Saudi protests highlight sectarian fault lines in oil-rich kingdom

Dubai (Platts)

 

New sectarian anti-government riots in Saudi Arabia’s oil-rich eastern province have unsettled international markets while exposing the deepening rift between the two biggest Persian Gulf oil producers.

On Tuesday, Riyadh blamed an unnamed “foreign power” for fomenting violent unrest in the kingdom’s Persian Gulf coastal province of Khobar, in what observers said was a thinly veiled reference to Iran, the major Shi’ite Muslim power in the Middle East.

The government also vowed to use “an iron fist” to thwart anyone compromising the country’s security, after 14 people including 11 policemen were hurt by gunfire and petrol bombs in a clash at the Shi’ite village of Al-Awamia, according to the official Saudi press agency.

“We’ve seen rising sectarian tension in the region since the Arab Spring started,” Samuel Ciszuk, senior Middle East energy analyst at IHS Global Insight, said Wednesday. “This obviously unsettles oil markets.” Nonetheless, he was unconvinced that the two-day clash between Shi’ite protesters and police Monday and Tuesday was a sign of widening Saudi instability. Moreover, Saudi oil facilities were heavily guarded, making serious damage to infrastructure unlikely, he said.

“It’s important to underline that the protests have been limited. It seems there are a few militants, but it’s not a popular uprising,” Ciszuk told Platts.

Markets would remain “jittery” if the kingdom witnessed further anti-regime protests, which are illegal under Saudi law, but it was more likely that the recent dissent would be contained and that oil prices would settle down, Ciszuk said.

Saudi Arabia’s rulers espouse the rigid Wahabi interpretation of Sunni Islam and do not allow followers of other Muslim sects to worship openly in the kingdom or hold key government positions.

That has long been a sore point for the roughly two million Saudi Shi’ites inhabiting Khobar towns and villages who constitute the bulk of the kingdom’s 10% Shi’ite minority.

The eastern province is also notable for holding most of Saudi Arabia’s big oil fields within its territory. The fields are ringed with security and operated by the state oil company Saudi Aramco.

Tehran was a “natural scapegoat” for Saudi rulers intent on diverting attention from grievances such as youth unemployment and lack of political freedom that might resonate in the country at large: “The big Saudi fear is that protests could spread to the general population. Sectarian tensions play into the hands of the ruling family,” Ciszuk said.

Since the start of the Arab Spring, Saudi rulers who earlier backed reforms in the ultra-conservative kingdom have been moving closer to the clerical establishment in an effort to vest their regime with “renewed legitimacy,” Ciszuk said. That might lead to further deterioration of Shi’a/Sunni relations within the kingdom and the wider Middle East, but would not necessarily disrupt oil supplies.

The relationship between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shi’ite Iran was already “at rock bottom” before the recent events in Khobar, with some observers referring to a “cold war” between the two regional powers, Ciszuk noted.

Limited demonstrations of anti-government sentiment, however, could persist.

Late Tuesday during a sermon at a mosque in Al-Awamia, Sheikh Nimr Nimr, a prominent Saudi Shi’ite cleric, urged protesters to use “words” rather than “bullets” to fight for equality, AFP reported. Nimr blamed Saudi authorities for “provoking” protesters by firing on them with live bullets.

Further saber rattling between Riyadh and Tehran also seems likely, increasing tensions within OPEC ahead of the group’s December meeting in Vienna.

On Wednesday, Iran’s OPEC governor Mohammad Ali Khatibi said OPEC members that boosted oil production to compensate for curtailed Libyan crude supplies must reduce output as Libya returns to world markets. Although Khatibi did not specify to which members he was alluding, the state that increased its crude production the most in recent months was Saudi Arabia.

In another Saudi development Tuesday, public prosecutors in a trial in Riyadh of 16 Saudis and one Yemeni accused of terrorism alleged that al-Qaida had planned an attack in 2006 on the kingdom’s Abqaiq oil plant, the world’s biggest oil processing facility.

The prosecutors also said during the Saudi appeal court hearing that al-Qaida operatives had tried to assassinate a Saudi Shi’ite leader with links to Hezbollah and Iraq to provoke internal sedition.

The allegations referred to events several years ago during a period when al-Qaida had publicly targeted Saudi oil installations and workers for attack.

The campaign was not notably successful for al-Qaida and was unlikely to be repeated, Ciszuk said.

–Tamsin Carlisle, tamsin_carlisle@platts.com

Rumsfeld Acting Like a “Dick” To Avoiding Answering Questions for Al Jazeera

Rumsfeld in heated conversation with Al Jazeera, posted with vodpod

The new integration project for Eurasia – Putin’s Alternative Vision for Eurasia

The new integration project for Eurasia – a future that is born today

Vladimir Putin

Izvestia

January 1, 2012 launched the Common Economic Space of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. The integration processes, Vladimir Putin says in an article written specially for “News”

Photo: RIA Novosti

January 1, 2012 launched a major integration project – the Common Economic Space of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. The project, which, without exaggeration, a historic landmark not only for our three countries, but also for all post-Soviet states.

The path to this point has been difficult and sometimes tortuous. It started twenty years ago, when after the collapse of the Soviet Union was established Commonwealth of Independent States. By and large, has been found that the model that helped save civilization myriad, and spiritual threads that unite our peoples. Preserve industrial, economic and other ties, which are indispensable to imagine our life.

There are various ways to assess the effectiveness of the CIS, endlessly talking about his domestic problems, the unfulfilled expectations. But it’s hard to argue with the fact that the Commonwealth is an indispensable mechanism to bridge positions and to develop a unified view on the key issues facing our region, and produces a visible, concrete benefits to all participants.

Moreover, this experience has allowed us to run a CIS multilevel and multispeed integration in post-Soviet space, to create such popular formats as the Union State of Russia and Belarus, the Organization of Collective Security Treaty, the Eurasian Economic Community Customs Union and finally, the Single Economic Space.

Characteristically, during the global financial crisis forced the state to seek new resources for economic growth, integration processes have received an additional boost. We have reached that objective, to seriously upgrade the principles of our partnership – both in the CIS and other regional associations. And focused primarily on the development of trade and production links.

In essence we are talking about turning integration into a clear, appealing to citizens and business, sustainable and long-term project, which is independent of fluctuations in the current political and any other conditions.

Note that such a task was set at creation in 2000 of the EurAsEC. And ultimately, it is the logic of close, mutually beneficial cooperation and common understanding of the strategic national interests resulted in Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan to form the Customs Union.

July 1, 2011 at the internal borders of our three countries has been removed control over the movement of goods, which completed the formation of a full common customs area with clear prospects for implementing the most ambitious business initiatives. Now, from the Customs Union we step to the single economic space. Create a huge market with more than 165 million consumers, with a uniform law, free movement of capital, services and labor.

It is crucial that the SES will be based on concerted action in key institutional areas – macroeconomics, to ensure the rules on competition in the field of technical regulations and agricultural subsidies, transport and tariffs of natural monopolies. And then – and on a single visa and migration policy that would eliminate border controls at internal borders. That is a creative experience to apply the Schengen acquis, which became a boon not only for Europeans but for all who come to work, study or relax in the EU.

I should add that now do not need technical arrangement of seven thousand kilometers of the Russian-Kazakh border. Moreover, it created a qualitatively new conditions for increased cross-border cooperation.

For the citizens of the removal of migration, border control and other barriers, so-called “labor quotas” will mean the opportunity to choose without any restrictions where you live, be educated, to work. Incidentally, in the Soviet Union – with its Institute for registration – such freedom was not.

In addition, we significantly increase the volume of goods for personal consumption, which can be imported duty free, thus saving people from humiliating checks at customs posts.

Ample opportunities opened for business. Talking about the new and dynamic markets, which will act uniform standards and requirements for goods and services, and in most cases with the European harmonized. This is important because now we all go to the current technical regulations, and consistent policy will allow us to avoid the technology gaps, inconsistencies trivial products.Moreover, each of our countries, companies in every state – member of the SES will actually enjoy all the benefits of local producers, including access to government contracts, and contracts.

Naturally, in order to gain a foothold in such an open market, businesses have to work on their efficiency, cut costs, invest in modernization. Consumers will benefit from this.

However, we can speak about the beginning of this “competition of jurisdictions,” the struggle for the entrepreneur. After all, every Russian, Kazakh, Byelorussian businessman gets the right to choose – which of the three countries he register his company, where to do business, where do the customs clearance of goods. This is a strong incentive for national bureaucracies to do the improvement of market institutions, administrative procedures, improving business and investment climate. In short, to eliminate those “bottlenecks” and spaces, to which had never reached his hands, to improve the legislation in line with best international and European practice.

