CENTCOM Wants You To Believe That Iran Was Responsible for Saudis Attacked In Karachi

[Setting-up the narrative that justifies war on Iran.  The upcoming IEAA report is expected to give the final boost to US/Zionist/Saudi war plans.]

Shiite militants connected to May assassination of Saudi diplomat

SMP seeks to inflame Shiite-Sunni tensions

By Zia Ur Rehman

KARACHI – The investigations of a Saudi diplomat’s murder and a hand grenade attack on a Saudi consulate, both in Karachi in May, continue, but security analysts are attributing both attacks to a Shiite militant organisation with links abroad.

CIA accused of killing child

CIA accused of killing child

Morning Star Online

Rights activists accused the CIA at the weekend of “killing a kid who wanted to work for justice and the rule of law” following a US air strike that claimed the life of a Pakistani teenager who had begun to testify about Washington’s covert drone war.

Sixteen-year-old Tariq Aziz and his 12-year-old cousin Waheed Khan were killed last Monday when a missile fired by a remotely operated US drone slammed into their vehicle near their home in North Waziristan.

On the previous Friday Mr Aziz had attended a jirga, or council, in Islamabad at which the elders of communities in Pakistan’s semi-autonomous tribal areas met for the first time with Western lawyers from London-based charity Reprieve to discuss the secret CIA bombing campaign in their area which has claimed hundreds of civilian lives.

Reprieve director Clive Stafford Smith said: “I met this lad Tariq last week, and he was no more a terrorist than my mother.

“It’s high time the CIA stopped this dirty and illegal war.”

Shahzad Akbar (pictured) of the Islamabad-based Foundation for Fundamental Rights added: “I believe we have lost someone who could have helped to show us what is really happening in that part of the world.

“It makes it twice as tragic that the CIA has killed a kid who wanted to work for justice and the rule of law. It is acts such as this that are fuelling militancy and extremism among the young people of the tribal areas.”

A Perversely Perfect War

A Perversely Perfect War

By Bill Bonner

Author Image for Bill Bonner

Paris, France – In a perverse way, a zombie war is a perfect war. A lot of money changes hands. And relatively few people are killed, compared to a real war.

The British medical journal, The Lancet, estimates the total death toll from the Iraq war at nearly 700,000. When the war began, Pentagon experts estimated the cost of the war at about $60 billion. They underestimated by 8,000%. But if the war were to stop tomorrow…and if Joseph Stiglitz’s estimates of total cost were close to correct…each Iraqi killed (let’s hallucinate that he was an ‘enemy combatant’) would cost about $8 million.

You have to wonder why America would want to kill even a single Iraqi, let alone at a cost of $8 million each. WWII killed far more people — 50 million. Total spending on the war, by all the combatants, was probably around $10 trillion (our estimate). This puts the cost per corpse at only $200,000. WWII was far more efficient.

But WWII was a real war, not a zombie war. The real goal of a zombie war is neither to kill people…nor even to win. It is to transfer wealth from the real economy to the zombie industry, in this case, defense.

Of course, looking at the cost of killing people merely underlines the absurdity of the whole enterprise. You might just as well say that a good war is one where people don’t die. If that is true, the War on Terror is almost perfect. Hardly anyone dies. Which is not surprising, since there are hardly any terrorists. It is a war on nobody…with the intention of not winning…over a long period of time…at great expense. It is a zombie war, designed for the benefit of the industry behind it, not for the people who pay the bills.

Al Qaeda spent only about $500,000 in its attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. If its goal was to bring the US to its knees, this investment was probably the most rewarding in the history of military conflict. In reaction to this tiny investment and the trivial risk it represented, the US spent 10,000,000 times as much, the largest mis-investment of valuable resources the world has ever seen.

And these expenses do not begin to count the costs of delays, inconveniences and indignities suffered by the people the war is meant to protect. Airline travel takes longer and costs more. Banking regulations have been tightened, making it more difficult, and expensive, to make investments outside the zombie industries. Ordinary citizens in ordinary situations now live with the menace that their normal routines and pleasures will be interrupted by the demands of the war on terror project.

The only positive thing that can be said about a zombie war is that it provides entertainment for millions. The masses are awed by the latest military technology…and by the demonstrations of brute force. Their minds go numb from the pounding, exploding action…and their chests swell, as it is their boys kicking butt.

Zombie wars are a modern version of the old Circus Maximus in Rome…where the fans got to watch the gladiators in genuine combat…or better yet, a mass murder. They are like football games for mortal stakes, rigged from the beginning to make sure the home team wins. Was there ever any doubt about the outcome of the Iraq War? Would the US prevail against the armed forces of Saddam Hussein? Would the Taliban in Afghanistan turn the tables on the Americans, and land their turbaned troops on the banks of the Potomac?

