Powers to back truce with Taliban commanders: US envoy

AFP January 25, 2010 WASHINGTON — World powers meeting in London this week will back plans for a truce with local Taliban commanders in Afghanistan, provided the fighters renounce Al-Qaeda, US envoy Richard Holbrooke said Monday. The special US envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan said 65 nations meeting in London on Thursday would back Kabul’s proposal to set up a reintegration fund to persuade Taliban fighters to lay down arms. “The reintegration program that President (Hamid) Karzai is announcing and the international community will support is an opportunity for people fighting at the local commander level to stop fighting, come in from the cold and rejoin Afghan society — if they renounce Al-Qaeda,” he said. The proposals come as the United States and other allies aim for an eventual withdrawal from Afghanistan, after eight years of battling a brutal Islamist insurgency. But Holbrooke, who was speaking during a debate to be broadcast on German’s ARD television, angrily denied accusations that Washington was ready to negotiate terms with the Taliban in order to end the bloody war. “Reintegration is not a negotiation with the Taliban leadership,” he said. His comments came as US General Stanley McChrystal, the NATO military commander in Afghanistan, also voiced support for negotiated peace. “As a soldier, my personal feeling is that there’s been enough fighting,” US General Stanley McChrystal said in an interview with Britain’s Financial Times published Monday. Under a plan announced by US President Barack Obama in December, 30,000 US troops are to be deployed in Afghanistan this year — in addition to more than 70,000 already there — before US forces begin withdrawing in July 2011.

:: Article nr. 62562 sent on 25-jan-2010 23:03 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=62562

Nuclear Power and Money Bind Us All Together In the New World

Russia to build up to 8 nuclear reactors in West Bengal

Vinay Shukla

Moscow, Jan 22 (PTI) Russia hopes to build up to 8 nuclear reactors in West Bengal awarded to it to meet India’s growing energy demands, a top atomic energy official said.

“The Government of India has taken a decision and has awarded us the new site at Haripur in West Bengal. It means we will build at least six, maximum eight nuclear power reactors,” Chief of the State Nuclear Corporation – RosAtom Sergei Kiriyenko said.

RosAtom is currently building two nuclear power units at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu with the total capacity of 2000 MWe and is to build four more VVER-1000 reactor units under an agreement signed during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s Moscow visit in December last.

“We are approaching the final stage in the construction of first and second units of Kudankulam.

The Copenhagen Compromise Makes Nuclear Power Cool

Copenhagen Onwards! Indo US Deal and Nuclear Infrastructure

Analysis by: Himadri Banerji

Summary

It is reported that a indigenously designed reactor in India has been commissioned thus adding to an existing fleet of eighteen reactors. As currently most important developing countries are understandingly reluctant to discuss binding limits in the energy sector because they are seen as inconsistent with their development, exemplary deals as involving nuclear technology in India will encourage new infrastructures and lower emissions. This news has far reaching implications post Copenhagen.

Analysis

In light of the failed talks in Copenhagen the news of the start of the Rajasthan Atomic Power Project 5 and 6 comprises of two Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) of 220MW each is indeed welcome. Thus reinforces contention that India is surely and steadily taking full measures to meet its own national commitments related to climate change.

Though it foes beyond doubt that in order to address climate change on a global basis, the energy sectors of all major emitters will have to accept binding limits on their emissions of greenhouse gases, however the key to making these deals and others like them cost effective is an attention to situations where developing country interests align with developed country concerns regarding climate change.

It is in this context that one should view the developments in India post the signing of the U.S.-India nuclear partnership. This must be seen as a large infrastructure-changing deal that would put India on a path to lower emissions. To the extent that such deals encourage new infrastructures concurrently with lower emissions they will also make the process of international cooperation on climate change with the BRICs countries much easier because they will transform those negotiations from an effort to convince countries to take actions viewed as inconsistent with economic goals into the much easier task of reinforcing underlying sustained development patterns. Ideally, the financial incentives provided by carbon offsets along with other financial and diplomatic tools would encourage changes in behavior.

CIA Disinformation Agent Spins Fake Bin Laden Message On Fox News

[SEE:  CIA Agent Sees Dead People]

Why is Fox News hosting Scheuer to comment on bin Laden?

Despite his previous statement that-

“[t]he only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States,”

Fox News turned to Michael Scheuer to discuss a recently released audio message of bin Laden apparently endorsing the failed Christmas Day attempt to bomb a Northwest Airlines flight. Scheuer has also previously suggested that President Obama is guilty of treason and that the Obama administration is “pro-terrorist.”

more about “Why is Fox News hosting Scheuer to c…“, posted with vodpod

US nuclear duplicity

[Both regional peace and security can be achieved once the hypocritical American double-dealing ends.  American control has always extended to maintaining a balance of terror, to be upset on American whims.  The American "Raj" has to come to an end, so that the human race can be liberated.  Nations who have become intoxicated with power, by submitting to American control, must be sobered up.  India has to shake-off this unrealistic belief that "nuclear war is survivable."  The world is waking-up to the awful reality of Hindu beliefs in caste and seeing others as less than "human," which creates the belief that one-half a billion collateral deaths is an "acceptable loss."  Indian dreams of "greatness" stand in stark contrast to its delusional Zionist-infected beliefs that "democracy" can exist in a nation that holds entire classes of its citizens as cattle, or worse, "Goyim."  Zionist ideas are a poison that conscientious citizens of the world will no longer voluntarily swallow.] By Asif Ezdi

The writer is a former member of the Pakistan Foreign Service The National Command Authority (NCA) had a well-publicised meeting on Jan 13 against the background of recent statements by India’s army chief Gen Deepak Kapoor that his country is capable of conducting conventional military strikes against Pakistan under a nuclear umbrella, and of fighting both Pakistan and China at the same time. The NCA meeting was also significant because it took place a week before the start of the 2010 session of the Conference on Disarmament (CD), at which the commencement of negotiations on a treaty on limiting the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons will be the major issue of discussion. Kapoor’s statements reflect a dilemma that India has faced since the nuclear tests of 1998. While India established its claim to be a nuclear power, it also forced Pakistan to demonstrate its nuclear capability. The resulting nuclear standoff between the two countries made a resort to conventional warfare an extremely risky venture and had the effect of largely neutralising the advantage in conventional weapons capability that India enjoys over Pakistan. But India is unwilling to accept this reality. As the reputed US journal Arms Control Today wrote in its issue of July/August 2009, “Indian military planners foolishly believe they can engage in and win a limited conventional conflict without triggering a nuclear exchange, even though the Pakistani army’s strategy relies on nuclear weapons to offset India’s overwhelming conventional superiority.” It is this thinking that lies behind India’s offensive military doctrines like “Cold Start,” and statements such as those made by Kapoor. These warnings are not only “foolish” but they also become highly dangerous when they come from a senior official of a major foreign power, such as the declaration by US defence secretary Robert Gates last week that if there was a repeat of the Mumbai incident, India should not be expected to show the same restraint that it exercised last time. This statement can only be characterised as highly irresponsible. It is also illogical, because Gates acknowledged that the terrorist threat came from non-state actors outside the control of the Pakistani authorities. Not only that, he also tried to convince the Pakistani leadership in Islamabad that the country did not face any threat on its eastern borders. The defence secretary evidently does not seem to have realised the inherent contradiction between these two stances. The uneasy peace that the region has enjoyed in recent years rests mainly on the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence. That is why the proposed Fissile Material Treaty (FMT), which could significantly affect the future nuclear programmes of Pakistan and India, is of such vital interest. The CD broke an 11-year impasse in May last year by agreeing on a work programme for negotiating the treaty. But the commencement of negotiations was held up because of differences over the implementation of the work programme. Pakistan insisted that progress on the FMT should proceed in tandem with the other core issues before the CD. Largely because of Pakistani objections, the CD could not commence its work on the FMT last year. At the opening session of the CD this year (Jan 19), the Pakistani delegation proposed that the conference should also consider conventional arms control at the regional level and negotiate a global regime on all aspects of missiles. Because of the lack of agreement on this proposal, the adoption of the agenda has been delayed. Behind these procedural questions, there are important substantive differences. There is no agreement yet on the fundamental question whether the treaty should only prohibit future production or deal also with existing stocks of fissile material. Pakistan has pointed out that freezing the existing asymmetries would undermine its security. The Pakistani delegation has also underlined that for Pakistan the issue is linked to the decision of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), taken in 2008 at US initiative, to allow nuclear trade with India, while continuing the embargo on Pakistan. This deal, as Pakistan has maintained, would enable India to produce substantial additional quantities of fissile material for nuclear weapons and consequently upset strategic balance in the region. The NCA underlined in its press release that during consideration of the FMT by the CD, Pakistan would not accept any discriminatory measures that perpetuate regional instability or are prejudicial to its national security. This is absolutely right. But the question remains whether the procedural tactics being employed by our delegation to stall the work of the CD on the FMT are the best means of achieving our goals. The alternative would be to take part in the negotiations and work for a treaty which is in keeping with our national interests. Failing that, we could withhold our signatures from it. This is the course India has taken. New Delhi has reservations on halting the production of fissile material and has declared that it will not accept obligations that hinder its nuclear weapons programme. But it has not obstructed negotiations on the treaty. After the procedural moves made by our delegation in Geneva, Washington and other supporters of the FMT may be expected to make diplomatic demarches urging Islamabad to withdraw its objections to the proposed CD agenda. And if the past is any guide, our Government will not be able to stand up to U.S. pressure. Our fundamental problem is that our national security policies are largely determined by domestic political considerations. Our response to the India-US nuclear deal is a striking example of this attitude. After it was made public in July 2005, the Musharraf regime made some noises in public expressing its unhappiness but, as Undersecretary of State William J Burns indicated in a meeting with the press in December 2006, Musharraf let it be known privately that he was “not unhappy” with the deal. Musharraf was clearly not prepared to jeopardise US support for his rule. Musharraf’s policies on this issue have been followed under Zardari – and for the same reasons. He has not taken up the question of Pakistan’s access to civilian nuclear technology in any of his meetings with US leaders. Nor has Gilani or Foreign Minister Qureshi. Also, Nawaz Sharif has not raised it in any of his public speeches or his meetings with visiting leaders from the US administration or Congress. Our “sovereign” parliament has not discussed it either. In July 2008, several retired ambassadors of Pakistan called upon the government to make civil nuclear cooperation a high-priority issue in our agenda with the United States and other leading NSG members. Later, in September 2009 some former ambassadors wrote in an open letter to Obama that if Pakistan continues to be denied access to civilian nuclear technology on the same terms as India, our partnership with US in the global effort to eradicate terrorism would remain fragile and Pakistan would not be in a position to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) or the FMT. Gilani occasionally complains to the media about the double standards of US policy on international civilian nuclear cooperation. He recently brought up this matter with a US congressional delegation. Someone needs to tell him that it is not to the media and US congressmen but the US president and heads of government of other leading NSG countries to whom he should be addressing himself. In a letter to Zardari last November, Obama offered an expanded strategic partnership to Pakistan. If Gilani is serious, he should now write to the US president to emphasise that if this partnership is to be meaningful, it must include access for Pakistan to civilian nuclear technology. The prime minister should also urge Obama to take the lead in getting Pakistan a waiver from NSG guidelines similar to that given to India. This issue should be made a priority item of the bilateral agenda, starting with the talks being hosted by Hillary Clinton in Washington next month. Gilani should similarly take it up with other leading NSG members. The writer is a former member of the Foreign Service. Email: asifezdi@yahoo.com

The Lessons Learned from Israel: In Secret War the Aggressor Is Always the Victim

[Always berate your opponent for copying your own behavior.  Hypocrisy is the hallmark of "counter-insurgency."

"Pakistan keeps pursuing its strategy of inflicting a thousand cuts on India. There is little reason to believe that Pakistan will abandon that low-cost, minimum risk but high returns terror enterprise either now or in the foreseeable future."]

American doublespeak

Rajiv Dogra

It was and remains a practiced part of the American routine to say in India what goes down well with the Indian media. However, as soon as Americans are on Pakistani soil, they recraft what they said in India. That’s precisely what US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has done

Alas, we are easy to please. Otherwise we would have known that what they say here isn’t how they reassure there. Like the British during the days of the Empire, Americans feel that they now have the international licence to pontificate. By and large the world too falls in line; with the exception of China which has recently taken to hitting them back with equal vehemence.

But turning back to US Defence Secretary Robert Gates’ recent visit, just look at the ecstatic response he got from us when he said in New Delhi that “India would find it difficult to show the kind of restraint it did after 26/11 if there was another attack from the Pakistani soil”. We failed of course to recognise that it was a practiced part of the American routine to say in India what goes down well with the media here.

However, as soon as they are on the Pakistani soil they nuance that same statement differently. There, they are under intense scrutiny, and not just by the media. According to Dawn, after addressing Pakistan’s National Defence University Mr Gates commented that his statement in India had been misunderstood.

And just to make things amply clear to the American visitor, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani reportedly told him, “Pakistan is itself facing Mumbai like attacks almost every day and when we cannot protect our own citizens, how can we guarantee that there wouldn’t be any more terrorist hits in India.”

This of course should not come as a surprise because from the very beginning Pakistan has perfected ‘denial’ into an art form. And when cornered, as it nearly was after 26/11, it pretends injured innocence. No wonder then that time and again Pakistan has been let off the hook by the international community.

Thus emboldened, Pakistan keeps pursuing its strategy of inflicting a thousand cuts on India. There is little reason to believe that Pakistan will abandon that low-cost, minimum risk but high returns terror enterprise either now or in the foreseeable future.

If Pakistan has been consistent in its approach, so it seems are we. Ours, however, is the uniformity of the timid.

