection. A balance, they must have thought, had been struck between the global interests of the US and the regional interests of Pakistan. Some facets of Pakistani sovereignty had been maintained. At the bare minimum, no one was bombing Pakistani territory, right?

Wrong. In 1984, India seized the Siachen Glacier and surrounding areas (roughly 1000 square miles), opening a new front in the Kashmir conflict. Until then, neither India nor Pakistan had any presence in this high, mountainous region on the Chinese border. Only de facto Pakistani sovereignty had been acknowledged by various governmental and private agencies, as reflected in the maps produced by the US Defense Mapping Agency as far back as the 1960’s. Whatever the correct legal status of Siachen, the events of 1984 at least illustrate that if US-Pak relations under Zia ul-Haq were meant to secure Pakistani borders and territorial claims, they were failing even then. US global interests did not include the Kashmir dispute in 1984, any more than in 1965 or 1971. So, the deficit in trust grew further, but would not begin reaching today’s crest until Zia ul-Haq’s assassination in 1988.

As with Bhutto, Zia’s death was overshadowed by global events. Most significantly, the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989 and the Union itself collapsed soon after. The Cold War ended. The immediate consequence for Pakistan was that the US then switched sides in the mess left behind in Afghanistan. From supporting Pakistan-backed Pashtun groups against the Soviets, the US allied with India in supporting the Northern Alliance. Wide-ranging sanctions were imposed on Pakistan under the pretext of containing its nuclear program. Even military equipment that Pakistan had paid for was withheld. Then, about 1994, the powers-that-be decided that Pakistan-backed groups would better suit US interests, so the Northern Alliance was abandoned in favor of the Taliban. Sanctions on Pakistan were eased and relations sweetened, only to sour again by 1998, when it was deemed that the Taliban would not serve US interests in Central Asia, after all. Relations with India were considered more important to any US interests in the entire region and beyond. So, Pakistan was out and the US finally took a stand on Kashmir. For deploying the same tactics in Kashmir as the US had employed against the Soviets in Afghanistan, talk of Pakistan being a ‘state-sponsor of terrorism’ began. For the Kargil Conflict (1999) – which was the latest of many back-and-forth rounds on the Siachen front – relations with Pakistan were virtually severed. 

It was then, in the late 1990’s, that a deficit of trust in Pakistan became entrenched in the US public discourse.  Despite the Pakistani establishment’s multiple compromises on regional interests since ‘9/11,’ worry has only grown. Even the surrender of sovereignty itself to CIA drone strikes and contractors did not silence the chorus. Rather it was progressively enhanced; a position now argued to have been justified by Bin Laden’s presence in Pakistan.

The US perspective, however, entirely ignores the Pakistani.  Ayub Khan’s autobiography discloses that this history is not as shallow as Pakistan’s late associations with Al-Qaida, the Taliban or any other self-professed Islamists. Rather, distrust is rooted in Pakistan’s much longer association with the US. It stems from seeking to address a small state’s regional interests through the patronage of a global power. It spreads with the confirmation that relations require the smaller party to sacrifice some or all of its regional interests to meet the big powers changing global strategies. It is nourished by the periodic purchase of the smaller government. It blossoms when the sovereignty of the smaller party is routinely and triumphantly trampled. As Bin Laden’s years in Pakistan confirm, such asymmetrical relations of power and conflicting interests could even raise a level of support for the fugitive al-Qaida leader.

This trust deficit may not ease US minds, but it does reveal that exclusively friendly relations, built on trust, cannot be expected when one state is required to accept another as master.

M. Reza Pirbhai is an Assistant Professor of South Asian History at
Louisiana State University. He can be reached at: rpirbhai@lsu.edu         

 
http://counterpunch.com/pirbhai05272011.html

[bigron]

Imperial Eye on Pakistan

Pakistan in Pieces, Part 1

By Andrew Gavin Marshall

Global Research, May 28, 2011
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25009

Introduction
 

As the purported assassination of Osama bin Laden has placed the focus on Pakistan, it is vital to assess the changing role of Pakistan in broad geostrategic terms, and in particular, of the changing American strategy toward Pakistan. The recently reported assassination was a propaganda ploy aimed at targeting Pakistan. To understand this, it is necessary to examine how America has, in recent years, altered its strategy in Pakistan in the direction of destabilization. In short, Pakistan is an American target. The reason: Pakistan’s growing military and strategic ties to China, America’s primary global strategic rival. In the ‘Great Game’ for global hegemony, any country that impedes America’s world primacy – even one as historically significant to America as Pakistan – may be sacrificed upon the altar of war.

 

Part 1 of ‘Pakistan in Pieces’ examines the changing views of the American strategic community – particularly the military and intelligence circles – towards Pakistan. In particular, there is a general acknowledgement that Pakistan will very likely continue to be destabilized and ultimately collapse. What is not mentioned in these assessments, however, is the role of the military and intelligence communities in making this a reality; a veritable self-fulfilling prophecy. This part also examines the active on the ground changes in American strategy in Pakistan, with increasing military incursions into the country.

 

Imperial Eye on Pakistan
 

In December of 2000, the CIA released a report of global trends to the year 2015, which stated that by 2015, “Pakistan will be more fractious, isolated, and dependent on international financial assistance.”[1] Further, it was predicted, Pakistan:

 

Will not recover easily from decades of political and economic mismanagement, divisive politics, lawlessness, corruption and ethnic friction. Nascent democratic reforms will produce little change in the face of opposition from an entrenched political elite and radical Islamic parties. Further domestic decline would benefit Islamic political activists, who may significantly increase their role in national politics and alter the makeup and cohesion of the military – once Pakistan’s most capable institution. In a climate of continuing domestic turmoil, the central government’s control probably will be reduced to the Punjabi heartland and the economic hub of Karachi.[2]

 

The report further analyzed the trends developing in relation to the Pakistan-India standoff in the region:

 

The threat of major conflict between India and Pakistan will overshadow all other regional issues during the next 15 years. Continued turmoil in Afghanistan and Pakistan will spill over into Kashmir and other areas of the subcontinent, prompting Indian leaders to take more aggressive preemptive and retaliatory actions. India’s conventional military advantage over Pakistan will widen as a result of New Delhi’s superior economic position.[3]

 

In 2005, the Times of India reported on a US National Intelligence Council report, written in conjunction with the CIA, which predicted a “Yugoslavia-like fate” for Pakistan, saying that, “by year 2015 Pakistan would be a failed state, ripe with civil war, bloodshed, inter-provincial rivalries and a struggle for control of its nuclear weapons and complete Talibanisation.”[4]

 

In November of 2008, the US National Intelligence Council released a report, “Global Trends 2025,” in which they outlined major trends in the world by the year 2025. When it came to Pakistan, the report stated that, “Ongoing low-intensity clashes between India and Pakistan continue to raise the specter that such events could escalate to a broader conflict between those nuclear powers.”[5] It stated that Pakistan “will be at risk of state failure.”[6] In examining potential failed states, the report stated that:

 

[Y]outh bulges, deeply rooted conflicts, and limited economic prospects are likely to keep Palestine, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and others in the high-risk category.  Spillover from turmoil in these states and potentially others increases the chance that moves elsewhere in the region toward greater prosperity and political stability will be rocky.[7]

 

The report referred to Pakistan as a “wildcard” and stated that if it is “unable to hold together until 2025, a broader coalescence of Pashtun tribes is likely to emerge and act together to erase the Durand Line [separating Pakistan from Afghanistan], maximizing Pashtun space at the expense of Punjabis in Pakistan and Tajiks and others in Afghanistan.”[8]

 

In January of 2009, a Pentagon report analyzing geopolitical trends of significance to the US military over the next 25 years, reported that Pakistan could face a “rapid and sudden” collapse. It stated that, “Some forms of collapse in Pakistan would carry with it the likelihood of a sustained violent and bloody civil and sectarian war, an even bigger haven for violent extremists, and the question of what would happen to its nuclear weapons,” and as such, “that ‘perfect storm' of uncertainty alone might require the engagement of U.S. and coalition forces into a situation of immense complexity and danger.”[9]

 

A top adviser to former President George Bush and current President Obama warned in April of 2009, that Pakistan could collapse within months, and that, “We have to face the fact that if Pakistan collapses it will dwarf anything we have seen so far in whatever we're calling the war on terror now.” The adviser and consultant, David Kilcullen, explained that this would be unlike the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, which each had a population of over 30 million, whereas “Pakistan has [187] million people and 100 nuclear weapons, an army which is bigger than the American army, and the headquarters of al-Qaeda sitting in two-thirds of the country which the Government does not control.”[10]

 

Target: Pakistan
 

Going back to the later years of the Bush administration, it is apparent that the US strategy in Pakistan was already changing in seeing it increasingly as a target for military operations as opposed to simply a conduit. In August of 2007, newly uncovered documents revealed that the US military “gave elite units broad authority” in 2004, “to pursue suspected terrorists into Pakistan, with no mention of telling the Pakistanis in advance.”[11]

 

In November of 2007, an op-ed in the New York Times stated categorically that, “the United States simply could not stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss,” and that, “we need to think — now — about our feasible military options in Pakistan, should it really come to that.” The authors, Frederick Kagan and Michael O’Hanlon are both well-known strategists and scholars at the American Enterprise Institute and Brookings Institution, two of the most prominent and influential think tanks in the United States. While stating that Pakistan’s leaders are still primarily moderate and friendly to the US, “Americans felt similarly about the shah’s regime in Iran until it was too late,” referring to the outbreak of the Iranian Revolution in 1979. They warn:

