North Korea in ‘early phase of all-out confrontation with US’

North Korea in ‘early phase of all-out confrontation with US’

North Korea has pledged to begin work “weaponising” plutonium to create another nuclear bomb as it delivered a furious response to a UN resolution ordering a fresh round of sanctions against the rogue Stalinist state.

By Peter Foster in Beijing
Published: 12:00PM BST 13 Jun 2009

North Korea in 'early phase of all-out confrontation with US'

The Yongbyon complex nuclear facility, some100 km (60 miles) north of Pyongyang, North Korea Photo: EPA

The regime of the ailing dictator Kim Jong-il said it was now in the “early phase of all-out confrontation with the US” as it sought to raise tensions on the Korean Peninsular to dangerous new levels.

On Friday the Security Council ordered an almost-total arms embargo and a raft of strict financial sanctions against the North in punishment for its testing of a second nuclear device last month.

In a bellicose statement, Pyongyang described the sanctions as the “vile product” of US policy in the region, adding that it would also begin work enriching uranium as it sought to build up stocks of fissile material for its nuclear weapons programme.

The North is thought to have approximately 8,000 spent plutonium fuel rods which, if reprocessed, could yield 6-8kg of high-grade plutonium, or enough to make at least one more nuclear bomb.

The sanctions have also authorised UN member-states to stop and search North Korean vessels on the high seas if they suspect they are carrying banned nuclear or missile components, a measure that has drawn particular ire from Pyongyang.

North Korea replied that any attempt to blockade its ships would be regarded “as an act of war and met with a decisive military response”, and promised to meet any confrontation with “all-out confrontation”.

The belligerent response to the sanctions order, which explicitly rules out the use of military force, was anticipated by the US which has sought to downplay tensions, repeatedly calling for Pyongyang to return to the negotiating table.

US intelligence sources have said they now fully expect North Korea to test a third nuclear device and go ahead with another test-firing of its Taepodong-2 ballistic missile, for which preparations are already under way according to satellite imagery.

Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, said that “based on past experience and a pattern that North Korea has of reckless and dangerous actions, it would not be a surprise if North Korea reacted to this very tough sanctions regime in a fashion that would be further provocation.”

The latest round of brinkmanship from Pyongyang comes after six months in which relations have deteriorated rapidly after the Six-Party nuclear disarmament talks stalled last December over US demands for fuller verification of North Korea’s decommissioning.

After being censured by the UN for conducting a ballistic missile test in April, the North reacted by testing a second nuclear device last month, which analysts said had four times the power of its first test in October 2006.

The second test was also seen as an attempt by the physically ailing Kim Jong-il to bolster his standing at home prior to the announcement that his 25-year-old son, Kim Jong-un, would be his successor.

Diplomatic engagement with Pyongyang since 2006 has been based on the idea that North Korea would give up its nuclear program in return for food and fuel aid which it desperately needs to feed its people and prop up its bankrupt regime.

However in yesterday’s statement Pyongyang said it was now “an absolutely impossible option” for it to give up its nuclear weapons, adding “it makes no difference to the DPRK [North Korea] whether its nuclear status is recognised or not”.

Analysts said the impact of the latest sanctions regime would depended on how far China and the US were prepared to act to enforce the new provisions, particularly stopping and searching North Korean shipping.

During two weeks of intense negotiations in New York, both Russia and China argued for a softer approach to Pyongyang, fearing that draconian measures could be counterproductive and further destabilise the regime.

Although the resolution was eventually passed unanimously, China was quick to emphasise after the vote that the cargo inspections were “very complicated and sensitive” and could not carried out by force.

“The countries concerned have to act prudently in accordance with international and domestic laws,” said Zhang Yesui, China’s UN ambassador, “Under no circumstances should there be the use of force or the threat of use of force.”

Disagreements Persist Over Georgian Territories

Disagreements Persist Over Georgian Territories

By MARC CHAMPION

Disagreements between Moscow and the West over the status of two Georgian territories Russia has controlled since winning a brief war last year are threatening to force the withdrawal of international observer missions there.

Negotiations this week in New York aimed at agreeing on terms to renew the mandate for United Nations monitors in one of the territories, Abkhazia, failed to break the deadlock, according to an official familiar with the process.

[Russia Georgia territory photo] ReutersGeorgia’s interior ministry servicemen inspect the site of an explosion at a railway station in Zugdidi June 11, 2009.

Moscow objects to language in the draft resolution that would reaffirm Georgia’s territorial integrity and call for all sides to abide by the terms of an Aug. 12 ceasefire that requires Russian troop withdrawals, Western diplomats say.