At one time, Europeans took 40 years to go from the European Coal and Steel Community to the full EU. Becoming a Customs Union and Common Economic Space is much more dynamic as takes into account experience of the EU and other regional associations. We see them and the strengths and weaknesses. And this is our distinct advantage, allowing to avoid mistakes and prevent the reproduction of various bureaucratic canopies.

We are also in constant contact with leading business associations in the three countries.Discussing controversial issues, consider the constructive criticism. In particular, it was a very useful discussion during the Business Forum of the Customs Union, which was held in Moscow in July this year.

I repeat: it is very important to the public in our countries, the entrepreneurs perceived the integration project, not as terminal bureaucratic game, but as absolutely a living organism, a good opportunity to implement initiatives and achieve success.

Thus, in the interests of businesses have already decided to begin the codification of the legal framework of the Customs Union and Common Economic Space that economic actors do not have to wade through the “forest” of many paragraphs, articles and reference rules. For the work they will only need two basic documents – the Customs Code and codified the agreement on Customs Union and Common Economic Space.

From 1 January 2012 to earn a full format and the Court of the EurAsEC. Appeal to the Court of all facts relating to discrimination, breach of competition rules and equal conditions for business, can not only states but also the participants of economic life.

The principal feature of the Customs Union and the EEA – a presence of supra-national structures.They are also fully applies to such a basic requirement, such as minimizing red tape and focus on the real interests of the citizens.

In our view, should increase the role of the Customs Union, which already has significant powers. At present there are about forty, and in the future – even within the EEA – will be more than a hundred.This includes the authority to make some decisions on competition policy in technical regulations on subsidies. To solve such complex problems is only possible by creating a complete, permanent structure – a compact, professional and effective. Therefore, Russia has put forward a proposal to create the College of the CCC with the participation of representatives of the “troika” that will work in the capacity of independent, international civil servants.

Construction of the Customs Union and Common Economic Space lays the groundwork for the formation of the future of the Eurasian Economic Union. At the same time would go and the gradual expansion of the Customs Union member states and the EEA at the expense of a full connection to the work of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

We do not dwell on it and set ourselves an ambitious goal: to get to the next higher level of integration – the Eurasian Union.

What we see them, and outlines the prospects of this project?

First, we are not talking about that in one form or another to recreate the Soviet Union. It would be naive to try to restore or copy what already is past, but the tight integration of the new value, political and economic basis – is imperative.

We propose a model of a powerful supranational union capable of becoming one of the poles of the modern world and play the role of an effective “binding” between Europe and the dynamic Asia-Pacific region. In particular, this means that on the basis of the Customs Union and Common Economic Space should proceed to a closer coordination of economic and monetary policy, to create a full-fledged economic union.

Addition of natural resources, capital, strong human capital will allow the Eurasian Union, to be competitive in the industrial and technological race in the competition for investors, with the creation of new jobs and innovative industries. And along with other key players and regional agencies – such as the EU, U.S., China and APEC – to ensure the sustainability of global development.

Second, the Eurasian Union will serve as a center for further integration. That is, will be formed by the gradual merging of the existing structures – the Customs Union and Common Economic Space.

Third, it would be a mistake to oppose the Eurasian Union and the Commonwealth of Independent States. Each of these structures has its place and its role in post-Soviet space. Russia and its partners will actively work on improving the institutions of the Commonwealth, the saturation of its practical agenda.

In particular, we are talking about starting a CIS-specific, understandable, attractive initiatives and joint programs. For example, in energy, transportation, technology, social development. Great prospects for humanitarian cooperation in science, culture, education, the interaction in the regulation of labor markets, create a civilized environment for migration. We got a large inheritance from the Soviet Union – this infrastructure, and current production specialization, and general linguistic, scientific and cultural space. Share this resource for development – in our common interest.

In addition, I am convinced that the economic foundation of the Commonwealth to become the most liberalized trade regime. On Russia’s initiative – as part of its presidency of the CIS in 2010 – a draft of a new treaty on free trade area, based, incidentally, on the principles of the World Trade Organization and is aimed at the full withdrawal of all sorts of barriers. We look forward to significant progress in the harmonization of positions on the Treaty at a regular meeting of the Council of CIS Heads of Government to be held very soon – in October 2011.

Fourth, the Eurasian Union – is an open project. We welcome the accession of other partners, notably the Commonwealth countries. It is not going to rush anyone or push. This should be a sovereign decision of the state dictated by its own long-term national interests.

Here I would like to touch on one, in my opinion, very important topic. Some of our neighbors to explain the reluctance to participate in the advanced integration projects in the former Soviet space that is allegedly contrary to their European choice.

I think this is a false bifurcation. We’re not going to fence themselves off from anyone and anyone to resist. Eurasian alliance will be based on universal principles of integration as an integral part of Greater Europe, united by common values ​​of freedom, democracy and the market laws.

Back in 2003, Russia and the EU agreed to form a common economic space, the coordination rules of economic activity without creating a supranational structures. In support of this idea, we asked the Europeans together to think about creating a harmonious community economies from Lisbon to Vladivostok, on free trade zone and even more advanced forms of integration. On the formation of a coherent policy in the sphere of industry, technology, energy, education and science. And finally, the lifting of visa barriers. These proposals do not hang in the air – they are discussed in detail their European counterparts.

Now interlocutor with the EU will be Customs, and subsequently the Eurasian Union. Thus, the occurrence of a Eurasian Union, in addition to direct economic benefits that will allow each of its members more quickly and in a stronger position to integrate into Europe.

In addition, economically logical and balanced system of partnerships of the Eurasian Union and the EU is able to create real conditions for changes in the geopolitical and geo-economic configuration of the continent and would undoubtedly positive global impact.

It is obvious today that the global crisis that erupted in 2008, wore a structural nature. We now see his acute relapses. The root of the problem – a backlog of global imbalances. It is very difficult to develop a process of post-crisis model of global development. For example, virtually stalled Doha round, there are objective difficulties within the WTO, is experiencing a serious crisis of the principle of free trade and open markets.

In our opinion, the solution may be to develop common approaches, as they say, “bottom”. At first – within the existing regional structures – the EU, NAFTA, APEC, ASEAN and others, and then – through a dialogue between them. It is from such integration “building blocks” may get more stable world economy.

For example, two of the largest union of our continent – the European Union and the emerging Eurasian Union – basing their interaction on the rules of free trade and compliance management systems, objective, including through the relations with third countries and regional bodies are able to extend these principles to the whole space – from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. On the space that will be harmonious in its economic nature, but polycentric in terms of specific mechanisms and management decisions. Then it would be logical to begin a constructive dialogue on the principles of interaction with the Asia-Pacific, North America and other regions.

In this regard, I note that the Customs Union of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan have already started talks on creating free trade zone with the European Free Trade Association. The agenda of the APEC forum to be held next year in Vladivostok, will occupy an important place theme of trade liberalization, removing barriers to economic cooperation. Moreover, Russia will promote a common, coordinated position of the Customs Union and Common Economic Space.

Thus, our integration project is entering a qualitatively new level, opens up broad prospects for economic development, creates a competitive advantage. Such joint efforts will enable us not only to fit into the global economy and trading system, but also to participate meaningfully in decision-making process, defining the rules of the game and define the contours of the future.

I am convinced that the creation of a Eurasian Union, seamless integration – this is the way to enable its participants to take their rightful place in the complex world of the XXI century. Only by working together our countries are able to enter the leaders of global growth and civilization progress, success and prosperity.

Libyan Tide of Resistance Turning Against NATO?

[If NATO bombers and Special Forces troops suddenly dumped the fight into the laps of ordinary Libyans, then the Libyan resistance would be reduced to a pitiful state (much like the resistance rocketry force below, this defender is literally "on his last legs."]

The photo, by Reuters photographer Anis Mili, is described as “A rebel on crutches fires a rocket propelled grenade while fighting on the front line in Sirte September 24, 2011″.

Libyans Resist NATO’s Killing Machine 

- by Stephen Lendman

opednews.com

Libyans keep resisting to take back their country.

For over six and a half months, Libyans tied down the world’s mightiest military force despite overwhelming odds against them and enormous loss of life and human suffering.

Established in 1949, NATO was never a “military alliance for peace and security.” It was for offense, not defense. Cold War hysteria was contrived to incite fear and assure an arms race for corporate dominance and enrichment.

Twenty years after Soviet Russia dissolved, NATO interventions under US control threaten world peace and humanity, lurching from one war to another.

Interdicting for corporate predators, it’s a rogue killing machine. Its mission isn’t liberation. It’s slaughtering, ravaging and pillaging for power and profit.

Using a proxy cutthroat mercenary army, Libya was pounded by relentless land and air assaults. A wasteland replaced a once peaceful country. Daily attacks ravage it further.