Despite Mr Shashi Tharoor’s withering view of aspects of Jawaharlal Nehru’s foreign policy, it will be hard to disagree with Nehru’s observations on a policy file at the height of tensions in Kashmir in December 1947. After sketching out Pakistan’s aggression, he reflected on India’s response, “It seems to me that our outlook has been defensive and apologetic, as if we were ashamed of what we were doing and we are not quite sure of how far we should go. I see nothing to apologise for and a defensive way of meeting raiders seems to me completely wrong.”

Then, as now, his assessment rings true. Had Nehru been alive today, wouldn’t he have written similarly on the policy files of Ministry of External Affairs?

Essentially our response remains the same; tepid, just along the lines of Nehru’s lament. Be it the terrorist attack on Parliament when we lined up troops futilely along the border, or the Kargil war when we refrained from crossing the LoC, or 26/11 when for long we kept insisting that it was the work of non-state actors; the essence of our response remains half-hearted and apologetic.

But having written what he wrote in 1947, would Nehru have handled any of these situations differently; a bit more firmly?

Nehru himself provides a clue as to how he may have reacted. In that same note of December 1947 he goes on to add, “Are we to allow Pakistan to continue to train new armies for invasion and allow its territory to be used as a base for these attacks? The obvious course is to strike at these concentrations and lines of communications in Pakistan territory. From a military point of view this would be the most effective step. We have refrained from taking it because of political considerations. We shall have to reconsider this position because a continuation of the present situation is intolerable… This involves a risk of war with Pakistan. We wish to avoid war, but it is merely deluding ourselves to imagine that we are avoiding war so long as the present operations are continuing on either side.”

This was no moralistic running commentary. It was hard headed realism, yet he held back. The point at issue is not war, but the nature of our response. Why was it that having diagnosed correctly and having made the right prescription, Nehru refrained from taking the action that he had advocated? Doesn’t that signal weakness? Isn’t this a major reason why deterrence is not seen by others as a part of our armoury?

Call it complacence, fatalism or supine acceptance or whatever else you wish; but one thing is clear. This lack of an effective response on our part has nothing to do with the caste, creed or belief. It is simply a product of the benign Indian soil. Any one of our one billion would probably be equally soft and forgiving. Perhaps, this attitude has more to do with a deeply ingrained desire not to displease the other.

The confidence that we will not strike back, and hurt, is a major reason why India has suffered foreign rulers for over a thousand years. While our response, or lack of it, has remained static others have diversified.

The nature of aggression has changed; terror has been added as an important new dimension to war since that first invasion of Kashmir in 1947. State and non-state actors are coordinating their strategy brazenly; look for instance at the frustrating way Pakistan keeps asking India for more, and yet more evidence, when everything that happened in 26/11 was planned on the Pakistani soil. The nature of targets has changed too. It is no longer simply a case of conquest of territory. Pakistan uses to the full its capacity to befuddle the west, with consequent pressure on India to accommodate and concede.

A manifestation of this tactic is the rumours afloat currently that India will initiate the dialogue. There is also the increasingly frequent talk that autonomy for Kashmir is a matter of time. But others warn grimly that autonomy would be the thin end of the Pakistani wedge. They doubt that Pakistan’s gameplan is limited to Kashmir; otherwise the targets of its terror would not have principally included India’s economic centres.

That it should be so is natural, because the world over there is growing recognition that India is poised at the edge of economic greatness. But prosperity, and economic heights, cannot be sustained in isolation. To remain truly great, a country must be powerful and should be perceived as so by its enemies. It is a historical fact that financially rich, but militarily weak, nations are tempting targets; just as India was so often in the past.

Therefore, it will be simplistic to presume that goodwill alone will safeguard our prosperity. Or that conceding demands like autonomy will be the end of our troubles with Pakistan. In fact it may mark a new beginning of them; for the simple reason that while India has consistently used democracy as a tool for nation building that has not been the case on the other side.

Pakistan’s birth was based on the ideology of exclusion. To complicate matters further its leaders have consistently reared Pakistani people on a diet of envy. Till Pakistan gets over that envy and its hatred of India, we are condemned by our benignity to live by its whims.

– The writer is a former Ambassador.

Heavy firing at India-Pakistan border in J and K, Army on alert

Heavy firing at India-Pakistan border in J&K, Army on alert

The Indian Army was put on alert following heavy exchange of fire at the India-Pakistan border in Jammu and Kashmir early on Tuesday following a major infiltration bid, defence sources said on Tuesday as the country celebrated its 61st Republic Day.

The firing, at the Kanachak sector near Akhnoor, 30 km northwest from Jammu, started at 2 am and went on four hours. Officials said Pakistani Rangers provided covering fire to a group of infiltrators. The BSF men retaliated and the guns fell silent around 6 am.

The Indian Army has been put on alert along the border, where the first line of defence is provided by the BSF.

Army sources said troops were put on alert after the fire started from Pakistani side. They described the firing as heavy and said it was a clear attempt by Pakistan to push terrorists into India on Republic Day.

The exchange of fire was heavy for about two hours initially. “Thereafter, it was intermittent firing that lasted till 6 am,” Director General of Police Kuldeep Khoda told reporters.

It was the 15th ceasefire violation incident and infiltration attempt from across the border this month.

“Pakistan is desperate to push terrorists to the Indian side,” a senior army official said, adding that they wanted to strike on India’s national day and were unhappy with the peace in Jammu and Kashmir.

When the Guns Fizzed and the Gizmos Fizzled

25 Jan, 2010 Moin Ansari

All the “Daisy Cutters”, Nuclear tipped bombs, and the finest drones on the planet could not stand up to the raw grit of those that opposed occupation. All the kings horses and the all the kings men could not put humpty back together or subdue the fierce fighters of Afghanistan and Pakistan. There are clear signs of operationalization of the peace plan in Kabul. The surge was simply to assuage the hawks in the Republican Party–the real Afghan reassessment was to get American boys out of the treacherous Hindu Kush. Defeat is a clichéd word–there are no winners in war. Victory is exaggerated concept. Absolute defeats have never been able to quell the resistance. Absolute victories have always lead to future wars–be it Sparta, Versailles or Kabul. Mr Holbrooke the consumate ‘Ugly American’ Gates confirms Blackwater in Pakistan. Resign Mr. Malik Frank talks: Pat down of Gates continues in Pakistan When the Guns Fizzed and the Gizmos Fizzled US ignores Incian concern on drones for Pakistan As Shakespeare would say “when the hurly burly’s done, and the battle is lost and won“–there is time to make a fresh start. When a country is not able to impose its will and might–it is some sort of defeat. The Americans today need a face saving exit strategy from Afghanistan. The Taliban, Pakistan and all other countries of the world should assist the US in a phased, expeditious and honorable withdrawal from Afghanistan. Over the past several years, we have predicted that the US will exit Afghanistan in 2011 right before the US elections. The tell tale signs of the operationalization of this policy is writ in large all over the billboards called newspapers. There are numerous indications confirming our well calculated predictions: the polite decline to Delhi on their exuberance to begin training the Afghan forces; the offering of Shadow drones to Pakistan; the peace talks with the Afghan Taliban; the mood and the statements of the big boys in preperation of the Afghan Conference on January 28th, 2010; the acceptance of the Pakistani point of view on halting further operations in FATA; the usage of Pakistani mediators in back channel diplomacy to include the Taliban in the current Kabul government; the offer of further US military and financial aid to Pakistan. The carrots offered to Pakistan are not for free–Milton Friedman was right “that ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”. Pakistan is being offered new toys and more Dollars for her assistance in helping the American extricate themselves out of the Afghan quagmire. America had a decision to make. Stick with General McChrystal’s policy of more soldiers, more mercenaries and more war–supplemented with more drone bombing and more targeted murders (drones and otherwise). More war has always created more enemies. This has never been more true than in Afghanistan and Pakistan today. Washington’s other choice was less war, less soldiers and less enemies. President Obama hedged his bets with the first option, and then is pursuing the 2nd option aggressively. While some may claim that the Great Game is over–and Pakistan won. However, this is not the time for crowing from the rooftops. This is the time to let loose the doves from the allow them to to fly into the sun. There are many steps between the lips and cup. There are many impediments to peace in the Panshir and tranquility in Waziristan. We believe that the right steps are being taken. A show of strength followed up with massive financial aid and assistance will yield the right results. Once the troops begin leaving, the civilian surge, accompanied with suitcases full of Dollars will persuade the warlords to switch sides (just like the Northern Alliance switched sides in 2001). There are huge dangers to he peace deal. Bharat (aka India) keenly aware of its sagging influence in Central Asia (specially after the ignominious eviction from Tajikistan) may play the chagrined loser, and stage another Mumbai type of false flag, and try to wage war on Pakistan. This would derail the peace plan. Some of Bharati (Indian) surrogates in Baluchistan and the TTP may be allowed to torpedo peace in the Khyber Pass by assassinating another Pakistani leader, in trying to create ethnic strife in Pakistan. Other international powers may have vested interests in ensuring that the Taliban do not come into power or even share the government in Kabul. Both Israel and Iran are scared of the Talibs. If President Obama is able to pull this off–it will be a miracle. He has to keep the Indians at bay by selling them toys (double advantage, dollars and Peace); he has to appease the Pakistanis so that they continue their assistance in achieving peace; he has to browbeat Iranian resistance through sanctions and threats; he has to assuage the Chinese that Afghan venture is over with no threat to Beijing; and he has to keep the Russians cool so that they do not think that Central Asia has been taken from them. If he can do this tap dance, the US corporations can make huge profits. Delhi needs Viagra to prove its manhood. The US can offer the blue pills in many forms–obsolete nuclear plants declared unsafe for America, stripped down F-16s (with lots of spare parts and services), and tons of below quality equipment that the Indians would love to plunk down hard cash for. After all the business of America is doing business. If the US can figure out how to sell billions of Dollars of machines (which will rust in a few years) to Delhi that would be a great achievement. If the US can make a profit out of the Afghan war to recuperate some of its losses, it will be a happy camper. Bharat will smile if the blue pills come in the shapes of iron and steel. No matter if many more Bhopals happen–as long as the corrupt politicians can fill their Swiss bank accounts. While much attention is paid to the corruption in Pakistan, a recent statistic from Zurich showed that 80% of the Swiss accounts belong to Indians. Why are they putting their money there–must be hiding something. One major reason for the massive failure of indigenous Indian defense projects is the fact that the corrupt military and political leaders make a lot more money from foreign military purchases. General Kapoor is a prime example of the corruption that infests the Indian military. However unlike Pakistan where these things are dicussed and there is a NRO–albeit a broken and politicized system, in Bharat most of the corruption under the radar. The few exception like Bofars etc. are the tip of the iceberg. Actually the politicization of the NRO keeps the opposition honest and has led to some persecution but a lot of prosecution and also. Delhi thrown out of Tajikistan, sequestered of out Central Asia, and locked in a tough battle of wits and territory with Chin and Pakistan now gets the consolation prize of fumes, jets, and nuclear plants from America–sugar coated with state dinners and eulogies on how big the Indian “democracy” is. One must hand it to the US marketing teams–they make it seem like the US is doing Bharat (or Pakistan for that matter) by selling it obsolete equipment. One is reminded of the Cherokees who were done a favour by the Yanks when they sold them blankets. It has now been scientifically proven that the blankets had small-pox infestations– Native Americans claim that the small pox was deliberately infused into the blankets. The US sanctions in the 90s made Pakistan self sufficient in nuclear and missile technology. After the first squadron of JF-17 Thunder was operationalized, the Pakistanis are working closely with the Chinese to build the FC-20s and also the J-144 which shows the technological independence of Asia. With America leaving, Pakistan will not have free reign in Afghanistan. The sway will be curtailed by local opposition and guarantees from China and Russia so that the terrible days of the Taliban cannot be resurrected. After the withdrawal of the USSR from Afghanistan, they had set up the structure in a manner that the Najibullah’s government survived in Kabul for three years. The Karzai government allied with the Taliban will survive less than a year. There will be civil war in Afghanistan again—but it will come to an end eventually. The only sane solution is the inevitable confederation between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Moin Ansari is a seasoned political scientist, investigative historian and strategic defense analyst with special focus on International Relations in South and West Asia. His columns appear in various publications, including the Opinion Maker. He is the Editor in Chief of Rupee News and Pakistan Ledger

RAW In Balochistan

BLA-BRP: A threat to international peace: “The BLA is the creation of Indian intelligence agencies, which are trying to create instability in the areas bordering Iran & Afghanistan”. Expose on RAW babies

by Moin Ansari

BLA – BRP–A threat to international peace: “The BLA is the creation of Indian intelligence agencies, which are trying to create instability in the areas bordering Iran and Afghanistan“. Expose on RAW. The chief of the Baloch Republican Party (BRP), Brahmdagh Bugti, has become the chief protagonist.

Baloch Republican Party (BRP) is another RAW sponsored terror outfit that kills the innocent and murders women and children

Brahmdagh is one of the most prominent faces of the ongoing Baloch insurgency sponsored by Delhi. Mr. Bugti is the grandson of Baloch politician Akbar Khan Bugti, a former chief minister and governor of Balochistan, who was killed during a military operation on August 26, 2006.

While another of Nawab Bugti’s grandsons, Mir Aali Bugti, has been nominated as the sardar of the Bugti tribe, Brahmdagh has reportedly taken command of separatist Baloch fighters. The Pakistani government has blamed India for supporting the 28-year-old guerrilla commander through Afghanistan, where he is currently rumoured to be in hiding.

Bharat has been making a big hullabaloo about Mumbai, and doesn’t want to talk about the RAW sponsored LTTE attack on the Lankans in Lahore. The Delhi establishment tries to score points about terror in Bharat, but forgets to mention that Delhi armed, trained and supported the Mukti Bahni in East Pakistan, and then tried to rule Bangladesh with the Rakhi Bahni (run by a serving Indian general). Mr. Singh shouts about Pakistan from the rooftops, admits the Delhi involvement in Balauchistan, but then reneges on the admission and doesn’t stop the RAW support to the terrorists in Baluchistan. The expose on the BLA has been written by Mr. Baloch and the article on RAW has been written by regular Rupee News columnist Isha Khan from Dhaka Bangladesh.