The UN Security Council is due to vote on the mandate renewal Monday. The Security Council could then vote to temporarily extend the current mandate, which requires only tacit agreement to controversial language concerning Georgia’s territorial integrity.

“But there is no guarantee,” there will be an extension, said Eka Tkeshelashvili, secretary of Georgia’s National Security Council.

Similar issues have caused the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to call a time out on talks to renew the mandate for its mission to Georgia, which includes monitors for South Ossetia.

The OSCE mission is packing its bags and will close, unless there is a breakthrough by June 30, according to people familiar with the matter. OSCE monitors haven’t been allowed back into South Ossetia since the war.

Russia accused Georgia of starting the war in South Ossetia in August, when President Mikheil Saakashvili ordered an attack on the Russian-backed separatist capital Tskhinvali, claiming that a Russian invasion was imminent.

Russia’s military intervened massively, claiming genocide, and temporarily occupied large swathes of the country.

Moscow later withdrew its forces to within the enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. But Moscow also recognized the two territories’ claims to independence, a move Georgia has described as de facto annexation. Russia says the territories can’t be expected to return to Georgia after being attacked in the early 1990s, and in South Ossetia’s case again last year.

Only Nicaragua has joined Moscow in recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent countries. Russia, however, says its recognition has invalidated the August ceasefire, which required all sides to withdraw their forces to positions before the conflict. Russia is currently building military bases in both territories, including at an airfield and a deep water naval port in Abkhazia.

A spokesman for Russia’s mission to the United Nations declined to comment on continuing negotiations. Western diplomats say Russia doesn’t seem to necessarily want to drive the monitors out of Abkhazia, but is digging in hard over the language.

Georgian leaders, however, say a U.N. acceptance of Russia’s position on the ground would be too high a price to pay to keep an international presence. “This is all we have—a very firm international recognition of Georgia’s territorial integrity, and a universal international recognition of Russia’s obligation to withdraw its forces,” says Ms. Tkeshelashvili. Accepting a U.N. resolution without that language would “erode the only strength we have,” she said.

Loss of the international missions would leave no independent observers to monitor military movements, ceasefire breaches or the treatment of civilians remaining in the two territories. A European Union mission monitors areas of Georgia outside Russian control, but has been denied access to Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

The latest report on the Abkhaz mission last month documented movements of Russian heavy armor into and out of the U.N. Observer Mission in Georgia’s inspection zone in Abkhazia, and documented a murder and a mass hostage-taking. The report also said it found no evidence to support a Russian claim that Georgia had moved 2000 special-force troops into the area.

Moscow appears willing to play hardball. When Russians and Georgians met in Geneva to continue talks last month, the Russian delegation walked out saying it wouldn’t return unless the U.N. adopted acceptable language in a report by the Secretary General ahead of the mandate renewal for Abkhazia, according to two people familiar with the talks.

When the report was published soon afterward, it broke from previous U.N. documents by not referring to Abkhazia and South Ossetia as parts of Georgia. It also didn’t mention the need for compliance with the ceasefire. Georgian officials were furious, publicly accusing U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon of giving way to blackmail. The UN denied that charge in a statement, which said the report was drafted “to avoid unnecessary politicization of the debate among members of the Security Council.”

—Joe Lauria at the United Nations contributed to this article.

Write to Marc Champion at marc.champion@wsj.com

New Tactics, Combined Ops for Afghanistan

New Tactics, Combined Ops for Afghanistan

New Tactics, Combined Ops for Afghanistan

By Greg Grant Friday, June 12th, 2009 11:40 am
Posted in International, Land, Policy

The military is taking new ways of fighting, learned on Iraq’s battlefields, to Afghanistan. The new approach combines troops operating in distributed teams on the ground supported by vast numbers of aerial drones, satellites, precision weapons and spies working informants, according to Gen. David Petraeus.

“This is the answer,” the Central Command chief said before an overflow crowd yesterday at the annual CNAS conference in Washington, “This is how we fight, when we can, with all of the assets that we have.” While acknowledging that the rural and mountainous Afghan landscape is very different from Iraq’s concentrated urban battle zones, to counter the “Pashtun insurgency,” the military is trying to replicate the same operational approach that proved highly effective in battling a shadowy enemy in Iraq.

He showed a slide depicting a snap shot of the fighting in Sadr City in April 2008, and contrasted the new way of fighting in that battle with the old way of fighting as exemplified by the 2004 battles in Fallujah. To root out entrenched guerrillas there, Marines and soldiers were forced to fight street-by-street and house-to-house, and in the process, particularly in the case of the Marines, suffered heavy casualties and leveled much of the city.