 

The most likely possible dangers are these: a complete collapse of Pakistani government rule that allows an extreme Islamist movement to fill the vacuum; a total loss of federal control over outlying provinces, which splinter along ethnic and tribal lines; or a struggle within the Pakistani military in which the minority sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda try to establish Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism.[12]

 

They state that the military solutions are “daunting” as Pakistan is a nation of 187 million people, roughly five times the size of Iraq. They wrote that, “estimates suggest that a force of more than a million troops would be required for a country of this size,” which led them to conclude, “Thus, if we have any hope of success, we would have to act before a complete government collapse, and we would need the cooperation of moderate Pakistani forces.” They suggested one plan would be to deploy Special Forces “with the limited goal of preventing Pakistan’s nuclear materials and warheads from getting into the wrong hand.” However, they admit that, “even pro-American Pakistanis would be unlikely to cooperate.” Another option, they contend:

 

would involve supporting the core of the Pakistani armed forces as they sought to hold the country together in the face of an ineffective government, seceding border regions and Al Qaeda and Taliban assassination attempts against the leadership. This would require a sizable combat force — not only from the United States, but ideally also other Western powers and moderate Muslim nations.[13]

 

The authors concluded, saying that any state decline in Pakistan would likely be gradual, therefore allowing the US to have time to respond, and placed an emphasis on securing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and combating militants. They finished the article with the warning: “Pakistan may be the next big test.”[14]

 

In December of 2007, the Asia Times Online ran a story about the US plan to rid Pakistan of President Musharraf, and that the US and the West, more broadly, had begun a strategy aimed at toppling Pakistan’s military. As part of this, the US launched a media campaign aimed at demonizing Pakistan’s military establishment. At this time, Benazir Bhutto was criticizing the ISI, suggesting they needed a dramatic restructuring, and at the same time, reports were appearing in the US media blaming the ISI for funding and providing assistance to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. While much of this is documented, the fact that it suddenly emerged as talking points with several western officials and in the media does suggest a turn-around against a long-time ally.[15]

 

Both Democratic and Republican politicians were making statements that Pakistan represented a greater threat than Iran, and then-Senator (now Vice President) Joseph Biden suggested that the United States needed to put soldiers on the ground in Pakistan in cooperation with the “international community.” Biden said that, “We should be in there,” and “we should be supplying tens of millions of dollars to build new schools to compete with the madrassas. We should be in there building democratic institutions. We should be in there, and get the rest of the world in there, giving some structure to the emergence of, hopefully, the reemergence of a democratic process.”[16]

 

In American policy-strategy circles, officials openly began discussing the possibility of Pakistan breaking up into smaller states, and increasing discussion that Musharraf was going to be “removed,” which obviously happened. As the Asia Times stated:

 

Another worrying thing is how US officials are publicly signaling to the Pakistanis that Bhutto has their backing as the next leader of the country. Such signals from Washington are not only a kiss of death for any public leader in Pakistan, but the Americans also know that their actions are inviting potential assassins to target Bhutto.

 

If she is killed in this way, there won't be enough time to find the real culprit, but what's certain is that unprecedented international pressure will be placed on Islamabad while everyone will use their local assets to create maximum internal chaos in the country.[17]

 

Of course, this subsequently happened in Pakistan. As the author of the article pointed out with startlingly accurate foresight, “Getting Bhutto killed can generate the kind of pressure that could result in permanently putting the Pakistani military on a back foot, giving Washington enough room to push for installing a new pliant leadership in Islamabad.” He observed that, “the US is very serious this time. They cannot let Pakistan get out of their hands.”[18]

 

Thus, it would appear that the new US strategic aim in Pakistan was focused on removing the Pakistani military from power, implying the need to replace Musharraf, and replace him with a new, compliant civilian leadership. This would have the effect of fracturing the Pakistani elite, threatening the Army’s influence within Pakistani politics, and undertaking more direct control of Pakistan’s government.

 

As if on cue, in late December it was reported that, “US special forces snatch squads are on standby to seize or disable Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in the event of a collapse of government authority or the outbreak of civil war following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.”[19]

 

The New York Times ran an article in early January 2008, which reported that, “President Bush’s senior national security advisers are debating whether to expand the authority of the Central Intelligence Agency and the military to conduct far more aggressive covert operations in the tribal areas of Pakistan.” The article stated that the new strategy was purportedly in response to increased reports of Al-Qaeda and Taliban activity within Pakistan, which “are intensifying efforts there to destabilize the Pakistani government.” Bush’s National Security team supposedly organized this effort in response to Bhutto’s assassination 10 days previously.[20]

 

Officials involved in the strategy discussions said that some “options would probably involve the C.I.A. working with the military’s Special Operations forces,” and one official said, “After years of focusing on Afghanistan, we think the extremists now see a chance for the big prize — creating chaos in Pakistan itself.” Of pivotal importance to the strategy, as the Times reported: “Critics said more direct American military action would be ineffective, anger the Pakistani Army and increase support for the militants.”[21] Perhaps this is not simply a “side-effect” of the proposed strategy, but in fact, part of the strategy.

 

As one prominent Pakistani political and military analyst pointed out, raids into Pakistan would expand anger and “prompt a powerful popular backlash” against the Pakistani government, losing popular support.[22] However, as I previously stated, this might be the intention, as this would ultimately make the government more dependent upon the United States, and thus, more subservient.

 

On September 3, 2008, it was reported that a commando raid by US Special Forces was launched in Pakistan, which killed between 15 and 20 people, including women and children. The Special Forces were accompanied by five U.S. helicopters for the duration of the operation.[23]

 

In February of 2009, it was reported that, “More than 70 United States military advisers and technical specialists are secretly working in Pakistan to help its armed forces battle Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the country’s lawless tribal areas.” So not only are U.S. Special Forces invading Pakistani territory; but now US military advisers are secretly advising the Pakistani Army on its own operations, and the advisers are themselves primary made up of Special Forces soldiers. They provide the Pakistani Army “with intelligence and advising on combat tactics,” and make up a secret command run by US Central Command and Special Operations Command (presumably JSOC – Joint Special Operations Command).[24]

 

In May of 2009, it was reported that, “the U.S. is sending Special Forces teams into one of Pakistan's most violent regions as part of a push to accelerate the training of the Pakistani military and make it a more effective ally in the fight against insurgents there.” The Special Forces were deploying to two training camps in the province of Baluchistan, and “will focus on training Pakistan's Frontier Corps, a paramilitary force responsible for battling the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters.” Further, the project “is a joint effort with the U.K.,” which helps “fund the training, although it is unclear if British military personnel would take part in the initiative. British officials have been pushing for such an effort for several years.”[25]

 

In December of 2009 it was revealed that, “American special forces have conducted multiple clandestine raids into Pakistan's tribal areas as part of a secret war in the border region where Washington is pressing to expand its drone assassination programme,” which was revealed by a former NATO officer. He said these incursions had occurred between 2003 and 2008, indicating they go even further back than US military documents stipulate. The source further revealed that, “the Pakistanis were kept entirely in the dark about it. It was one of those things we wouldn't confirm officially with them.” Further, as the source noted, British “SAS soldiers have been active in the province” of Bolochistan in 2002 and 2003 and “possibly beyond.”[26]

 

The “Balkanization” of Pakistan: Blaming the Pakistanis
 

Selig S. Harrison is a director of the Asia Program at the Center for International Policy, senior scholar of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, former senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and former journalist and correspondent. “His reputation for giving ‘early warning’ of foreign policy crises was well established during his career as a foreign correspondent.  In his study of foreign reporting, Between Two Worlds, John Hohenberg, former secretary of the Pulitzer Prize Board, cited Harrison’s prediction of the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war eighteen months before it happened.” Further, “More than a year before the Russians invaded Afghanistan, Harrison warned of this possibility in one of his frequent contributions to the influential journal Foreign Policy.”[27]

 

On February 1, 2008, Selig Harrison threw his renowned “predictive” abilities on Pakistan in an op-ed for the New York Times in the run-up to the Pakistani elections. He started by stating that, “Whatever the outcome of the Pakistani elections, now scheduled for Feb. 18, the existing multiethnic Pakistani state is not likely to survive for long unless it is radically restructured.” Harrison then went on to explain that Pakistan would likely break up along ethnic lines; with the Pashtuns, concentrated in the northwestern tribal areas, the Sindhis in the southeast uniting with the Baluch tribesmen in the southwest, with the Punjab “rump state” of Pakistan.[28]

 

The Pashtuns in the north, “would join with their ethnic brethren across the Afghan border (some 40 million of them combined) to form an independent ‘Pashtunistan’,” and the Sindhis “numbering 23 million, would unite with the six million Baluch tribesmen in the southwest to establish a federation along the Arabian Sea from India to Iran,” presumably named Baluchistan; while the rump state of Pakistan would remain Punjabi dominated and in control of the nuclear weapons. Selig Harrison explained that prior to partition from India, which led to the creation of the Pakistani state in 1947, Pashtun, Sindhi and Baluch ethnicities had “resist[ed] Punjabi domination for centuries,” and suddenly:

 

they found themselves subjected to Punjabi-dominated military regimes that have appropriated many of the natural resources in the minority provinces — particularly the natural gas deposits in the Baluch areas — and siphoned off much of the Indus River’s waters as they flow through the Punjab.