It’s all great fun…because there is no risk to the spectators. The crowds can pretend that there is some great principle at stake. They are ‘nation building.’ They are bringing democracy to the towel heads. They are protecting America from terrorists. They can cheer their heroes and boo the bad guys…and then go to sleep at night, happily rejoicing in the victory of good over evil.

While we don’t dispute the value of a zombie war as a form of mass distraction — a reality show with live ammunition — it is a disaster to an economy and to the wealth of the people who undertake it.

We were shocked recently when an intelligent woman challenged us.

“Yes…but at least wars keep people off the unemployment lists. The military employs lots of people…”

“Besides”…she went on… “wasn’t WWII largely responsible for ending the Great Depression. Maybe we need a WWIII.”

Alas, she had missed the point. It would be easy to give people jobs. It is easy to start a war, too. But if it were that easy to create real wealth we would all be employed, full time, trying to kill each other.

Wealth creation is a tough business. First, you have to NOT consume everything you make. This extra…saved capital…gives you something to work with. You can use it to create more wealth. Imagine that you were living on a small farm. You work all the time. You plant a field. You harvest. You consume. But you don’t get wealthier that way. To get wealthier, you have to plant a little more. You have to have a little surplus, that you can invest…a little more labor…to clear a field…prepare the soil…save the seeds… so you can increase your harvest in the following year.

If, on the other hand, you goof off…if you waste your resources (mostly your time in this example) and plant less of the field…you grow poorer.

This series of Daily Reckoning reflections has been focused on wasting resources. On health care, on education, and on finance…and other big industries favored by government. In each case, trillions are invested — with no payback. The nation grows poorer and groans under the debt needed to pay for it all. But of all these wealth-destroying investments, none is more wasteful than war. By its nature, war consumes and annihilates wealth. It does not produce it.

Which is not to say that wealth cannot develop out of the ashes of warfare. It can and it does. War clears away the zombie industries that block progress. When a war ends, it releases huge amounts of pent-up demand…and supply. Factories that were producing tanks switch to making automobiles. Soldiers who had been focused on killing people, switch to selling insurance and tending bars. A new economy with new industries and new workers buds, blooms and flowers. That is what happened in Germany and Japan after WWII.

In America, too, the end of WWII brought unparalleled prosperity. But it was built on the ruins of an economy that had been de-leveraged by the Great Depression…and largely destroyed by the war. A new consumer-focused economy could to be built.

Americans of a certain age remember the war years the way a tourist remembers a nasty vacation. He tends to forget the bad parts…recalling only the happy times. Old people now recall the solidarity of the war years…the sense of brotherhood and common mission…and the thrill of working on such a grand, and successful, project.

As New York mayoral candidate, Jimmy Breslin, once remarked. “The last successful government project was WWII.”

Don’t bother to ask German and Japanese oldsters. They recall too much suffering, too much misery, and too much defeat.

Even in America, the war years were hardly a time of prosperity. There were few private automobiles produced or sold. There were few new houses built. The big consumer innovations — invented in the ’30s — such as television and air-conditioning, had to wait until after the war was over to be broadly implemented. There was little joblessness — everyone was put to work in the war effort. And savings rose; people had nothing to spend their money on.

Output soared too — but it was output without a market value. What was a tank worth, absent a real war? Why would anyone buy a machine gun, unless he expected to kill someone?

Outside of its use in a real war, wartime production was useless…and valueless. It consumed the savings of a generation…and the resources of a whole nation…but it produced little of value to a domestic economy. At the end of the war, Americans were poorer than they had been before it began.

A zombie war is worse. First, it has no utility at all — since it does not protect the nation for a real threat. Second, it never ends…and never releases the pent-up demand and productive capacity for other activities.

Regards,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning

 

Ohio bills could delay fracking

Ohio bills could delay fracking

By Evan Bevins (ebevins@mariettatimes.com)
 The Marietta Times

Two bills recently introduced in Ohio’s General Assembly would put the brakes on fracking in the state until at least 2014.

Introduced this week, House Bill 345 and Senate Bill 213 prohibit “horizontal stimulation” of a well until the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publishes a report on the study of the relationship between hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” and drinking water. According to the EPA website, that report is expected sometime in 2014.

State Rep. Denise Driehaus, D-Cincinnati, is one of the sponsors of the house bill, which she says is aimed at protecting the state’s citizens.