The Sadr city offensive was very different, using precision firepower and targeted raids based on accurate human and electronic intelligence. In spring 2008, the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militia launched counterattacks in Baghdad in response to the U.S. and Iraqi offensive to root out Shiite militias in the southern city of, Basra. They attacked the Green Zone and other targets around Baghdad, primarily with rockets, from inside Sadr City.

American commanders responded with a high-low mix of special operations and regular troops on the ground conducting targeted raids and aggressive sniping, supported by a fantastic array of electronic eyes overhead, and a network of spies and informants in the shadows. Petraeus listed the assets that supported soldiers, tanks, Bradleys and Strykers in the streets and alleys: 11 UAVs overhead 24 hours a day including armed Predators, 3 each Shadows and Ravens, a special intelligence drone, a SOF drone, satellites, fire-finder radars ringing the city, surveillance blimps, cameras atop towers, SEAL sniper teams and CIA spies. In three weeks, they destroyed 77 rocket teams and took out about 780 militia fighters, Petraeus said.

“We’re shifting these kinds of assets to Afghanistan,” he said, “we’re taking those lessons from Iraq and trying to apply them in Afghanistan.” The focus of the U.S. counteroffensive in Afghanistan is the Pashtun insurgency, Petraeus said, based in Kandahar and Helmand provinces where U.S. troops are now flowing. The newly appointed American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, will have a much larger force to battle the insurgents than did his predecessor Gen. McKiernan. U.S. troop strength there is rising from the 31,000 troops at the end of last year to what will be nearly 68,000 by the fall.

An additional Combat Aviation Brigade is being sent to Kandahar, which, along with the Marine aircraft, doubles the number of helicopters in Afghanistan; Petraeus said it increases by six-fold the number of helicopters available for combat operations because so many of the helicopters there now are tasked with the medevac mission. The Marine Expeditionary Brigade is going into Helmand province, which is being prepped for their arrival by special operations forces. The Stryker brigade, just now arriving, will go to Kandahar. A brigade from the 82nd, beefed up with additional junior officers and NCOs, will be scattered about to provide advisers for Afghan military and police units, again primarily in the south.

The paratroopers will hopefully help address what Petraeus said is the biggest challenge at the moment: trying to rapidly build the Afghan army. Finding good Afghan division, brigade and battalion commanders along with large numbers of field grades to provide needed field staff is proving particularly difficult. Producing those leaders will take years of experience, education and training, he said.

Man Claiming to be FBI Informant Spins Quite a Tale

spying-mosque-low.jpg

A location scout for a spy movie could not have picked a better location for my late December meeting with Craig Monteilh: a table outside a restaurant in a bustling Irvine shopping center. A lensman would appreciate the shadow-erasing clouds hovering overhead on the warm winter morning. And central casting could not have found a better leading man: Monteilh is tall, intense, talkative, with a shaved head and the kind of cut body one would expect from someone who is now a fitness instructor. All that was missing was the story, which Monteilh was just itching to tell.
“I’m looking forward to getting my name back where it should be,” he said.

The gist of 46-year-old’s tale: that he had taped Afghans, Iraqis and Pakistanis espousing radical ideas and in some cases plotting terrorism in Orange County. Not quite trusting the source–for a variety of reasons, which will soon become clear–we sat on his story.

Then, at dawn on Feb. 20, federal agents arrested 34-year-old Afghan native Ahmad Niazi at his Tustin home. Something about the Los Angeles Times‘ coverage of the arrest sounded familiar.

Looking at my Monteilh interview notes with fresh eyes, I saw that I only scribbled down one name as he had been talking about alleged terror plotters:

Ahmad Niazi.

As I shifted into scramble mode, trying to get back in touch with Monteilh, Niazi was indicted last week on five fraud and perjury counts. At Niazi’s bail hearing, the government also alleged an unnamed informant got e-mails and recordings of the eight-year Tustin resident talking about initiating jihad, getting weapons, blowing up buildings, sending money overseas to the Afghan mujahedin and even calling Osama bin Laden “an angel.”

Thomas J. Ropel III, an FBI special agent and Marine-trained counter-terrorism specialist assigned to the Orange County Joint Terrorism Task Force, testified that Niazi taught the informant Arabic and was preparing to send him to terrorist training camps in Yemen or Pakistan. Ropel said he could not identify the undercover man.