 

The resulting Punjabi-Pashtun animosity helps explain why the United States is failing to get effective Pakistani cooperation in fighting terrorists. The Pashtuns living along the Afghan border are happy to give sanctuary from Punjabi forces to the Taliban, which is composed primarily of fellow Pashtuns, and to its Qaeda friends.

 

Pashtun civilian casualties resulting from Pakistani and American air strikes on both sides of the border are breeding a potent underground Pashtun nationalist movement. Its initial objective is to unite all Pashtuns in Pakistan, now divided among political jurisdictions, into a unified province. In time, however, its leaders envisage full nationhood.

 

... The Baluch people, for their part, have been waging intermittent insurgencies since their forced incorporation into Pakistan in 1947. In the current warfare Pakistani forces are widely reported to be deploying American-supplied aircraft and intelligence equipment that was intended for use in Afghan border areas. Their victims are forging military links with Sindhi nationalist groups that have been galvanized into action by the death of Benazir Bhutto, a Sindhi hero as was her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.[29]

 

This passage is very revealing of the processes and perceptions surrounding “Balkanization” and “destabilization.” What I mean by this, is that historically and presently, imperial powers would often use ethnic groups against each other in a strategy of divide and conquer, in order “to keep the barbarians from coming together” and dominate the region.

 

Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in his 1997 book, “The Grand Chessboard,” that, “Geopolitics has moved from the regional to the global dimension, with preponderance over the entire Eurasian continent serving as the central basis for global primacy.”[30] Brzezinski then gave a masterful explanation of the American global strategy, which placed it into a firm imperialistic context:

 

To put it in a terminology that hearkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.[31]

 

While imperial powers manipulate, and historically, even create the ethnic groups within regions and nations, the West portrays conflict in such regions as being the product of these “ethnic” or “tribal” rivalries. This perception of the East (Asia and the Middle East) as well as Africa is referred to as Orientalism or Eurocentrism: meaning it generally portrays the East (and/or Africa) as “the Other”: inherently different and often barbaric. This prejudiced perspective is prevalent in Western academic, media, and policy circles. This perspective serves a major purpose: dehumanizing a people in a region that an imperial power seeks to dominate, which allows the hegemon to manipulate the people and divide them against each other, while framing them as “backwards” and “barbaric,” which in turn, justifies the Western imperial power exerting hegemony and control over the region; to “protect” the people from themselves.

 

Historically and presently, Western empires have divided people against each other, blamed the resulting conflict on the people themselves, and thus justified their control over both the people, and the region they occupy. This was the strategy employed in major recent geopolitical conflicts such as the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Rwandan genocide. In both cases, Western imperial ambitions were met through exacerbating ethnic rivalries, providing financial, technical, and military aid and training to various factions; thus, spreading violent conflict, war, and genocide. In both cases, Western, and primarily American strategic interests were met through an increased presence militarily, pushing out other major imperial and powerful rivals, as well as increasing Western access to key economics resources.

 

This is the lens through which we must view the unfolding situation in Pakistan. However, the situation in Pakistan presents a far greater potential for conflict and devastation than either Yugoslavia or Rwanda. In short, the potential strategy of “Balkanization” and destabilization of Pakistan could dwarf any major global conflict in the past few decades. It’s sheer population of 187 million people, proximity to two major regional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its strategic location as neighbor to India, China, and Iran with access to the Indian Ocean, and its nuclear arsenal, combine to make Pakistan the potential trigger for a much wider regional and possibly global war. The destabilization of Pakistan has the potential to be the greatest geopolitical catastrophe since World War II.

 

Thus, Selig Harrison’s op-ed in the New York Times in which he describes the “likely” breakup of Pakistan along ethnic lines as a result of “ethnic differences” must be viewed in the wider context of geopolitical ambitions. His article lays the foundation both for the explanation of a potential breakup, and thus the “justification” for Western intervention in the conflict. His “predictive” capacities as a seasoned journalist can be alternatively viewed as pre-emptive imperial propaganda.

 

Fracturing Pakistan
 

The war in Afghanistan is inherently related to the situation in Pakistan. From the days of the Afghan-Soviet war in the 1980s, arms and money were flowing through Pakistan to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. During the civil war that followed, Pakistan armed and financed the Taliban, which eventually took power. When the U.S. and NATO initially attacked Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, this was primarily achieved through cooperation with Pakistan. When the war theatre was re-named “AfPak,” the role of Pakistan, however, was formally altered. While the previous few years had seen the implementation of a strategy of destabilizing Pakistan, once the “AfPak” war theatre was established, Pakistan ceased to be as much of a conduit or proxy state and became a target.

 

In September of 2008, the editor of Indian Defence Review wrote an article explaining that a stable Pakistan is not in India’s interests: “With Pakistan on the brink of collapse due to massive internal as well as international contradictions, it is matter of time before it ceases to exist.” He explained that Pakistan’s collapse would bring “multiple benefits” to India, including preventing China from gaining a major port in the Indian Ocean, which is in the mutual interest of the United States. The author explained that this would be a “severe jolt” to China’s expansionist aims, and further, “India’s access to Central Asian energy routes will open up.”[32]

 

In August of 2009, Foreign Policy Journal published a report of an exclusive interview they held with former Pakistani ISI chief Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, who was Director General of the powerful intelligence services (ISI) between 1987 and 1989, at a time in which it was working closely with the CIA to fund and arm the Mujahideen. Once a close ally of the US, he is now considered extremely controversial and the US even recommended the UN to put him on the international terrorist list. Gul explained that he felt that the American people have not been told the truth about 9/11, and that the 9/11 Commission was a “cover up,” pointing out that, “They [the American government] haven’t even proved the case that 9/11 was done by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.” He said that the real reasons for the war on Afghanistan were that:

 

the U.S. wanted to “reach out to the Central Asian oilfields” and “open the door there”, which “was a requirement of corporate America, because the Taliban had not complied with their desire to allow an oil and gas pipeline to pass through Afghanistan. UNOCAL is a case in point. They wanted to keep the Chinese out. They wanted to give a wider security shield to the state of Israel, and they wanted to include this region into that shield. And that’s why they were talking at that time very hotly about ‘greater Middle East’. They were redrawing the map.”[33]

 

He also stated that part of the reason for going into Afghanistan was “to go for Pakistan’s nuclear capability,” as the U.S. “signed this strategic deal with India, and this was brokered by Israel. So there is a nexus now between Washington, Tel Aviv, and New Delhi.” When he was asked about the Pakistani Taliban, which the Pakistani government was being pressured to fight, and where the financing for that group came from; Gul stated:

 

Yeah, of course they are getting it from across the Durand line, from Afghanistan. And the Mossad is sitting there, RAW is sitting there — the Indian intelligence agency — they have the umbrella of the U.S. And now they have created another organization which is called RAMA. It may be news to you that very soon this intelligence agency — of course, they have decided to keep it covert — but it is Research and Analysis Milli Afghanistan. That’s the name. The Indians have helped create this organization, and its job is mainly to destabilize Pakistan.[34]

 

He explained that the Chief of Staff of the Afghan Army had told him that he had gone to India to offer the Indians five bases in Afghanistan, three of which are along the Pakistani border. Gul was asked a question as to why, if the West was supporting the TTP (Pakistani Taliban), would a CIA drone have killed the leader of the TTP. Gul explained that while Pakistan was fighting directly against the TTP leader, Baitullah Mehsud, the Pakistani government would provide the Americans where Mehsud was, “three times the Pakistan intelligence tipped off America, but they did not attack him.” So why all of a sudden did they attack?

 

Because there were some secret talks going on between Baitullah Mehsud and the Pakistani military establishment. They wanted to reach a peace agreement, and if you recall there is a long history of our tribal areas, whenever a tribal militant has reached a peace agreement with the government of Pakistan, Americans have without any hesitation struck that target.

 

... there was some kind of a deal which was about to be arrived at — they may have already cut a deal. I don’t know. I don’t have enough information on that. But this is my hunch, that Baitullah was killed because now he was trying to reach an agreement with the Pakistan army. And that’s why there were no suicide attacks inside Pakistan for the past six or seven months.[35]

 

An article in one of Canada’s national magazines, Macleans, reported on an interview with a Pakistani ISI spy, who claimed that India’s intelligence services, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), have “tens of thousands of RAW agents in Pakistan.” Many officials inside Pakistan were convinced that, “India’s endgame is nothing less than the breakup of Pakistan. And the RAW is no novice in that area. In the 1960s, it was actively involved in supporting separatists in Bangladesh, at the time East Pakistan. The eventual victory of Bangladeshi nationalism in 1971 was in large part credited to the support the RAW gave the secessionists.”[36] 

 

Further, there were Indian consulates set up in Kandahar, the area of Afghanistan where Canadian troops are located, and which is strategically located next to the Pakistani province of Baluchistan, which is home to a virulent separatist movement, of which Pakistan claims is being supported by India. Macleans reported on the conclusions by Michel Chossudovsky, economics professor at University of Ottawa, that, “the region’s massive gas and oil reserves are of strategic interest to the U.S. and India. A gas pipeline slated to be built from Iran to India, two countries that already enjoy close ties, would run through Baluchistan. The Baluch separatist movement, which is also active in Iran, offers an ideal proxy for both the U.S. and India to ensure their interests are met.”[37]

 

Even an Afghan government adviser told the media that India was using Afghan territory to destabilize Pakistan.[38] In September of 2009, the Pakistan Daily reported that captured members and leaders of the Pakistani Taliban have admitted to being trained and armed by India through RAW or RAMA in Afghanistan in order to fight the Pakistani Army.[39]