Corpses pile up on other ones. Human misery is incalculable. Death, disease and starvation haunt the living. Tens of thousands of Sirte residents face ferocious daily terror bombing.

Food, water, medical supplies and fuel have been cut off. Indiscriminate mass killing targets civilians. Schools, hospitals, homes and other nonmilitary sites have been destroyed.

NATO’s war on Libya is one of history’s great crimes. Sirte is ground zero, facing genocidal slaughter and mass destruction.

Spread the word! Point fingers! Hold those responsible accountable for unconscionable imperial barbarism!

Start with Obama, an unindicted war criminal multiple times over, planning more wars besides others ongoing. Americans also sacrifice liberties and benefits for them. The worst is yet to come.

The battle of Libya rages. Brave resistance fighters won’t quit. Killing alone sustains NATO control anywhere across the country. Let up and lose it. Unreported by Western media, it’s happening city by city, town by town, and village by village.

Christof Lehmann’s NSNBC provides regular updates Western media and Qatari controlled Al Jazeera suppress, cheerleading instead of denouncing NATO’s imperial project across North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia.

On October 3, Lehmann said:

“Southern Libya is firmly under” loyalists’ control. “Fighting continues in Tripoli, North Eastern and North Western Libya.” Algerian tribal leaders joined “The War for the Liberation of Northern Africa.”

  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5

Afghan agents foil al-Qaeda plot to kill Karzai

[Coming on the heels of the new India/Afghan Security Agreement, it will be extremely interesting to see where the investigation and prosecution of this latest case of subversion and murder takes us.  Since this plot, like nearly all previous such plots, have a Pakistani element to them, coupled with Karzai's recent naming of Pakistan as the only power or the real voice of the Taliban, we should be able to expect to see a major confrontation of sorts brewing.  Everything from this point forward depends upon Pakistan's piss-poor leadership, whether they seriously want to end hostilities against India and Northern Alliance leaders, or merely want public condemnation of those hostilities to stop.  A regional solution, intended to pick up the slack and to fill in the gaps after the alleged "US pull-out," is now within reach, if only Pakistan would get serious about ending its manipulations in Afghanistan and seek an end to hostilities with India.  Conversely, lack of a concrete solution to this poisonous epoch, will inevitably usher-in a worse epoch, one of renewed Afghan civil war, one without borders.]

Lianne Gutcher

• The Sydney Morning Herald

A plot to kill Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been foiled by Afghan intelligence agents in Kabul. Photo: Reuters

A PLOT to kill President Hamid Karzai has been foiled by Afghan intelligence agents in Kabul who arrested six men with links to al-Qaeda and the Haqqani network.

The discovery of the plot comes just two days before the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan in retaliation for the September 11 attacks in the US. Had it been successful, it would have plunged the country further into chaos.

The arrested men, a university professor, three students, a Kabul resident and an employee of the presidential palace, were said to have been recruited by two Arabs with ties to al-Qaeda based in Miran Shan in Waziristan. “This group was highly sophisticated and highly educated,” said Lotfullah Mashal, a spokesman for Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security (NDS).

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/afghan-agents-foil-alqaeda-plot-to-kill-karzai-20111006-1lbi5.html#ixzz1a0yKCjAi

A source in Pakistan tipped off the Afghan spy agency that a group of Afghan doctors had travelled to a terrorist training camp in Waziristan to learn how to use suicide vests.

Intelligence officers then mounted an undercover operation at Kabul University to track down the would-be assassins.

As well as plotting to kill the Afghan president, data seized during the arrests showed that the men were also planning attacks in Kabul as well as Europe and the US.

It is believed the assassins would have struck on one of Mr Karzai’s trips to the provinces, Mr Mashal said. “But before these plots could happen the NDS was able to arrest them.”

President Karzai’s administration has been thrown into turmoil by a series of targeted assassinations that have wiped out a number of his closest allies and confidantes.

The president’s half-brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, was killed by one of his bodyguards at his home in Kandahar in July. Two weeks ago Burhannudin Rabbani, a former Afghan president and High Peace Council chief, died after a suicide bomber pretending to be a Taliban peace messenger blew himself up at Mr Rabbani’s house in Kabul.

“This is a very sophisticated network that is al-Qaeda related,” Mr Mashal said. “Information and data that we found on computers that we seized showed they were also planning attacks on guesthouses in Wazir Akbar Khan and on posh, 5-star hotels in Kabul.”

Wazir Akbar Khan is one of the most affluent neighbourhoods in Kabul and many embassies are located there.

One of the Afghan men was arrested 10 days ago. After questioning, he revealed the identities of the other members of the group. All six confessed to plotting to kill President Karzai and the NDS has recording of these confessions.

“They all had very good IT skills,” said Mr Mashal. “And they were in contact with lots of Arabic speakers in all parts of the world.”

The recruiters were named as Safiullah al-Mesri, an Egyptian, and Abdullah Bengali, a Bangladeshi.

The palace employee was named as Muhidullah Ahmadi.

This is not the first time that students from Kabul University have been linked to terrorist plots.

A medical faculty student planned a suicide attack on the national military hospital in Kabul in May. A Pakistani carried out the attack, killing six people. President Karzai has just returned from a two-day trip to India. His office said it was working on a statement.

Mr Mashal said the discovery of the plot and the arrest of the terrorists showed that Afghan forces were ready to take over responsibility for security in the country.

Security was handed over to Afghan troops from international troops in seven key areas in July.

However, the situation in Kabul has deteriorated dramatically.

In mid-September, terrorists managed to penetrate Kabul’s diplomatic area and wage a 20-hour attack on the US embassy and the headquarters of the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force.

The Daily Telegraph

US/NATO Seeking Escape Mechanism for New Formula for Imperial Aggression

[Not only are they looking for a face-saving way out, the meeting of Imperial aggressors is seeking to formalize a formula for so-called "humanitarian warfare," before entering into the next aggression, a contract-killing of the free state of Syria.  This will enable them to claim right out of the gate that their next aggression (which will be once again be impersonating "humanitarianism") will be limited in nature, with set goals.  The formula will never mention how many more poor souls perished because of the massive Libyan intervention than ever would have died in a natural conflict.  These carefully manufactured conflicts, obscured by all the pretty words, are NOT natural.  In other words, they probably never would have happened without US/British/Israeli/French/German/Turkish interference.  Look for NATO to simply pat themselves on the back, while they leave the Libyan people to recover on their own (just like Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq, etc.).  Look for them to quickly change the subject from war crimes in Libya to chasing purloined weapons, especially those of the chemical variety.  If not for these American/NATO assholes empowering the same terrorists whom we normally hate, there would be no problem with tons of mustard gas now being in the hands of crazed militant "Islamists," or 10,000 missing hand-held surface-to-air missiles, in the hands of the same Western-trained Islamist terrorists.  Fuckin' Obama!]

Nato allies debate when to end to Libya air war

AFP

British Minister of Defence Liam Fox (C) is seen along with US Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta (R) and United Arab Emirates Brigadier General Falah Al Qahtani (L) during the Nato Defence Ministers meeting at Nato headquarter in Brussels, on October 6, 2011. Nato defence ministers, joined by partners from the Middle East, hold a second and final day of talks on the missions in Afghanistan and Libya. – Photo by AFP

BRUSSELS: Nato allies on Thursday grappled with how quickly they could end their bombing campaign in Libya, where Qadhafi loyalists are cornered and the number of air strikes has declined in recent weeks.

With Moammer Qadhafi diehards surrounded by the new leadership’s forces in Sirte and Bani Walid, and the fallen Libyan leader in hiding, diplomats are optimistic that the six-month-old air war could end in a matter of weeks.

Nato defence ministers discussed the prospects of successfully wrapping up the mission during two days of talks in Brussels, with officials insisting the campaign will continue as long as Qadhafi forces pose a threat to civilians.

“Sirte is extremely symbolic. But it is important that we no longer have pockets of resistance,” French Defence Minister Gerard Longuet told reporters.

“We will stop when we no longer identify a resistance prohibiting the normal functioning of a state,” he said. “Whether Qadhafi disappears from the scene is important, but it’s not enough.” Spanish Defence Minister Carme Chacon said Nato would continue fulfilling its UN mandate to protect civilians even though “the Qadhafi dictatorship is over.” Nato Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, US Admiral James Stavridis, recommended to the ministers late Wednesday that the mission continue until the new leadership consolidates control of the entire country, diplomats said.

Once the country is deemed secure, Stavridis suggested that the aerial and maritime surveillance missions carry on for two weeks until Nato is “sure that fighting has ended,” the diplomat told AFP on condition of anonymity.