Then Monteilh outed himself. His story appeared in today’s Times. Monteilh repeated something he had told me: He wanted to clear his name. It’s obvious Southern California’s daily newspaper of record also has their doubts about much of Monteilh’s largely unconfirmed story. Here is how he told it to me, nearly two months ago:

He was a chaplain for six years with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, where he also dabbled in the intelligence division. Because of his bi-racial looks and grasp of spy work and religion, unnamed authorities believed Monteilh “could get into certain areas.” He was recruited by the FBI in 2004 and flown to Virginia for counter-terrorism training. There he was taught to read, write and speak Arabic.

“The FBI knew there were suspicious activities happening in mosques,” particularly in Southern California, Monteilh said. One famous case was that of 30-year-old Adam Gadahn, the former resident of Santa Ana’s Floral Park neighborhood and member of the Islamic Society of Orange County in Garden Grove. After settling in Pakistan, Gadahn joined Al-Qaeda and became “Azzam the American.”  Monteilh said his assignment was to infiltrate mosques in Irvine, Tustin, Anaheim, Culver City, West Covina and San Pedro. His contact on the outside was an “FBI Agent Armstrong.” Monteilh was certain others were sent to infiltrate Southern California mosques as well.

He arrived at the Islamic Center of Irvine in 2006 and befriended members, using the name Farouk Aziz, always wearing robes and, though he has no facial hair now, growing a long beard. “The imams and sheiks wanted me to go to Cairo University and learn for the Americans,” he said.

But about a year in, an incident he would not describe–other than saying it was unrelated to what he was doing at the mosque –caused people he’d been spying on to wonder about him. To test their suspicions, these mosque members went to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), whose California office is in Anaheim. The Muslim education and human rights group in turn contacted Irvine Police and the FBI to say Farouk Aziz was spreading “jihad” talk around the mosque, which eventually got a restraining order against him.

In press reports at the time, the FBI would neither confirm nor deny an investigation was under way at the Islamic Center.

The August 2007 issue of InFocus, the Southern California Muslim news source, included the story, “Is Big Brother At Your Mosque?” Reporter Abdussalam Mohamed named Niazi as one of the young Muslims who turned in Monteilh. It is actually comical, according to the story, how Niazi figured out the supposed convert might not be who he had claimed to be: Monteilh wrote his real name instead of his fake one on the roll of an Arab language class Niazi taught.

Monteilh told me the InFocus story led to death threats from the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and someone in Irvine with ties to the Taliban.

“They ruined my reputation,” he said. “I need to be known for what I did. They have me as a terrorist or a potential terrorist. The Islamic community has a restraining order against me because of my ‘jihadist views.’ I was carrying out a direct order.”

He claimed the people he was investigating blew his cover to protect themselves. That’s the same argument Ropel used in court Tuesday. The agent acknowledged that Niazi and others at his mosque came forward to turn in a convert who “was scary to them,” but that the bureau believed Niazi figured out the convert was an informant and filed the report to protect himself.

If Monteilh’s tale did not cause the hairs on the back of your neck to stiffen, just Google his name. Like a Christmas tree, the Internet light up with stories of him being a conman, a gold digger, something of a nut and possibly a government informant–with a criminal record extending back to 1987, with charges ranging from forgery to burglary and grand theft. His Orange County rap sheet alone includes 18 charges between January 2006 and November 2007. But here is the strange part: all but two were dismissed, on the same day.

Confronted with his online infamy, Monteilh claimed that, after he’d been exposed, unnamed officials in the government spread stories about him on the Internet to protect the undercover surveillance program. “When you Google me, that’s the government,” he said.

So how could he prove he was a government spy? He produced stapled photocopies of what he claimed was a court document that a judge in West Covina would later go on to seal. He said it was the disposition of a grant theft auto case in which he was found guilty. He pointed to a section on the last page that stated, beneath the sentencing part, that the Los Angeles County prosecutor asked the judge to cut short Monteilh’s probation because he is an FBI informant who an Agent Armstrong says is doing good undercover work. Keep in mind this was the prosecution, not his own defense. Monteilh considered this government proof that he was indeed an FBI informant.

He went on to tell me he tried to get a similar assist after he later got caught up in a crime related to an Irvine drug bust. He claimed that in the months leading up to his outing at the mosque, there had been internal debate within the FBI over the entire informant program. A female FBI official Monteilh would not name “hated him” and the program, which many agents wanted to end. Others felt he had been supplying valuable information which, unfortunately for him, remained classified. The faction against the program won, and no one from the bureau intervened on Monteilh’s behalf. When we spoke, he said he’d just returned from 16 months behind bars.

Those two charges in Orange County that were not dismissed? Grant theft, for which records show he served 16 months in state prison.