The BLA was a relic of the cold war. During the USSR-USA war it was supported, financed and armed by the Soviet Union. When the USSR imploded, so did the BLA. With the massive development in Baluchistan happening, Baluchistan had two decades of peace. Mir Balaach Marri, the head of the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), was killed on 20 November 2007.

All of a sudden the six Indian consultates started training the exporting these people to create mayhem in Pakistan. Jundullah was also unleased to create issues in Iranian Sistan-Balauchistan.

“The Balochistan Liberation Army has been listed as an organisation that funds, and promotes terrorism in the United Kingdom The group has also been listed a terror group by MIPT Terrorism Knowledge base, an organzation funded by the US Dept. for homeland Security” Wikipedia

For a detailed history of Baluchistan there are several articles on this site.

RAW agent # 1: The chief of the Baloch Republican Party (BRP), Brahmdagh Bugti

The arrest of Faiz Baluch and Hyrbyair Marri by British Metropolitan Police Counter-Terrorism Command from north-west and west London on 4 December 2007, on the charges of “commissioning, preparing or instigating acts of terrorism”, clearly shows the seriousness of UK in their fight against terror. Both of them were held on two accounts under Terrorism Act of 2000: firstly, inciting people to commit an act of terrorism, and secondly, possessing “a weapon designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing” contrary to the Firearms Act. During the raids on the homes and offices, the police recovered large quantities of documents, DVDs, computer files and a cash of £4,000.

The two London residents are senior commanders of Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) – an international terrorist group that is banned in Britain by the then home secretary John Reid in July 2006. The BLA has been responsible for attacks on the infrastructure such as gas pipelines, power stations, electric pylons as well as bomb blasts where innocent civilian have been victims. Due to targeted military operation aganist the armed militants in Balochistan, many BLA activists sought political asylums or refuge in the European countries. These political asylum seekers under the garb of “aggrieved party” are sponsoring the foreign-based organizations of Pakistani origin responsible for committing acts of terrorism inside Pakistan.

14 Bharati “Consulates” are RAW terror centers spreading sabotage across the border in Pakistan. ‘Increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India.’ (Gen Stanley McChrystal)

Hence, they pose an alarming threat to the international peace and stability. Realizing its threat, the British police have apprehended the miscreant element which is a welcome sign. This will provide an impetus to other European countries to check the activities of BLA in their respective countries. It will be pertinent to mention here, that the western societies, being the proponent of human liberties and human rights should be careful in granting political asylums or refuge to those individuals having false account. When they escape to a new country, the credibility of the asylum seekers must be established and police of the concerned country be also consulted. The duo arrested was granted asylum in Britain in 2002, despite of the fact that the account forwarded by these two incumbents was false and exaggerated.

The BLA has claimed responsibility for most of the attacks in reaction to the ongoing developmental activities in the province meant to improve the life-style of the common people. Look at the education, health, and other social indicators in the province. These essential amenities are embarrassingly low compared to other even less developed areas of the country. The Government is trying its level best to bring the area into socio-economic mainstream so that fruits of progress trickle down to the common man. But, few ego-centric sardars with the help of BLA want to disrupt developmental process by attacking vital installations.

The story of resistance in the area is a long one. First, Balochs have grievances against the federal Government which relate to exploitation of natural resources, in particular Sui gas, without adequate compensation. Second, the Baloch people also fear that the mega projects, in particular the Gwadar port city, would invite an influx of population from other provinces reducing the ethnic Baloch to a minority at some stage. Third, building of cantonments in the three most sensitive areas of Balochistan, is perceived as an attempt to control the resources. It is to say, if they have some genuine grievances against the policies of the Government, they should raise it at the forum of national assembly instead of going to streets. It is beyond comprehension that how few feudal sardars without backing of the general masses can make the country ‘hostage’.

The multi-billion dollar deep sea port in the coastal district of Gwadar, being built by the Chinese contractors, has provided myriads of opportunities to the Baloch people. The political analysts say that such paradoxical interpretations of the phenomenon by the “vested group” would only impede any solution to the Balochistan problem. The solution to the people’s issues lies in the distribution of the dividends of development equitably. The attacks on important national installations orchestrated by “miscreants,” has only alienated people and created new problems that only affected the poor people, further squeezing their opportunities for sustainable livelihoods.

The international terrorism, no matter when, by whom, where, and in what form, is a grave threat to the world peace and security. It has shown that the world is not peaceful, so it is extremely necessary to strengthen international cooperation. Every country should take same position on condemning and fighting terrorism resolutely. Any person who carries out acts of terrorism should be punished and terrorist activities should be cracked down. All the foreign-based organizations consisting of nationals of Baloch origins, supporting/funding the asylum seeker miscreants should be taken to the task by the counter-terrorism authorities of the respective country.

All the Balochi websites operating in western countries responsible of fanning anti-Pakistan sentiments, are tantamount to inciting people to commit acts of terrorism, should also be precluded.

The BLA is the creation of Indian intelligence agencies, which are trying to create instability in the areas bordering Iran and Afghanistan. In the larger interest, the effective counter-terrorism requires Indian support and cooperation with Pakistan authorities to help create an environment of peace and tranquillity.

India’s Military Base in Tajikistan

The Train of Terror from Delhi, Dushambe to Dera Ghazi Khan

Terrorism can be beaten when moderate forces mobilize themselves to isolate and defeat its perpetrators. Therefore, it is ripe time that the rebel tribesmen should disarm themselves as a first pre-condition before a “meaningful dialogue” process takes place. The Government, in its turn, must take measures to dispel the feelings of alienation of the Baloch, bring the nationalists into mainstream politics, create local stakeholders in the province’s development, and to assuage their overall grievances. BLA – A threat to international peace by Ahmad Shah Baloch

پاکستاني بھایوں سے گزارش ھے کہ ان دھشتگردون کے خلاف خط لکھین

، president@bluehost.com, webmaster@bluehost.com, support@bluehost.com domain.tech@YAHOO-INC.COM

India’s intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing (R.A.W.), created in 1968, has assumed a significant status in the formulation of the country’s domestic and foreign policies, particularly the latter. Working directly under the prime minister, it has over the years become an effective instrument of India’s national power. In consonance with Kautilya’s precepts, R.A.W.’s espionage doctrine is based on the principle of waging a continuous series of battles of intrigues and secret wars. (Kautilya, or more popularly, Chânakya, was an ancient Indian political theorist.)Since its creation, R.A.W. has been a vital, though unobtrusive, actor in the Indian policy-making apparatus. But it is the massive international dimensions of R.A.W. operations that merit a closer examination.

To the credit of this organization, it has in a very short span of time mastered the art of spy warfare. Credit must go to Indira Gandhi who in the late 1970’s gave it a changed and much more dynamic role. To suit her much publicized Indira Doctrine (India Doctrine), Gandhi specifically asked R.A.W. to create a powerful organ within the organization that could undertake covert operations in neighboring countries. It is this capability that makes R.A.W. a more fearsome agency than the superior K.G.B., C.I.A., M.I.6, B.N.D., or Mossad.Its internal role is confined only to monitoring events that have a bearing on the external threat. R.A.W.’s boss works directly under the prime minister. An Additional secretary to the government of India, under the director of R.A.W., is responsible for the Office of Special Operations, intelligence collected from different countries, internal security (under the director general of security), the electronic/technical section, and general administration.

The additional secretary as well as the director general of security is also under the director of R.A.W. The director of security has two important sections: the Aviation Research Center and the Special Services Bureau. The joint director has specified desks with different regional divisions/areas (countries): area one, Pakistan; area two, China and Southeast Asia; area three, the Middle East and Africa; and area four, other countries.

The Aviation Research Center (A.R.C.) is responsible for interception, monitoring and jamming of a target country’s communication systems. It has the most sophisticated electronic equipment and also a substantial number of aircraft equipped with state-of-the-art eavesdropping devices. A.R.C. was strengthened in mid-1987 by the addition of three new aircraft, all Gulf Stream-3s. These aircraft can reportedly fly at an altitude of 52,000 feet and have an operating range of 5,000 kilometers. A.R.C. also controls a number of radar stations located close to India’s borders. Its aircraft also carry out oblique reconnaissance, along the border with Bangladesh, China, Nepal, and Pakistan.Having been given virtual carte blanche to conduct destabilization operations in neighboring countries inimical to India, R.A.W. seriously undertook restructuring of its organization accordingly. R.A.W. was given a list of seven countries—Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, Pakistan, and Maldives—that India considered its principal regional protagonists.

It very soon systematically and brilliantly crafted covert operations in all these countries to coerce, destabilize, and subvert them in consonance with the foreign policy objectives of the Indian government.R.A.W.’s operations against the regional countries were conducted with great professional skill and expertise. Central to the operations was the establishment of a huge network inside the target countries. It used and targeted political dissent, ethnic divisions, economic backwardness, and criminal elements within these states to foment subversion, terrorism, and sabotage. Having thus created conducive environments, R.A.W. stage-managed future events in these countries in such a way that military intervention appears a natural concomitant of the events. In most cases, R.A.W.’s hand remained hidden, but more often than not target countries soon began unearthing this “hidden hand.” A brief expose of R.A.W.’s operations in neighboring countries, “Open Secrets: India’s Intelligence Unveiled ” by M. K. Dhar (Manas Publications, New Delhi, 2005), revealed the full expanse of its regional ambitions to suit the India Doctrine.

Bangladesh: Indian intelligence agencies were involved in erstwhile East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, beginning in the early 1960’s. Its operatives were in touch with Sheikh Mujib for quite some time. Sheikh Mujib went to Agartala in 1965. The famous Agartala case was unearthed in 1967. In fact, the main purpose of raising R.A.W. in 1968 was to organize covert operations in Bangladesh. As early as 1968, R.A.W. was given a green light to begin mobilizing all its resources for the impending surgical intervention in erstwhile East Pakistan.

When in July 1971 General Manekshaw told Prime Minister Indira Gandhi that the army would not be ready until December to intervene in Bangladesh, she quickly turned to R.A.W. for help. R.A.W. was ready. Its officers used Bengali refugees to set up the guerilla force Mukti Bahini. Using this outfit as a cover, the Indian military sneaked deep into Bangladesh. The story of Mukti Bahini and R.A.W.’s role in its creation and training is now well known. R.A.W. never concealed its Bangladesh operations. (See Asoka Raina’s “Inside R.A.W.: the story of India’s Secret Service, Vikas Publishing House of New Delhi.)The creation of Bangladesh was masterminded by R.A.W. in complicity with the K.G.B. under the covert clauses of the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation (adopted as the 25-Year Indo-Bangladesh Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in 1972). R.A.W. retained a keen interest in Bangladesh even after its independence. Subramaniam Swamy, Janata Dal member of Parliament, a close associate of Morarji Desai, said that Rameswar Nath Kao, former chief of R.A.W., and Shankaran Nair were upset about Sheikh Mujib’s assassination and chalked a plot to kill Gen.

Ziaur Rahman. However, when Desai came to power in 1977 he was indignant at R.A.W.’s role in Bangladesh and ordered operations in Bangladesh to be called off; but by then R.A.W. had already gone too far. General Zia continued in power for quite some time but was assassinated after Indira Gandhi returned to power, though she denied involvement in his assassination (Weekly Sunday, Calcutta, Sept. 18, 1988). R.A.W. was involved in training of Chakma tribes and Shanti Bahini, who carried out subversive activities in Bangladesh.

It also unleashed a well-organized plan of psychological warfare, created polarization among the armed forces, propagated false allegations of the use of Bangladesh territory by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, created dissension among the political parties and religious sects, controlled the media, denied the use of river waters, and propped up a host of disputes in order to keep Bangladesh under constant political and socio-economic pressure (See “R.A.W. and Bangladesh” by Mohammad Zainal Abedin, November 1995, and “R.A.W. in Bangladesh: Portrait of an Aggressive Intelligence,” written and published by Abu Rushd, Dhaka).

Sikkim and Bhutan: Sikkim was the easiest and most docile prey for R.A.W. Indira Gandhi annexed the Kingdom of Sikkim in the mid-1970’s. The deposed King Chogyal Tenzig Wangehuck was closely followed by R.A.W.’s agents until his death in 1992.Bhutan, like Nepal and Sikkim, is a land-locked country totally dependent on India. R.A.W. developed links with members of the royal family as well as top bureaucrats to implements its policies. It cultivated agents from among Nepalese settlers and put itself in a position to create difficulties for the government of Bhutan. In fact, the king of Bhutan has been reduced to the position of merely acquiescing to New Delhi’s decisions and goes by its dictates in the international arena.

Sri Lanka: Post-independence Sri Lanka, despite having a multi-sectoral population, was a peaceful country until 1971 and was following an independent foreign policy. During the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war, despite heavy pressure from India, Sri Lanka allowed Pakistan’s civil and military aircraft and ships to stage through its air and seaports with unhindered refueling facilities. It had also permitted Israel to establish a nominal intelligence presence and permitted the installation of a high-powered transmitter by Voice of America, which was resented by India.It was because of these “irritants” that Indira Gandhi planned to bring Sri Lanka into the fold of the so-called Indira Doctrine (India Doctrine). Kao was told by Gandhi to repeat their Bangladesh success. R.A.W. went looking for militants it could train to destabilize the regime. Camps were set up in Tamil Nadu and old R.A.W. guerrilla trainers were dug out of retirement.