 

Foreign Policy magazine in February of 2009 quoted a former intelligence official as saying, “The Indians are up to their necks in supporting the Taliban against the Pakistani government in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” and that, “the same anti-Pakistani forces in Afghanistan also shooting at American soldiers are getting support from India. India should close its diplomatic establishments in Afghanistan and get the Christ out of there.”[40]

 

The Council on Foreign Relations published a backgrounder report on RAW, India’s intelligence agency, founded in 1968 “primarily to counter China's influence, [however] over time it has shifted its focus to India's other traditional rival, Pakistan.” For over three decades both Indian and Pakistani intelligence agencies have been involved in covert operations against one another. One of RAW’s main successes was its covert operations in East Pakistan, now known as Bangladesh, which “aimed at fomenting independence sentiment” and ultimately led to the separation of Bangladesh by directly funding, arming and training the Pakistani separatists. Further, as the Council on Foreign Relations noted, “From the early days, RAW had a secret liaison relationship with the Mossad, Israel's external intelligence agency.”[41]

 

Since RAW was founded in 1968, it had developed close ties with the Afghan intelligence agency, KHAD, primarily to do with intelligence sharing on Pakistan. In the 1980s, while Pakistan was funding, arming and training the Afghan Mujahideen with the support of Saudi Arabia and the CIA, India was funding two covert groups which orchestrated terrorist attacks inside Pakistan, which included a “low-grade but steady campaign of bombings in major Pakistani cities, notably Karachi and Lahore.” RAW has also had a close relationship with the CIA, as even six years before RAW was created, in 1962, the CIA created a covert organization made up of Tibetan refugees, which aimed to “execute deep-penetration terror operations in China.” The CIA subsequently played a part in the creation of RAW. In the 1980s, while the CIA was working closely with the ISI in Pakistan, RAW, while wary of their relationship, continued to get counterterrorism training from the CIA.[42]

 

In October of 2009, the New York Times reported that the US strategy “to vastly expand its aid to Pakistan, as well as the footprint of its embassy and private security contractors here, are aggravating an already volatile anti-American mood as Washington pushes for greater action by the government against the Taliban.” The U.S. gave Pakistan an aid deal of $1.5 billion per year for the next five years, under the stipulation of “Pakistan to cease supporting terrorist groups on its soil and to ensure that the military does not interfere with civilian politics.” President Zaradari accepted the proposal, making him even more unpopular in Pakistan, and further angering Pakistan’s powerful military, which sees the deal as interfering in the internal affairs of the country.[43]

 

America is thus expanding its embassy and security presence within the country, as the Embassy “has publicized plans for a vast new building in Islamabad for about 1,000 people, with security for some diplomats provided through a Washington-based private contracting company, DynCorp.” The NYT article referred to how relations were becoming increasingly strained between Pakistan and the US, and tensions were growing within the country exponentially, as “the American presence was fueling a sense of occupation among Pakistani politicians and security officials,” and several Pakistani officials stated that, “the United States was now seen as behaving in Pakistan much as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Futher:

 

In particular, the Pakistani military and the intelligence agencies are concerned that DynCorp is being used by Washington to develop a parallel network of security and intelligence personnel within Pakistan, officials and politicians close to the army said.

 

The concerns are serious enough that last month a local company hired by DynCorp to provide Pakistani men to be trained as security guards for American diplomats was raided by the Islamabad police. The owner of the company, the Inter-Risk Security Company, Capt. Syed Ali Ja Zaidi, was later arrested.

 

The action against Inter-Risk, apparently intended to cripple the DynCorp program, was taken on orders from the senior levels of the Pakistani government, said an official familiar with the raid, who was not authorized to speak on the record.

 

The entire workings of DynCorp within Pakistan are now under review by the Pakistani government.[44]

 

As revealed in the Wikileaks diplomatic cables, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson wrote in September of 2009 that the U.S. strategy of unilateral strikes inside Pakistan “risk destabilizing the Pakistani state, alienating both the civilian government and military leadership, and provoking a broader governance crisis in Pakistan without finally achieving the goal.”[45]

 

In an interview with Press TV, Hamid Gul, former Inter-Services Intelligence chief revealed more of what he sees as the US strategy in Pakistan. He explained that with the massive expansion of the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan, and alongside that, the increased security staff, the Chinese are becoming increasingly concerned with the sovereignty and security of Pakistan. He claimed that the money that the US government offered (with heavy conditions) to Pakistan, $1.5 billion every year for five years, will be spent under the direction of the Americans, and that “they are going to set up a large intelligence network inside Pakistan,” and ultimately “they really want to go for Pakistan's nuclear assets.” He further claimed that the Indians are trying to destabilize Pakistan; however, he explained, this does not necessarily mean disintegrate, but rather:

 

they are trying to destabilize Pakistan at the moment so that it feels weak and economically has to go begging on its knees to Americans and ask for succor and help. And in that process they will want to expect certain concessions with regards to nuclear power and also with regards to setting up their facilities here in Pakistan.[46]

 

When he was asked what America’s long-term goal was in regards to Pakistan, Gul responded that the goal:

 

for America is that they want to keep Pakistan destabilized; perhaps create a way for Baluchistan as a separate state and then create problems for Iran so that this new state will talk about greater Baluchistan... So it appears that the long-term objectives are really to fragment all these countries to an extent that they can establish a strip that would be pro-America, pro-India, pro-Israel. So this seems to be their long-term objective apart from denuclearizing Pakistan and blocking Iran's progress in the nuclear field.[47]

 

In Part 2 of ‘Pakistan in Pieces’, I will examine the specific ways in which the American strategy of destabilization is being undertaken in Pakistan, including the waging of a secret war and the expansion of the Afghan war into Pakistani territory. In short, the military and intelligence projections for Pakistan over the next several years (discussed in the beginning of Part 1 above) are a self-fulfilling prophecy, as those very same military and intelligence agencies that predict a destabilized Pakistan and potential collapse are now undertaking strategies aimed at achieving those outcomes.

 


Notes
 

[1]        NIC, Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue About the Future With Nongovernment Experts. The Central Intelligence Agency: December 2000: page 64

http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2015.html

[2]        Ibid, page 66.

[3]        Ibid.

[4]        PTI, Pak will be failed state by 2015: CIA. The Times of India: February 13, 2005: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Pak-will-be-failed-state-by-2015-CIA/articleshow/1019516.cms

[5]        NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National Intelligence Council: November 2008: page x

http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html

[6]        Ibid, page 45.

[7]        Ibid, page 65.

[8]        Ibid, page 72.

[9]        Peter Goodspeed, Mexico, Pakistan face 'rapid and sudden' collapse: Pentagon. The National Post: January 15, 2009: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=1181621

[10]      PAUL MCGEOUGH, Warning that Pakistan is in danger of collapse within months. The Sydney Morning Herald: April 13, 2009: http://www.smh.com.au/world/warning-that-pakistan-is-in-danger-of-collapse-within-months-20090412-a40u.html

[11]      Scott Lindlaw, AP: U.S. gave troops OK to enter Pakistan. USA Today: August 23, 2007: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-08-23-pakistan-engagement_N.htm

[12]      Frederick Kagan and Michael O’Hanlon, Pakistan’s Collapse, Our Problem. November 18, 2007: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18kagan.html

[13]      Ibid.

[14]      Ibid.

[15]      Ahmed Quraishi, The plan to topple Pakistan's military. Asia Times Online: December 6, 2007: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IL06Df03.html

[16]      Ibid.

[17]      Ibid.

[18]      Ibid.

[19]      Ian Bruce, Special forces on standby over nuclear threat. The Sunday Herald: December 31, 2007: http://www.heraldscotland.com/special-forces-on-standby-over-nuclear-threat-1.871766

[20]      Steven Lee Myers, David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt, U.S. Considers New Covert Push Within Pakistan. The New York Times: January 6, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/washington/06terror.html

[21]      Ibid.

[22]      Ibid.

[23]      Farhan Bokhari, Sami Yousafzai, and Tucker Reals, U.S. Special Forces Strike In Pakistan. CBS News: September 3, 2008: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/03/terror/main4409288.shtml

[24]      Eric Schmitt and Jane Perlez, U.S. Unit Secretly in Pakistan Lends Ally Support. The New York Times: February 22, 2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/world/asia/23terror.html

[25]      YOCHI J. DREAZEN and SIOBHAN GORMAN, U.S. Special Forces Sent to Train Pakistanis. The Wall Street Journal: May 16, 2009: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124241541672724767.html

[26]      Declan Walsh, US forces mounted secret Pakistan raids in hunt for al-Qaida. The Guardian: December 21, 2009: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/us-forces-secret-pakistan-raids

[27]      CIP, SELIG S. HARRISON. Center for International Policy: http://www.ciponline.org/asia/Seligbio.html

[28]      Selig S. Harriosn, Drawn and Quartered. The New York Times: February 1, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/opinion/01harrison.html

[29]      Ibid.

[30]      Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. (New York: Perseus, 1997), page 39

[31]      Ibid, page 40.

[32]      Bharat Verma, Stable Pakistan not in India’s interest. Indian Defence Review: September 11, 2008: http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2008/09/stable-pakistan-not-in-indias-interest.html

[33]      Jeremy R. Hammond, Ex-ISI Chief Says Purpose of New Afghan Intelligence Agency RAMA Is ‘to destabilize Pakistan’. Foreign Policy Journal: August 12, 2009: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/08/12/ex-isi-chief-says-purpose-of-new-afghan-intelligence-agency-rama-is-%E2%80%98to-destabilize-pakistan%E2%80%99/

[34]      Ibid.

