Senators assail India for creating war hysteria

Senators assail India for creating war hysteria

By Iftikhar A. Khan
ISLAMABAD, Dec 22: Senators belonging to different political parties assailed India on Monday for creating war hysteria by making provocative statements against Pakistan.

During discussions in the upper house on the security situation, they regretted that despite Islamabad’s cooperative stance, New Delhi was continuing with the blame game it had started soon after the Mumbai terrorist attacks.

Leader of the House Mian Raza Rabbani said that the government was alive to the situation and had been in touch with countries having influence over India. He said that closed-door diplomacy was under way in view of the sensitivity of the situation.

Mr Rabbani said that there were no differences between the civilian and military leaderships on any issue, including tension with India. The entire nation was one over the threat and ready to protect sovereignty and integrity of the country, he said.

Mr Rabbani regretted that India was continuing to indulge in a blame-game without any concrete evidence. “We are neither apologetic nor scared,” he remarked, adding that Pakistan’s measured response as a responsible nuclear state must not be misconstrued as weakness.

He said Pakistan never wanted war, but it was ready to give a befitting reply in case of any aggression.

He rejected talk of the formation of a national government as premature, saying that the demonstration of unity by legislators was sufficient to send a message across the border.

Mushahid Hussain Sayed of the Pakistan Muslim League-Q termed the terrorists enemies of humanity and said Pakistan was the biggest victim of terrorism.

He said during a meeting with US Senator John Kerry, he had asked him not to unduly pressure Pakistan. He said he had told Mr Kerry that Pakistan was ready to put any individual or group on trial if concrete evidence was provided.

Mr Mushahid said the response of the government to India’s allegations and threats must not be apologetic and defensive. “We have our cards and need to play them properly.”

Mr Mushahid said the enemy wanted us to make a mistake but Pakistan has to behave maturely. He said the nation was united on the issue of security.

Haji Adeel of the Awami National Party said the convening of the APC for briefing leaders of 58 political parties was a great initiative. He praised the leadership for defusing tension and castigated India for issuing hostile statements against Pakistan.

Gulshan Saeed of the PML said India should be reminded that Pakistan was a nuclear power and its armed forces and the people knew how to protect its sovereignty.

She called accusation about Pakistan’s involvement in the Mumbai attacks ridiculous. She said the time had proved that relations with India could not be improved by enhancing bilateral trade.

Ms Gulshan said that a joint meeting of the Senate’s standing committees on defence and foreign affairs should be convened.

Abdul Raheem Mandokhel of the Pakhtoonkhwa Milli Awami Party said that the military operation in tribal areas should be halted and forces deployed there should be moved to the eastern border.

He pointed out that the operation launched in 2004 was meant against ‘foreign miscreants’ and was supposed to be wound up in a few months. He regretted that it was continuing even after four years and had been extended to Swat and Bajaur.

India threatens to act if world doesn’t

India threatens to act if world doesn’t

By Jawed Naqvi
NEW DELHI, Dec 22: India urged the international community on Monday to press Pakistan to weed out from its soil runaway terrorists who it says were behind the recent massacre in Mumbai and posed a great threat to global security.

Briefing Indian ambassadors from different world capitals, Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee said New Delhi was also aware that eventually it might have to deal with the problem on its own and it was keeping all options open for this.

“We have so far acted with utmost restraint and are hopeful that the international community will use its influence to urge Pakistani government to take effective action,” Mr Mukherjee said. “While we continue to persuade the international community and Pakistan, we are also clear that ultimately it is we who have to deal with this problem. We will take all measures necessary, as we deem fit, to deal with the situation.”

In a rare reference to the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (Saarc), usually relegated to the backseat in moments of crisis like the current one triggered by the Mumbai attacks, Mr Mukherjee claimed credit for helping the group make its transition from rhetoric to action. But even in this Pakistan was not up to the mark, he said.