Qadhafi loyalists have made it tricky for Nato warplanes to bomb them by hiding in built-up areas, using civilians as human shields to deter air strikes, officials said.

Nato reported eight air strikes in Bani Walid, a desert town southeast of Tripoli, on Wednesday but no bombings in Qadhafi’s hometown of Sirte in the east, compared to between 15 and 20 raids daily across Libya earlier in the mission.

The campaign began in March when Qadhafi troops had rebels on the back foot. Nato’s strikes helped tip the balance in favour of a loose coalition of opponents who in August overran the capital Tripoli, winning international recognition.

Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the decision to halt the operation would hinge on the ability of National Transitional Council (NTC) forces to maintain order — not on the fate of Qadhafi.

“The termination of the operation is not dependent on Colonel Qadhafi,” he told reporters on Wednesday.

Officials said the alliance had to make a political judgement, balancing the need to prevent attacks on civilians while avoiding the impression of meddling.

“It will be a political decision, which will involve the UN and the NTC and it will be a question of an international concert of opinion that the time has come,” said a senior Nato official.

“The big risk is that one day we stop and the next day there is a massacre, in which case we would have failed.” Senior military officers overseeing the operation from Naples, Italy, were increasingly eager to call an end to the effort given the retreat of Qadhafi’s troops, officials said.

But alliance members are waiting for a clear conclusion to fighting in Sirte and Bani Walid, where NTC troops are trying to finish off Qadhafi loyalists.

Success in Afghanistan, a war marking its 10th anniversary on Friday, also depends on the ability of local forces to ensure security for the population under a Nato plan to withdraw foreign combat troops by 2014.

“Transition is on track,” Rasmussen said, “and it will not be derailed.”

Indo-Afghan strategic partnership, Afghanistan Preparing for What Comes Next

Indo-Afghan strategic partnership

The very outcome the policy of strategic depth was intended to prevent has finally come to pass, precisely because of that policy. Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have just signed an Indo-Afghan strategic partnership agreement in New Delhi. The agreement deepens existing ties in the trade and culture fields, but most significantly, in security cooperation. It envisages Indian training, equipping and capacity building of the Afghan security forces in the run up to and after the US/Nato withdrawal by 2014. Pakistan’s so-called strategic depth policy could be seen as consisting of denying India influence in Afghanistan, which our military and intelligence establishment has tended to view as its ‘backyard’, a description fiercely contested by all Afghans, even the Taliban. The ingress with the Afghan security forces yields a level of influence at the heart of the Afghan state that can only be understood in the light of history. The Soviet-trained and equipped Afghan army in the past was imbued with revolutionary communist ideas transmitted by exposure to what the Soviet Union represented. The Republican coup of 1973, as the communist one of 1978, would probably never have come about without the tacit and explicit backing of the Afghan army. Indian-trained and equipped Afghan security forces will almost certainly repeat that historical parallel, this time to the advantage of India. The ‘nutcracker’ squeeze from east and west so feared by our military strategists may well now become a reality, especially given the recent frictions between Kabul and Islamabad over the safe havens of Pakistani soil used by the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani network to attack US/Nato/Afghan forces across the border and the assassination of Burhanuddin Rabbani. On the latter issue, the Afghan National Directorate of Security has accused Pakistan of not cooperating in the investigation into the murder. Of course our foreign office, in usual mode, denies this. In short, our brilliant strategists have succeeded beyond measure in driving Afghanistan into the arms of India. How has all this come to pass?

After 9/11 and the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, whereas India projected soft power into Afghanistan, having by now invested some $ 2 billion in reconstruction and infrastructure building in Afghanistan, Pakistan stuck to its old paradigm of offering safe havens to and supporting a proxy war by the Taliban and Haqqani network. A golden opportunity to turn the page and befriend Afghanistan in its hour of need was thus missed. Afghan resentment of long standing interference by Pakistan in its internal affairs has wiped out whatever goodwill Islamabad had earned during the days of the anti-Soviet resistance. Now, Pakistan is hated by most Afghans whereas India is seen as a benefactor and true friend. The shortsightedness of our strategic planners stands badly exposed thereby.

The Indo-Afghan partnership now threatens a renewed and prolonged proxy-cum-civil war in Afghanistan after the foreign forces depart. With Afghanistan not being at peace, Pakistan and the region cannot hope for things to settle down. This war will inevitably slip across borders and destabilise the region further. Pakistan’s military establishment has tried, and failed, to convince the world that it has genuine and legitimate interests in Afghanistan and therefore cannot leave things to take their own course. Had that ‘interest’ been confined to having a friendly government in Kabul while recognising the sovereign right of the Afghan people to manage their own affairs themselves, and backed up by help rather than sabotage of the Afghan polity and society, Islamabad may have obtained more purchase. As things stand now, Afghanistan will continue to lose a great deal in the prolongation of its internal conflict, in which the contending sides may be backed by rivals India and Pakistan. But the real loser in the end will be none other than Pakistan itself, internationally already isolated, regionally seen as a troublemaker extraordinaire.

Is Qadri’s Death Sentence a “Conspiracy Against Islam,” or Is It a Defense of True Islam?

[What the frenzy-driven "Islamist" Wahhabis and Deobandis are decrying as an “unfortunate secularist atmosphere” is Pakistan's only real hope against the madness sown across the "Land of the Pure" by Zia and his co-conspirators, working to make themselves useful to the American, Saudi, British and Israeli Imperialists for over thirty years now.  Wake-up, Pakistan!  Take your homeland and your religion back.  Are there enough brave Pakistani patriots willing to form their own secular counter-movement?  Why not?  You did it for your lawyers, why not for more precious reasons, such as your children and their future?] 

Deobandis, Wahhabis to join Qadri protests

By Rana Tanveer

Published: October 6, 2011

Following religious groups, political parties also express support for Qadri. PHOTO: REUTERS

LAHORE: Deobandi and Ahl-i-Hadith (Wahhabi) parties have jumped on the blasphemy bandwagon, with 40 religious parties resolving to start a countrywide protest movement against the death sentence handed to Mumtaz Qadri, assassin of Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer, at an “all parties conference” on Wednesday.

Barelvi parties such as the Sunni Tehreek and Jamiat Ahl-i-Sunnat had been protesting against the anti-terrorism court’s verdict since it was announced on October 1.

On Wednesday, more than 40 parties including representatives of Deobandi groups   Jamaat-i-Islami, Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (Fazl and Sami groups), Aalmi Majlis Tahaffuz Khatam-i-Nabuwat, Tanzeem-i-Islami, Tehreek-i-Islami, Ittehadul Ulema Pakistan and Jamia Ashrafia – as well as Wahhabi groups   Jamaatud Dawa, Tehreek Hurmat-i-Rasool, and Muttahida Jamiat Ahl-i-Hadith – met to discuss a coordinated response to the sentence. Tehreek Namoos-i-Risalat and Tanzimul Madaris, both Barelvi groups, also attended.

The speakers criticised the court’s decision to sentence Qadri to death as against Islamic injunctions and the ideology of Pakistan.

JI Ameer Syed Munawwar Hassan said that the court’s verdict reflected an “unfortunate secularist atmosphere” in Pakistan. He urged the participants to unite against the judgement. He said there would be protests all over the country on Friday.

Tahaffuz Namoos-i-Risalat Mahaz, an alliance of Sunni Barelvi parties, has already called a strike on Friday.

Jamaatud Dawa Ameer Hafiz Saeed said the court’s decision was part of “the conspiracy against Islam” and an attack on Pakistan’s ideology. He said Muslims should stand up and tell the world that they are ready to die but not ready to allow blasphemy. He said all Muslims felt just like Mumtaz Hussain Qadri about the issue.

Published in The Express Tribune

Hillary Goes Into Shock Over United Nations Refusal To Sign Syrian Death Warrant

[Ultra-Zionist Hillary Clinton is the official fountainhead of lies, not to mention that she is totally full of shit.  Her statements about the UN vote (which, disappointingly, failed to endorse further acts of American aggression) are nothing short of "ludicrous," to use a favorite State Dept. word, used whenever refuting the occasional truth that might make it into the "legitimate" media, about American war crimes.  Up until this defining moment, the so-called "United Nations" has been nothing more than another instrument of Imperial aggression, a rubber-stamp embellished with flowing imagery about "peace" and "humanitarianism."

Bravo!  to Russia and China for doing for Syria what they should have done for Libya--refusing to submit to American bullying and intentions to commit yet another aggression, to overthrow a legitimate government and to empower another bunch of Islamist terrorists their "legitimate" counterparts, the Muslim Brotherhood.  Syria was in their sights, but Israel was aiming the gun.  Russia and China prevented the Zionists, who think that they rule the world, from extending their long list of war crimes and crimes against humanity to Syria.  Once more--Bravo, China and Russia!]