“It’s not so much that I’m opposed to drilling. I’m opposed to drilling when we don’t have enough information regarding the impact to drinking water,” she said. “I wish we did have the information, it was conclusive and we could move forward in a safe way.”

State Rep. Andy Thompson, R-Marietta, said he opposes the bill.

“It’s an unfortunate attempt to throw a wrench in a process that is working effectively, is appropriately regulated and … ultimately will prove very beneficial to the state,” he said.

Hydraulic fracturing is the process of pumping a mixture of water, sand and chemicals into a well to fracture and release natural gas and oil in underground formations. Advances in technology have opened up the Marcellus and Utica shale formations to this process through the drilling of deep vertical wells and then drilling horizontal wells off of them.

The potential economic impact of the drilling has many excited but others have raised red flags, saying there isn’t enough known about the effect of the process and disposal of the used frack water on the environment, particularly groundwater.

Thompson said the legislature already passed House Bill 153, with bipartisan support, to grant authority over permitting of oil and natural gas wells to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. That should keep Ohio from having problems experienced in other states, he said.

“There was an effort to prepare Ohio for this process,” Thompson said. “Pennsylvania didn’t have it; West Virginia didn’t have it.”

Experts in the field, including Marietta College’s Bob Chase, who could not be reached for comment Friday, have said the process is safe when done properly. Chase has noted the horizontal wells are far below the water table.

But there have been concerns raised over drinking water after incidents in other areas.

“I think the conclusive study will happen at the federal level,” Driehaus said.

As for the economic impact, Driehaus said allowing fracking before a conclusive study is done could have a negative effect.

“If you’ve got folks that live in a community with undrinkable water and a business in a community with undrinkable water, there are economic impacts,” she said.

State Rep. Debbie Phillips, D-Athens, said she is mindful of both the safety concerns and the potential economic benefits. She said she would have to study the issue further before deciding how to vote on the bill.

“There’s a lot of important economic development moving forward,” she said. “I just hope we can do this in a way that also includes the proper protection for our communities’ drinking water.”

Pam Howard, a Pleasants County, W.Va., resident who is a member of the Southeast Ohio Fracking Interest Group, said she believes most members of the citizen group would support the moratorium.

“That’s one of our group’s stances is trying to talk landowners into waiting until some of the regulations are in effect,” she said. “The price per acre is only going to go up as long as they wait and the gas is not going to go away.”

Marietta City Councilman Harley Noland, D-at large, didn’t say he would oppose the moratorium but questioned if it was necessary.

“I would hope that we could find out what problems (there might be) without having the moratorium because the number of jobs … will be significant to our economy,” he said.

Noland said his mind was set at ease over groundwater concerns after speaking with a Marietta College professor.

“She sort of made my fears about that pollution go away,” he said.

Thompson noted Driehaus and her co-sponsor on the house bill are from Cincinnati and Columbus, respectively, two areas beyond the extent of the Utica shale.

“Those of us who are in southeastern Ohio are probably more familiar with the oil and gas industry and know that they are (generally) good stewards,” he said.

Driehaus said although her district is not over the Utica shale, her constituents are paying attention.

“There is a very high interest in Cincinnati,” she said. “You don’t have to live in the northern or eastern part of the state to have concerns about hydraulic fracturing in Ohio.”

Oklahoma Fracking Zone Suffers Biggest OK Quake, Ever–(Ohioans Take Note)

[Ohioans, take note.  If our beloved governor's mega-fracking plan is not stopped we could soon suffer the same fate (SEE:  Geologists eye new well after 7 quakes in NE Ohio ; Ohio bills could delay fracking).] Fracking May Have Caused 50 Earthquakes in Oklahoma Sparks, OK. coordinates–35.6081226, -96.8211333  (see map insert below) Several homes in Oklahoma were damaged after a strong earthquake struck late Saturday near Sparks, Oklahoma. Several homes in Oklahoma were damaged after a strong earthquake struck late Saturday near Sparks, Oklahoma.

Oklahoma quake buckles highway, damages several homes

State record 5.6-magnitude earthquake rocks Oklahoma, surrounding states

SPARKS – The U.S. Geological Survey indicated an Oklahoma state record 5.6-magnitude earthquake at approximately 10:53pm Saturday evening — the strongest ever recorded in Oklahoma. This comes after an early-morning quake was recorded near Shawnee on Saturday morning, with an intensity of 4.6. The quake was centered near the town of Sparks Oklahoma and was felt from Illinois to Tennessee to Arkansas to near the Texas-Mexico border. It was particularly felt far away since the quake was only located about three miles below the earth’s surface. Initial reports had the quake listed as a 5.2 on the Richter scale, but an update soon was released upgrading the quake’s intensity level to a 5.6. We have several conversations in progress at KFOR’s Facebook page, where you can join in the conversation and stay tuned for updates as we get them. If you felt the quake and have images to share of the damage your area sustained, send us that information by emailing kfornews@yahoo.com.