[35]      Ibid.

[36]      Adnan R. Khan, New Delhi’s endgame? Macleans: August 23, 2009: http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/23/new-delhi%E2%80%99s-endgame/

[37]      Ibid. See also Michel Chossudovsky, The Destabilization of Pakistan, Global Research, December 30, 2007

[38]      Imtiaz Indher, Afgan MPs call for early withdrawal of foreign troop. Associated Press of Pakistan: April 1, 2009: http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72423&Itemid=2

[39]      Moin Ansari, Proof: Captured TTP terrorists admit to being Indian RAW agents. Pakistan Daily: September 20, 2009: http://www.daily.pk/proof-captured-ttp-terrorists-admit-to-being-indian-raw-agents-11015/

[40]      Laura Rozen, Can the intel community defuse India-Pakistan tensions? Foreign Policy: February 16, 2009:
 http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/16/can_the_intel_community_defuse_india_pakistan_tensions

[41]      Jayshree Bajoria, RAW: India's External Intelligence Agency. The Council on Foreign Relations: November 7, 2008: http://www.cfr.org/publication/17707/

[42]      Ibid.

[43]      Jane Perlez, U.S. Push to Expand in Pakistan Meets Resistance. The New York Times: October 5, 2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/world/asia/06islamabad.html

[44]      Ibid.

[45]      US embassy cables, Reviewing our Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, The Guardian, 30 November 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/226531

[46]      US military bases 'will destabilize Pakistan'. Press TV: September 13, 2009: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=106106&sectionid=3510302

[47]      Ibid.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25009
 

[bigron]

Clinton ‘Warns’ Pakistan, Demands Action Against ‘List’ of Targets

Another US Effort to Improve Ties Devolves Into Angry Demands

by Jason Ditz, May 27, 2011
 
Two weeks ago it was Admiral Mullen. Last week it was Sen. Kerry (D – MA). This weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried her hands at “improving” the increasingly strained relationship with Pakistan. Once again, it has ended the same.

Instead of reconciliation, Secretary Clinton’s visit was full of warnings and demands, She noted that US and Pakistani relations are at a “critical point,” then proceded to demand “decisive steps” from the Zardari government.

MORE
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/05/27/clinton-warns-pakistan-demands-action-against-list-of-targets/

[bigron]

South Asia
Jun 1, 2011 
http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MF01Df02.html 
 

 

 
Asia Times Online journalist missing


International organizations including the International Federation of Journalists, Reporters Without Borders and Human Rights Watch have called on Pakistani authorities to immediately release any information they have on Syed Saleem Shahzad, the Pakistan Bureau Chief for Asia Times Online, who went missing on Sunday evening.

Shahzad, who has been writing for Asia Times Online for nearly 10 years, failed to show up for a scheduled appearance on a television talk show in the capital Islamabad.

The International Federation of Journalists released a statement saying it "urgently appeals to the Government of Pakistan to order its security and police agencies to respond immediately to find a senior journalist who disappeared in Islamabad on May 29".

A spokesperson for Reporters Without Borders said the organization would be "calling on the authorities to take action in this case and do whatever they can to find him". He added that a joint letter from several organizations would be given to Pakistan's president and prime minister.

A representative for Human Rights Watch, Ali Dayan Hasan, told the Daily Times in Pakistan on Monday that "credible sources" claimed Shahzad had been apprehended by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

The ISI had at the time of press not made any official comment, and Asia Times Online was not able to verify any ISI involvement.

However, members of Shahzad's family told Tony Allison, the editor of Asia Times Online, that several of Shahzad's associates believed him to be in ISI custody, that he was "safe and would be released after 48 hours" - on Tuesday evening.

Shahzad had on several occasions been warned by officials of the ISI over articles they deemed to be detrimental to Pakistan's national interests or image.

The statement by the International Federation of Journalists reads:

 
Urgent Appeal to Pakistan Government to Find Missing Journalist


The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) urgently appeals to the Government of Pakistan to order its security and police agencies to respond immediately to find a senior journalist who disappeared in Islamabad on May 29.

Syed Saleem Shahzad, the Pakistan bureau chief for Hong Kong-based Asia Times Online, went missing in the early evening while heading to the office of Dunya TV to record a program.

The IFJ and its affiliate, the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ), hold grave fears for the welfare of Shahzad, who published the first of a two-part investigative series into alleged links between al-Qaeda and Pakistani naval officials on Asia Times Online on May 26. (See Al-Qaeda had warned of Pakistan strike.) http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ME27Df06.html

"The IFJ is deeply worried for the safety of Syed Saleem Shahzad," IFJ Asia-Pacific director Jacqueline Park said.

"We appeal as a matter of urgency for Pakistan ’s Government to do all it can to find Shahzad quickly, and to prove a commitment to reverse Pakistan's poor track record in investigating abuses against journalists."

Dunya staff tried to contact Shahzad by mobile phone at about 5.45pm on May 29 but failed to get a response, according to Dawn newspaper.

Shahzad, who is also the author of Inside al-Qaeda and the Taliban: Beyond Bin Laden and 9/11, reported in the article that members of al-Qaeda conducted the May 22 attack on PNS Mehran naval air station in Karachi.
http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Al-Qaeda-Taliban-Beyond-Laden/dp/0745331017

The article alleges the attack was mainly in response to an internal clampdown on al-Qaeda affiliates within the Pakistan navy, following failed talks between the navy and al-Qaeda over the release of naval officials arrested on suspicion of links to the militant group.

The IFJ and the PFUJ demand that Pakistan's government and security agencies respond urgently to investigate the circumstances around Shahzad's disappearance, including any link to the article published on May 26, before the trail goes cold.

For further information contact IFJ Asia -Pacific on +61 2 9333 0919. The IFJ represents more than 600,000 journalists in 131 countries. Find the IFJ on Twitter: @ifjasiapacific. Find the IFJ on Facebook here. 
http://www.facebook.com/pages/IFJ-Asia-Pacific/144789058887748

 
 
http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MF01Df02.html



 

[bigron]

NATO captures TTP leaders in Pakistan


Tue May 31, 2011 2:40AM



This file photo shows supporters of the hardline Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan shouting anti-US slogans in Quetta, Pakistan.

US-led NATO forces have captured five Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) leaders in Pakistan and taken them to Afghanistan without informing Pakistani officials.


NATO troops conducted the attack in the Gorvaid region of North Waziristan, Pakistani intelligence sources said.

The militants were reportedly taken away to Afghanistan by two NATO helicopters, AFP reported.

If confirmed, this would be the second time in less than a month that foreign troops have conducted operations inside Pakistan without informing its government.

On May 2 (May 1 Washington time), US forces conducted an attack in the northwestern city of Abbottabad in which al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was allegedly killed. Islamabad condemned the attack as a violation of its sovereignty.

Afterwards, US President Barack Obama said he would order another military operation inside Pakistan if another al-Qaeda or Taliban leader was found there.

Relations between Washington and Islamabad became tense after the attack on Abbottabad.

The Pakistani government said the attack was conducted without its prior knowledge or authorization.

At the time, some US officials said Pakistan had been aware of bin Laden's whereabouts for years.

HSH/HGL


http://www.presstv.ir/detail/182492.html

[bigron]

South Asia
Jun 2, 2011 
http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MF02Df06.html 
 

US moves to divide Taliban from Pakistan


By Gareth Porter


WASHINGTON - The leaked reports over the past two weeks of a series of meetings between United States officials and a Taliban figure close to leader Mullah Omar seemed to point to real progress toward a negotiated settlement of the war in Afghanistan.
But in fact the talks are part of a Barack Obama administration strategy aimed at putting pressure on the Taliban leadership in part by dividing it from Pakistan as well as bolstering Obama's domestic support for the war.

Senior administration officials hope to use the talks to sow suspicion between the Taliban and their main ally, thus weakening the Taliban resolve to negotiate on a peace settlement only if the United States offers a timetable for troop withdrawal.

Afghan and German officials have said that US officials met three times in Qatar and Germany in recent months with Tayyeb Agha, an aide of the top Taliban leader Mullah Omar, according to reports in the Washington Post and Der Spiegel.

Agha is about as close to Mullah Omar as any official in the Taliban. He has long been Omar's "head of office" and a "very close confident", according to Thomas Ruttig of the Afghanistan Analysts Network.

The Hamid Karzai regime was fully briefed on those "exploratory" meetings, but Pakistani officials have been kept in the dark as part of a strategy of sowing discord between Pakistan and the Taliban leadership.

That strategy began to emerge when United Kingdom special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Mark Sedwill visited Pakistan last week.

Sedwill told journalists that the Taliban leadership was engaged in talks with "various stakeholders with full backing of the US with the sole aim of finding a solution to Afghanistan from within, without any involvement of foreign players".

He was clearly hoping to rattle the Pakistani military leadership and civilian government, who have complained in the past that they have not been told about contacts with the Taliban. Sedwill's carefully worded statement hinted that talks with the Taliban were moving toward an accord between the Taliban and the Karzai government without Pakistan's participation, thus playing into Pakistan's worst fears.

He said various channels are now open to the Taliban, and that no single entity is fully aware of these talks. That was clearly intended to imply that the Taliban are already involved in secret talks with Karzai.

