Author Topic: David Rothscum Reports: The collapse of Pakistan: planned years in advance  (Read 8156 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
http://davidrothscum.blogspot.com/2009/04/collapse-of-pakistan-has-been-planned.html

Thursday, April 23, 2009
The collapse of Pakistan has been planned years in advance
Now that the Taliban have taken up positions only 60 miles removed from Pakistan's Capital, the mainstream media is getting us used to the idea that Pakistan's government may collapse any moment now. Hillary Clinton accused the Pakistani government of allowing the Taliban to take over the entire country.

What nobody outside of Pakistan ever seems to want to talk about is that the US has planned for this to happen for years now and actively worked to ensure it would.
Back in January of 2005, a senior Pakistani Diplomat, Wajid Shamsul Hasan, who has served as Pakistan's envoy to the UK, reported on a CIA document that predicted a lot of what we are currently seeing. He wrote:

    This brings out of me the apprehension: are our military rulers working on an a similar agenda or something that has been laid out for them in the various assessment reports over the years by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) in joint collaboration with CIA. It was poor Miraj Khalid who as interim prime minister in early 1997 had dared to confide to the Pakistanis that CIA had forecast Pakistan's denouement by the year 2015.

    In the previous edition of its Global Futures assessment the NIC report cast a dark shadow on Pakistan's future five years ago. It said that by the 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 its complete Talibanization. It had predicted, "Pakistan will not recover easily from decades of political and economic mismanagement, divisive policies, 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."

    (...)

    In the context of Balochistan, one would like to refer back to the 2015 NIC report. It forecast a Yugoslavia-like fate for Pakistan. The military operation that has been put in motion would further distance Baloch people from rest of the country. That perhaps is the plan. This brings me to an interesting observation in a book by Abul Maali Syed "The Twin Era of Pakistan-Democracy and Dictatorship" (1992). The caption of his First Chapter is 2006 and its opening para is as follows: "Who would have believed that Balochistan, once the least-populated and poorest province of Pakistan, would become independent and the third richest oil-producing country after Saudi Arabia and Kuwait".

A look at American government websites shows that Mr. Wajid Shamsul Hasan claims can easily be verified.
In December 2000, even before 9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, the National Intelligence Council published a document called "GLOBAL TRENDS 2015: A Dialogue About the Future With Nongovernment Experts". About Pakistan it has the following to say:

    Pakistan in 2015. Pakistan, our conferees concluded, 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.

These reports are all very reminiscent of what American General Ralph Peters wrote for a military journal. In 2006 he advocated a complete change of borders in the Middle East. He had also made the following maps about how the new Middle East should look:



Although these plans might sound far fetched, parts are already becoming reality. In Saudi Arabia, a growing number of members of the Shiite population that lives on top of most of the oil want their region to become independent. America's current Vice President, Joe Biden proposed in 2006 to divide Iraq into three different regions.

A look at other documents from the same website shows a possible motive for the destruction of Pakistan. A document from April of 2002 mentions:

    Some participants felt
    that the price India would force China to pay
    in order to slow down US-Indian relations
    would be to “cut loose” Pakistan as a strategic
    ally of China. Once severed from Chinese aid
    and political support, Pakistan would be
    increasingly vulnerable to Indian political
    coercion and conventional military pressure.
    Many participants felt that China could not
    accept this result, because without Pakistan as
    a strategic distraction to India Chinese
    security would rest primarily on Indian good
    will rather than on a balance of power. Other
    participants noted that China probably has
    alternatives to giving up on Pakistan, but
    participants disagreed over whether India
    would accept any concessions.

This is in line with what others have said about larger US plans for the region. Webster Tarpley wrote:

    The playbook for the Principals is the Brzezinski Plan, with its focus on working towards a global showdown with Russia and China. A US-UK attack on Iran is now virtually excluded, but instead large-scale bombing and preparations for a land invasion of northwest Pakistan are proceeding apace. The pretext cited here is the search for Bin Laden and the need to combat the Taliban, but the real goal is to start the breakup of Pakistan into five or six petty states ­ because Pakistan is a Chinese ally, and all allies and trading partners of China are presently being targeted for regime change, destabilization, and Balkanization, from Sudan to Zimbabwe to Burma to Venezuela to Pakistan.

All evidence points towards China and Pakistan being close allies, while the United States and India are allies against Pakistan and China. China has recently paid to install new nuclear reactors in Pakistan for example. This came after India bought nuclear reactors from the US.
At the same time American companies are providing India with new fighter jets.
The excuse the Pentagon gives for this is that:

    "China's massive military build-up poses a ''long-term threat'' to regional powers such as India and Japan, besides to Taiwan and the American forces in the Pacific"

As I showed in an earlier report, Webster Tarpley can be proven right about Sudan as well, where Israel is funding rebel groups that attack Chinese oil rigs in the country.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the US is actively involved in trying to destroy Pakistan. For example, in 2001, many of the Taliban forces that were defeated in Afghanistan were allowed to flee to Pakistan.
More importantly, the United States funds Jundullah, a Baluchi seperatist group, to destabilize Iran. This is confirmed by the former Army Chief of Pakistan, Mirza Aslam Baig. The Baluch are a people that live in the region where Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan border eachother. This region is shown in Ralph Peter's map as becoming an independent region. But it's important to note that Jundullah is also active in Pakistan. In 2004 they were involved in an unsuccesful attempt to assasinate a General of Pakistan, in which 10 people died.
Jundullah members are trained in South Waziristan by members of Al Qaeda.