Copyright © 2011, KFOR-TV

Taliban Reintegration Plan An Abysmal Failure

Crucial plan to reintegrate Afghan insurgents falling flat

By SHASHANK BENGALI

McClatchy Newspapers

It must have seemed like a good idea. With then-U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry in town, the newly installed provincial governor arranged for a surprise: Two Taliban insurgents would drop in on a ceremony in Eikenberry’s honor, lay down their weapons and pledge to support the government in front of a large crowd of dignitaries.

Trouble was, no one informed the huge force of U.S. and Afghan soldiers who were guarding the event at the governor’s compound here last December. Afghan security forces seized and held the two men, armed and dressed in black, at a checkpoint a few hundred yards from the event as they were driving to their appearance.

Later, it got more embarrassing for the governor, Musa Khan, when U.S. officials learned that he and another official had recruited and paid the men to show up in a bid to curry favor with Eikenberry. The governor’s critics suspect that the men were hired flunkies.

“The whole thing was like a play,” said Qazi Sahib Shah, a member of Ghazni’s provincial council. “These were not real Taliban ready to make peace. The governor was trying to fool the Americans.”

The ceremony went off without a blip as far as the crowd knew – the irregularities weren’t clear until afterward – and the identities of the men were never revealed, but they were the closest that Ghazni has come to officially disarming a Taliban fighter. Nearly a year later, in fact, no insurgent in this strategically important eastern province has been formally enrolled in the U.S.-backed process known as reintegration, a linchpin of American and NATO efforts to end the decade-long war in Afghanistan.

Ghazni’s reintegration program is a tale of questionable theatrics, dashed hopes, wasted money, official dysfunction and, among many Afghans, deepening fears that the insurgency is growing more potent.

The struggles here offer a window into a peace process that by nearly all accounts is failing even as the U.S.-led military coalition plans to withdraw its troops and, within three years, hand control of security nationwide to Afghan forces.

Over the past year the coalition has invested increasing time and money in a two-part peace process authorized by President Hamid Karzai: negotiating truces with insurgent commanders and reintegrating low-level fighters into society by forgiving their rebel activities and providing them with jobs.

The talks with the commanders have suffered spectacular setbacks, most notably in September, when a man who’d claimed to be a Taliban emissary of peace assassinated the Afghan government’s chief negotiator, former President Burhanuddin Rabbani. The lower-profile effort to disarm Taliban foot soldiers is no less troubled.

Donor nations have poured $142 million into an Afghan-run fund to provide fighters with jobs and other incentives, but barely one-fifth has been spent because of administrative hurdles and political foot-dragging. Even less has trickled down to the provinces, where local officials say they can’t promise sufficient work opportunities or protection for the former insurgents.

“The formal reintegration process doesn’t offer people much at the moment,” said Deedee Derksen, a Dutch researcher who’s written on the subject for the U.S. Institute of Peace and other think tanks.

“They can’t guarantee security, and the lack of security relates to the fact that the program is not embedded into a broader political process. On paper, it is. But in practice there has been a huge rush for reintegration from the international community while the higher-level talks aren’t going anywhere.”

The United States set aside $50 million for reintegration programs this year, but as of September had spent only about $8 million. A U.S. military document that McClatchy Newspapers obtained reported that U.S. reintegration funds had targeted 2,480 fighters during the fiscal year; the vast majority of them, however, were in mostly peaceful northern Afghanistan. Fewer than 9 percent of “reintegrees” were in the south and east, where the insurgency is strongest.

In Ghazni, the U.S. spent more than $200,000, with no reintegrees to show for it.

A year ago, U.S. officials were bullish on the prospects for reintegration in Ghazni, an ethnically mixed province bisected by Highway 1, the vital artery that connects Kabul, the capital, with Kandahar, the second-largest city and the heartland of the Taliban. To Ghazni’s east are the insurgent-riddled mountain provinces that border Pakistan, where coalition forces are engaged in increasingly heavy fighting.

Many thought that Khan, a grave-faced, pious Pashtun whom Karzai handpicked, had the religious and ethnic bona fides to make inroads with the mostly Pashtun Taliban. Reintegration committees made up of well-respected locals were formed with help and funding from coalition forces, and the pathway to peace seemed smooth.