“In our neighbourhood we have continued with our efforts to deepen engagement, either bilaterally or multilaterally and even by assuming a built-in asymmetry in responsibilities. An objective assessment shows that this policy has yielded results except with Pakistan,” he said.

“The recent terrorist attack on Mumbai was unprecedented both in terms of its scale and audacity,” the minister said. “This and the series of terrorist incidents preceding it, including the attack on our embassy in Kabul where we lost our colleagues, indicate that terrorism emanating out of Pakistan is acquiring an increasingly dangerous dimension and continues to threaten peace and stability in this region and beyond.”

India had so far worked at several levels, he said. “At the international level we have sought the support of the international community to put pressure on Pakistan to deal effectively with terrorism. We have highlighted that the infrastructure of terrorism in Pakistan has to be dismantled permanently.”

India was not saying this just because it was affected but because it believed that it would be good for the entire world and also for Pakistani people and society, he said.

“This terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan is the greatest terrorist danger to peace and security of the entire civilised world,” Mr Mukherjee said. There had been some effort so far by the international community but this was not enough, he said.

“Much more needs to be done and the actions should be pursued to their logical conclusion. We need effective steps not only to bring those responsible for the Mumbai attacks to justice, but also to ensure that such acts of terrorism do not recur,” Mr Mukherjee said.

“Unfortunately, Pakistan’s response so far has demonstrated their earlier tendency to resort to a policy of denial and to seek to deflect and shift the blame and responsibility. We expect the civilian government of Pakistan to take effective steps to deal with elements within Pakistan who still continue to use terrorism as an instrument of state policy.”

Dawood’s empire is expanding

Dawood’s empire is expanding

(File Photo)

Manoj K Das

First Published : 22 Dec 2008 01:10:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 22 Dec 2008 12:42:17 PM IST

MUMBAI: Eyebrows were raised when Russia first linked Dawood to 26/11, even before Indian agencies ‘guesstimated’ his role. The Russian enthusiasm, ‘The New Indian Express’ has learnt, was the first public acknowledgment of Dawood’s increasing influence in almost all trouble spots in Russia, where Islamic fundamentalism is fast xeroxing al-Qaeda lessons.Russia fears that Dawood is on the verge of taking over a drug empire with a view to spreading his narco-terrorism to the North Caucuses areas. “Dawood is blending his business interests with fermenting fundamentalist thoughts sprouting among the Muslim population spread between the Black and Caspian seas. The idea may be to create a safe corridor connecting the Afghanistan drug fields with processing units in Central Asia,” top sources said.Russia’s main concern is the direct access that Dawood’s routes will give separatist cadres to touch base with ideological leaders and think tanks. “Russian separatists in Chechnya, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Uzbekistan etc are likely to use this channel for mobilising more radical support for their cause,” the sources point out.For Dawood it will be a perfect quid-pro-quo. It will give him a never- before opportunity to expand or take over central Asian operations.He will also be able to set up a new route for trafficking of drugs manufactured using numerous mobile platforms in Turkey.“If the suspected LeT-LTTE connections are taken into consideration, the Russian link will make Dawood the most powerful drug baron in the world. Therein lie Russian fears,” said a senior officer.One of the strongest arms of the Russian underworld, controlled by a former KGB Major now in jail, already shares business interests with Dawood.“But there is a lot more to be consolidated.Prostitution is another area of interest for Dawood and the Russian underworld,” sources said.Russian girls charge anywhere between Rs 25,000 and 5 lakh for a night. Many a D-agent is in control in this racket. Given the lucrative proposition, the Russian underworld with its considerable presence along the west coast is eyeing this business and minor friction has started to erupt between them and the D-company.“Russian intelligence may have been misled by Indian informants in order to checkmate Dawood. And that is one reason we don’t believe that he had extended logistics to 26/11 architects,” a senior police officer told The New Indian Express.But a top Intelligence officer said that there was some sort of local support. “Qasab’s confession says that they hired taxis from Budhwar Park fishermen colony. But no taxi stand exists there. So it is clear that someone had arranged the taxis.That could be a Dawood aide or someone disguised as a Dawood aide,” he said.The Mumbai Police, interestingly, subscribe to the second possibility with even top officers ruling out Dawood’s involvement in off-therecord conversations. But if Russia provides more proof they will be left with a boot-in-mouth situation.