Clinton Says U.N. ‘Abrogated its Responsibility’ on Syria

by Naharnet Newsdesk

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday slammed Russia and China for vetoing a U.N. Security Council resolution on Syria, saying the people of Syria “will not forget.”

Clinton said the Council had “abrogated its responsibility” by failing to push through the European draft resolution that would have threatened possible action against Syrian President Bashar Assad over a crackdown on protests.

“We believe the Security Council abrogated its responsibility yesterday. The countries that chose to veto the resolution will have to offer their own explanations to the Syrian people,” Clinton told a press conference.

“The Syrian people will not forget,” said Clinton, who was in the Dominican Republic for a ministerial forum on Latin America.

Russia and China used their veto as permanent members of the Security Council, rejecting any hint of sanctions against Syria. Brazil, India, Lebanon and South Africa abstained.

According to the U.N., more than 2,700 people have died in the crackdown on protests in Syria over the past seven months.

The U.N. Security Council meeting ended in acrimony on Tuesday, with U.S. ambassador Susan Rice leading her delegation out after Syria’s ambassador said the United States was linked to “genocide.”

Britain’s Foreign Secretary William Hague called the double veto “deeply mistaken and regrettable.”

Clinton said the European draft resolution “represented a bare minimum.”

“The United States and our European allies, we have made very clear where we stand on this issue,” she told reporters.

“In the meantime, those countries that continue to send weapons to the Assad regime have to look hard at what they are doing. They are protecting the wrong side in this dispute.”

Source Agence France Presse

Will Pakistan Honor The True Islam of God, or Follow the False Manmade “Islam” of Militant “Islamists”?

[The following report is somewhat amazing in its accurate assessments of both sides of the Pakistani/US stand-off.  The author totally nails America's dogged Imperial pursuit of its prey, its goals and its methodology.  He also pinpoints Pakistan's issues, namely its conundrum of being an "Islamic Nation," which is torn between two forms of Islam--the True Islam of Peace or the Jihadi "Islam" created in CIA mind-control labs, which fuses together the worst aspects of Saudi Wahhabism and the mutant philosophies of Indian Deobandi teachings.  Pakistan can no longer sit the fence, watching the homegrown mutant "Islam" sowing havoc throughout the world.  It is time for Pakistanis to choose--Will you defend your God-given faith of True Islam, or will you embrace the manufactured abomination of "Militant Islam" imported into your midst by your Saudi, American and British "friends," desecrating your children's school books and poisoning their young minds with teachings created by CIA contractors, designed to fill young Pakistani minds with visions of murder and the obsession to kill in the "name of God."?]

 

 

“This is the actual reason for America asking Pakistan to shut down the Haqqani network. It is now asking its ‘ally’ to finally choose sides. We have to decide. Should we go down the path of militant Islam or seek an alternate path, the path enshrined in the noble ideals of the world’s greatest religion? Are we to opt for implementation of the Quranic edict of never befriending the Jews or the Christians or should we pursue the injunction that enjoins Muslims to respect all religions and faiths and permits them to enter into marriage with Jews and Christians? The decision Pakistan has to make is whether it wishes to co-exist peacefully with its fellow human beings, respecting each other’s beliefs and cultures or whether it seeks to ram the perverse philosophy of some of its inhabitants down the global throat? This is the decision we have to make; this is what shutting down the Haqqani network implies.”

Pakistan – US Relations

By: Air Commodore (Retd) Shahid Kamal Khan S.Bt., T. Bt.

This is a Pakpotpourri Exclusive

It would be fair to say that Pakistan and the United States have arrived at the lowest point in their relationship ever. Every branch of the US Administration appears disenchanted with Pakistan and the American street echoes this sentiment. The same is also true of Pakistan. The All Parties Conference held in Islamabad on 28^th of September expressed its disillusionment with Uncle Sam unequivocally and, in doing so, gave official recognition to the widely held and oft stated sentiment of the entire nation.

Where do the two countries go from here? This is the thought that plagues the mind of most individuals. Various analyses are being conducted on a daily basis, publicly, privately, behind closed doors and openly across the media. The national ‘intelligentsia’; advisors, experts, analysts and opinion makers sit across tables putting forth their wisdom. The outcome of these considerably vocal debates and discussions invariably is that the US was out of line in accusing Pakistan and its military; that the nation rallied around its leadership which has then told the Americans off. The US is now furiously backpedalling as it tries to placate it most crucial partner in the war on terror. A superpower is backing down and is desperately seeking to make amends; the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has triumphed; the Americans have recognized our resolve and the two nations shall revert to their old relationship; gradually but surely.

Reality might well be otherwise. To recognize this, one needs to understand the manner in which both nations think and the way their collective minds work. One needs to appreciate the mindset of the two people. First, then, let us identify the Pakistani mindset. Let us look inwards; something we are normally reluctant to do. We shall find that, unlike the citizenry of the United States, each and every Pakistani is actively involved, and exhibits an inordinate interest, in politics and international affairs. Both the literati as well as its teeming millions of illiterate Pakistanis discuss Pak US relations on a daily basis. Each one of us has an enviable amount of national pride and will defend our country, albeit vocally only, to the last breath. Equally pervasive is the fact that every Pakistani has a well-defined love-hate attitude towards the United States; we love its freedom, its advanced stage of development and its position of global dominance and we hate it for exactly these very same attributes. The one unfortunately fatal flaw we have is that our actions are invariably based hugely on emotions that obscure reality. We respond to all events in the same, juvenile manner we have historically done. In the present situation, we shall do likewise; indeed we are already doing so. Cheering, clapping, applauding; the Pakistani nation will congratulate its leaders for having ‘shown eyes’ to the world’s only superpower. We will heap praise on these dubious leaders for standing up to a nation of infidels whose primary aim is the destruction of the Islamic Republic. In doing so we shall conveniently forget that these very same leaders have historically groveled before the US and that a sizeable majority of them still do. True, there are some leaders who are not obsequious to the US, but only because the US will have no truck with them. Those who are denied the US largesse, dance to the tune of others; propagating equal if not more alien policies, religious or cultural beliefs. We shall cheer our leaders even as we recognize that each one of them has the option of departing for the comfort of another shore if the going gets too tough in Pakistan. Dual nationalities, residence visas, alternate homes, children settled abroad; each has his or her means not only to live elsewhere but also to live comfortably spending from the illegal wealth accumulated in secret, offshore accounts. For the Pakistani nation to expect this group of motley characters to do anything except mumble platitudes and beat the histrionic drum over this latest US expression of anti-Pakistan sentiment is expecting too much. Yet we shall persist; only to be disappointed once again; only to yet again look skywards seeking His deliverance fervently. Hoping. Waiting.

Next, let us examine the US mindset. Despite our ardent desire to believe otherwise, the United States has matured as it has reached its position of world dominance. It may have done so in the distant past but Uncle Sam, the United States of America, no longer shoots from the hip. In formulating its response to any situation, it takes time, debates and brainstorms multiple scenarios, weighs all options before it comes up with a set of actions in ascending or indeed, descending order of priority which then constitute its course of action to be implemented according to a carefully constructed plan. Assisting in this process is a huge data base, a multiplicity of inputs, ranging from field intelligence to think tanks, from tourists to space based satellite reconnaissance, from the Peace to the diplomatic corps to assist it in formulation of its grand plan, the ‘strategy’. Indeed, it also has a learning curve that spans two centuries and the strategy it evolves incorporates lessons learnt from past mistakes. Finally, it has massive simulation resources that enable it to ‘war game’ its options and it thereby tweaks the plans as best as it is humanly possible. Various modeling constructs, both electronic and human, play out a huge range of options, injecting hypothetical, even outlandish elements into the ‘game’ in order to develop and refine the final solution.

The immediate and obvious response to this assertion of US capability has to be a very strident ‘false’ followed by a voluminous listing of US misadventures and mistaken decisions. When we do this, we make the grievous mistake of thinking that the United States shoots from the hip; that it plunges blindly into situations of which it has no idea. Do not mistake firing a wrong shot, in the wrong direction, using the wrong weapon as something that equals shooting from the hip. It simply means that in its selection of actions from a multitude of options, the United States has opted for the wrong one in that particular instance. The superpower always retains the ability to correct itself, alter course and pursue its chosen objective in an alternate manner. This is the singular, vital fact that we, the denizens of the third world, fail to assimilate. When US policy falters, we backslap each other, dance with joy and celebrate the misconception that America is doomed.