R.A.W. began arming the Tamil Tigers and training them at centers such as Gunda and Gorakhpur. As a sequel to this ploy, Sri Lanka was forced into the Indian power web when the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987 was singed and the Indian Peacekeeping Force landed in Sri Lanka.The Ministry of External Affairs was upset at R.A.W.’s role in Sri Lanka as they felt that R.A.W. was continuing negotiations with Tamil Tiger leader Parabhakaran in contravention to the Indian government’s foreign policy.

According to R. Swaminathan, (former special secretary of R.A.W.) it was this outfit that was used as the intermediary between Rajib Gandhi and Tamil leader Parabhakaran. Former Indian high commissioner in Sri Lanka J. N. Dixit even accused R.A.W. of having given 10 million rupees to the L.T.T.E. (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam). At a later stage, R.A.W. built up the E.P.R.L.F. (Eelam People’s Revolutionary Liberation Front) and E.N.D.L.F. (Eelam National Democratic Liberation Front) to fight against the L.T.T.E., which made the situation in Sri Lanka highly volatile and uncertain later on.

Maldives: Under a well-orchestrated R.A.W. plan, on Nov. 30, 1988, a 300- to 400-strong well-trained force of mercenaries armed with automatic weapons, initially said to be of unknown origin, infiltrated in boats and stormed the capital of Maldives. They resorted to indiscriminate shooting and took high-level government officials hostage. At the Presidential Palace, the small contingent of loyal national guards offered stiff resistance, which enabled President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom to move to a safe place where he issued urgent appeals for help from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Britain, and the United States.

Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi reacted promptly and about 1,600 combat troops belonging to the 50th Independent Para-Brigade in conjunction with Indian naval units landed at Male, the capital of Maldives, under the code name Operation Cactus. A number of Indian air force transport aircraft, escorted by fighters, were used for landing personnel, heavy equipment, and supplies. Within hours of landing, Indian troops flushed out the attackers from the streets and hideouts. Some of them surrendered to Indian troops, and many were captured by Indian naval units while trying to escape with their hostages in a Maldivian ship, Progress Light. Most of the 30 hostages, including Ahmed Majtaba, Maldives’ minister of transport, were released.

The Indian government announced the success of Operation Cactus and complimented the armed forces for a good job done.The Indian defense minister, while addressing air force personnel at Bangalore, claimed that the country’s prestige had been raised because of the peace-keeping role played by Indian forces in Maldives. The international community in general and South Asian states in particular, however, viewed with suspicion the over-all concept and motives of the operation. The Western media described it as a display by India of its newly acquired military muscle and its growing role as a regional police force. Although the apparent identification of two Maldivian nationals among the mercenaries, at face value, link it with previous such attempts, other converging factors indicative of external involvement could hardly be ignored. That the mercenaries sailed from Manar and Kankasanturai in Sri Lanka, which were in complete control of the Indian Peacekeeping Force, and the timing and speed of India’s intervention proved its involvement beyond any doubt.

Nepal: Since the partition of the subcontinent, India has openly meddled in Nepal’s internal affairs by contriving internal strife and conflicts through R.A.W. to destabilize the successive legitimate governments and prop up puppet regimes that would be more amenable to Indian machinations. Armed insurrections were sponsored and abetted by R.A.W. and later requests for military assistance to control these conflicts were managed through pro-India leaders. India has been aiding and inciting the Nepalese dissidents to collaborate with the Nepali Congress. For this they were supplied arms whenever the king or the Nepalese government appeared to be drifting away from India’s dictates and impinging on India’s hegemonic designs in the region. In fact, under the garb of the so-called democratization measures, the Maoists were actively encouraged to collect arms and resort to open rebellion against the legitimate Nepalese governments. The contrived rebellions provided India an opportunity to intervene militarily in Nepal, ostensibly to control the insurrections, which were masterminded by R.A.W. itself.

It was an active replay of the Indian performance in Sri Lanka and Maldives a few years earlier. R.A.W. is particularly aiding the people of Indian origin and has been providing them with arms and ammunition. R.A.W. has also infiltrated the ethnic Nepali refugees who have been extradited by Bhutan and taken refuge in eastern Nepal. R.A.W. can exploit its links with these refugees whenever either country goes against Indian interests. Besides, the Nepalese economy is totally controlled by Indian moneylenders, financiers, and business mafia. (See “R.A.W.’s Machinations in South Asia” by Shastra Dutta Pant, Kathmandu, 2003.)

Afghanistan: Since December 1979, throughout the Afghan War, the K.G.B., K.H.A.D. (W.A.D.) (a former Afghan intelligence outfit), and R.A.W. stepped up their efforts to concentrate on influencing and covertly exploiting the tribes on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. There was intimate coordination between the three intelligence agencies not only in Afghanistan but also in Pakistan, where destabilization was sought through a subversion and sabotage plan related to Afghan refugees and mujahideen in the tribal belt and inside Pakistan.

They jointly organized spotting and recruitment of hostile tribesmen and trained them in guerrilla warfare, infiltration, subversion, sabotage, and the establishment of saboteur forces/terrorist organizations in the pro-Afghan tribes of Pakistan in order to carry out bombings in Afghan refugee camps in the Northwest Frontier province (NWFP) and Baluchistan to threaten and pressure them to return to Afghanistan. They also carried out bomb blasts in populated areas deep inside Pakistan to create panic and hatred in the minds of locals against Afghan refugee mujahideen to pressure Pakistan to change its policies on Afghanistan.

Pakistan: Pakistan’s size, strength, and potential have always overawed India. It has always considered Pakistan to be the main opponent to its expansionist doctrine. India’s animosity toward Pakistan is psychologically and ideologically deep-rooted and unassailable. India’s 1965 and 1971 wars with Pakistan over Kashmir, which resulted in the dismemberment of Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh, are just two examples.R.A.W. considers Sindh province to be Pakistan’s soft underbelly. It has made it the prime target for sabotage and subversion. R.A.W. has enrolled an extensive network of agents and antigovernment elements and is convinced that with a little push restless Sindh will revolt.

Taking full advantage of the agitation in Sindh in 1983, and the periodic ethnic riots, which have continued to today, R.A.W. has deeply penetrated Sindh and cultivated dissidents and secessionists, thereby creating hard-liners unlikely to allow peace to return to Sindh. R.A.W. is also similarly involved in Baluchistan.R.A.W. is also being blamed for confusing the ground situation is Kashmir so as to keep the world’s attention away from the gross human rights violations in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency (I.S.I.), being almost 20 years older than R.A.W. and having acquired a much higher standard of efficiency in its functioning, has become the prime target of R.A.W.’s designs. The I.S.I. is considered to be a stumbling block in R.A.W.’s operations and has been made a target of massive misinformation and propaganda campaigns. The tirade against I.S.I. continues unabated. The idea is to keep I.S.I. on the defensive by alleging that it has had a hand in supporting the Kashmiri mujahideen and the Sikhs in Punjab. R.A.W.’s fixation on I.S.I. has taken the shape of I.S.I.-phobia, as in India everyone traces the origin of all happenings and shortcomings to the I.S.I.

Whenever and wherever there is a kidnapping, a bank robbery, a financial scandal, a bomb blast, or what have you, the I.S.I. is deemed to have had a hand in it. (See “R.A.W.: Global and Regional Ambitions” edited by Rashid Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Saleem, Islamabad Policy Research Institute, Asia Printers, Islamabad, 2005).In summary, R.A.W. over the years has admirably fulfilled its tasks of destabilizing target states through the unbridled export of terrorism. The Indira Doctrine spelt out a difficult and onerous role for R.A.W. It goes to its credit that it has accomplished its assigned objectives due to the endemic weakness in the state apparatus of these nations and the failures of their leaders. R.A.W.: An Instrument of Indian Imperialism Isha Khan Dhaka, Bangladesh September 12, 2007

RAW in China. Indian RAW hand in TIbet

The interference in Tibet is well known and very deep. Indian mechanation against China.

XINJIANG: Xinjiang and Kashmir

CHINA AND INDIA: Chine scolds India at 2 am: Deep chill in Indo-Chinese relations

The BLA is a terror organizatیon declared a terrorist outfit by Pakistan, the US and the UK. The civilized world should write to president@bluehost.com, webmaster@bluehost.com, support@bluehost.com to shut down balochvoice.com which is run by a terror organization.،domain.tech@YAHOO-INC.COM

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

CCPO blames Jundullah for Ashura blast

View Larger Map

[See the flags on the map, representing the site of the blast, where the fugitives were captured and past tragedies that took place very near the site of the Ashura attack--the Daniel Pearl kidnapping, the capture of his captors, the Nishtar Park Eid Milad massacre, the location given as the permanent residence of Dawood Ibrahim, and the capture of a Lashkar e-Jhangvi gang w/suicide vests.  This is the hottest area in Karachi.  If the investigation actually unfolds, we will see that those captured are probably more Yemeni-Balochs, as were Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Yousef, and several of the attackers of Musharraf.  These guys may called be "Jundullah," or the "Amjad Farooqi group," or Lashkar e-Jhangvi, but it is all the same Wana-traineed outfit.  Some people simply call them "al Qaida."]

Karachi

A banned religious outfit known for major terrorist attempts was responsible for the Ashura blast, Capital City Police Officer (CCPO) Karachi Waseem Ahmed claimed during a press briefing on Sunday. He added that four activists of the organisation have been arrested. CCPO Ahmed also claimed to have recovered weapons from the arrested men.

The police were informed that some terrorists involved in the Ashura blast were present in Karachi and were escaping in a car via the Hawkesbay, the CCPO said. An investigation team carried out a raid near 500 Quarters, Hawkesbay Road, and after some resistance, arrested four suspects, identified as Murtaza alias Shakeel, Mohammed Shakeeb Farooqui alias Adil, Wazir Mohammed alias Shakir, and Murad Shah alias Farhan Mota.

The accused have confessed their involvement in the explosions at Paposh Nagar, Qasba and M.A Jinnah Road on Muharram 8, 9 and 10 respectively, CCPO Ahmed said, adding that all four men belong to a Karachi-based banned outfit named ‘Jundullah’.

The men also disclosed that they had planted a bomb near Doh-Minute Chowrangi; the bomb, however, did not explode. The further said that they had planted a bomb at a service road near the Nagan Chowrangi flyover to kill a Shia scholar on Muharram 11, but the scholar did not visit the place. The men then threw the bomb in a vacant plot near Anda Morre, Shadman Town; this was later recovered and defused by the police.

The men also confessed to bank robberies and murders of various security guards and police personnel during robberies. The accused used to detonate their bombs with the help of cellphones. Their commander, Hyder alias Shujaa, used to supervise these operations. Hyder was a resident of Quaidabad. He worked for Hamza Joofi alias Haji Mumtaz, and on January 4, 2010, he went to Wana to his camp.

The CCPO said that the accused also wanted to blow up a bus of a security organisation, and planned to do this in the future. They also wanted to kill prominent religious leaders and target religious places. The culprits also planned to target police officials who were investigating cases against them.

Is Pakhtunwali Pro-America, Anti-Pakistani?

Do the ordinary citizens of FATA and NWFP want the American military to come in and clean the place up?  The following explanation (from a comment on the Ashura blast on Karachi Met Blog) of Pashtun opinion (which I have encountered from others) leaves little doubt that the author believes that the Pakistani Army is responsible for all the terrorism that plagues the area and that the only solution is to embrace the solution offered by US forces. The prevalence of this opinion is proof that the covert backers of Pakistan’s terrorists have achieved their goals, which remain, as the author of the comment says, to support the anti-terror war in the tribal region.  This is indirect proof that these backers are American, or one of its allies in the region, meaning India, Israel, or Britain.

You Pashtuns who find yourselves wishing for an American victory in your land might ask yourselves–Why would terrorists want you to support their avowed enemies?  The obvious answer is that they would not.  The Pakistani Taliban fight for America/India/Israel/Britain and God knows who else.  If you are asking–If the TTP were pro-American then why would Hakeemullah order the CIA bombing?– You are overlooking the law of retribution.  The death of Baitullah required the death of someone responsible.

1. akbar (unregistered) on December 29th, 2009 @ 11:36 pm
   Hate for the US is the problem of Imran Khan or his anti-Pakhtun allies. It is not the problem of the people of FATA. Their problem is occupation of their land by the international jihadi gangs. There are clear signs that the people of FATA are cooperating with the Americans in liberating their land from the jihadi occupation

   This is in response to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan’s recent declaration that he is ready to mediate and start negotiations with the Taliban to secure a peace agreement if the government is willing to guarantee that it would not scrap the peace deal with them under US pressure. He made this offer in an interview with Dr Moeed Pirzada on a private TV channel. By now Imran Khan stands fully exposed that he is one of the forces of darkness — the jihadi generals like Hamid Gul, the Jamaat-e-Islami and other pan-Islamists like the Deobandis, neo-Wahabis and Akhwan ideologues. Together they have given the Taliban identity to the Pakhtun and caused massacre of over three million of them on both sides of the Durand Line. They continue to destroy the Pakhtun for a great game against India and in the name of global Islamism. It is, however, the duty of all educated Pakhtuns to challenge the bizarre fabrications that Imran Khan attributed to the people of FATA to justify his offer.

   Imran Khan said one of the Taliban groups is made of tribesmen who hate the US and attack the state and society in Pakistan because they see the country in alliance with the US. This is a bizarre fantasy of Imran Khan having nothing to do with tribesmen in FATA. There are no tribesmen who are killing innocent civilians and security forces due to anti-US sentiment. The tribesmen who have joined the Taliban groups are seen as criminals by their fellow tribesmen. The tribesmen who have joined the ranks of different Taliban groups are lost to the global jihadi ideology of the al Qaeda and stand stripped of Pakhtunwali. They are no more Pakhtun! They themselves have given up their Pakhtun identity. They claim to fight for global Islam that disrespects ethnic sensitivities.