Instead, NATO and provincial officials watched with growing dismay as Khan embarked on his own quixotic path to dealing with the insurgency.

With the local peace committees beset by infighting, Khan and his aides have conducted private meetings with Taliban commanders and fighters in Afghanistan and Pakistan, according to members of the provincial council, a locally elected advisory body that’s increasingly at odds with the governor.

Through those meetings, Khan told McClatchy, he’s personally “disarmed” 300 or 400 insurgents, but he can’t name them lest their commanders target them for reprisals.

He’s occasionally held gatherings at which weapons were displayed as proof that some fighters had renounced violence. Provincial council members who attended one such gathering, however, scoffed that they’d seen only two old AK-47s that appeared to have been lifted from government stocks.

Khan’s aides declined to make any former fighter available for an interview.

“I know who is fighting and not fighting,” Khan said. “There is no need for more explanation.

“Everybody confirms that the security situation is much better than last year. This shows that some people have been convinced not to fight, and I don’t need to show the faces of these people to the media.”

By most measures, however, security in Ghazni seems to be deteriorating amid a rash of targeted killings and roadside bombs.

Two weeks ago, a uniformed police officer was shot dead at close range in the provincial capital, less than 100 yards from a police checkpoint. Two days later, gunfire killed a U.S. soldier southwest of the city while his unit scoured Highway 1 for explosives.

With 19 fatalities this year, Ghazni again has become one of the deadliest provinces for coalition soldiers, according to icasualties.org, a website that tracks military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“You ask yourself if this is a serious peace process,” provincial council member Hamidullah Donish said. “He says he has disarmed 400 insurgents. Well, let him just bring four so I can meet them.”

Khan’s methods also have led some to wonder whether he’s too close to the insurgency.

For months, one of his top lieutenants in the peace process has been Abdul Qadir Wahidi, a former senior security official under the Taliban regime who claims to have reported directly to Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar. A shadowy figure, Wahidi is rarely in Ghazni and spends much of his time in Pakistan meeting with Afghan insurgent leaders based there, officials and residents said. Repeated attempts to contact Wahidi were unsuccessful.

Then, several weeks ago, Khan told a news conference that he’d allowed two Pakistan-based insurgents whom he’d recently reintegrated to fire missiles in Ghazni in areas where civilians wouldn’t be harmed. The insurgents, he explained to a dumbstruck audience, “were under pressure from their commanders to fire the rockets.”

Khan said later that his comments had been misinterpreted.

NATO officials have grown extremely skeptical of his claims.

“He is saying he’s the champion of reintegration and reconciliation. Well, what are the results?” said a senior NATO official who requested anonymity to speak candidly. The official made a circle with his thumb and forefinger.

“Zero,” he said.

Instead, the official said, Khan is undermining the coalition-backed peace effort even as the U.S. government helps pay the salaries of provincial peace committee members and, at Khan’s request, prints hundreds of thousands of fliers and brochures promoting reintegration.

Still, the United States and its allies remain committed to the process, with $50 million more in U.S. money pledged for 2012. On a patch of rocky land east of the town of Ghazni, a U.S. provincial reconstruction team of soldiers, diplomats and civilians continues to finance work on a school that’s meant to serve as a vocational training center for former combatants.

Built by another U.S. team several years ago but never used, the long, V-shaped facility had fallen into disrepair, its windows smashed and plumbing clogged. Stung by its cost, Americans in Ghazni dubbed the schoolhouse “the $1.2 million monument to failure.”

This year, U.S. officials spent $120,000 to clean up the place and install a generator, water pump, guard tower and front gate. Work is expected to finish by December, in the hope that provincial officials will begin to enroll former fighters early next year.

So far, however, not one potential student has been identified.

(McClatchy Newspapers special correspondent Habib Zohori contributed reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan.)

 

CIA Drones Kill Large Groups Without Knowing Who They Are

CIA Drones Kill Large Groups Without Knowing Who They Are


The expansion of the CIA’s undeclared drone war in the tribal areas of Pakistan required a big expansion of who can be marked for death. Once the standard for targeted killing was top-level leadership in al-Qaeda or one of its allies. That’s long gone, especially as the number of people targeted at once has grown.

This is the new standard, according to a blockbuster piece in the Wall Street Journal: “men believed to be militants associated with terrorist groups, but whose identities aren’t always known.” The CIA is now killing people without knowing who they are, on suspicion of association with terrorist groups. The article does not define the standards are for “suspicion” and “association.”