The UK envoy said he had come with this "special message" from the British government and hoped the Pakistanis "fully grasped it".
That unusually harsh and even condescending language sought to convey the US-British intention to freeze Pakistan out of the diplomatic action, despite earlier assurances that Pakistan would be fully involved in the peace process.

That policy obviously seeks to increase the tensions between the Taliban and the Pakistani military. They share an interest in an outcome in Afghanistan that reflects greater Taliban influence over the country's politics, but Taliban leaders and commanders have long resented their dependence on Pakistan.

The Pakistani military, meanwhile, is believed to have worried that the Taliban will reach an accord with Karzai at Pakistan's expense.

It is well known that the Taliban prefer to have an office outside Pakistan that could be used as a venue for peace talks, free from direct Pakistani interference.

But the reality of the US-Taliban talks does not support the line being promoted so aggressively by Washington through its British ally. Nor are the Taliban likely to cut Pakistan out of the loop on their talks with the United States and Karzai.

For one thing, the United States is still unwilling to offer the Taliban an office in Turkey or elsewhere. Instead, as Sedwill revealed in Islamabad last week, that concession, as well as the removal of Taliban leaders from the United Nations "blacklist", will only be granted in return for "confidence-building" measures by the Taliban side.

Sedwill said the US and UK would "need to see what concessions the Taliban would be willing to first cede".

The most likely concession demanded of the Taliban would be to agree to negotiate formally with the Karzai regime. As a US official told Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post, the Taliban "is going to have to talk with both the Afghans and Americans".

The Obama administration is still demanding, moreover, that those talks must be "Afghan-led".

But the idea that Taliban will give up what would be one of the last concessions in talks before the United States has even begun to negotiate reflects an assessment of the bargaining position of the two sides that is not shared by those outside the Obama administration.

Both the Taliban and the Pakistani military appear to believe that the Taliban has a stronger bargaining position at this point than Obama.

Last month Pakistan's foreign secretary Salman Bashir challenged the premise of the Obama administration that US military pressure is altering the balance of power in Afghanistan in Washington's favor.

The Taliban, meanwhile, have made it clear in private contacts with representatives of the Karzai regime that they won't negotiate with either the United States or Karzai without a public indication from the United States that it will negotiate the withdrawal of US and North Atlantic Treaty organization troops.

A member of the executive board of Karzai's High Peace Council, Mohamad Ismail Qasem Yar, told Inter Press Service (IPS) that the Taliban had insisted in contacts with Afghan officials on one precondition for peace talks. "There is one thing that they want to make clear and they want to be sure of, which is a deadline for the withdrawal," he said.

In their public statements, however, the Taliban continue to insist that they won't negotiate as long as foreign troops occupy the country. Michael Semple, who was deputy to the European Union special representative for Afghanistan from 2004 to 2007, observes that the idea of jihad against foreign troops is important to the morale of the Taliban fighters and their supporters.

The public demand for withdrawal before negotiations "may be an untenable position," Semple told IPS, "but the process of shifting may be painful".

Even though Taliban officials may be distrustful of Pakistan and may now feel more vulnerable because of the killing of Osama bin Laden by US special forces, they are not likely to be panicked into making concessions to Washington.

Although it was widely believed that Pakistan detained Mullah Baradar and other high Taliban officials, including Tayyeb Agha, in early 2010 because of the suspicion that the Taliban were talking with the Karzai regime behind their backs, the real reasons for the arrests suggest a different worry.

Baradar was picked up in a joint Inter-Services Intelligence-Central Intelligence Agency operation, but it was later reported by US sources that neither intelligence agency had known in advance that Baradar would be at the site of the raid.

In any case, Baradar, Agha and the other key Taliban officials were later released, suggesting that the Pakistanis were primarily concerned with averting their capture and detention by the United States. Pakistani warnings to the Taliban against contacts with the Karzai regime that were not coordinated with ISI could obviously be communicated without temporary detention.

The widely-publicized US talks with the Taliban also serve a domestic political function for Obama. One US official told the Washington Post that Obama would cite the talks with the Taliban in his mid-year policy announcement as evidence that he was making good on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's promised to produce negotiations.

(Walid Fazly contributed reporting from Kabul.)

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in 2006.

(Inter Press Service) 
 
 
http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MF02Df06.html

[bigron]

At Least 72 Killed in Cross-Border Afghan Attack Against Pakistan

Pakistan Slams Lack of NATO Action as 300-400 Militants Invade

by Jason Ditz, June 02, 2011


NATO forces are usually complaining about Pakistan’s border territories as a militant haven, but the situation was reversed over the past 48 hours as between 300 and 400 militants from Afghanistan’s Kunar Province crossed into Upper Dir, attacking a Pakistani border post and the village of Shaltalo

MORE

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/06/02/at-least-72-killed-in-cross-border-afghan-attack-against-pakistan/

[bigron]

Pak-US relations critical

by Gen Mirza Aslam Beg

June 4, 2011

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=95939

Threat to our national security increased with the occupation of Afghanistan in 2001, and has reached dangerous proportions now, as the defeated forces are seeking the support of "a compliant regime and a military dictator in Pakistan, to provide the fall back position in Pakistan and a guarantee for safe exit from Afghanistan." In the past it was easy to bring about the Regime Change, with the help of the Army, the judiciary and political parties but the mood is different now.

The deceitful action in Abbottabad and the terrorist raid on Mehran Naval Base, were meant to create condition for Regime Change, but conversely these actions invited very strong reactions from the people, the media, the parliament and the armed forces, which caused deep concern in Washington. Clinton and Mullen, came rushing to Pakistan to mend the damage caused to Pak-US strategic relationship. The critical issue is not the US-Pak relationship, but the targeting of the Pakistani Armed Forces, to malign them, through a well orchestrated media campaign, and to break their unity. A very dangerous move indeed, as Anatol Lieven, the author of the book "Pakistan: A Hard Country" warns: "How American folly could destroy Pakistan, by inducing mutiny in the Pakistan Army. Washington, grotesquely might contribute to the destruction of the state it is trying to save and a historic triumph for extremism. Pakistan’s tragedy would then become one of the entire world."

The United States and their allies are in a desperate situation in Afghanistan, and need an early exit, which only Taliban can grant, under the condition that the 'occupation forces must give a definite time-frame for withdrawal.’ It is not 1989, when Mujahideen provided safe exit to the Soviets. The Afghan Taliban now have no trust in Pakistan, or the Americans, who cheated them in 1990 at Geneva and again in 2002 at Bonn, on the matter of power-sharing and the efforts continue even now to keep them out of power. Therefore 'no safe exit’ and 'no soft-state’ in Pakistan. So where do the American proceed from here? and what are the choices for Pakistan?

Pakistan had enough of war on terror, and stands badly bruised and battered, fighting our own people. Pakistan has to find peace with the tribals. Approach them with open arms and an open mind. Do not repeat the deceitful act of killing Maulvi Nek Mohammad, after truce was reached. Go back to the historic 1947 decision of Quaid-e-Azam and hand over the responsibility of defense of our borders to them.

Find peace with the oppressed and the angry Baloch, and pre-empt the dangerous designs of our enemies, to foment revolt and cessation. The on-going process of pacification must be accelerated to achieve national integration. Offer regrets and apology to the Afghans, for joining the American war in 2001, and create space for diplomacy to re-establish friendly relations and facilitate a safe-exit for the occupation forces. Let the election process, throw-up new leadership and the democratic system finds its roots. Any attempt to rock the boat now, would be highly dangerous.

Let the supremacy of the law of the land prevail and punishment metted-out to those who break the law. Tell the world that our nuclear assets are safe, as much as safety demands. They are well dispersed and known only to those "who need to know." Even the users – the Army, Navy and Airforce do not know, where they are kept, but at the time of need, they will be delivered the war-heads, to be embedded with the delivery systems. Our command and control system is one of the best in the world, if not the best. By the Grace of God, ours is the only nuclear programme, in the world, which has never experienced a disaster or a mishap.

The 'safety’ of nuclear assets as well as 'deterrence’ are complementary. One relates to its credibility and the physical ability to keep them safe and the other relates to: "the will to use the capability to deter and defeat aggression". The will to use this capability is 'a function of command decision, of the person in authority’ as demonstrated in 1990, when CIA, Mossad and RAW had planned to attack our nuclear assets. We received very disturbing signals from own sources and friends in the Middle East. The then Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto – "the person in authority", called an urgent meeting of the Nuclear Command Authority, and after due deliberations took following decisions:

Sent the foreign minister to Delhi, with the message, that if attacked, Pakistan would retaliate against India, no matter, where the attack came from. (I.A. Gujral, the former Prime Minister of India, mentions in his book "Matters of Discretion" about our Foreign Minister’s visit on 23 January 1990 and the message delivered, but cleverly relates it to the tension on the cease-fire line, whereas, our army had put the Indians on the defensive there. Ask former GOC 12 Division, Major General Safdar, SJ, to know the facts. Later-on, when Benazir Bhutto visited India, Gujral asked her, whether, she had sent Sahibzada Sahib with the message. She replied, 'No’. That was politics.)

A squadron of F-16 fully armed with nuclear weapons was ordered to be ready to strike targets deep in the South, at Trombay. These activities were soon picked-up by the American satellites and Robert Gates came rushing to Pakistan to pacify our leaders. President Ghulam Ishaq Khan cooled him down, and never again the Nexus, attempted to challenge Pakistan.