I welcome emergence of ‘Hindu terrorists’: Thackeray

I welcome emergence of ‘Hindu terrorists’:


Mumbai Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray on Tuesday said he would welcome emergence of ‘Hindu terrorists’.

“If they (Hindu terrorists) are (behind the September 29 Malegaon blast), I would be glad. Terrorists should be born among Hindus, I have begun to feel,” he said in an interview given to his party’s mouthpiece ‘Samaana’.

“Sadhvi Pragya Singh, Lt Col P S Purohit (arrested in connection with the Malegaon blast) have been victimised…What was their fault? Something might have been done to take on fanatic Muslims…” he said.

Talking about those who lit candles in front of Taj Hotel after the last month’s terror attacks, he said, “Those who party at the Taj have lost their watering holes. Hence this outrage. Where were these people when other terror attacks took place?”

Thackeray said his party would soon give a call for Maharashtra bandh. The saffron outfit had called a statewide shutdown over the Malegaon probe and farmer suicides but it was called off in view of the November 26 attacks in Mumbai.

On cross-border infiltration, Thackeray said: “Top army commanders are spotless. They are men of discipline. But corruption is rampant in the border areas. How Bangladeshi Muslims can come through the border? What is the use of border check-posts then?”

Hamas Undermines Israel’s Gaza Operation Threats

Hamas Undermines Israel’s Gaza Operation Threats

Hanan Awarekeh Readers Number : 143

23/12/2008 An operation will be launched against Hamas in the Gaza Strip even if the Islamic resistance group heeds an Egyptian request and reduces its rocket attacks against the Zionist entity, Israeli senior defence officials said Monday.

On Monday, Hamas officials said the group had agreed to a 24-hour cease-fire. A senior Hamas official in the Gaza Strip told The Jerusalem Post that Egypt had relayed the message Sunday night. He said that Egyptian intelligence Chief Gen. Omar Suleiman had contacted Hamas leaders there and in Damascus and urged a halt to the attacks so as not to give Israel an excuse to launch a massive military operation.

The 24-hour cease-fire was to begin Sunday night. The initial cease-fire was allowed to lapse on Friday morning.

Hamas also announced it was willing to discuss the possibility of an extension in case Israel adhered to the terms.

“The price is the lives of the Palestinian people,” Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar said in an interview with Egyptian newspaper al-Ahram. Zahar demanded that Israel allow regular shipments of food and fuel into the Gaza Strip and that it cease its military actions both there and in the occupied West Bank.

Israeli occupation officials said they did not believe Hamas would completely cease its rocket attacks against the western Negev but explained that the combination of an Egyptian request and Israeli threats to invade Gaza was having an effect.

“Hamas does not want us to invade Gaza,” one official explained. “They are hoping that because of the elections we will not invade and that they will be able to put pressure on us with the rocket attacks and… get better conditions in a new cease-fire.”

Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak held a meeting on Monday to review the use of artillery in a potential conflict with Hamas. Ministry legal experts have recommended that Israel avoid firing shells into populated areas used to launch Qassam rockets.

Ayman Taha, a Hamas spokesman, said that an extension of the cease-fire was contingent on an end to Israel’s blockade and attacks. He said Hamas had agreed to a temporary cease-fire to give the Egyptians a chance at mediation.

Taha was quoted by Agency France Press as threatening to resume martyrdom operations against Israel. “It is our right as an occupied people to defend ourselves from the occupation by all means possible, including suicide attacks,” he said.

Taher a-Nunu, a spokesman for the Hamas government, said his movement agreed to a 24-hour cease-fire in return for the re-opening of border crossings and a halt to Israeli “aggression.” He added that Egypt had resumed its efforts to extend the cease-fire.