Strikes targeting those people — usually “groups” of such people — are called “signature” strikes. “The bulk of CIA’s drone strikes are signature strikes,” the Journal’s Adam Entous, Siobhan Gorman and Julian E. Barnes report.

And bulk really means bulk. The Journal reports that the growth in clusters of people targeted by the CIA has required the agency to tell its Pakistani counterparts about mass attacks. When the agency expects to kill 20 or more people at once, then it’s got to give the Pakistanis notice.

Determining who is a target not a question of intelligence collection. The cameras on the CIA fleet of Predators and Reapers work just fine. It’s a question of intelligence analysis — interpreting the imagery collected from the drones, and from the spies and spotters below, to understand who’s a terrorist and who, say, drops off the terrorists’ laundry. Admittedly, in a war with a shadowy enemy, it can be difficult to distinguish between the two.

Fundamentally, though, it’s a question of policy: whether it’s acceptable for the CIA to kill someone without truly knowing if he’s the bombsmith or the laundry guy.

The Journal reports that the CIA’s willingness to strike without such knowledge — sanctioned, in full, by President Barack Obama — is causing problems for the State Department and the military.

As we’ve written this week, the high volume of drone strikes in the Pakistani tribal areas contributes to Pakistani intransigence on another issue of huge importance to the U.S.: convincing Pakistan to deliver the insurgent groups it sponsors to peace talks aimed at ending the Afghanistan war. The drones don’tcause that intransigence. Pakistan’s leaders, after all, cooperate with the drones and exploit popular anti-American sentiment to shake down Washington. The strikes become cards for Pakistan to play, however cynically.

The State Department is sick of it. It fears the rise of really anti-American leadership in Pakistan, riding into power on a wave of outrage over the drones. The Journal reports that earlier this year, the State Department gained greater say over targeting. So did the military, which fears Pakistan cutting off the supply routes to Afghanistan that run through its territory.

The CIA is still in control. Not only has it beefed up its drone patrols to 14 “orbits,” each consisting of three Predators or Reapers, but it’s moved many of its drones out of Pakistan and onto Afghanistan bases.  That’s a statement of unilateral control, even as it gives the Pakistanis a bit more insight into drone operations.

“It’s not like they took the car keys away from the CIA,” an anonymous senior official tells the Journal. “There are just more people in the car.”

And the basic question — Who should be targeted? — hasn’t changed. The default answer, to put it bluntly, is: Whomever the CIA can. Clive Stafford Smith, a human rights lawyer, points to a consequence: A young man named Tariq was killed in a drone strike with his 12-year old cousin, Waheed Khan, while driving their aunt home.

Tariq was a good kid, and courageous,” Stafford Smith writes. “My warm hand recently touched his in friendship; yet, within three days, his would be cold in death, the rigor mortis inflicted by my government.”

As long as the CIA — now backed by the military and the State Department — has a free hand to wage the secret drone war in tribal Pakistan, it will continue to bottle up al-Qaida and its allies, degrading the threat they pose. They will also kill more Tariqs and Waheeds. And because the drone war remains a classified CIA program, the CIA will not have to account for its actions to anybody, least of all the U.S. or Pakistani publics.

Photo: U.S. Army Central Command

7 killed, 17 injured in Baghlan mosque suicide blast

[What about fearless leader's warning against killing civilians, or does that rule not apply when the targets are Kfir, like Hazara, or Northern Alliance people?]
No details available

7 killed, 17 injured in Baghlan mosque suicide blast

by Khwaja Basir Ahmad

KABUL (PAN): An officer was among seven policemen killed and another 17 people were injured in a suicide attack in a mosque in northern Baghlan province on Sunday, the first day of Eidul Azha, the interior ministry said.

The blast targeted worshippers coming out of a mosque in Hassantal village of Qashlan area at around 9am, the ministry said in a statement. The attacker blew himself up among faithful, killing seven policemen, including an officer named Abdul. Seventeen others people were injured in the blast, it said.

A second suicide attacker was shot and killed by police, the statement said.It said initial investigation revealed the Taliban were behind the assault.

A resident of the Baghlan-i-Markazi district, Qudraullah, who lost his two sons in the attack, said nearly 17 people were killed and 30 others injured.

With his clothes littered with blood, Qudratullah said his two sons, Qari Abdul Basir, 17, and Qari Khal Mohammad, 20, were killed in the attack.

He confirmed the police commander, Abdul, another commander, Rahmatullah were killed along with a number of civilians.

The blast took place when people were exiting the mosque and were waiting to take part in a funeral procession of a villager, the eyewitness said.