This is exactly the situation we face in this present impasse. We delight in the misplaced notion that the White House is distancing itself from the comments of Admiral Mullen, conveniently forgetting that this is the very same President that has, not too long ago, sacked a General for expressing an opinion that was not in line with policy. We gloat at the ‘stupidity’ of Admiral Mullen even his Commander in Chief moves him to a better, more important position in national decision making. We delight in the fact that some individuals in the US administration are expressing their regret at alienating Pakistan and choose to ignore the ominous truth that the United States is taking active measures to isolate and pressurize Pakistan even further; militarily, financially and politically. We crow enthusiastically proclaiming that the America will have to turn on the financial tap and military support for our nation even as Congress moves to cut off all aid to Pakistan and considers imposing sanctions. We expect the dollars to flow in even as the greenback hits a record high against the local currency, the nation sinks deeper into debt, the IMF withholds its facility, our industry grinds to a halt and exports slow down to a trickle. We continue complaining bitterly against drone attacks as Hellfire missiles continue to operate deep inside our borders, searching out and destroying terrorist leaders who have taken refuge in our midst. The very same Pakistani media that takes offense against the drone attacks regularly broadcasts their efficacy, highlighting the fact that unsavory Taliban or Al Qaida leaders are being killed on our territory.

And the US encourages us to continue in our delusions. It makes great publicity of the massive aid that it gives to Pakistan even as the promised funds are never delivered. The United States boldly proclaims Pakistan to be its most favored ally in the war against terror while placing serious hurdles in the movement of Pakistani manpower, materials, products and produce into its borders or the borders of those countries that it has influence over. While the US vociferously states that it respects Pakistan’s sovereignty, it continues pounding our countryside with Hellfire missiles, carrying out incursions of troops into Pakistan’s border areas and having its operatives roam Pakistani streets with impunity. When an operation goes awry it refuses to apologize, acting imperially, bulldozing its way without remorse or guilt. It carries out an extremely complex, well-orchestrated raid deep into Pakistan in the pursuit of its aim while the entire nation watches in stunned, confused amazement.

We fail to understand that all this is the American design; these are all actions that are integral elements of their grand plan. Plan, act, evaluate, assess, regroup, switch options, alter course, execute, assess; the process is repeated as often as is necessary with only one, singular constant; the grand aim is always kept in mind. Tactics change but the strategy never does. We are naïve enough to persist in interpreting changes in US tactics as a failure of their grand strategy. We take delight in assuming that the Superpower is faltering, ignoring the fact that the US pursues its grand plan relentlessly, inching closer and closer to its intended goal. As it does so it states what the Pakistani nation wishes to hear while doing exactly what it wants. The sad fact is that we do not have any strategy; any plan. We simply react to events; all our actions are invariably responses, based largely on emotion.

And this how we find ourselves in the position we are in today. A key US individual of considerable authority has made telling charges against Pakistan, its military and its intelligence organization. Admiral Mullen has stated that Pakistan is in bed with an extremist organization, the Haqqani network, and the two are acting in concert against US interests. This accusation has since been reinforced and echoed by each and every official and unofficial forum within the US and indeed the global community. It is reasonable to assume that prior to making these accusations public; the US would have brought this to the notice of Pakistan behind closed doors. Forcing the issue into the public domain is not simply to make Pakistan sever its linkage with a network; any network. It is far more sinister, more ominous. It indicates that the US has decided to raise the stakes in its relationship with Pakistan to another, newer, higher level. ‘Cranking the wheel, taking it up a notch, revving it up’ are Americanisms that apply. The allegation regarding the Haqqani network is meaningless; both nations have too many closets with too many skeletons in each one and any such skeleton could have been used to take the relationship to this new, highly charged, recriminatory level. While we childishly believe that the Americans are asking us to disassociate ourselves with a network that both nations have mutually created, the real truth is that the Americans are now moving another step forward in their grand strategy in pursuit of their eventual aim of winning the global war on terror. A war in which Pakistan is viewed as a major, undeniably effective, participant but aligned perhaps unwillingly but undisputedly with the forces hostile to the United States of America.

Carrot and stick, stick and carrot. Stick. Carrot. Carrot. Stick. Aid. Hellfires. Grants. Sanctions. Handouts. Refusals. Platitudes. Threats. The Haqqani network is just another stick, another threat. Irrespective of the manner in which Pakistan responds, the grand strategy of America will not change. ‘Do more’ will continue to be the US refrain until its end is achieved, the Iraqi ‘stick’ way or the South African ‘carrot’ way. Make no mistake; the US shall achieve its aim. Underestimate the US resolve or fail to recognize the grand US design and be prepared to be rudely surprised.

Have we ever, as a nation, taken time to figure out what the Grand American Design actually is? Just because we do not have any national strategy and blunder from crisis to crisis, we delude ourselves into believing that everyone else also does the same. Have we ever considered that democratizing Iraq and going home was never the grand design? Defeating the Taliban and extricating from Afghanistan is not the end. Killing Osama Bin Laden was not the goal. Shutting down the Haqqani network is not the final solution. Winning the war on terror is but a tactical aim; the grand design is somewhat different. The ultimate aim is and has always been to bring to heel militant Islam; the grand design is to protect itself and the developed world from a totally alien concept of existence. A concept which incidentally is equally alien to the spirit of true Islam; a concept equally abhorrent to those who subscribe to the Muslim faith and those who do not. The real reason for the hiccups in Pak-US relations is the fact that a sizeable percentage of Pakistanis unfortunately subscribe to this corrupt version of Islam.

This is the actual reason for America asking Pakistan to shut down the Haqqani network. It is now asking its ‘ally’ to finally choose sides. We have to decide. Should we go down the path of militant Islam or seek an alternate path, the path enshrined in the noble ideals of the world’s greatest religion? Are we to opt for implementation of the Quranic edict of never befriending the Jews or the Christians or should we pursue the injunction that enjoins Muslims to respect all religions and faiths and permits them to enter into marriage with Jews and Christians? The decision Pakistan has to make is whether it wishes to co-exist peacefully with its fellow human beings, respecting each other’s beliefs and cultures or whether it seeks to ram the perverse philosophy of some of its inhabitants down the global throat? This is the decision we have to make; this is what shutting down the Haqqani network implies.

For too long have we sat on the fence, straddling the options; for too long have we played both sides against the middle. The US is now simply demanding that we climb off the fence. We are now being nudged firmly into choosing sides. We can throw in our lot with the Haqqani network or we can renounce it to join hands with the West and root out militant Islam. Hedging bets, talking, negotiating and dialog will not be acceptable any longer. They do not work; never have and never will. These did not work in Swat, these did not work in Lal Masjid; they never can. Firebrand, militant Islam is a philosophy that seeks neither change nor moderation. It simply cannot; martyrdom and eternal bliss are intrinsically beautiful concepts that overwhelm any possible motivator ordinary mortals can come up with.

The ultimate irony is that it really does not matter which side of the fence Pakistan decides to climb off. Either way, very little shall change for its teeming millions. Becoming a fundamentalist Muslim state or opting for pursuing a worldly policy shall do nothing for the common man or woman. The vast majority of Pakistanis shall continue to live their ordained lives in the manner that they are doing presently; warding off disease, floods and famine, eking out a living from their rural environs, praying, hoping and waiting for their departure to the next world. No one amongst the impoverished majority really cares who sits in the seat of power in Islamabad. No one amongst this huge slice of the Pakistani population has derived any benefit from the billions that has flowed into the country as aid or grant money. This illiterate majority has no interest in a national nuclear program or a modern banking system, it has no stake in its decrepit industrial base, its bankrupt steel mill, its dilapidated railway system or its failing airline.

Nor shall the decision make any difference to the miniscule percentage of affluent Pakistanis. They shall flee the militant Islamic state at the first sign of Pakistan throwing in its lot with the Mullahs. The only segment that will encounter upheaval will be the minority of urban, literate Pakistanis who have nowhere to go or those that cannot leave because they have a stake in this land. These individuals are pragmatic and resilient enough to modify their lifestyles to follow either philosophy. They have done so before and can do so again. They have prayed with Ziaul Haq and partied with Yahya Khan. They have circled the Kaaba with the believers and skinnydipped with the hedonists. They shall adapt, survive and indeed flourish.

A hundred and eighty odd million individuals and eight hundred thousand square kilometers cannot be made to vanish off the face of the earth. Pakistan shall survive and yes, even flourish, irrespective of the choice it makes. But make the choice it must; not because the US wants us to, not because the world wants us to but because we, those who remain committed to this uniquely endowed Islamic state, can plan the future accordingly.

NOTE:The writer is based in Karachi.

US blunders in AfghanistanUS blunders in Afghanistan

US blunders in Afghanistan

Javed Hussain

When the French returned to colonise Indo-China, they said that they would teach General Vo Nguyen Giap, a “peasant and amateur, a non-commissioned officer learning to handle regiments”, how to handle regiments. Eight years later the French arrogance was buried in Dien Bien Phu.