“The Palestinian factions in the Gaza Strip, including Hamas, have accepted the latest Egyptian initiative to call a cease-fire,” a-Nunu said. He did not rule out the possibility that the 24-hour lull would be extended.

Like many Hamas officials, a-Nunu said the group refused to take Israel’s threats of a major military operation seriously.

“These threats are related to the election campaign inside Israel,” he said. “They are also designed to conceal the big crime – namely the unjust siege and the suffering of our people in the Gaza Strip.”

In response to reports that Israel was planning to overthrow the Hamas regime, a-Nunu said that neither Israel nor the US would be able to get rid of Hamas.

“Hamas is not just a movement or a government,” he said. “Hamas is in the heart of every Palestinian. It’s a popular movement that has a strong presence among the masses.”

Fawzi Barhoum, another Hamas spokesman, called Israeli threats “psychological warfare.” “Israel wants to extort us so that we would agree to a cease-fire without gaining anything in return,” Barhoum said. “Israel is offering us calm in return for calm, and this is unacceptable. They don’t want to lift the siege and include the West Bank in the cease-fire agreement.”

Ali Barakeh, a Hamas official in Gaza City, ruled out the possibility that Israel would invade the Gaza Strip. “The Israelis fear the consequences of such an action,” Barakeh said. “They know that they will pay a heavy price.”

Meanwhile, Islamic Jihad leader Muhammad Abu Abdullah told the Egyptian paper that his movement has coordinated the temporary cessation in rocket attacks with the other armed factions, and that if there are “positive developments” it would discuss further understandings with the other groups.

Zionist Poodle Geagea Tries to Demoralize the Resistance.

Time to remain alert!

Geagea Wants Us To Fear the Goblin We Routed in 2006!

Mohamad Shmaysani Readers Number : 165

23/12/2008 Lebanese Forces chief Samir Geagea submitted Monday his “Swiss-model strategy to defend Lebanon,” during the third round of national dialogue at the Presidential Palace in Baabda.

In his proposal, Geagea apparently sought to demonstrate Lebanon’s military incapability and weakness vis-à-vis Israel’s military power. He pointed to what described as a serious difference between financial and military capabilities between Lebanon and Israel “and the incapacity of the strongest anti-Israel nations, on top of which is Iran, to engage in a traditional arms race with Israel.”

Geagea, an ally to Israel during the civil war, criticized MP General Michel Aoun’s view of a defensive strategy that depends on the “resistance of the people”, and reminded again of the goblin (Israel) that we all should be afraid of and avoid.

In Geagea’s view, developing the Lebanese army’s capabilities was not a priority “since no one can match Israel and confront it.” “Compared to Arab states, the modern military technologies possessed by Israel enable it to target any location deep in Lebanon.”

Moreover, Geagea uttered concern for the treasury. He stated in his “defensive” proposal that acquiring air defense systems including related equipment was something beyond the country’s financial capacity.

Geagea wants the army to remain weak, the military to be ill equipped and the Lebanese to be afraid of the same goblin they routed in the summer of 2006. So, how does the Lebanese Forces chief view defense for Lebanon? “To seek indirect routes to abort the objectives of the aggression before confronting it, because a traditional military confrontation would cause Lebanon heavy losses.”

Geagea considers that the Swiss strategic model is historically the most ideal practice that has succeeded in uniting its diverse community by adopting a non-aligned foreign policy. He suggested that all military decisions should be taken by the armed forces that should be trained in guerrilla warfare and a “national guard” be established to assist the Special Forces. “This way we will make use of the positive aspects of Hezbollah’s model and eliminate all the other aspects.”

Hezbollah MP Mohammad Raad said during the meeting that the resistance party also has a defense strategy it will submit later.