   The militants, in Imran Khan’s own words in the interview, are 15,000. Clearly not all of them are tribesmen. They include the Punjabi Taliban and foreign terrorists. There are no signs that these 15,000 or so terrorists are backed by tribal society. There has never been any grand tribal jirga in any tribal area that backed the terrorists, local or foreign. The Taliban groups in FATA are Hafiz Gul Abrader Groups, Haqqani Group, Mullah Nazeer Group, Turkistan Brittani Group, Tariq Afridi Group, Mangal Bagh Group, and Maulvi Omar Group. These terrorist groups are killing indiscriminately inside and beyond FATA. None of them had ever been backed by tribal jirgas. In fact, some of them have banned jirgas and termed them as ‘un-Islamic’ institutions. These groups have to be crushed for peace in Pakhtunkhwa and wider Pakistan. Anyone seeking dialogue with such groups is the enemy of the Pakhtun and Pakistan.

   Hate for the US is the problem of Imran Khan or his anti-Pakhtun allies. It is not the problem of the people of FATA. Their problem is occupation of their land by the international jihadi gangs. There are clear signs that the people of FATA are cooperating with the Americans in liberating their land from the jihadi occupation. The drone strikes could not have been successful in killing so many al Qaeda and Taliban leaders without the help of the people of Waziristan on the ground.

   Moreover, the Taliban kill people every single day in Waziristan on suspicion of spying for the US. They think that with terror they can deter the people of Waziristan from coordinating with the Americans. This has not been successful so far. Why is Imran Khan ever so silent over the daily slaughter of innocent people of Waziristan on charges of spying for the US? Are they not tribesmen and women and even human beings?

   The most outrageous statement he made is that the assassinated tribal leadership in Waziristan was pro-US. The leadership has been eliminated by the Taliban with state collusion according to the families of the assassinated people. I challenge Imran Khan to prove that even a single person among the assassinated 600-plus tribal leaders, religious scholars, teachers, doctors, etc., was pro-US! Were respectable tribal elders like Shah Alam Wazir, Khandan Mehsud, Mirza Alam Mehsud, Mohammad Nawaz Mehsud, and Farooq Wazir pro-US? The Taliban beheaded Mufti Sibghatullah and killed Maulana Mohammad Hussain, Imam of Godam Mosque, Tank. Does Imran Khan believe that those religious scholars were also pro-US? Imran Khan must tender an unconditional apology to the people of Waziristan, especially to the family of the assassinated people for making this bizarre statement.

   Exploiting the infamous anti-Indian stance, he argues that the government of Pakistan is pleasing India by making the soldiers of the Pakistan Army fight with the Taliban. This is the interpretation of the pro-jihadi forces in Pakistan. It is not the view of the people of FATA. This war is not about India or the US. It is about us — the citizens of Pakistan, whose lives are disrupted by the terrorists who are hell bent upon subjugating us to their version of shariah. The jihadi pursuit of our state created these terrorists and it is now the duty of the state to eliminate them if Pakistan has to survive as a modern democratic state.

   Both the PPP and the ANP have lost near and dear ones in terrorist acts of the Taliban. They must continue the fight against the Taliban and ignore the offer of Imran Khan, who is in any case not a neutral party but one of the pro-Taliban forces. In this regard I wish to refer to one of the points of the joint declaration of a grand jirga of all democratic political parties, intelligentsia and civil society organisations held in Peshawar on December 12-13, 2009. The declaration says, “All those political or non-political forces that defend the Taliban and Talibanisation in Pakistan in one way or the other like the Jamaat-e-Islami, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, Tehreek-e-Insaf and other outfits are considered anti-Pakistan, anti-people and anti-Pakhtun by the people of Pakhtunkhwa.”

   The Pakistan Army must continue fighting the Taliban until their complete elimination. The military establishment must know that lack of protection of the state from the Taliban atrocities has already thrown the people of Waziristan into cooperation with the US in terms of spying for the drone attacks on the terrorists occupying the area. A time may not be far when the rest of Pakhtunkhwa will be cooperating with the US. What would become of the federation of Pakistan in such a situation? Up until now most Pakhtuns are loyal to the federation of Pakistan, but this loyalty is definitely not limitless and requires that the state must protect them and their way of life. By eliminating the Taliban, the army must prove that it stands with the Pakhtun who suffer under the Taliban. In the long run, this may be important for a constant inflow of Pakhtun loyalty with the state of Pakistan.

3,000 bulletproof jackets held at Karachi port

ISLAMABAD: About 3,000 bulletproof jackets imported by US Embassy have been stopped at the Karachi Port due to fear of slipping these things into wrong hands, sources said on Sunday.

Well-placed sources told the NNI that these jackets had been lying in the port for a month due to non-clearance from security agencies. The sources said these jackets were held at the port after growing suspected activities of the US nationals and import of bulletproof vehicles into the country.

Sources said that these jackets would not be dispatched to the US Embassy until it was cleared by security agencies. On the other hand, officials of US Embassy said that they had to pay Rs 100,000 to the shipping company on daily basis.

They said they had imported these jackets for the NWFP Police in order to make them secure and effective in war against terrorism.It may be recalled that bulletproof helmets and other prohibited gadgets imported by the UNDP were also stopped at the Benazir International Airport due to non-clearance by security sleuths.

Hard, Hard Times for American Farmers

Gwyneth Pierson To Keep Copake Farm After Husband Shoots 51 Cows, Self

COPAKE, N.Y. — The widow of a New York dairy farmer who methodically slaughtered 51 cows before taking his own life says she wants to figure out a way to keep the farm going.

Dean Pierson, 59, was found dead Thursday on the floor of his barn in Copake, a rural hamlet 115 miles north of New York City. Nearby, half his herd lay in their milking stalls, also dead of gunshot wounds.

Pierson left no explanation for what he’d done, just a simple note on the barn door warning whoever found it not to come in and to call the police.

But there appeared to be a method to his bloody work. He killed only the cows that required frequent milking, letting 50 others live, including heifers and calves.

Neighbors speculated that he was trying to spare his family the burden of caring for the animals.

He left no suicide note, said his wife, Gwynneth, who was home at the time of the shootings but heard nothing.

“No one knows why for sure,” she told the Times Union of Albany, adding that her husband had been “talking a lot to his mom.”

Now, she said, “We need to figure out how to keep the farm going … It wouldn’t be right for all that work he put into it to go to nothing.”

On Friday, neighboring farmers used a backhoe and bulldozer to bury the animals, pushing them into a deep pit in the Columbia County soil.

Pierson had four children, but he milked the herd alone – once before sunrise and again at night, neighbors said. He kept mostly to himself, rarely visiting with other farmers.

“Dean had no help on the farm and he worked really hard to do it all himself,” neighbor Susan Kiernan told the Times Union.

“It’s hard to hang in now and a lot of dairy farmers are going out of business,” she added. Kiernan’s family has operated a dairy farm for three generations.

The gruesome scene in the barn was discovered at about 1 p.m. Thursday by a neighboring farmer

State police Capt. Scott Brown told the Rockford Register-Star that an investigation revealed that the farmer was having “personal issues.”

The farm was founded by Pierson’s father, a Swedish immigrant. He named the property High Low Farm.

Provoking Turkey While Handing Iraq To Iran On a Platter

[Does anyone have a theory that explains current American behavior in Iraq?  After making Iraq safe for Iranian dominance, why did the US then side with Turkey's enemies in Diyala?  If the objective remains domination through destabilization, then I guess that nothing else could have destabilized Iraq more.] Iraq: Joint Iraqi-Peshmerga-U.S. Patrols Begin In Disputed Territorie Musings On Iraq January 24, 2010 On January 13, 2010 checkpoints manned by the Iraqi army, Kurdish peshmerga, and U.S. soldiers were set up in Diyala. Similar checkpoints will be created in Ninewa and Tamim later in the month. They are being created in what the U.S. calls the Combined Security Area where Iraqi and peshmerga forces meet, but do not cooperate. These joint operations are meant to help ease tensions between Baghdad and Kurdistan, as well as improve security. In August 2009 commander of U.S. forces in Iraq General Ray Odierno proposed joint patrols in disputed territories. To Odierno, the patrols would address two important issues. First, the arguments between the Kurds and Arabs in northern Iraq created security gaps that were exploited by insurgents to carry out attacks. Joint patrols were meant to counter this. Second, the Americans have pointed to the Arab-Kurd dispute as the main source of instability in Iraq’s future, and it was hoped that cooperation on the ground would alleviate this problem. While the Kurds immediately embraced the concept, many Arabs and Turkmen rejected it just as fast. Shortly after Odierno proposed his plan, Arabs and Turkmen began voicing their opposition. On August 23, 2009 for example, the Ninewa provincial council, which is controlled by the Arab led al-Hadbaa party, said they rejected the idea. On September 1, Arabs and Turkmen in the Kirkuk city council also complained. That same month Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi questioned the idea during a meeting with Vice President Joe Biden while he was visiting Iraq, and a few days later 100 Arabs protested against the patrols in Mosul. Today, Arabs and Turkmen are just as opposed. A Turkmen member of the Tamim provincial council, members of the Arab Group in that province, as well as the al-Hadbaa List in Ninewa all said they were still against the joint patrols in January 2010. Their negative opinion is based upon two issues. First, they want the Iraqi army and police to secure their provinces rather than a mix of U.S., Iraqi, and peshmerga forces. Second, they believe that joint patrols will give legitimacy to the peshmerga being in disputed areas, which many Arabs and Turkmen of the region see as being illegal and a step towards annexation into Kurdistan. The peshmerga presence and disputed territories in northern Iraq were created as a result of the overthrow of Saddam. In 2003 the peshmerga swept southout of Kurdistan as part of the U.S. invasion. They set up de facto control of areas in Ninewa, Diyala, and Tamim provinces that they claimed were historically Kurdish, and that they wished to annex. When the insurgency began to take off, the U.S. military also asked the Kurds to help with security. The Kurdish forces have been in these areas ever since, and administered them as parts of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) with little to no coordination with Baghdad or Iraqi forces. In 2008, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki attempted to assert control of these areas by moving Iraqi forces into Ninewa and Diyala that caused a crisis with the Kurds. This brought the Arab-Kurd dispute to the attention of the U.S. military and policy makers, and led to the joint patrols plan. Joint patrols will definitely help with security, but the political affects are much more questionable. Northern Iraq is the most violent part of the country, and insurgents have carried out massive bombings and other attacks there to try to play on the differences between Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen, and other minorities that live there. There are swaths of territory in the region that have little military presence because of the disputes between Arabs and Kurds. Joint patrols and checkpoints will hopefully fill these gaps. Since so many local Arabs and Turkmen are opposed to the idea however, the political repercussions may be negligible. They are all afraid that the joint patrols will legitimize Kurdish control of the areas, and in turn allow for their annexation. While they would like better security, they believe the Iraqi security forces should be responsible instead. Joint patrols are likely to be a stopgap measure then, which will help with fighting insurgents, but maintain the political status quo. SOURCES AK News, “Arab and Turcomans seek to dissolve joint forces in parliament,” 1/20/10 - “Iraqi MP: Deploying Peshmerga forces in Kirkuk aims to keep it safe,” 1/18/10 - “Joint forces will be deployed in Mosul in coming days,” 1/14/10 - “Kurds accept, Arabs and Turkmen refuse deployment of common forces in Disputed cities,” 1/14/10 - “Kurds welcome Americans Kirkuk proposal,” 8/20/09 Aswat al-Iraq, “Hashemi voices reservations about joint forces presence in Kirkuk, Ninewa,” 9/16/09 - “Peaceful demonstration in Ninewa against joint forces presence,” 9/28/09 Fontaine, Scott, “Milestone: Arab-Kurdish-American checkpoints,” Tribune News, 1/22/10 Knights, Michael, “National Implications of the Kurdish Elections,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy, September 2009 Visser, Reidar, “Maliki’s Northern Headache, and How General Odierno Is Compounding It,” Iraq And Gulf Analysis, 9/9/09 Zuber, Zach, “Three Forces Come Together for Checkpoints,” DVIDS, 1/22/10

:: Article nr. 62534 sent on 25-jan-2010 01:26 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=62534

Link: musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2010/01/joint-iraqi-peshmerga-us-patrols-begin.html