Another method to destabilize Pakistan are the constant bombings of Pakistan under Bush and Obama. While Obama claimed these attacks would be used to kill senior Al Qaeda members, they've only angered the population and helped strengthen the Taliban. The Pakistani public has every reason to be angry. Between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, the total number of 60 cross border strikes that the US carried out killed 14 al-Qaeda leaders, and 687 innocent Pakistani civilians, according to Pakistani officials. The US government must know the effects of it's indiscriminate slaughter in Pakistan. Back in November of 2008 Pakistan warned the US that it's missile attacks were counterproductive in it's war against terrorism, but Obama only increased the frequency of attacks.

It's admitted by the CIA that these attacks serve to provoke more attacks by forces in Pakistan.
Michael Hayden for example said:

    "We use military operations to excite the enemy, prompting him to respond. In that response we learn so much''

These attacks will just continue because they hasten the larger US plan for the region: To destroy Pakistan to aid the main opposition to China in the region, India.

Offline TheHouseMan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,837
Pakistan is armed. A world army cannot operate if the people are armed. Hence, the US is going after Pakistan.

Offline grapecrusher1

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,537
good report.  It is interesting and I am unsurprised.
"The meek shall inherit NOTHING" -- Zappa

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Excellent write up.

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Thanks guys, and thanks for the sticky.

Offline darsie

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 652
I don't dispute the accuracy of the OP - but I can't see how this recent military offensive in the Swat valley plays into all of this - particularly when it appears the Pakistan army is being actively assisted by the US military and drones.

Offline bigron

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Obama’s Middle East Imperialism


by Shamus Cooke

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m54178&hd=&size=1&l=e

May 11, 2009

The velvet gloves are off and the reality of Obama’s Middle East plans are being revealed: a bare-fisted pummeling of Afghanistan and Pakistan — with Iraq’s fate yet to be determined.

The media have been preparing this for months, with incessant talk about the alleged "troop drawdown" in Iraq, the "surge" in Afghanistan and the "immediate threat" that supposedly is represented by Pakistan.

It’s now crystal clear that zero "change" will be forthcoming when it comes to U.S. foreign policy, minus a strategic shifting of troops. This fact was highlighted recently when Obama asked for an additional $83.4 billion in "emergency spending" to fight the Iraq/Afghan/Pakistan wars. It must be noted that so-called "emergency funds" were precisely the avenue Bush chose to fight his wars, enabling him to skirt the already-gigantic military budget.

The 2010 military budget is now set at $534 billion (!), not counting emergency spending; a 4 percent increase from the previous year. At a time when jobs, education, health, and public services are being slashed all over the country, calling such a budget "highly immoral" would be an understatement.

Also morally questionable is the extension of the Afghanistan war into Pakistan, a bitter pill to swallow for those who once sincerely believed in Obama’s antiwar rhetoric. The house appropriations committee recently approved $2.3 billion in "emergency spending" for "assistance" to Pakistan, most of it for the purpose of making war: training Pakistani "counterinsurgency" forces and police and building a fortified U.S. super embassy.

In an attempt to fool the American public about Pakistan, Obama has substituted the always-unpopular ground troops with unmanned drones, stepping up the use of this highly inaccurate form of combat since becoming President and consequently killing hundreds of civilians. Obama has also laid down the law for his puppet presidents in Afghanistan and Pakistan: they will fight his war to the end or be replaced. The recent scene in Washington of these two Presidents declaring "unity and cooperation" with Obama’s war plans was perhaps the most farcical imperialist media show in recent history.

The "historic" meeting took place after weeks of U.S. government and military officials denouncing the two Presidents, along with open suggestions that a "better" leader should lead either country, i.e., wage Obama’s wars. In the Washington Post we read:

"On all fronts," said a senior U.S. official, "Hamid Karzai has plateaued as a leader."

And:

"Obama intends to maintain an arm's-length relationship with Karzai in the hope that it will lead him to address issues of concern to the United States, according to senior U.S. government officials." (May 5, 2009)

What are these "issues of concern"? The Post explains:

"Obama wanted a renewed commitment by Karzai to better coordinate operations with Pakistan and the U.S., which will expand its military presence in Afghanistan under the president's revised war strategy against the Taliban."

Karzai got the message, and so did Zardari in Pakistan, who received similar messages from both the media and politicians (the Post article states that Obama has only spoken to Karzai twice since becoming President!). Above all, Obama wanted completely pliable puppets, as opposed to the anti-American rhetoric both Presidents had used on multiple occasions so as not to appear complicit in having their own people massacred.