This morning, I sent the FBI everything Monteilh claimed about his role with the bureau.
“The FBI is not commenting,” replied Laura Eimiller of FBI Press Relations in Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department had no record of Craig Monteilh being an employee, although they did once have an “A. Konteilh.” I was transferred to the city jail, which keeps separate records on volunteer chaplains, but a Sgt. Wong told me once a chaplain leaves the Religious Services Department, his or her volunteer badge is retrieved and records are purged–unless the department has reason to believe the volunteer “is one of our problem children.” I told Wong Monteilh has an arrest record, so he very well could be. Wong said he would double-check for me. I’m still waiting.

When we met, Monteilh suggested I contact Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Anaheim CAIR office, which I did.

“I have never trusted Monteilh,” Ayloush told me. “He is very suspicious.”

I explained the source of his suspicion had told me it was in the FBI’s best interest and CAIR’s best interest if Monteilh was portrayed as a crook.

“I can see why it is in the FBI’s best interest to have him be seen as a con man rather than an informant,” Ayloush said, “but I am not sure what he meant with it being in CAIR’s best interest.”

It is, Monteilh claimed, so CAIR can protect Muslims like Niazi.

“That’s interesting,” Ayloush responded. “From what was reported to us, a few young Muslims hung around him and held discussions about hot political topics. At the moment he talked about actually committing violence, they called the police on him and asked me to call the FBI on their behalf, which I did. The FBI did not show any interest in taking action, which told me he was an informant–more like a provocateur.”

“Hussam Aloush [sic] of CAIR doesn’t know for certain,” Monteilh wrote me in an e-mail after I’d gone over what Ayloush told me. “He doesn’t know the suspected targets and why they are targeted. He doesn’t know and may not want to know the level of radicalism in the mosques. I have emails from suspected targets to prove it. I have jihadist websites given to me by radicals.”

Before we parted that morning in Irvine, Monteilh had one more thing he wanted to tell me. Motioning toward the parking lot as cars zoomed by, he said, “They’re listening to all this, you know?”

There go those hairs on the back of the neck again.

McChrystal, Rockefeller’s General (CFR)

The Hidden General

Stan McChrystal runs ‘black ops.’ Don’t pass it on.
By By Michael Hirsh and John Barry | NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Jun 26, 2006

No one would have mentioned his name at all if President George W. Bush hadn’t singled him out in public. Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, West Point ’76, is not someone the Army likes to talk about. He isn’t even listed in the directory at Fort Bragg, N.C., his home base. That’s not because McChrystal has done anything wrong–quite the contrary, he’s one of the Army’s rising stars–but because he runs the most secretive force in the U.S. military. That is the Joint Special Operations Command, the snake-eating, slit-their-throats “black ops” guys who captured Saddam Hussein and targeted Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi.

JSOC is part of what Vice President Dick Cheney was referring to when he said America would have to “work the dark side” after 9/11. To many critics, the veep’s remark back in 2001 fostered his rep as the Darth Vader of the war on terror and presaged bad things to come, like the interrogation abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. But America also has its share of Jedi Knights who are fighting in what Cheney calls “the shadows.” And McChrystal, an affable but tough Army Ranger, and the Delta Force and other elite teams he commands are among them.

After the Zarqawi strike, multinational forces spokesman Gen. Bill Caldwell refused to comment on JSOC’s role, saying, “We don’t talk about when special operating forces are involved.” But when Bush revealed to reporters that it was McChrystal’s Special Ops teams that had found Zarqawi, Caldwell had to gulp and say (to laughter), “If the president of the United States said it was, then I’m sure it was.”

McChrystal has checked all the right career boxes, serving as an unflappable military briefer during the Iraq invasion, and doing fellowships at Harvard and at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York (where he would run to work from Brooklyn, about six miles away). Still, the secrecy surrounding McChrystal’s role worries some who note that Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have given clandestine operations the lead in the war on terror–with little public accountability, including in the interrogation room.

Rumsfeld is especially enamored of McChrystal’s “direct action” forces or so-called SMUs–Special Mission Units–whose job is to kill or capture bad guys, say Pentagon sources who would speak about Special Ops only if they were not identified. But critics say the Pentagon is short-shrifting the “hearts and minds” side of Special Operations that is critical to counterinsurgency–like training foreign armies and engaging with locals. (Special Operations Command spokesman Ken McGraw says the Pentagon is “significantly increasing” those units.) Experts like former Deputy Defense secretary John Hamre are also concerned that Special Ops now has generic authority to deploy where it wants without case-by-case orders. Without proper civilian oversight, a Zarqawi-style success can easily become a “Black Hawk Down.” Keeping that from happening is McChrystal’s most important mission.