A Pajhwok correspondent, who visited the scene, said the blast occurred at a place where funeral processions are being carried out. All the injured and dead were taken to the Pul-i-Khumri and the district civil hospitals.

The Taliban have claimed responsibility for the suicide attack, with rebel spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, saying the attack targeted a police officer, Abdul Afghan Kash. The suicide bomber who blew himself up was on foot.

The rebel spokesman said Kash was heading toward his guest house when he was attacked. Mujahid said another two police commanders, Baryal and Abdul Rahim, were also killed.

The blast came two days after Taliban leader Mullah Omar urged his fighters to avoid civilian casualties in the decade-long war.

The statement, issued to mark Eid al-Adha, warned of punishments under Islamic Sharia law for fighters responsible for civilian deaths.

The United Nations says the number of civilians killed in the Afghan war in the first half of this year rose 15 percent to 1,462, with insurgents behind 80 percent of the deaths.

Previously seen as relatively stable, Baghlan has seen an uptick in militant attacks in recent years.

ma

The U.S. State Department Loves/Hates the Haqqani Network

The U.S. State Department Loves/Hates the Haqqani Network

ERRATIC U.S. POLICY CONFUSES AND ENRAGES

by Matthew Nasuti

On September 28, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proclaimed that she was in “final formal review” of a decision to list the Haqqani Network as a Foreign Terrorist Organization; however she never made that decision. Instead, on October 11, 2011, Secretary Clinton reversed herself and announced that she would welcome the Haqqanis as participants in the Afghan peace process. Despite the fact that the Haqqanis orchestrated the daring September 13, 2011, attack on the U.S. Embassy in Kabul and despite the fact that on September 20, 2011, they murdered the Afghan Government’s peace envoy, Burhanuddin Rabbani, the Haqqanis are now viewed by the State Department as viable partners in peace. Apparently there are “good” terrorists such as the Haqqanis, whom U.S. diplomats will negotiate with, and “bad” terrorists such as Hamas and al-Qaeda who cannot be negotiated with. It is not clear what criteria the State Department uses to distinguish between good and bad terrorists. For example, how many innocent civilians or NATO troops can one kill and still be considered a “good” terrorist? In her speeches, Secretary Clinton has endorsed negotiating with “moderate” Taliban and “reconcilable elements” of the Haqqani, which seems to be more wishful thinking than fact. Her unrealistic and vacillating diplomatic positions have drawn outrage from Republican members of Congress who are urging Secretary Clinton to label the Haqqanis as terrorists. The State Department’s arbitrary terrorist designations and its inconsistent policy about not negotiating with terrorists have also sown confusion in the region.

The reality is that there is no Haqqani “network” as such. Jalaluddin Haqqani and his sons, Siraj and Badruddin Haqqani preside over a larger Haqqani family that is spread across eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan. Like Hisb-allah in Lebanon, the Haqqanis run schools, courts and even factories. They operate a mini-state. As part of the 500,000 member Zadran qalm or tribe, the Haqqanis are an integral part of the region. For example, Badsha (Pacha) Khan Zadran is the brother of Jalaluddin Haqqani, yet he was appointed the Governor of Paktia Province in 2002 and was elected to the Afghan Parliament in 2004. His son Abdul Wali Khan was named the military commander of Gardez Province by President Karzai; another son Kamal was the named the Governor of Khost Province and another son Amanulla served as Interior Minister. A fourth son was killed by U.S. forces in 2003. Ibrahim Haqqani is an uncle of Siraj and Badruddin Haqqani, yet he has worked for the Afghan government and met with U.S. officials as a liaison with the Haqqani family. Nasiruddin Haqqani is the half brother of Siraj and Badruddin. His mother is thought to be from the United Arab Emirates and Nasiruddin was a frequent visitor to the Gulf countries where he raised donations for the war against the Americans. Even Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United States is named Haqqani. He is the Honorable Husain Haqqani pictured above. Ambassador Haqqani was born in Karachi and has no relationship with the Haqqani network except to have the same surname, which apparently is fairly common. His photo was included to emphasize how unproductive and amateurish it would be to name everyone Haqqani as a terrorist.

U.S. Government confusion regarding everything Haqqani has led to frustration over the resilience and capabilities of this entrenched rebel group. That has prompted the American government to exaggerate its successes against the organization. For example, on September 30, 2011, the Pentagon announced the capture of Haji Mali Khan, whom it described as “the senior Haqqani commander in Afghanistan.” Upon further inquiry, Time Magazine’s John Wendle discovered that this uncle of Siraj and Badruddin Haqqani was little known and was not among the top five Haqqani commanders in Afghanistan. The U.S. Government had in fact manufactured a false press release that greatly exaggerated Haji Mali’s significance.