It is "the man, behind the gun that matters" - Benazir Bhutto was "the person in authority" behind our nuclear capability and had the courage to take such a bold decision to deter aggression. (I hope our man, Zardari is listening). Then, we had only the F-16s and now we have the submarines, missiles and guns, which can deliver conventional as well as nuclear war heads of one KT to twenty KT yield, upto a range of 30 KMs to 3000 KMs. And this capability is all in all, India specific. On the night of 1/2 May attack in Abbottabad, two of our F-16s scrambled, but chose not to challenge the American aircrafts providing air cover from across the borders. Rightly so. Our superiority is on ground – the men and missiles and the conventional weapons support. Our men belong to one of the best fighting machine of the world, and the hard core freedom fighters come from our border region and remain undefeated. Based on Men and Missile, we do have a 'war plan’ to deter and defeat aggression. Let there be no ambiguity about it.

Whether Osama was killed in 2009 or 2011, is immaterial. Sure, he is dead, for whom, the Americans invaded Afghanistan. It is no more necessary therefore to "jointly chase the shadows." Turn the page, and negotiate peace with the Afghans, who are fighting for their freedom for the last thirty years and have suffered over two and a half million dead and colossal destruction. Guarantee for safe exit and lasting peace is possible only if the invaders and the aggressors such as, Russia, America, European Union, India and Pakistan, agree to pay the War Damages and find a place in the hearts of the Afghans, through massive reconstruction and rehabilitation works. That is the stark reality, to determine the correct level of Pak-Afghan-US relationship, particularly now when the US war machine is stuck in the hard-rocky sands of Afghanistan. Admiral Patreaus did cry- out after experiencing this hardness: "The reality about Afghanistan is, it is all hard, at all times."

—The writer is former Chief of Army Staff


http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=95939



 

[bigron]

The US is Losing Pakistan


June 4, 2011By Patrick Seale

http://the-diplomat.com/2011/06/04/the-us-is-losing-pakistan/
 
Ties between the US and Pakistan were already strained over differences on Afghanistan. The hit on bin Laden might have been the final straw.



Image credit:US Navy

The US and Pakistani governments seem to be heading for a divorce full of recriminations. So great are the divergent objectives and lack of trust between them that Pakistan seems to be contemplating moving out of the United States’ orbit altogether and into China’s embrace.

The US decision, without it seems informing Pakistan nor seeking its help, to send a hit team deep inside Pakistani territory to kill Osama Bin Laden may have proved to be the last straw. Pakistan’s leaders are furious. Army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, for example, declared that any future action violating Pakistan’s sovereignty would lead to a complete review of military and intelligence co-operation with the United States.

Added to this, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani expressed fulsome praise for China on a visit to Beijing late last month. China, he said, was a source of inspiration for the Pakistani people, while Chinese premier Wen Jiabao declared that China and Pakistan will remain forever good neighbours, good friends, good partners and good brothers.

As well as co-operating in the military, banking, civil nuclear and other fields, Pakistan wants China to build a naval base and maintain a regular naval presence at the port at Gwadar on the Arabian Sea, in Pakistan’s Balochistan Province, something that has alarmed the United States, India, Malaysia and Indonesia.

Worried at Pakistan’s drift away from Washington, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton hurried to Pakistan for a few hours on May 27 in an attempt to patch things up, but apparently with little success. Why? Because the row over the killing of bin Laden is only the latest chapter in a long narrative of mutual misperceptions.

CIA missile attacks by unmanned drones against alleged terrorist targets inside Pakistan invariably end up killing civilians, and arousing furious anti-American sentiment. The Pakistani Parliament has denounced these strikes as a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and demanded a permanent halt to them. Some parliamentary members warned that Pakistan could cut supply lines to US forces in Afghanistan if drone attacks continued.

The extent of hostility towards the United States was already evident following an incident on January 27, when Raymond A Davis, a covert CIA officer, shot and killed two Pakistanis in a crowded street in Lahore. Pakistani popular opinion wanted him hanged, and it was only with great difficulty that the United States managed to secure his release.

But by then the idea was already taking root in Pakistan that the United States was deploying a secret army against Islamic militants in the country. The Pakistani Army has demanded that the number of US military personnel in the country be reduced. Relations between the CIA and Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence directorate (ISI), headed by Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, are said to be tense.

At the heart of the US-Pakistani estrangement lies a profound disagreement about everything to do with Afghanistan, especially how to deal with radical factions, such as the Taliban. Not content with having eliminated bin Laden, the United States wants to hunt down and destroy any remnants of al-Qaeda and other militant groups, whether in Afghanistan or Pakistan, and even in places further afield like Yemen. Obsessed with the danger of terrorist violence, the United States has been unwilling to recognise that Arab and Muslim hostility toward it springs mainly from its own catastrophic wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan itself, with their heavy toll of civilian casualties, and from its blind support for Israel.

Suspecting Pakistan of complicity with Muslim radicals, the United States insists that it should join in with the US anti-terrorist campaigns. It would like Pakistan to break relations with Mullah Omar, the spiritual leader of the Afghan Taliban; with the Jalaluddin Haqqani network (now run by Jalaluddin’s sons, Sirajuddin and Badruddin); and with the Lashkar-e-Taiba — a militant group considered responsible for the devastating Mumbai attack of 2008.


But Pakistan sees the matter very differently. Created as a refuge for Indian Muslims after the 1947 partition of the subcontinent, it feels under permanent threat mainly from India. Many in its government consider that its national interest demands that it maintain close links with the Taliban and other radical Afghan Muslim networks as useful allies once US forces go home, as they will sooner or later. Indeed, troop withdrawals are due to start this July.

Pakistan is determined to exercise a degree of control over Afghanistan for two reasons. First, to prevent the realisation of the Pashtun dream of a ‘Greater Pakhtunistan’ astride the Durand Line, since this would mean the loss of Pakistan’s Pashtun-inhabited Northwest Frontier Province. The fact that Afghanistan still refuses to recognise the validity of the Durand Line, which divides the Pashtuns, keeps such Pakistani fears alive.

Pakistan is still smarting from the loss of Kashmir to India in the 1947-48 war, followed by the loss of East Pakistan — now Bangladesh — in the 1971 war. It dreads further amputations of its territory. Rather than pressing Pakistan to sever its ties with militant groups, the United States would be better advised to quieten Pakistani fears by putting pressure on India to resolve the Kashmir dispute.

The second reason why Pakistan is determined to keep Afghanistan within its own orbit is to prevent it falling under India’s influence, as this would result in Pakistan being encircled. Islamabad sees Afghanistan as its ‘strategic depth.’ The U.S.-Pakistani disagreement over Afghanistan serves to reinforce a deep-seated Pakistani suspicion that the United States isn’t a faithful partner, but one that abandons its allies once they cease to be useful. Throughout the 1980s, the United States — with help from Pakistan and funding from Saudi Arabia — recruited, armed and trained tens of thousands of Muslim volunteers to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. But once the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, the United States lost interest in these mujahedin. Finance for them was cut off. They were abandoned to their fate. Many weren’t wanted in their home countries. Osama bin Laden recruited them into al-Qaeda.

The paradox is that Pakistan has in recent years been pressured to do US bidding in making war on militant Islamic groups — in its own country if not in Afghanistan — and has paid dearly for it. Not only have military operations against these militants been extremely costly for Pakistan in men and treasure, but they have also provoked lethal retaliation from groups such as Tahrik-e-Taliban in the form of suicide bombings and other attacks. Pakistan’s internal security situation is now dire, and its economy gravely damaged. It’s wrestling with a soaring budget deficit, frequent power cuts and a growing danger of political and social chaos.

On May 22-23, a militant team raided Pakistan’s Mehran Naval Station in the heart of Karachi, the country’s economic capital, killing 12 security officers and destroying two high-tech Lockheed Martin maritime surveillance aircraft. The militants said the raid was to avenge bin Laden’s killing. Interior Minister Rehman Malik concluded that the country was in ‘a state of war.’

Pakistan thus finds itself under pressure from the United States to fight the militants, and under attack from the militants for waging the United States’ war for it. The United States gives Pakistan, a country of 180 million people, $3 billion in annual aid, rather less than it gives to Israel, with a population of 7 million. Little wonder that some leading Pakistanis have come to think that their country would be better off without the exorbitant encumbrance of this American connection.

Patrick Seale is UK-based writer.

http://the-diplomat.com/2011/06/04/the-us-is-losing-pakistan/

[bigron]

US drone strikes kill 21 in NW Pakistan



Mon Jun 6, 2011 4:44AM


Three unauthorized US drone strikes kill at least 21 people in South Waziristan in northwestern Pakistan.

A barrage of non-UN-sanctioned US drone strikes have killed at least 21 people and wounded several others in Pakistan's South Waziristan's tribal region near the Afghan border.

MORE

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/183380.html

[bigron]

Two Deaths in Pakistan:


 The Terrorist Who May Have Succeeded bin Laden, and the Journalist

By Omar Waraich Monday, June 06, 2011

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2075826,00.html#ixzz1ObB5TzAU

[bigron]

U.S., Pakistan authorities dispute militant's death


By Mark Hosenball

LONDON | Mon Jun 6, 2011 8:17pm EDT

LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. and Pakistani authorities disagree sharply over claims that senior al Qaeda leader Ilyas Kashmiri was killed in a recent missile strike, officials from both countries said on Monday, suggesting sharp strains persist between authorities in Washington and Islamabad.