Scepticism about the ‘war,’ deleted from Dawn

[Obviously scepticism about the Army's actions and intentions extend all the way to Washington.  Suspicion that the Army only intends to eliminate some of the militant terrorists who plague the region is the reason for the resumption of the "counter-productive" Predator attacks in S. Waziristan.  SEE: U.S. drone kills 3 in S. Waziristan, Obama is Calling Kayani’s Big Bluff]

Scepticism about the ‘war’


http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-c…t-the-war-qs-01

By Hajrah Mumtaz
Sunday, 14 Jun, 2009 | 10:49 AM PST |

Even as the Pakistan army claims progress against the militants in the north-western areas of the country, there are reports that people – while being firmly against the Taliban and their ilk – are sceptical of the government’s and the army’s commitment to the long-term battle. That is, of course, to eradicate issues of extremism and militancy for good, invest in the development of the areas first rampaged by the likes of Fazlullah and Mangal Bagh and then ravaged by the military operation against them, and perhaps most importantly, revisit the country’s notion of the strategic depth of Afghanistan, which has proved so very disastrous.

One may well ask why this scepticism exists. The people of Pakistan have always stood firmly behind the army in times of turbulence. Historically, as is evident in our literature, song and academic curricula, we glorify fighting for the sake of the country’s territorial integrity, refer to fallen soldiers as ‘martyrs’, and believe implicitly in the validity of the ideological concept of the nation. The last time Pakistan was involved in a major conflict – 1971 – there was little indication of any such scepticism. This, despite the fact that the ‘war’ was being fought against what was then a part of the country — a fully-paid up member of the idea of Pakistan. Then, the spin doctors managed to convince us that the war was valid and being won – right up to the day the country woke up to headlines that announced the secession of East Pakistan. Now, even as the Taliban and their band are reportedly being driven back, there is general discontent and quiet murmurings about the will, both political and military, to win the battle. And the murmurs have to be quiet, at least for the moment: in the context of this country, doubting the commitment of the army amounts to a form of blasphemy – especially at a point when soldiers are dying.

So what has changed?

For one thing, the amount and nature of information available to the citizenry. Back then, there were only newspapers (for the literate minority) and not very many of those; there was the radio and PTV, but those were in the control of the state. There were no on-the-spot, ‘live from the refugee camp’ reports. So people learned mainly what the state wanted them to learn. Now, television channels aplenty are accessible regardless of literacy rates, most of them independently owned and operated. And there’s also the internet from where one can access a host of information and commentary from local and international sources. True, the news about the army’s successes in X division or Y agency comes mainly from the ISPR. But concurrently, thanks to the access to information, people are learning to connect the dots. And when one starts to extrapolate from the gaps in what the government and the army are telling us, one does indeed find grounds for scepticism.

First, there’s the issue of the IDPs. It had become clear for quite some time that the Swat issue was not going to be solved by cutting deals, and that a military operation was going to become inevitable. That would, quite clearly, lead at the very least to thousands of civilians being forced to flee their areas, if not millions as proved to be the case. It is abundantly evident to the whole country that no effective contingency plan was formulated for either the safe passage of non-combatants from the conflict zones, or for their accommodation while the battles raged, or for their rehabilitation if and when their villages and towns are considered safe. The suffering of these people is in close-up on our television screens; many people are asking themselves what they’d be feeling in the same situation, had they been driven out of their homes and then abandoned.

Then, there’s the failure to either arrest or take out any of the TTP’s top commanders, when just a few weeks ago the government was in the process of negotiating with them. These men were giving interviews on television, gathering for lunch at government-run venues. Now that they are the enemy, why can’t we find them? If the state and its institutions, including the army, do not know where they are, that represents a colossal failure of intelligence and therefore implies incompetence of the intelligence networks. And if their whereabouts are known, the fact that they are still free holds very disturbing implications.

A similarly worrying implication is inherent in the fact that while the head-money on some of the militants’ leaders has recently been increased, such as for Muslim Khan, others are apparently exempt. The glaring example in this regard is Baitullah Mehsud, for whom not even head-money has been announced although he is blamed for a string of attacks in Pakistan – including the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

The lack of success so far in taking out key Taliban targets also raises the disturbing possibility that the agencies – that were in no small part responsible for this mess in the first place – continue to view at least some of the militants as potential strategic partners. There has been no evidence that a shift has taken place in either the notion of ‘strategic depth’, or the concept of ‘good’ (read ‘our’) and ‘bad’ Taliban.