Last week the Afghan Analysts Network (AAN) released its report on the Pentagon’s claim that it had killed or captured 675 senior Taliban commanders over the previous 21 months. The study found that the Pentagon may be “slanting” the significance of the persons it killed or captured. Similar exaggerated U.S. claims of senior al-Qaeda members killed prompted Andy Borowitz to write his article for the Huffington Post entitled: “U.S. Kills al-Qaeda’s Number 3 for the Nine Thousandth Time.” Phony victories do not win wars and deteriorating security can only be covered up for so long.

The problem for the U.S. Government is that the clock is running against it. The United States will withdraw another 10,000 troops from Afghanistan over the next 10 weeks, further weakening its position, while Taliban and Haqqani forces are growing. Haqqani troop levels are estimated to be as high as 15,000 and Alissa Rubin of the N.Y. Times, in her 6/19/11 report, estimated current Taliban troop levels to be 40,000, which is an increase from the 35,000 that General Stanley McChrystal estimated in 2010. In analyzing this information it is crucial to remember that the Taliban controlled 98% of the country in 2001, with an army of just 45,000. The Taliban’s current troop levels confirm that it has almost completely reconstituted itself.

General Orya Khalil, an Afghan Corps Commander in Khost, told Time Magazine last week that the number of Haqqani fighters on the border is “increasing day by day.” This follows a sobering interview given on August 9, 2011, by Major General Daniel B. Allyn, NATO commander for Regional Command – East to reporter Bill Ardolino. General Allyn, a native of Berwick, Maine, stated that he has to protect 14 provinces and 450 kilometers of border with Pakistan with only 32,000 Coalition troops. In eastern Afghanistan he faces eight different insurgent and criminal groups, of which the Haqqanis are the most dangerous. He apparently only has the resources to concentrate on 375 kilometers of border, meaning that areas of Kunar and Nuristan provinces have open borders with Pakistan. General Allyn has to-date declined to declare the Haqqanis as “good” terrorists, which puts him at odds with the State Department.

All of this is academic as the Haqqani have no incentive to negotiate with the United States because they see victory as being within their sight. Previous half-hearted U.S. efforts to engage individual Afghan tribes to work against the Taliban and Haqqanis have not met with success, such as in the much-publicized case of the Shinwari tribe. This is all part of the State Department’s lackluster and stagnant civilian surge into Afghanistan, which by all accounts has been a costly failure.

In conclusion, Secretary Clinton’s on-again and off-again courtship of the Haqqanis is not a credible effort. The State Department’s strategy, if it has one, is baffling. The American pre-conditions to the Haqqanis for negotiating are:
1. Lay down your weapons;
2. Reject violence;
3. Accept equality between men and women;
4. Support the Afghan Constitution (which has a lot of critics); and
5. Run candidates for the symbolic and largely powerless Afghan parliament.
As these are the pre-conditions, it is not clear what is left to actually negotiate.

The Haqqani response has apparently been:
1. The Americans and NATO have to leave Afghanistan; and
2. The Afghans will then resolve the war between themselves.
The parties could not be further apart.

If the United States is serious about a negotiated solution to the Afghan conflict, then it should ask the United Nations to sponsor a peace conference in a neutral country in which all the warring factions will be invited under cover of a truce and without any preconditions. This of course will not happen as the U.S. Government has not unified either itself or its allies behind a credible negotiating position that has any chance of success.

Absent a grand compromise, the United States is reduced to trying to bribe fringe Haqqani and Taliban elements to change sides; an effort begun in January 2010, with little success. That lifeless effort apparently is the cornerstone of the State Department’s policy in the region, which is perplexing. The reality is that the security situation in Afghanistan is worse than U.S. officials will publicly admit. As a result they are scrambling for an exit strategy and that strategy is to concoct a scenario in which the Taliban and Haqqani lay down their arms and accept a few crumbs. This fantasy ending is what this author calls “the prayer strategy.” U.S. diplomats have run out of ideas and are simply praying for divine intervention. American and Afghan troops should not be fighting and dying in support of such a feckless strategy. If anyone is confused by all of this please contact Secretary Hillary Clinton at the U.S. Department of State and let her know.

For further reading see: “U.S. Wiggles Around Haqqani Issue” UPI-Asia, 9/27/11, and “When is a Terrorist not a Terrorist? America’s Haqqani Conundrum” by Howard LaFranchi for the Christian Science Monitor, 9/28/11.