MORE

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/07/us-pakistan-kashmiri-usa-idUSTRE75602I20110607

[bigron]

Pakistani Taliban vow revenge attacks on US targets

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\06\07\story_7-6-2011_pg1_5


* Taliban commander says Taliban have networks outside Pakistan


PESHAWAR: Pakistan’s Taliban, a close ally of al Qaeda, plans to attack American targets abroad to avenge the death of Osama bin Laden, said one of its senior leaders.

The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has delivered on threats to avenge the killing of bin Laden by US special forces in Abbottabad on May 2.

It bombed an American consulate convoy, laid siege to a naval base and blew up paramilitary cadets in Pakistan, which the Taliban sees as a US puppet and Washington regards as indispensable in its war on terrorism.

Omar Khalid Khorasani, the top Taliban commander in Mohmand, agreed to answer questions posed by Reuters and record them on a DVD.

The video starts with him and some associates sitting on the floor of a mud-walled house, eating mango slices and joking. Then he turns serious and speaks about the TTP’s intentions.

Recent TTP attacks in Pakistan were only the start of bloody reprisals after bin Laden’s death.

“These attacks were just a part of our revenge. God willing, the world will see how we avenge Osama bin Laden’s martyrdom,” said Khorasani. “We have networks in several countries outside Pakistan.”

The questions were delivered to Khorasani’s associates in Mohmand, and then he recorded his answers on tape and sent then back to a reporter who had interviewed him in the past.

The TTP has not demonstrated the ability to stage sophisticated attacks in the West. Its one apparent bid to carnage in the US failed.

It claimed responsibility for the botched car bomb attack in New York’s Times Square last year. But American intelligence agencies take it seriously. It was later added to the United States’ list of foreign terrorist organisations. reuters

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\06\07\story_7-6-2011_pg1_5

[bigron]

US drone strike kills 23 in Pakistan

Wed Jun 8, 2011 9:45AM




A US droneThe US has conducted another unauthorized drone airstrike in Pakistan's troubled northwest, leaving at least 23 people dead and several others wounded.

MORE

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/183744.html

[bigron]

'US drone rockets contain toxic agents'


Wed Jun 8, 2011 9:40AM




American Predator drone firing a Hellfire missile (file photo)Pakistani medical sources say missiles fired by US drones in attacks against Pakistani targets are contaminated with deadly chemical substances, a report says.

MORE

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/183743.html

[bigron]

June 8, 2011
http://counterpunch.com/qadir06082011.html

The Penalties of Overkill

Understanding Counter-Insurgency

By SHAUKAT QADIR

If there is a counter insurgency; there has to be an ongoing insurgency for it to counter. If there is an ongoing insurgency, it can only thrive if the insurgents have one or more grievances to create a cause. If there is a cause that has created insurgents, who have resorted to the use of force, they would only take recourse to violence if they have come to the realization that, without violence, their grievances have not been attended to.

The US COIN strategy revolves around the use of force, in fact relies upon excessive use of force, which is why it is doomed to fail. I have written in sufficient detail in earlier articles, on the situation in Afghanistan and the activities of US forces which resulted in creating those conditions, not to have to repeat them. Suffice it as a reminder that, once again, the Taliban have begun to represent the aspirations of a sizeable portion of Afghans.

In Pakistan, we are faced with a different set of circumstances. The most significant one being that our insurgents rule over the territories they control, merely by the use of force and do not represent the aspirations of the people. So, to that extent, the use of force against them is more easily justifiable. 

Pakistan’s military also, therefore, has frequently resorted to excessive use of force but it has been focused; targeting known militants, after confirming locations based on ‘reliable and actionable’ intelligence. The Pakistan military can boast two successes: Swat and South Waziristan, SWA.

Our problem is that, having created a politico-administrative vacuum by employing the military to oust the Pakistani insurgent Taliban (as I explained in an earlier article, not all Pakistani Taliban are insurgents against Pakistan; some are merely supporting the Afghan insurgency against US occupation of their land), the government refuses to govern the reclaimed territories.

By way of a few examples: Sabaoon (a Pushto word, meaning the crack of dawn and signifying hope) is a model venture in Mingora, Swat. It is a school run by a lady psychiatrist attempting to reclaim and rehabilitate young children whose minds had been corrupted and had been trained to become suicide bombers. Starting in 2009, she has had remarkable success. Almost 50 per cent of her students have returned home to lead normal lives. But the problem is; this was the brainchild of, funded by, and run under the aegis of the Pakistan army. No one at the provincial/central government level has even attempted to emulate this sterling example.

The Pakistan army is holding between 1500 to 2000 Taliban prisoners captured during the Swat and SWA operations, since 2009. By all legal standards, these individuals are in ‘illegal custody’ But, what can the army do? The political government is not prepared to take custody of them, let alone initiate legal proceedings. The Pakistan army refuses to follow the example set by the US in trying terrorists by a kangaroo military court. They can’t let them go. They won’t kill them. So, they continue to languish in illegal custody.

While Balochistan is beyond the focus of this study of COIN, it does provide another example of the point I am trying to make. One very legitimate complaint of the Baloch youth is that they have no access to affordable quality education and, therefore, are unable to compete against the youth of other provinces. Once again, in 2008, the army opened the only affordable school providing quality education to the Baloch youth in Quetta, capital of Balochistan. I believe the army plans on opening another in the interior at Khuzdar. Not enough; but a beginning. Once again, no one is prepared to emulate the army’s effort.

Today, when political administration has finally moved into Swat and surrounding areas, when faced with the most minor of crises, the civilian administration refuses to accept responsibility, seeking instructions from the senior-most accessible army officer; usually the local unit commander, a Lt Col.

Nonetheless, Pakistan is still better off than Afghanistan, even if the army is having to fill all aspects of COIN. It would be even better off, if the US didn’t feel compelled to stoke unrest within Pakistan.

Shaukat Qadir is a retired brigadier and a former president of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute. He can be reached at shaukatq@gmail.com
 

http://counterpunch.com/qadir06082011.html

[bigron]

   
 

Pakistan for Sale


By Salmana

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28277.htm


June 08, 2011 "Allvoices" -- Peshawar : Pakistan | Jun 05, 2011 -- Have been watching different economists and budget gurus giving their expert opinions and feedbacks on the budget. It is interesting to see the secret desires of most analysts: if they were the finance minister this is how the budget would have been free from all glitches. Was planning to scribble some thoughts on the reactions of these experts and the budget but at midnight the news of the so-called US “diplomats” attitude towards and with the Pakistani police and security agencies in Peshawar changed my line of thought.

The first phrase that came to my mind as I watched the blatant arrogance of the four Americans was “Pakistan for Sale” and second one was “Thou shall not be touched if thou art an American.” My history professor used to say that we are still slaves because of our mentalities. At midnight a car is stopped by our police given its suspicious movements in the city and worse still because the vehicle has a broken number plate AND displaying ANOTHER number plate behind the front window. Four US citizens are driving on the streets of Peshawar past midnight (when even most Pakistanis fear to tread the streets of Peshawar) without the knowledge of the Pakistani security agencies. An interrogation of more than 1.5 hours takes place without our Amreeke “masters” even getting off the car!! No information whatsoever is given for at least an hour about the false number plate and no reason given about what they were doing in the middle of night even when locals also fear to travel in that sensitive zone. The national media channels (BBC and CNN remain asleep) report that the Interior minister Rehman Malik has ordered that the vehicle be towed to the local police station and for the rule of law to be followed (my wife and I almost choked with ironic laughter at hearing his remarks conveyed through a reporter), but maybe his voice never reached the police officials, since they checked the American passports (which were of course “diplomatic”) and allowed them to depart (not before offering them a cup of tea, mind you)!

I honestly do not know whether to laugh at how low our country has fallen or hold my head in shame. I cannot really blame the police who probably wet their pants (pardon my crude language) the minute they found the car had Americans in them, but who else can and should I blame? If it was some four Pakistanis (with beards) in a car with tinted windows who refused to roll down their windows or get off the car, our police would automatically have shown their bravery, balls and mentality by breaking down the windows and worse! Incidentally, no Pakistani would dare take a “panga” like this in the first place. Such double standards- the interrogation of a Pakistani would have been so downright insulting and abusive that the citizen would feel ashamed and I wonder why he was born in this country.

After the Raymond Davis slap in the face by the American government, we all know Americans (read Americans with diplomatic immunity, since now they probably ALL have it regardless) have no respect for the laws in other countries, especially Pakistan. If they had genuine documents why were they scared to get off the car? The way they were confidently chatting and laughing in the car it gave us a signal that they don’t care or to be more precise they gave us a finger. I am sure if these so called diplomats were in their own country showing the same behaviour they would be in jail or worse shot! We have witnessed what they did to Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer or recently IMF chief in New York. This is what is known as rule of law and how it is implemented.

My friend went to US and returned with three US born kids along with his PhD. He told me that now he is father of the strongest kids with brightest future. Today I realized that may be he was right that being a US citizen means you have the license to abuse everyone. Now Pakistan has another breed of coconuts- brown from outside but white from inside. Or may be Pakistan was never a free country and only the masters increased from one British colonist to the whole developed world.

Is it really easy to buy any country? Are the individuals born in such countries mentally paralyzed and physically circumcised?

Pakistan should demand a written apology from the US embassy for the behaviour exhibited by their so called diplomats. Haven’t we stooped enough in front of our masters?

The writer is an economist and an academic, based in Troy, New York and is Stringer for Allvoices
 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28277.htm