Then, there are other bits and bobs of news that are perhaps not directly connected to the battle against the Taliban, but certainly bode ill for the fight against extremism in general. Abdul Aziz of Lal Masjid notoriety and Hafiz Saeed of the Jamaatud-Dawa (the reincarnated form of the banned Lashkar-i-Taiba) were recently declared free by courts that cited the lack of evidence. Certainly, one would wish no court to declare the guilt of anyone without citing proper evidence – the due processes of the law must be followed. But the question is: why was the prosecution’s evidence so deficient? Why were the cases not properly built so that justice could be served to these men, whose links with extremist organisations are virtually undisputable? It seems incredible that such men walk free in a country where others are kept incarcerated for years on the flimsiest of excuses – as long as the government wants it so.

And in a similar manner, it is also evident that no serious attempts have been made to dismantle the jihadi/militant infrastructure in areas outside the NWFP and Fata, notably southern Punjab, from where groups such as the Jaish-i-Mohammadi reportedly continue to operate with impunity.

These are just some of the factors that lead a politically aware person to question the long-term success of the ‘war’ currently under way. And contrary to popular belief, the people of this country are, thanks to the twists of history, very politically aware indeed. It is time for the top brass of the state and the army to realise that they are accountable to the public – and that the public will not be taken in by spin forever.

Jets pound Baitullah’s stronghold, 12 killed

Jets pound Baitullah’s stronghold, 12 killed

By Mushtaq Yusufzai & Irfan Burki

PESHAWAR/WANA: The government finally launched a military offensive against the Baitullah Mehsud-led Taliban militants in areas inhabited by the Mehsuds in the South Waziristan Agency, where 12 suspected militants were reportedly killed and several others injured as Pakistan Air Force (PAF) warplanes bombed their hideouts on Saturday.

Military spokesman and Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Director General Major General Athar Abbas said the action was taken in response to the suicide attack on prominent anti-Taliban cleric Dr Mufti Sarfaraz Naeemi in Lahore.

He said two compounds, used for terrorist training, had been destroyed in bombing by jet fighters.

Besides the fighter jets, security forces from Razmak military camp in North Waziristan also targeted suspected militants’ positions in the adjoining Makeen town of South Waziristan tribal region.

With the launch of massive bombing, a large number of Mehsud families started fleeing their homes in Makeen, Ladha and Kotkai and shifted to relatively safer places in the agency.

Makeen, located near Razmak in North Waziristan, is said to be a stronghold of Baitullah Mehsud-led militants.

Tribal sources told The News from Makeen and Razmak that three warplanes on Saturday blitzed suspected locations of the militants.

Initial reports said 12 militants had been killed and several others injured in the bombing.

There were no details about the killing of any prominent militant commander of Baitullah Mehsud in the air strikes and artillery shelling on their positions.

According to sources, the jet fighters targeted a portion of the Government High School building in Makeen and some houses.

In the areas of Mehsuds, majority of the government-run schools have been occupied by the Taliban militants and turned into base camps or training centres, government officials said.

Militant sources said Baitullah had already called his fighters back to his native Waziristan, who had gone to fight alongside their fellow fighters in Swat, Buner, Dir, Mohmand and Bajaur, to counter the growing movement of the armed forces in their strongholds like Ladha, Spinkai Raghzai and Makeen.

After sudden bombing by the warplanes, shops and markets were immediately closed in Makeen and the residents started fleeing their homes for safer places in the neighbouring North Waziristan.

Tribesmen said they wanted to shift their families to Tank and Dera Ismail Khan districts but they could not do so as all the exit and entry points to South Waziristan had been closed at the Spinkai Raghzai area of the agency and the Bakakhel area of the Frontier Region (FR) Bannu where the troops had launched a full-scale military operation.

Also, the authorities imposed curfew in Tank district for an indefinite period due to bombing on militants’ positions in Makeen. Officials argued that the curfew was clamped in Tank due to fears of possible terrorist attacks on government installations by the militants after bombing of their positions. All government offices and markets remained closed in the district.

Similarly, tension gripped the adjoining North Waziristan where the militants led by Taliban commander Hafiz Gul Bahadur threatened to scrap their peace accord with the government if it did not halt the military operation in FR Bakakhel and Janikhel areas of Bannu.

Gul Bahadur claimed the government had promised them in the February 17, 2008 peace accord that there would be no military operation against the Taliban in North Waziristan and FR Bakakhel and Janikhel areas.

He warned that his fighters would go to Bannu to fight alongside their fellow fighters against security forces as the military operation was a violation of the peace accord.

However, a Jirga of Utmanzai tribal elders and clerics was endeavouring to resolve the differences between the government and Hafiz Gul Bahadur-led Taliban.