Flight 253 Cover-Up

Flight 253 Cover-Up: “No Smoking Gun” Claims Undercut by New Disclosures Tom Burghardt Antifascist Calling… , January 24, 2010 Nearly one month after passengers foiled an attempted suicide bomb attack aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 as it approached Detroit on Christmas Day, new information reveals that the White House and U.S. security agencies had specific intelligence on accused terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, far earlier than previously acknowledged. Along with new reports, evidence suggests that the administration’s cover-up of the affair has very little to do with a failure by the intelligence apparatus to “connect the dots” and may have far more serious political implications for the Obama administration, and what little remains of a functioning democracy in the United States, than a botched bombing. What the White House and security officials have previously described only as “vague” intercepts regarding “a Nigerian” has now morphed into a clear picture of the suspect–and the plot. The New York Times revealed January 18 that the National Security Agency “learned from a communications intercept of Qaeda followers in Yemen that a man named “Umar Farouk”–the first two names of the jetliner suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab–had volunteered for a coming operation.” According to Times’ journalists Eric Lipton, Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti, “the American intelligence network was clearly listening in Yemen and sharing that information.” Indeed, additional NSA intercepts in December “mentioned the date of Dec. 25, and suggested that they were ‘looking for ways to get somebody out’ or ‘for ways to move people to the West,’ one senior administration official said.” Clearly, the administration was “worried about possible terrorist attacks over the Christmas holiday.” These concerns led President Obama to meet December 22 “with top officials of the C.I.A., F.B.I. and Department of Homeland Security, who ticked off a list of possible plots against the United States and how their agencies were working to disrupt them,” the Timesreports. “In a separate White House meeting that day” the Times disclosed, “Mr. Obama’s homeland security adviser, John O. Brennan, led talks on Yemen, where a stream of disturbing intelligence had suggested that Qaeda operatives were preparing for some action, perhaps a strike on an American target, on Christmas Day.” In mid-January, Newsweek reported that the “White House report on the foiled Christmas Day attempted airliner bombing provided only the sketchiest of details about what may have been the most politically sensitive of its findings: how the White House itself was repeatedly warned about the prospect of an attack on the U.S.,” Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff disclosed. According to the newsmagazine, “intelligence analysts had ‘highlighted’ an evolving ‘strategic threat,’” and that “‘some of the improvised explosive device tactics AQAP might use against U.S. interests were highlighted’ in other ‘finished intelligence products’.” However, the real bombshell came last Wednesday during hearings before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee when Bushist embed, and current Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Michael E. Leiter, made a startling admission. CongressDaily reported on January 22 that intelligence officials “have acknowledged the government knowingly allows foreigners whose names are on terrorist watch lists to enter the country in order to track their movement and activities.” Leiter told the Committee: “I will tell you, that when people come to the country and they are on the watch list, it is because we have generally made the choice that we want them here in the country for some reason or another.” CongressDaily reporter Chris Strohm, citing an unnamed “intelligence official” confirmed that Leiter’s statement reflected government policy and told the publication, “in certain situations it’s to our advantage to be able to track individuals who might be on a terrorist watch list because you can learn something from their activities and their contacts.” An alternative explanation fully in line with well-documented inaction, or worse, by U.S. security agencies prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and now, Christmas Day’s aborted airline bombing, offer clear evidence that a ruthless “choice” which facilitates the murder of American citizens are cynical pretexts in a wider game: advancing imperialism’s geostrategic goals abroad and attacks on democratic rights at home. Leiter’s revelation in an of itself should demolish continued government claims that the accused terror suspect succeeded in boarding NW Flight 253 due to a failure to “connect the dots.” However, as far as Antifascist Calling can determine, no other media outlet has either reported or followed-up CongressDaily’s disclosure; a clear sign that its explosive nature, and where a further investigation might lead, are strictly off-limits. Taking into account testimony by a high-level national security official that terrorists are allowed to enter the country for intelligence purposes, one can only conclude that the alleged “failure” to stop Abdulmutallab was neither a casual omission nor the result of bureaucratic incompetence but rather, a highly-charged political calculation. Bushist Embeds: Destabilizing the Obama Administration? One subject barely explored by corporate media throughout the Flight 253 affair, is the unsettling notion that the aborted Christmas day bombing may have been a move by rightist elements within the security apparatus to destabilize the Obama administration, a course of action facilitated by the Obama government itself as we will explore below. This is not as implausible as it might appear at first blush. When one takes into account the meteoric rise to power by the 40-year-old former Navy pilot and federal prosecutor, Michael Leiter’s ascent tracks closely with his previous service as a cover-up specialist for the Bush-Cheney regime. “In 2004, while working as a federal prosecutor,” a New York Times puff piece informs us, “Mr. Leiter joined the staff of a commission, appointed by President George W. Bush, to examine intelligence failures leading up to the war in Iraq. That led to a series of jobs in the intelligence world, and in 2008, Mr. Bush appointed him director of the counterterrorism center.” A rather curious appointment, if Leiter were simply an ingénue with no prior experience in the murky world of intelligence and covert operations. However the former Navy pilot, who participated in the U.S. wars of aggression against the former Yugoslavia and Iraq seemed to have the requisite qualifications for work as an intelligence “specialist.” While attending Harvard Law School, Leiter served as a “human rights fellow” with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague, the U.S.-sponsored kangaroo court that has prosecuted America’s official enemies in the Balkans whilst covering-up the crimes of their partners. Amongst America’s more dubious “allies” in the decade-long campaign to destabilize socialist Yugoslavia were al-Qaeda’s Islamist brigade, responsible for carrying-out hideous massacres in Bosnia and Kosovo, with NATO approval and logistical support, as Global Research analyst Michel Chossudovsky, and others, have thoroughly documented. As Deputy General Counsel and Assistant Director of the President’s Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States, the so-called “Robb-Silberman” cover-up commission, Leiter focused on what are euphemistically described in the media as “reforms” with the U.S. “Intelligence Community,” including the stand-up of the FBI’s repressive National Security Branch. Prior to joining NCTC, Leiter was the Deputy Chief of Staff for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under former NSA Director and ten-year senior vice president of the spooky Booz Allen Hamilton security firm, John “Mike” McConnell. From his perch in ODNI, Leiter coordinated all internal and external operations for the Office, including relations with the White House, the Department of Homeland Security and the CIA. Leiter’s résumé, and his role in concealing Bush administration war crimes, predicated on ginned-up “intelligence” invented by Dick Cheney’s minions in the Defense Department and the CIA, should have sent alarm bells ringing inside the incoming Obama administration. As we have seen since Obama’s inauguration however, rather than cleaning house–and settling accounts–with the crimes, and criminals, of the previous regime, the “change” administration chose to retain senior- and mid-level bureaucrats in the security apparatus; employing officials who share the antidemocratic ideology, penchant for secrecy and ruthlessness of the Bush administration. While the Times claims his “unblemished résumé” has taken a hit over the Flight 253 plot, an interview with National Public Radio shortly before the Abdulmutallab affair, provides chilling insight into Leiter’s agenda, particularly in light of his January 20 statement to the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Presciently perhaps, the NCTC chief told NPR: “We’re not going to stop every attack. Americans have to very much understand that it is impossible to stop every terrorist event. But we have to do our best, and we have to adjust, based on, again, how the enemy changes their tactics.” It becomes a painfully simple matter for “the enemy” to gain advantage and “change their tactics” when those charged with protecting the public actually facilitate their entrée into the country “for some reason or another”! According to the Times, the White House has kept Leiter at the helm and that it came as “no surprise to Bush officials” because, get this, “Michael wasn’t political,” if we’re to believe the carefully-constructed legend of former Bushist Deputy National Security Adviser Juan Zarate. If the Bush-Cheney years tell us anything it’s that appointments by the previous regime were ruthlessly political. As The Washington Post reported shortly after Obama’s election, these appointments were made permanent across a multitude of federal agencies and departments, including the security apparat, in a cynical maneuver designed to reward Bush loyalists. “The transfer of political appointees into permanent federal positions” the Postdisclosed, “called ‘burrowing’ by career officials, creates security for those employees, and at least initially will deprive the incoming Obama administration of the chance to install its preferred appointees in some key jobs.” The Times reports that the White House has publicly defended Leiter “and aides to the president said Mr. Obama called to convey his support.” Perhaps not so curiously, the allegedly “nonpolitical” NCTC Director “has been mentioned as a possible future head of the Central Intelligence Agency, and how he performs might help determine whether he remains on the fast track.” One can only wonder, how many other counterterrorist officials have “burrowed” their way into, and hold key positions in the current administration, ticking political time-bombs inside America’s permanent shadow government. Senate Whitewash Fuel Attacks on Democratic Rights During Wednesday’s Senate hearings, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis C. Blair, in keeping with the former Bush administration’s assault on democratic rights, assailed the decision by the Justice Department to try the suspect in a court of law. This is fully in line with the rhetoric of ultra-right Republicans and so-called “centrist Democrats” such as arch neocon Senator Joseph Lieberman. Newsweek reports that new details “surrounding the Christmas Day interrogation of the bombing suspect aboard Northwest Flight 253 raise questions about the accuracy of testimony provided Wednesday by senior U.S. intelligence and Homeland Security officials.” Last week, the newsmagazine reported that “Obama administration officials were flabbergasted Wednesday when Director of National Intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair testified that an alleged Qaeda operative who tried to blow up a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day should have been questioned by a special interrogation unit that doesn’t exist, rather than the FBI.” This theme was quickly picked-up by Senate Republicans. The overarching sentiments expressed by this gaggle of war criminals and corporate toadies was not to demand accountability from the responsible parties, but to call for further attacks on Americans’ democratic rights. Republicans on the committee lambasted Obama’s Justice Department for its decision to try Abdulmutallab in a civilian court. John McCain (R-AZ), the Republican party’s failed candidate in the 2008 presidential election, said the decision was “a terrible, terrible mistake,” while the execrable Jeff Sessions (R-AL) claimed that the hapless suspect should have been delivered to the U.S. military as an “enemy combatant.” Ranking Republicans on the committee, Susan Collins (R-ME) and John Ensign (R-NV) went so far as to imply that Abdulmutallab should have been tortured. Collins inquired: “how can we uncover plots” if accused criminal suspects are allowed to “lawyer up and stop answering questions?” Ensign, a staunch supporter of policies articulated by the Bush administration, particularly former Vice President and war criminal, Dick Cheney, argued that “limiting” CIA interrogators to the methods laid out in the Army Field Manual would allow terrorists to “train” in advance of interrogations. But the harshest criticism of the administration came in the form of a stealth attack by Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair. The Wall Street Journal reported January 21 that “nation’s intelligence chief said the man accused of trying to blow up an airliner on Christmas Day should have been questioned by a special interrogation team instead of being handled as an ordinary criminal suspect.” Rather than coming to terms and halting the Bush regime’s practice of torturing so-called terrorist suspects, the Obama administration has compounded the crime by creating a secretive group of interrogators called the High-Value Interrogation Group or HIG. Blair told the Senate that the administration had “botched” the handling of suspect Abdulmutallab, by, wait, not handing him over to a group that as of this writing, exists only on paper, a salient fact of which Blair was certainly knowledgeable! In his testimony however, the DNI told the Homeland Security Committee that the HIG “was created exactly for this purpose–to make a decision on whether a certain person who’s detained should be treated as a case for federal prosecution or for some of the other means.” Blair implicitly criticized the Justice Department’s decision to uphold constitutional protections that guarantee a suspect a right to a trial in a court of law and not a one-way ticket to an American gulag. Blair said, “we did not invoke the HIG in this case; we should have. Frankly, we were thinking more of overseas people and, duh, you know, we didn’t put it [in action] then.” Mendaciously, the DNI claimed “I was not consulted. The decision was made on the scene, [and] seemed logical to the people there, but it should have been taken using this HIG format, at a higher level.” Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff disclosed January 20 that “senior administration officials” told him that Blair was “misinformed on multiple levels” and that the DNI’s assertions were “all the more damaging because they immediately fueled Republican criticism that the administration mishandled the Christmas Day incident in its treatment of the accused Qaeda operative as a criminal suspect rather than an enemy combatant.” Isikoff reported January 22 that Blair, Leiter and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano were asked about the decision to try Abdulmutallab and all gave the same answer when queried by right-wing Senator Susan Collins, the Committee’s ranking Republican: “Were you consulted regarding the decision to file criminal charges against [suspect Umar Farouk] Abdulmutallab in civilian court?” Leiter and Napolitano both replied: “I was not.” According to Newsweek, Blair also said he was “not consulted” and claims that the government “should have” brought in the yet-to-be activated HIG “to conduct the questioning of the suspect.” As with every aspect of this strange affair, Newsweek reports, these statements are riddled with lies and mischaracterizations. Isikoff writes that “all the relevant national-security agencies, including top aides to Blair and Napolitano, were fully informed about the plans to charge the suspect in federal court hours before he was read his Miranda rights and stopped cooperating.” Newsweek further reveals that a “key event” was a secure videoconference on Christmas Day “that included Leiter” and Jane Lute, DHS’ No. 2 official and that “neither Leiter nor any of the other participants, including representatives from the FBI and the CIA, raised any questions about the Justice Department’s plans to charge the suspect in federal court, the officials said.” “If you participate in a conference call and you don’t raise any objections, that suggests you were consulted,” said one senior law-enforcement official. Another added that “nobody at any point” raised any objections, either during the meeting or during a four-hour period afterward when Abdulmutallab was informed of his Miranda rights to be represented by a lawyer,” according toNewsweek. Ultra-right Senator Kit Bond (R-MO), the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a witting accomplice to the previous regime’s high crimes and misdemeanors against the American people said, “That this administration chose to shut out our top intelligence officials and forgo collecting potentially life-saving intelligence is a dangerous sign.” It’s a “dangerous sign” to be sure, for America’s battered democracy. An On-Going Cover-Up As events continue to unfold and new information shreds the official story, is Leiter’s chilling testimony that suspected terrorists are allowed to enter the United States “because we have generally made the choice that we want them here in the country for some reason or another,” merely a banal slip or something far more sinister that betrays the real order of things in post-democratic America? Relevant questions begging for answers include: Who made the decision not to “connect the dots”? Are right-wing elements and holdovers from the previous administration actively conspiring to destabilize the Obama government? Was the attempted bombing a planned provocation meant to incite new conflicts in the Middle East and restrict democratic rights at home? As with the 9/11 attacks, these questions go unasked by corporate media. Indeed, such lines of inquiry are entirely off the table and are further signs that a cover-up is in full-swing, not a hard-hitting investigation. In truth, what we are dealing with here as we stagger into the second decade of the 21st century, is not a “conspiracy” per se but a modus operandi as theWorld Socialist Web Site has argued, rooted in a bankrupt system quickly reaching the end of the line.

:: Article nr. 62548 sent on 25-jan-2010 06:42 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=62548

Gates faux pas opens the door to criticism

By Baqir Sajjad Syed

The US embassy tried to paper over Gates’s diplomatic faux pas of confirming Blackwater presence in Pakistan by putting the blame on the media.— Photo by AFP

ISLAMABAD: The US embassy on Saturday tried to paper over Defence Secretary Robert Gates’s diplomatic faux pas of confirming Blackwater presence in Pakistan by putting the blame on the media, but it found few takers.

Secretary Gates’s impromptu comments in a television interview have renewed the focus on seething rage among Pakistanis about the involvement of private US security companies, particularly Blackwater, in the country.