Eleven years later when the US Marines arrived in South Vietnam, history was poised to repeat itself as the Americans were poised to repeat the mistake made by the French. They said that they would soon crush the “racially inferior gooks” and return home for Christmas.

They had miscalculated. In a few years time, the Vietcong had turned the American servicemen into psychopaths – there was widespread drunkenness, drug – taking, refusal to go on combat missions, suicides, and ‘fragging’ (killing of own officers and NCOs – more than 100 officers were killed in the first half of 1971). These were manifestations of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Ten years later, the panic-stricken superpower withdrew, defeated and disgraced, with its arrogance buried in the jungles of South Vietnam – until it was resurrected twenty-six years later in Afghanistan.

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, they ignored the lesson of history that the country is a graveyard for invaders. Ten years later they were forced to withdraw, defeated and disgraced. Their arrogance lies buried in Afghanistan’s mountains and valleys.

History is again repeating itself in Afghanistan because the Americans repeated the mistakes made by the Soviets. Surprisingly, the British, who too had experienced the fury of the Afghans, instead of counselling the Americans, have joined them. A British officer who served in Helmand in 2007 warned that “Anyone who underestimates the problem is going to come unstuck”. This is precisely what the Americans are doing, and paying for it. Ten years on, the US military in Afghanistan is gasping for breath. Their high command had blundered.

Their first blunder was to defy history. Like the Soviets, they also overestimated their own capabilities and underestimated those of the Afghan guerrillas. And like the Soviets, they have also learned the hard way that it is far more difficult to get out than it was to go in. But unlike the Soviets who swallowed their arrogance and pulled out, the Americans, who have rightly but belatedly concluded that the war cannot be won, are not prepared to swallow theirs, even though the victims of their arrogance are their own servicemen, mere pawns in their high command’s struggle to avoid being stigmatised as losers. The ghost of Vietnam has returned to haunt them.

Their second blunder was caused by their lack of foresight. They thought that after being routed by air-bombing, the Taliban would no longer be a threat. But within months the euphoria that followed the rout was gone, as the Taliban resurfaced. They should have learnt from the Soviet mistake – if the Soviets had blocked the crossings on the Durand Line, the Mujahideen would have been isolated from their handlers and logistics in Fata and Balochistan. What might then have happened? If the Americans had blocked the escape routes prior to initiating the air-bombing campaign, the Taliban could not have escaped, at least the bulk.

Their third blunder was their misappreciation of the Taliban. Once the insurgency had begun to gain momentum, it should have become clear to the US high command that the resources assigned to Afghanistan were inadequate to accomplish the mission. Yet they decided to place the main military effort in the wrong strategic direction (Iraq), and persisted with it. As a result, the main theatre (Afghanistan) has remained under resourced. Misappreciation of the enemy has always led to military defeats.

In a war against insurgency, unless the mission is accomplished within a year, the war tends to drag for years on end. In the event, the soldiers who are basically groomed for conventional war, begin to lose their combat effectiveness, having to fight an invisible enemy who is here, there and everywhere, yet nowhere – it is this that makes them vulnerable to PTSD. Therefore, if a half-hearted effort is made against the insurgency, it is bound to fail.

After the Vietnam War, the Americans had concluded that the soldier to guerrilla ratio in Vietnam should have been 25 to 1 (during the peak period it was 5 to 1) – a ratio the Soviets agreed they should have built up in Afghanistan. Presently, the ratio in Afghanistan is 10 to 1 if the Afghan army is included, and 4 to 1 if excluded.

Gen David McKiernan was sacked when he asked for more troops – he probably envisioned a total force of half a million that would have given him a ratio of 14 to 1. The mismatch between the mission and resources is one of the main reasons why the military effort has failed. The other reason is the command’s inept handling of the resources in hand.

One example of this is the half-hearted effort in Eastern Afghanistan where the Haqqanis operate, according to the US, out of North Waziristan. If that is so, then the crossing sites on North Waziristan’s 150 km, and Kurram’s 110 km, borders with Afghanistan should have been secured long ago to intercept the Haqqanis as they attempted to infiltrate into occupied territory.

This would have created a choking effect on the Haqqanis (they have the force but cannot use it) – where is the 200,000 strong Afghan army? The US claims that this group is impeding their ‘march to victory’ – a claim that Mullah Omar’s force, which has inflicted 80 percent of the casualties suffered by the coalition forces, would hardly find amusing!

Such opportunities to achieve operational supremacy seldom arise in a counter-insurgency war. But the fact is that the Haqqanis are wiser. To avoid getting choked they had dispersed their force long ago in the mountains of the three adjoining Afghan provinces. In addition, they have sleeper cells in Kabul which also include members of the Afghan army and police, and which are activated when required.

Their fourth blunder was their failure to identify the Hindukush Mountains, where the guerrillas have their sanctuaries, as the latter’s critical space. Had they dominated the mountains, the guerrillas would have been forced into the valleys, thus exposing themselves to the devastating American air and land-delivered fire power. In Vietnam, the jungles had served as the guerrillas’ sanctuaries into which the Americans seldom ventured, unless they were deforested. There is something about jungles and mountains that unnerve the Americans.

The generals in Afghanistan, like their predecessors in Vietnam, were groomed for conventional war (CW). They have thus tended to fight an unconventional war (UCW) conventionally. Hence, the fifth blunder.

In UCW, the guerrillas employ a large number of small teams to strike in different directions at the time and place of their choosing. In CW, large forces are employed to create conditions for the decisive battle at the desired point in time and space – dispersion on one side, concentration on the other side.

Since it is the guerrillas’ strategy and tactics that define the operational environment, it is imperative that the strategy and tactics of the counter-insurgency forces conform to the environment. Failure to do so results in a mismatch. The generals in Afghanistan, like the ones in Vietnam, have exacerbated the mismatch. On the one hand are the guerrillas who are masters of their craft, on the other hand are the counter-insurgency forces who are not of their craft. There is no place for orthodoxy and inflexibility in war, least of all in a counter-insurgency war. The arrogance of a superpower defeated twice by guerrillas, awaits burial in the graveyard that Afghanistan is for invaders. The US Congress should know why.

The writer is a retired brigadier.

Email: javedhussainpa@yahoo.com

U.S. Secretly Met Afghan Militants

Outreach to Vilified Haqqani Network, Blamed for Recent Upsurge in Violence, Signals New Approach in Effort to End War

By MATTHEW ROSENBERG

ReutersU.S.-Pakistan tensions have risen. Pictured, a Lahore protest last week.

WASHINGTON—U.S. officials this summer secretly met with leaders of the deadly Haqqani network, the Afghan militant group closely tied to al Qaeda, in an effort to draw them into talks on winding down the war.

Washington has publicly scorned the group, which is blamed with bringing a new level of violence to the Afghan insurgency and is at the center of the deteriorating U.S. relationship with Pakistan.

Pakistan and U.S. officials said the push to draw the Haqqanis into talks has yielded little. The U.S. says Haqqani fighters were responsible for a 20-hour assault last month on the U.S. Embassy and the nearby North Atlantic Treaty Organization headquarters in Kabul.

The Haqqani network is regarded by American officials as an irredeemably violent militant and criminal network tied to al Qaeda and supported by the Pakistani intelligence service. Haqqani fighters are regularly targeted by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan. U.S. officials have long said they were beyond reconciliation.

But the behind-the-scenes American effort reflects the growing realization that a military campaign alone won’t bring the Haqqanis to heel—and that compromises are needed to wind down U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.

U.S. officials had already reached that conclusion about the Taliban—saying that losses on the battlefield would drive Taliban leaders to the negotiating table.

“We’ve got no illusions about what the Haqqanis ultimately are,” said a senior U.S. official said. But the “war is going to end with a deal. That’s what we’re trying to make inevitable. The more parties involved in talking, that’s probably going to make for a better deal.”

The official declined to discuss the talks with the Haqqanis, describing them as “early and not very well defined.”

ReutersTroops aid the injured in September’s battle with insurgents in Kabul.

That also describes the wider peace effort, which has moved in fits and starts over the past two years, making little overall progress. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has given up on negotiations with the Taliban, Afghan officials said Sunday, after the assassination of his top peace envoy, former President Burhanuddin Rabbani.

The senior U.S. official said there had been at least one meeting over the summer between U.S. officials and Haqqani representatives. The meeting was set up by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency, a fact that the Americans said confirmed thier suspicions of Pakistani ties to the Haqqanis.