U.S. drone kills 3 in S. Waziristan, Obama is Calling Kayani’s Big Bluff

[The Pakistani Army surrenders a little more of its sovereignty each time it allows the US to kill Pakistanis in this, or any other manner.  Gen. Kayani, ask yourself why the United States should refrain from sending in armies of Special Forces/CIA assassination teams, when that would only represent a difference in kind of attacks, not in intensity?]

U.S. drone kills 3 in Pakistan; bomb kills 7

By Mustansar Baluch

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan (Reuters) – A suspected U.S. drone aircraft fired a missile on Sunday killing three militants in northwest Pakistan, while elsewhere in the region, a bomb blast in a market killed seven people, officials said.

Nuclear-armed Pakistani is struggling to push back a growing Taliban insurgency and security forces have made progress in

more than a month of fighting against Taliban militants in the Swat valley, northwest of Islamabad.

The militants have responded with a wave of bomb attacks.

Separately, the United States, alarmed by deteriorating security in Afghanistan, has been using drone aircraft to attack Taliban and al Qaeda fighters in northwestern Pakistani militant strongholds.

Pakistan, a nuclear-armed U.S. ally, objects to the U.S. missile strikes saying they violate its sovereignty and undermine efforts to deal with militancy because they inflame public anger and bolster militant support.

The strike on Sunday was in Laddah, in the South Waziristan region, about 60 km (40 miles) north of the region’s main town of Wana, and a stronghold of Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud.

“The missile destroyed the vehicle and I saw three bodies lying next to it,” ethnic Pashtun tribal leader Habibullah Mehsud told Reuters by telephone from the region on the Afghan border.

A government official in the region confirmed the attack, saying drones had been flying over South Waziristan since early in the morning.

Pakistani warplanes struck another Mehsud stronghold on Saturday in retaliation for the killing of an anti-Taliban cleric in a suicide bomb attack in the city of Lahore the previous day, the military said.

The Sunday bomb attack was in a market in the northwestern town of Dera Ismail Khan.

“It seems the bomb was planted. At the moment, we have at least seven dead and 50 wounded,” Syed Mohsin Shah, the top government official in the city, told Reuters.

Rising violence has raised fears for Pakistan’s stability and for the safety of its nuclear arsenal but the offensive in Swat has reassured the United States, which needs its Muslim ally’s help to defeat al Qaeda and stabilize neighboring Afghanistan.

On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives approved tripling aid to Pakistan to about $1.5 billion a year for five years to help combat extremism through development. Pakistan is now the biggest recipient of U.S. aid.

Iran News Update: Iranian Opposition Leaders Under Arrest. 50 To 100 Reported Killed In Tehran

Alerts from Tehran

*Hour/time given U.S. Eastern (unless otherwise noted)

REFRESH THIS PAGE REGULARLY

from Iran sent 2:43 AM Tehran-time (6:13 EST)

[Translated] “Here the internet is horrible. After much trouble, I was able t log on through a proxy. I’ll try my best to get the news to you. I have news right now that in Shahrake Gharb [neighborhood in northeast Tehran] is absolute chaos. People are in the streets, they’re chanting. No sign of police. Their protest continues at this hour.  I also hear that Niavaran [north Tehran] is a big chaotic too — at least until an hour ago. I’m sorry my information is fragmented. I’m afraid I’ll get disconnected. In Niavaran people are shouting from their homes. That way when police comes they quickly retreat; so they haven’t been able to arrest anyone. I’ve also heard that people captured a few of the Basij guys and gave him a beating. It feels like Martial Law here. Cell phones are down, internet lines are horrible, Facebook is filtered, and … I also have news from Ahvaz. They have also announced there that if someone comes out of their house they will be arrested. So keep your fingers crossed and pray for us. Tomorrow is a great day. I gave you the news. Please try to publish it. Thx.”

——————————————————————————————–

Hadi Ghaemi: In a sign of further escalation of the crisis in Iran, in the last few hours most reformist politicians from Mosharekat [Islamic Participation], and Mojahedin Enqelab, including Khatami’s brother have been detained. Ahmad Zaidabadi, secretary of Advar Org has also been detained. It looks like an all out purge of reformers is underway. There is no doubt a systematic coup is underway. Unconfirmed reports also indicate both Karrubi and Moussavi may be under house arrest.

One wonders what vision of state Khamanei and Ahmadinejad are pursuing. Do they really think their version of absolute rule of the Leader which seems to be implemented now can last in today’s Iran? I think most of international community including many experts are missing the depth of titanic shifts taking place in Iran.

From Iranian Twitter: http://twitter.com/iranbaan Martial Law in Tabriz, Iran; many arrested.