The embassy, in a statement on Secretary Gates’s remarks, accused the television station and newspapers of inaccurate and dishonest reporting.

“The television station and many newspapers chose to inaccurately portray his answer as tacit confirmation on the use of Blackwater in Pakistan instead of as a commentary on use of security contractors in general. At no time did Secretary Gates say that Blackwater is operating in Pakistan,” the statement said.

Perhaps the secretary’s reply to a query in an interview with a private channel, when read along with the question, may bring the slip out.

According to the transcript posted on the website of US Department of Defence, Secretary Gates had said: “Well, they’re operating as individual companies here in Pakistan, in Afghanistan and in Iraq because there are theatres of war involving the United States.”

He had been asked: “And I want to talk, of course, about another issue that has come up again and again about the private security companies that have been operating in Iraq, in Afghanistan and now in Pakistan.

“Xe International, formerly known as Blackwater and Dyncorp. Under what rules are they operating here in Pakistan?”

Officials accompanying the secretary immediately after the show made him realise the mistake of publicly acknowledging the presence of private US security firms in Pakistan, something which had earlier been denied by both the Pakistan government and the US embassy.

Damage control exercise was planned and Secretary Gates, in an interaction with print journalists the following day, attempted clarification of his statement: “Department of Defence (DoD) does not use Blackwater in Pakistan. We have no connection with Blackwater in Pakistan.”

Observers believe there is technically little difference between the two statements. He did not deny outright Blackwater presence. He just confined himself to saying his department did not employ them in Pakistan.

Whether the remarks were unintentional or Mr Gates was trying to be too candid, diplomatic observers believe the comments are set to widen the trust deficit between the US and Pakistan, which the secretary himself conceded was making it difficult to work together in confronting extremism.

The controversial remarks have also put the government in an awkward and embarrassing position. Opposition parties are now having the last laugh, seeking explanations from the government.

Several attempts were made to seek the government’s reaction from the Foreign Office and key federal ministers, but everyone was tight-lipped. The slip has taken the government not only by surprise, but has also come at a most inappropriate time when it was struggling to cope with the aftermath of the Supreme Court verdict on the National Reconciliation Ordinance.

Although reports in Pakistani media since early last year had been expressing concern about the presence of Blackwater and other US contractors, but publication of reports in British and American media about the mercenary firm’s activities in Pakistan turned the spotlight on the issue.

In November, Jeremy Scahill reported for US magazine The Nation that Blackwater was operating out of a covert base in Karachi, where it “plan(s) targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, ‘snatch and grabs’ of high-value targets and other sensitive action inside and outside Pakistan”.

Scahill had alleged that Blackwater, which had a subcontract with a private Pakistani security company, worked for US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).

Subsequently in December, the Guardian carried a report about Blackwater presence at an air force base in Balochistan, which was being used by US.

It is interesting to note that though Mr Gates had denied that Department of Defence was not Blackwater’s employer in Pakistan, but he had stayed short of saying if State Department or any other US government agency was using them here.

An answer to this riddle can probably be found in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comments at a Town Hall meeting in Islamabad during her visit in October.

The secretary, in reply to a similar question, had said: “I understand the sensitivity of the issue, but I want to be clear why we have any contractors, well because we get dozens and dozens of threats every month directed towards our diplomats and public officials, who are here for diplomatic activity. Our diplomats don’t carry arms, but on the other hand if they have to get out they need security.”

Notwithstanding the US embassy’s rejoinder on the issue, people are largely convinced that Mr Gates has inadvertently spilled the beans. But for them the most important question now is whether Blackwater has been operating on its own, under the camouflage of some local security company, or in league with some elements within the country’s security apparatus or even the government.

Democracy in America Is a Useful Fiction

Original: AP / Charles Dharapak

By Chris Hedges

Corporate forces, long before the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, carried out a coup d’état in slow motion. The coup is over. We lost. The ruling is one more judicial effort to streamline mechanisms for corporate control. It exposes the myth of a functioning democracy and the triumph of corporate power. But it does not significantly alter the political landscape. The corporate state is firmly cemented in place.

The fiction of democracy remains useful, not only for corporations, but for our bankrupt liberal class. If the fiction is seriously challenged, liberals will be forced to consider actual resistance, which will be neither pleasant nor easy. As long as a democratic facade exists, liberals can engage in an empty moral posturing that requires little sacrifice or commitment. They can be the self-appointed scolds of the Democratic Party, acting as if they are part of the debate and feel vindicated by their cries of protest.

Much of the outrage expressed about the court’s ruling is the outrage of those who prefer this choreographed charade. As long as the charade is played, they do not have to consider how to combat what the political philosopher Sheldon Wolin calls our system of “inverted totalitarianism.”

Inverted totalitarianism represents “the political coming of age of corporate power and the political demobilization of the citizenry,” Wolin writes in “Democracy Incorporated.” Inverted totalitarianism differs from classical forms of totalitarianism, which revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader, and finds its expression in the anonymity of the corporate state. The corporate forces behind inverted totalitarianism do not, as classical totalitarian movements do, boast of replacing decaying structures with a new, revolutionary structure. They purport to honor electoral politics, freedom and the Constitution. But they so corrupt and manipulate the levers of power as to make democracy impossible.

Inverted totalitarianism is not conceptualized as an ideology or objectified in public policy. It is furthered by “power-holders and citizens who often seem unaware of the deeper consequences of their actions or inactions,” Wolin writes. But it is as dangerous as classical forms of totalitarianism. In a system of inverted totalitarianism, as this court ruling illustrates, it is not necessary to rewrite the Constitution, as fascist and communist regimes do. It is enough to exploit legitimate power by means of judicial and legislative interpretation. This exploitation ensures that huge corporate campaign contributions are protected speech under the First Amendment. It ensures that heavily financed and organized lobbying by large corporations is interpreted as an application of the people’s right to petition the government. The court again ratified the concept that corporations are persons, except in those cases where the “persons” agree to a “settlement.” Those within corporations who commit crimes can avoid going to prison by paying large sums of money to the government while, according to this twisted judicial reasoning, not “admitting any wrongdoing.” There is a word for this. It is called corruption.

Corporations have 35,000 lobbyists in Washington and thousands more in state capitals that dole out corporate money to shape and write legislation. They use their political action committees to solicit employees and shareholders for donations to fund pliable candidates. The financial sector, for example, spent more than $5 billion on political campaigns, influence peddling and lobbying during the past decade, which resulted in sweeping deregulation, the gouging of consumers, our global financial meltdown and the subsequent looting of the U.S. Treasury. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America spent $26 million last year and drug companies such as Pfizer, Amgen and Eli Lilly kicked in tens of millions more to buy off the two parties. These corporations have made sure our so-called health reform bill will force us to buy their predatory and defective products. The oil and gas industry, the coal industry, defense contractors and telecommunications companies have thwarted the drive for sustainable energy and orchestrated the steady erosion of civil liberties. Politicians do corporate bidding and stage hollow acts of political theater to keep the fiction of the democratic state alive.

There is no national institution left that can accurately be described as democratic. Citizens, rather than participate in power, are allowed to have virtual opinions to preordained questions, a kind of participatory fascism as meaningless as voting on “American Idol.” Mass emotions are directed toward the raging culture wars. This allows us to take emotional stands on issues that are inconsequential to the power elite.

Our transformation into an empire, as happened in ancient Athens and Rome, has seen the tyranny we practice abroad become the tyranny we practice at home. We, like all empires, have been eviscerated by our own expansionism. We utilize weapons of horrific destructive power, subsidize their development with billions in taxpayer dollars, and are the world’s largest arms dealer. And the Constitution, as Wolin notes, is “conscripted to serve as power’s apprentice rather than its conscience.”

1   2 NEXT PAGE >>>

US Mercenaries Set Sights on Haiti

By Jeremy Scahill The Nation

We saw this type of Iraq-style disaster profiteering in New Orleans, and you can expect to see a lot more of this in Haiti over the coming days, weeks and months. Private security companies are seeing big dollar signs in Haiti thanks in no small part to the media hype about “looters.” After Katrina, the number of private security companies registered (and unregistered) multiplied overnight. Banks, wealthy individuals, the US government all hired private security. I even encountered Israeli mercenaries operating an armed checkpoint outside of an elite gated community in New Orleans. They worked for a company called Instinctive Shooting International. (That is not a joke).

Now, it is kicking into full gear in Haiti.

The Orwellian-named mercenary trade group International Peace Operations Association didn’t waste much time in offering the “services” of its member companies to swoop down on Haiti for some old-fashioned “humanitarian assistance” in the form of disaster profiteering. Within hours of the massive earthquake in Haiti, the IPOA created a special webpage for prospective clients, saying: “In the wake of the tragic events in Haiti, a number of IPOA’s member companies are available and prepared to provide a wide variety of critical relief services to the earthquake’s victims.”

While some of the companies specialize in rapid housing construction, emergency relief shelters and transportation, others are private security companies that operate in Iraq and Afghanistan, such as Triple Canopy, the company that took over Blackwater’s massive State Department contract in Iraq. For years, Blackwater played a major role in IPOA until it left the group following the 2007 Nisour Square massacre.

In 2005, while still a leading member of IPOA, Blackwater’s owner Erik Prince deployed his forces in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Far from some sort of generous gift to the suffering people of the US gulf, Blackwater raked in some $70 million in Homeland Security contracts that began with a massive no-bid contract to provide protective services for FEMA. Blackwater billed US taxpayers $950 per man per day.

Read more at The Nation

Twisting the truth

AS the State Department and US Embassy at Islamabad desperately try to perform an impossible trick of retrieving the words of Defence Secretary Robert Gates, recorded by a private TV channel during his visit to Pakistan, admitting the presence of Blackwater and Dyncorp here, Interior Minister Rehman Malik insists there is no such thing around. Let us recapture in print Mr Gates’ reply, “Well, they’re operating as individual companies here in Pakistan,” to the question by a TV reporter, “Xe International, formerly known as Blackwater and Dyncorp, under what rules are they operating here in Pakistan?” and that should leave little room for doubt. Nevertheless, this obvious admission has not embarrassed Minister Malik. He has, in fact, once again come out with denying the presence of this murderous outfit, maybe because he had, some time back, sworn to resign if he was proved wrong. An interesting observation coming from Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira seems to acknowledge the fact that the firm is operating in Pakistan. In the backdrop of the media’s call that after Secretary Gates’ admission Mr Malik should resign from his post in compliance with his commitment, Mr Kaira says that he should not have turned emotional when he was talking about the presence of this firm in the country.
This paper took the lead in exposing the government’s acquiescence to let the firm, with a reputation of committing targeted killings in Iraq, operate in the country and provided repeated evidence of their dark designs as well as deeds in Pakistan. Once again, the free media did a national service of crucial significance; earlier it had joined the lawyers and civil society to successfully restore the deposed judiciary. This effort must not go waste, nor any attempt at muzzling its voice be allowed. The ill-famed outfit must be made to pack up and go before it could do any serious harm to our security interests.

Cold Start: Indian Threat to Pakistan and China

[See what happens when allegedly sane international leaders hang-out with George W. Bush and Cheney.]

Cold Start: Indian Threat to Pakistan & China

By Farzana Shah

In 2005 India announced a new military doctrine called Start Cold mainly targeting Pakistan as its potential enemy. In November 2009, Indian army chief made a statement that there is a possibility of a limited war between Pakistan and India in a nuclear overhang. In December 2009, Indian chief announced that India is ready to take on both Pakistan and China in a ‘two front war’ simultaneously. These statements spurred a quick reaction in Pakistani media and military establishment.Indian statements

Indian army chief statement came in a closed door seminar in Shimla based military academy on five year review of its military doctrine and operational preparedness. Full details of the Indian chief speech are not known but what is released to media can be summarized as under;

1. India is in position to mobilize its forces so that they can move into enemy territory within 96 hours to execute its Cold Start military doctrine.

2. India is now ready to take on Pakistan and China both in a “two front war” in a nuclear over hang.

3. India is going to enhance its “strategic reach and out-of-area capabilities” to protect its interests from Malacca strait to Persian Gulf.

4. To achieve above mentioned goals India would attain “operational synergy” between the three services

5. Countering “both military and non-military facets of asymmetric and sub-conventional threats.”

Indian army chief’s statements met with prompt reply from Pakistani military top brass. “Proponents of conventional application of military forces, in a nuclear overhang, are charting an adventurous and dangerous path, the consequences of which could be both unintended and uncontrollable,” said General Kiyani, CoAS Pakistan army. The next day Chairman joint Chief of Staff General Tariq Majeed responded to two front war doctrine in these words, “Leave alone China, General Deepak Kapoor knows very well what the Indian Army cannot and the Pakistan Army can pull off militarily”. He said the Indian Army chief “could not be so outlandish in strategic postulations to fix India on a self-destruct mechanism”.

Although Pakistan army made it clear that it is alive to the threats faced by the nation and recent history has proved that despite its numerical advantage and bigger economy, India was not able to initiate a war against Pakistan. It is important to look at drivers behind these statements by Indian army chief and how come this time Indian military establishment is so confident about their preparedness to take not only Pakistan but also China in a future war whereas in a previous stand off just 8 years ago the same Indian army could not fire a single bullet?

First it would be prudent to seek why these statements by Indian army chief came at this point of the time.

Indian army chief’s statements came when there are lots of things taking place in Pakistan’s internal politics at a rapid pace.

There is a critical political turmoil in the country especially after the Supreme Court of Pakistan’s decision on controversial NRO case. Though no final judgment has been issued but it seems that a large number of government members and ministers would be disqualified as their legitimacy for an elected parliamentarian would nullified once the final decision is announced and these members and ministers would have to leave their seats and criminal cases against them would be reopen in the courts. The danger of disqualification is not limited to ministers but president of Pakistan is also endangered by this decision of SC. If the court decided that President Zardari must come to court to clear allegation of corruption against him this would create another political crisis in the country where law and order situation is already very fragile due to war on terror.