The meeting took place as the Haqqanis were stepping up attacks in and around Kabul, but before their most high-profile strike to date, the assault on the U.S. Embassy, which began on Sept. 13. The assault made the effort to talk to the Haqqanis more difficult, but the effort to get a peace process going hasn’t been abandoned, officials said.

The State Department wouldn’t comment directly on outreach to the Haqqanis. Spokesman Mark Toner, citing previous comments by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said: “We have a broad range of contacts across Afghanistan and the region…these contacts are preliminary in nature.”

A Pakistani official said Islamabad began facilitating contacts with the Haqqanis late last year and set up the meeting this summer in a Persian Gulf country. The Afghan government didn’t take part.

The U.S. wouldn’t identify the participants; the Pakistani official said the insurgents were represented by one of the brothers of the main leader of the network, Sirajuddin Haqqani.

Mr. Haqqani told the BBC in an interview published on Monday that “not only Pakistan, but other Islamic countries, and other non-Islamic countries, including America, contacted us and they are still doing so.”

Mr. Haqqani said the U.S. asked him to break with Taliban leader Mullah Omar and join Mr. Karzai’s government, but the overtures were rebuffed, according to the report.

The Haqqanis are one of the most potent forces in the Afghan war. One U.S. defense official called them “world-class fighters, whether we like it or not.”

The U.S. diplomacy diverges from the drone strikes and special-forces raids the Americans have used against the Haqqanis for much of the past three years.

U.S. officials have berated Pakistan for not attacking the faction’s sanctuaries in the tribal areas on the Afghan border. Pakistan argues it lacks the resources to do so.

Pakistan for years denied U.S. accusations it aids or abets the Haqqanis, and the increasingly public dispute is now straining ties, with U.S. lawmakers threatening to cut aid and military officials in both countries pointing fingers.

The American outreach is the latest chapter in a relationship between Washington and the Haqqanis that stretches back to the Afghan Mujahedeen’s fight against the 1979 Soviet invasion of their country.

The network’s founder, Jalaluddin Haqqani, was one of the main mujahedeen commanders backed by the U.S. and Pakistan.

He went on to join the Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan from the mid-1990s until the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. He then took refuge in Pakistan’s tribal areas and, after an aborted American attempt to lure him to their side, took up arms against his old backers.

Officials are now trying to discern just what shape stalled peace efforts will take, the senior U.S. official said.

Options include talks between Afghans and the Taliban, with the U.S. observing; Pakistan playing a direct role; or the Haqqanis having a seat separate from the Taliban. “Anyone who tells you they know what shape the process is taking doesn’t know what they’re talking about,” another U.S. official said.

Top Pakistani officials have alluded to the U.S. contacts with the Haqqanis in recent statements responding to American accusations they support the group.

In one tart statement last month, military chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani said the U.S. “knows fully well which … countries are in contact with the Haqqanis. Singling out Pakistan is neither fair nor productive.”

A senior Pakistani military officer said Gen. Kayani was referring to the U.S.

—Zahid Hussain in Washington and Tom Wright in New Delhi contributed to this article.

Write to Matthew Rosenberg at matthew.rosenberg@wsj.com

Will Uncle Sam Go Postal in South Asia?

By:Eric Margolis
The US is now risking a military confrontation with old ally Pakistan that is both highly dangerous and unpredictable in the extreme.
It’s awfully hard for the world’s greatest power to admit its high-tech military forces are being beaten in Afghanistan by a bunch of lightly-armed mountain tribesmen that we dismiss as “terrorists.”
But that’s what’s happening in the “Graveyard of Empires.” Washington can’t and won’t admit it has blundered into a bloody, trillion dollar fiasco in Afghanistan.
Right now, Pakistan is the chief whipping boy for US imperial fury.
Last week, outgoing US chief of staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, accused Pakistan’s intelligence agency, ISI, of being behind recent high profile attacks against US targets in Afghanistan that were allegedly staged by the Haqqani network, one of Taliban’s coalition members fighting foreign occupation. A recent assault by Taliban mujahidin on the US Embassy in Kabul revived very bad dreams of the Viet Cong’s war-winning 1968 Tet Offensive.
Admiral Mullen accused the Haqqani network of being “a virtual arm” of ISI. Pakistan strongly denied US charges. In fact, both CIA and Pakistan’s intelligence agency, ISI, have long maintained covert links with the Haqqani group.
Much of CIA’s intelligence on Afghanistan comes from two sources: electronic intercepts, and the Afghan government’s intelligence service.
Most anti-US fighters are far too experienced to use electronic communications they know are easily picked up by US satellites, aircraft, drones, airships, and ground stations.

The Afghan government intelligence service is dominated by Tajik Communists from the old Soviet-created KHAD intelligence agency who are blood enemies of Pakistan and Afghanistan’s Pashtun majority.
Afghan spooks have become a primary source of disinformation to US military and civilian intelligence outfits, and likely the source of claims that Pakistan’s ISI was behind recent attacks on US targets in Afghanistan. US intelligence was similarly misled in 2003 over Iraq by a “friendly,” self-serving intelligence service.
Official Washington is reacting with free-form rage rather than careful thought. No doubt, the example of the Soviet 1989 defeat in Afghanistan increasingly haunts Washington.
Ironically, as I saw myself in the 1980’s, the US created the Haqqani network, arming and funding it. In those halcyon days, Jalaluddin Haqqani and Pashtun fighters were hailed by the US as “freedom fighters.” Now, they are “terrorists.”
One of the US Senate’s least intelligent members, influential Republican Lindsay Graham, is threatening more US attacks on Pakistan “to defend US troops” from “terrorism.” US Predator drones are now staging almost daily attacks inside Pakistan – without even advising the feeble government in Islamabad.
Sen. Graham’s threat is pretty rich. The US invades a country, brands any who resist as “terrorists,” then threatens to bomb and/or invade its neighbor to “protect” the invasion force.
Meanwhile, the US is paying bankrupt Pakistan $7.5 billion over five years to sustain the war in Afghanistan.
Ever since the days of George W. Bush, US policy in the Muslim world has been driven by a combination of imperial arrogance and profound ignorance.
When the US was preparing to invade Iraq in 2003, I had dinner with three of Bush’s most senior advisors. “Tell us about Iraq, Eric,” they asked. As I spoke of Kurds, Sunnis, assorted Shia, Yazdis, their eyes quickly glazed over.

“Just give us the bottom line,” snapped one Alpha Republican. “The bottom line,” I replied, “is don’t get involved in a messy country you don’t understand at all.”
Well, here we go again with Pakistan. Hardly any senior members of the Obama administration understand complex Pakistan. There are some experts in Washington who do understand, but they are routinely ignored. The same things happened with Iraq.

The American bulls in South Asia’s china shop are ready to charge in, heedless of the facts or risks.
Threatening war against Pakistan, a nation of 180 million with a tough military is the height of folly. Our forces have not faced a tough enemy ground force since Vietnam. Pakistan will be no cakewalk.
Pakistan controls most of the supply routes essential to US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Most Pakistanis now consider the US a bigger enemy than old foe India.
Even crazier, Washington is making warlike threats against nuclear-armed Pakistan, a very close ally of China, an important nuclear power. So far, Beijing has been cautious yet firm in its support of old ally, Pakistan.
But US attacks on Pakistan that go beyond the current raids by CIA drones could draw China into a confrontation with the US. China has quietly made clear it will not allow the US to tear apart Pakistan in order to grab Islamabad’s Chinese-aided nuclear arsenal.
More craziness. The US under both Bush and Barack Obama has been trying to get India militarily involved in Afghanistan. But the Indians were too clever to send combat troops into Afghanistan.
Washington then gave India a green light to pour intelligence agents and money into Afghanistan to support the anti-Taliban Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara minorities. The US has greatly aided the buildup of India’s nuclear arsenal – which has only two targets, Pakistan and China.
All this, of course, has set off alarm bells in Islamabad, which sees Afghanistan as its strategic back yard. Russia and China are also watching this drama with growing unease, torn between concern about militant Islamists and intrusive US power.
The strategic interests of Pakistan and the US are different, often in conflict. Yet the US “put a gun to our head,” as I was told by both a former ISI director and Pakistan’s former president, Pervez Musharraf, and forced to join the war against Taliban, a close Pakistani ally and strategic asset.
Why should Pakistan forsake its own strategic interests for those of the United States, whose confused, erratic foreign policy is increasingly seen abroad a being run by domestic special interest and extreme religious groups?
A blow-up between Pakistan and its sometime American patron would be a calamity for all concerned. Expanding a war into the intersection of the interests of four nuclear-armed powers is the height of irresponsibility and manic behavior.
But so long as America’s war in Afghanistan continues it indeed threatens to destabilize Pakistan and runs the risk of nuclear confrontation in South Asia.