The meeting of the Presidents quelled this. Both Presidents sounded as if they were reading scripts as they talked about their "unwavering" fight against the Taliban. Ironically, a convenient test of loyalty occurred during the summit: it was discovered that American fighter jets had massacred at least 147 people in Afghanistan. Both Obama and the Afghani President were utterly stoic about the news. Instead of addressing the immense human suffering of the slaughter, they renewed their commitment to the war, while blandly adding: "Every effort is made to reduce civilian casualties."

Although the latest bombing resembles in every way the horrors depicted in Picasso’s painting Guernica, it is not especially unique. Using fighter jets against the Afghani people has now become common place, with the number of bombing raids increasing month to month. The Washington Post article explains:

"As Taliban activity has increased in recent years, overwhelmed soldiers have increasingly resorted to calling in air strikes, resulting in numerous civilian casualties."

The tried and true colonial tactic of terrorizing a population into submission is now the route being employed in Afghanistan — shock and awe Vietnam style.

And although Obama has stated repeatedly that he is trying to "finish up" Bush’s wars, he is in fact escalating them. The above-mentioned military spending prompted Democratic congresswoman Lynn Woolsey to point out the obvious:

"[The spending] will prolong our occupation of Iraq through at least the end of 2011, and it will deepen and expand our military presence in Afghanistan indefinitely." (Obama promised recently that all troops would be out of Iraq by 2011, the date the Bush administration had previously negotiated.)

The question must be asked: Why is Obama pursuing this policy?

One easy explanation is Obama’s extremely close ties to Wall Street. U.S. banks are but one type of corporation that benefit greatly from a U.S.- dominated Middle East. Becoming the primary banker for the region would be a very profitable endeavor; this applies with equal weight to weapons producing companies, and those paid to "reconstruct" a country after it is destroyed, not to mention corporations — oil, mining, U.S. exporters, etc. — that benefit from having a monopoly over a fully "pacified" nation.

Straying from this policy would require that the government pursue policies that directly benefit ordinary people, instead of those that cater to corporations and the rich that own them.

Breaking the corporate dominance over social life requires that the market economy (capitalism) itself be opposed, since nothing is produced unless it can be sold for profit on the world market, and where the struggle to dominate this market leads corporations based in different countries to advocate for a policy of never-ending war.

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org). He can be reached
at [email protected]



 

Offline Jackson Holly

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,433
  • It's the TV, stupid!
    • JACKSON HOLLY'S OLD HOME PLACE
Quote
One easy explanation is Obama’s extremely close ties to Wall Street. U.S. banks are but one type of corporation that benefit greatly from a U.S.- dominated Middle East. Becoming the primary banker for the region would be a very profitable endeavor; this applies with equal weight to weapons producing companies, and those paid to "reconstruct" a country after it is destroyed, not to mention corporations — oil, mining, U.S. exporters, etc. — that benefit from having a monopoly over a fully "pacified" nation.

This is at the core: Forget Osamabama, he just reads what is handed to him by the
NWO Military Banksters. They are simply going after all those countries in the region, enslaving the populations, stealing the resources ... and girding their power as they march toward Beijing.
St. Augustine: “The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it.
Let it loose; it will defend itself."

Offline darsie

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 652
This is at the core: Forget Osamabama, he just reads what is handed to him by the
NWO Military Banksters. They are simply going after all those countries in the region, enslaving the populations, stealing the resources ... and girding their power as they march toward Beijing.

Seconded.

PNAC called for endless war - and now we have it.

Mike Philbin

  • Guest
so, just another game of facking Monopoly?

THAT'S NOT THE WORLD I WANT, plus Monopoly is a SUCK board game (!)

Give me Twister, any day. Mmm, left hand red spot, right foot yellow spot. Tumble time.

;)

David, get some MSM website (or Lou Dobbs) interested in this and you're made boy, you're made.

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
so, just another game of facking Monopoly?

THAT'S NOT THE WORLD I WANT, plus Monopoly is a SUCK board game (!)

Give me Twister, any day. Mmm, left hand red spot, right foot yellow spot. Tumble time.

;)

David, get some MSM website (or Lou Dobbs) interested in this and you're made boy, you're made.

I wish Infowars or Prison Planet would re-print or re-edit or what ever David Rothscums articles.

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
so, just another game of facking Monopoly?

THAT'S NOT THE WORLD I WANT, plus Monopoly is a SUCK board game (!)

Give me Twister, any day. Mmm, left hand red spot, right foot yellow spot. Tumble time.

;)

David, get some MSM website (or Lou Dobbs) interested in this and you're made boy, you're made.
I wish Infowars or Prison Planet would re-print or re-edit or what ever David Rothscums articles.

Thanks guys for motivating me to continue writing.

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Thanks guys for motivating me to continue writing.

Perhaps you could phone in to Jason ?