Law and order situation in Pakistan has turned worst in year 2009 due to suicide attacks throughout the country. At the beginning of 2010, situation in previously the calm Karachi city has also turned worrisome regarding law and order. The city witnessed worst kind of riots and arson in history during last three weeks.

Militarily Pakistan army is stretched from Khyber to Karachi, now on both Eastern and Western borders. Pakistan army currently is combating TTP in South Waziristan after taking back Malakand division. According to recent news, Pakistan army has sealed roads to Orakzai agency before launching a full fledge operation there as well.

Recently a group of US senators visited Pakistan and had meetings with top brass of Pakistan army during their visit. It was also indicated by some senators that Pakistan army soon would launch an operation in North Waziristan as well. This will stretch Pakistan army further along with Afghan border. Active part of ‘Operation Rah-i-Rast’ in Swat/Malakand is over though but still Pakistan army units are there as civilian forces, and are not ready to take control of the whole region. Army and the provincial government are building community police setup there, but it would take some time to get control.

Pakistan armed forces are undergoing a massive modernization program which is about to be completed not earlier than 2019. Modernization enhances skills of any force but it also includes a learning cover and time to absorb technology. Pakistan air force would go nearly a complete overhaul as almost entire fleet of PAF would be eventually replaced with new one till 2019.

On the other hand Indian forces are getting latest weapon system since long and are in better position and have a clear numerical strength against Pakistani forces. All above factors made current time more feasible for India to launch its preemptive strikes against Pakistan army and its infrastructure by executing Indian Cold Start doctrine.

Ultimate Indian Plan: Cold Start & 4th Generation warfare (4GWs)

Though Pakistani response at military level was well calculated and prompts along with a strong response from Pakistani foreign office, but still it would be prudent to study Indian military preparedness and the doctrine

The Indian army plan is not new, but Indian military establishment devised this plan to take on Pakistan and China in a war simultaneously some five years ago. A careful look at statement of Indian army chief makes it clear that Indians are eying establishing a strong military footprint in Indian Ocean from Malacca strait to Persian Gulf.

“This would enable us to protect our island territories; also give assistance to the littoral states in the Indian Ocean Region,” said Gen Kapoor.

Cold start doctrine is not about capturing Pakistani territory but inflicting as much damage as possible to enemy forces and infrastructure within matter of hours. It is more like a hit and run tactics giving no time to Pakistan to react.

Indian military adopted Cold start on April 28, 2004, after a 10 months long standoff (Operation Parakram) with Pakistan army along 2500 kilometer Indo-Pak border in 2002. In this stand off Indian army strike formation took almost a month to be mobilized. Contrary to this Cold Start emphasizes on quick deployment of forces and synergize operations of all three services towards destruction of Pakistan army defenses and units in short possible time. But is it all that easily possible? Does Indian military have that kind of inter service coordination to implement Cold Start in real war? This is the point where some Pakistani analysts believe that India still doesn’t have the capability to carry on its Cold Start doctrine against Pakistan. An objective analysis of this aspect is only possible after studying Indian strategic military planning against Pakistan during last five years can answer this important question.

To overcome inter services coordination a separate South-Western Army Command has been formed since 2005 which deals with Indian military deployment and operations along with Pakistani borders only. One of the major reason for raising new command was to fulfill the demands of integrated battle groups consisting Indian army and air force units and squadrons. India is working on its preparedness for surgical strikes with these battles group since 2005, now and the job of fine tuning these tactics is assigned to Army Training Command (ARTRAC) and the Army War College. From statement made by Lt. Gen. Labama it is evident that India is ready to go to war with Pakistan and China simultaneously.

Another reason for adopting Cold Start by India is to minimize the reaction time available for diplomatic solution of any potential crisis like one emerged after Mumbai attacks in November 2008. Indian government and forces were under pressure to carryout some surgical strikes on so called terrorist infrastructure on the Pakistani soil. Under Cold Start Indian military would make sure that any diplomatic solution comes after India gets all its objectives. A war between Pakistan and India would jeopardize the entire war on terror. But still India would need a pretext to execute its Cold Start doctrine and this is where 4th generation warfare comes into equation.

Use of 4th generation warfare against Pakistan is a more dangerous and disturbing angle of Indian designs which most defense analysts in Pakistan have overlooked. This paradigm of warfare revolves around asymmetrical warfare to get a moral victory with minimum nation state involvement. It is necessary to understand major difference between various generations of warfare and figuring out which one of these Pakistan is facing now. First generation revolved around conscription and firearms. Nepoleon wars can be categorized in this generation. Second generation involved nation-state armies, alignment of warfare resources and raw firepower. WWI can be categorized as 2nd generation warfare. Third generation warfare included armored warfare and maneuvering and best example of this generation of warfare was WWII which ended only after usage of nuclear weapons in Japan in 1945.

By the end of 20th century Russia invaded in Afghanistan and this was the start of a new generation of warfare. Though guerilla warfare is very old but in 1982 after direct involvement of CIA in this conflict, this guerilla warfare gave birth to fourth generation warfare (4GWs) that works on principle of lesser to no nation state involvement but rely on ad-hoc warriors and moral conflicts. Other imperatives of 4GWs include adaptation of technology to surprise the enemy and information warfare.

A careful look at what Pakistan army is combating in FATA makes it clear that Pakistan army is dealing with first phase of Indian design against Pakistan which deals with winning a moral war by adopting 4GWs.It cannot be a coincident that Pakistan army is facing an enemy who has; ad-hoc fighters, propaganda warfare capabilities in form of FM radios, very advanced weaponry and communication gear. This is indeed not a war waged just for revenge against Pakistan army to side US after 9/11. If it is then how come the poor tribesmen gathered all these assets within a short period of time and mastered the skills to use them against world’s 6th largest military machine i.e Pakistan army.

Pakistan army and security management have no doubts about Indian support to TTP, a banned terrorist organization committing horrific terrorism nationwide since its inception in 2005 (The same year when India adopted new military doctrine and raised a new military command along with Pakistani border). Pakistan army has seized not only Indian made weapons in Swat and FATA but also has eliminated number of Indian combatants. Proofs have already been given to civilian government to take up the matter at world forums but there is no sign of urgency in this regard in Islamabad which is not only strange but questionable as well.

Though Pakistan army has fought successfully with Indian 4GWs in Swat and FATA but due to lack of political will was unable to gain any higher moral ground in community of nations. On the other hand India already has built a case against Pakistan as a country being used as staging ground for terrorism against its neighbors.

Chinese Slant

Although China is also mentioned in the statement by Indian army chief as a potential enemy in the war along with Pakistan but it is no secret that India has always used foreign military aid against Pakistan. India has one clear advantage over China in current geopolitics in the world. There is an embargo on China for Western high tech military equipment after Tiananmen Square incident 1989. On the other hand India along with a healthy economy has no such restrictions imposed for military hardware despite worst human right conditions thanks to global hypocrisy and double standards of West and US. Still India lacks in many areas when it comes to military balance vis a vis China.

China sensed the importance of indigenization a long ago and started to develop its military production facilities in 1960s. Now Chinese military complexes not only supply advanced weapons to its own forces but also export large amount of these weapons to other countries including Pakistan. Not only this, but China helped Pakistan to build its own military industry after debacle of 1971.

With its well established economy and knowledge base China has crossed many milestones in military hardware production. Now apart from US and Russia China is the only country in the world to run a 5th generation military jet fighter project. Apart from its indigenization efforts sheer number of Chinese forces is another factor why India would never think about carrying out any military adventure against China. Apart from this military comparison China unlike Pakistan or India is a veto power in UN Security Council and can dissuade any move by India in UN against Pakistan or China.

The mentioning of China in Indian chief statement is a mere indication to West and US that now India is ready to take a role of regional power and both US and West can trust India as any ally against communist China. US is banking on India to compete with China in economics and military fields but friendship of Pakistan and China is a big hurdle for India in both these fields. India is eyeing permanent seat in UN since long now and the current statement can also be a signal to US and West to accept India as a big player in the region along with China.

All the military aid would be used against Pakistan in actual war that is evident from history as well when US helped India against China in 1962. Most of US weapons were used against Pakistan in 1965 war.

Cold Start and Possible Pakistani Response

As indicated in its response Pakistani military leadership has made it clear that any misadventure by India can result in unavoidable consequences. Indian doctrine is flawed at many places.

Firstly ,India would have to have a solid reason and pretext to launch any attack no matter low limited against Pakistan.

Secondly, Indians have no gauge of Pakistani military planning to counter Cold Start. It must be bear in mind that Pakistan military announced in July 2005 that it is fully aware of Indian Cold Start doctrine. Pakistan may deploy its unconventional arms much earlier than India has envisaged.

Thirdly, Due to Pakistani preparedness there is clear lack in synergy required in Indian forces to implement Cold Start successfully. Indian Navy would not be able to blockade Pakistani Navy in Karachi as now Pakistan Navy has two more naval bases in Omara and Gawadar. Likewise if Indian air force deploys its front line jet fighter and bombers on forward air bases (FABs) Pakistani cruise missile can come into equation much earlier.

Fourthly, a time line of 48 hours or 96 hours to put Pakistan in a military submission to India with help of armor corps and air support can be proved as dangerous as claims of capturing Lahore in one day proved in 1965. A prolonged combat on borders can put strategic Indian infrastructure in danger. Pakistan air force can launch attacks on dams built on Chenab and Jehlam rivers in Kashmir, Pakistan strategic force command would be in position to hit Indian economic centers like Silicon Valley in Banglore.

Fifthly, Indian military establishment failed to see how a handful of Kashmiri fighters made 700,000 Indian army troops permanently stationed in one valley since decades. Despite presence of this force, which is more than total regular army of Pakistan, Indian government has failed to curb freedom struggle in Kashmir and this circumstances any war between Pakistan and India would be last thing the Indian army would ever dream in Kashmir. Indian military would be in no position to control Kashmiris and fight Pakistan army at same time.

Sixthly, Indian military establishment is relying much more on President Zardari’s announcement that Pakistan will not use its nuclear weapon as first strike. In reality it is Pakistan army who will decide which weapon is to be used when and where.

Last but not the least India is relying on its ever increasing air power not only for Cold Start but to neutralize any Pakistani deployed missiles in a preemptive strikes. It seems that time for such an operation has almost gone for Indian air force. In 2010 PAF would be reshaped to take on the challenges of 21st century. PAF has already established parity in Air Born Early Warning capability after inducting SAAB Erieye AEW&C platform. In June 2010 Pakistan would start receiving state of the art F-16 Block52 fighters from US and PAF Air defense system is going to enhance its capabilities manifold by inducting MBDA’s Spada2000 medium range SAM system. Though Indian air force currently is enjoying numerical superiority but India can’t put all its war assets against Pakistan in a war keeping in view size of India.

Another problem which India is going to face during any execution of Cold Start is the gauge of nuclear threshold of Pakistan, a point where Pakistan would decide to go for unconventional warfare. This is where Army Chief Asfaq Perviz Kiyani hinted that consequences of any misadventure in a nuclear overhang can be suicidal for India.

Suggestions

Indian aggression in future would increase. Recent trends of buying military hardware by India are a clear indication to this fact. Pakistan armed forces don’t need to match Indian counterparts but rather require higher level of preparedness. It is not Cold Start that must alarmed security managers but it is 4th generation warfare by Indian intelligence and military establishment that must be a source of contention for Pakistan. Pakistani military and civilian government needs to take some steps in order to defeat Indian 4GWs tactics in FATA and to prevent India from deploying its forces ever again.

Pakistan must maintain a strategic ambiguity about first use of its nuclear weapons against any enemy including India. An early announcement would always put Pakistan on wrong footing as it will provide another opportunity to Indian and world media to talk about Pakistan’s obsession against India.

Pakistan army must complete all the counter insurgency operation as soon as possible and strike units must report back giving control to the civilian forces in areas which have been cleared of militants. The good news is Pakistan army has realized the importance of civilian forces. Army Chief Gen Ashfaq Kiyani vows to support NWFP police with equipment and training while speaking at police academy in Peshawar.

In any future force stand off Pakistan military must make sure that it has deployed enough strategic weapons that can not be compromised by a pre-emptive strike by Indian air force or other strikes.

Pakistan must build a strong case against India and her involvement in Pakistan particularly in supporting terrorism in Baluchistan and FATA. Pakistan army has given proofs to government and the ball is in democratic government’s court to take the case on international forums like UN where Pakistan easily can seek Chinese help in order to unearth Indian intentions against Pakistan and peace in the region.

In any future political crisis in the country, Pakistan army must keep itself isolated from political turmoil and remained focused on external threats as any involvement in politics would degrade Pakistan’s ability to respond to a prompt military challenge posed by India.

Government must ensure that Pakistan armed forces modernization program remain on track and government always has a reliable financing on short notice for an urgent need if armed forces raise a demand.

Pakistan must quit current defensive foreign policy adopted in Musharraf era. Pakistan must make it clear to world that any act of terrorism must not be linked to Pakistan without proper investigations. Recent student crisis in UK has exposed this weakness in foreign policy where government was failed to react in time when innocent Pakistani students were charged for planning a terrorist attack. Similar ineptness was evident on part of government in case of Samjootha Express incident, which was wrongly blamed on Pakistan but the government was failed to respond on international forum.

Media management of Pakistan armed forces and its operations inside country has always been weak. In Pakistan, unlike India, media is not always behind army. Despite the gains by Pakistan army in war on terror in time span of three to five months in Swat and South Waziristan there is still a perception that Pakistan army is unable to combat terrorism and some even go to an extent that Pakistan army might be supporting Taliban. These perceptions are culmination of a weak media policy by government and needs an urgent attention to change these misperceptions.

- Asian Tribune -