If Samir Geagea has not yet perceived the magnitude of strategic changes vis-à-vis the struggle between the resistance and the Israeli enemy; if Geagea has not yet acknowledged the resistance’s victory and the defeat of the “indestructible” legend of Israel; if Geagea has not yet read the long term consequences of the 2006 war and the lessons that the Israeli army itself said it has learned; if Geagea has not yet learned that a few resolute men smashed the image of the “mighty” Israeli army that will have to think a thousand times before venturing in Lebanon again; if Geagea still does not know that Lebanon lies in the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict and is in direct contact with the major regional developments that keep this country from being non-aligned as Switzerland is, then Aoun’s description of Geagea’s Swiss-type defensive proposal, seems to truly apply.

“Nothing substantial really,” Aoun said adding that “I have remarks on the defense strategy that Samir Geagea has proposed, but I will not disclose them to the media.”
“He wants to fight Israel with a regular army while our proposal is based on the people’s resistance because the classical army would never be able to establish a balance with Israel. That is why we proposed the strategy of the people’s resistance.” he added.

Geagea’s ally in the March 14 bloc MP Walid Jumblatt meanwhile welcomed steps to arm the Lebanese armed forces “regardless of their sources” adding that some Arab states have over-needed arsenals that could be useful for Lebanon.

In an article published by the Progressive Socialist Party’s weekly al-Anbaa, Jumblatt described the “Russian aid (10 MiG-29 fighter jets) is very important in this regard, and we look forward [to when the] the Americans would fulfill their promises to support the army.”

Meet the real boss: Rockefeller and Co.

Here is a rare look behind the curtain to see Cheney kissing the ass of the old prick who thinks that he has a divine right to be the king of the world.  The Rockefeller family is at the center of every serious plot to collapse America and create corporate world order.

more about “Meet the real boss: Rockefeller & Co.“, posted with vodpod

Mumbai Attacks: Indian Militant speaks live on TV from Nariman house – Part 1

“One of Mumbai attackers speaking on an Indian channel, He speaks in Hindi in pure Indian accent. India wrongly putting blame on Pakistan, to hide its failure dealing with extremist groups in India.”

more about “Mumbai Attacks: Indian Militant speak…“, posted with vodpod

Who killed Major-General Faisal Alavi and why


Who killed Major-General Faisal Alavi and why

Abid Ullah Jan
Propaganda against Pakistan army is getting in full gear as a result of the death of Major General Faisal Alavi. For an impartial analysis, the first question arises about patriotism and loyalty of Major-General Faisal Alavi. He belonged to Kenya, then got British nationality and ended up in Pakistan. He had ties with SAS and MI5.

The situation gets more complex when we keep in mind that so many moles are recruited so early in their career. Musharraf is one good example. Alavi could well be another. The kind of story that is emerging from the following article and the kind of associated themes which the controlled media is promoting after his death show it was either the death of a mole, or there are total lies in circulation as the colonial adventurists are now trying to exploit his death against Pakistan army, the prime target.

At the moment the situation is that Pakistan army will be used as a mercenary force against its own people for as long as the warlords in Washington and London can. Once that is done, they will turn on it with plenty of justification to demonize and target it like Saddam Hussain’s Republican Guards.

Check this link for more information.

According to the available information, General Alavi had a British nationality and was a Kenyan. He underwent training in Pakistan and later he requested ZA Bhutto for a Pakistani nationality. He renounced British Citizenship and later joined Army. Sound strange?

Some circles report that he passed some personal remarks against Musharraff while he was drunk. His remarks were recorded and passed to Musharraff, who sacked him instantly without an enquiry. He was a good friend of Musharraf though and a so called ‘hum piala’. However, his letter to General Kiyani doesn’t support this theory. There seems to be more than just anti-Mush gossip.

After forced retirement he became desperate and is believed to loose talk. Somehow he had contacts with this journalist lady and he trusted her as well. There, of course will be more that presented in public. There definitely will be some other players, MI6 or CIA who can either use his loose talk or associate loose talk with him for credibility, and kill him to put pressure on Pakistani regime: yet another blackmails in the series of blackmails.

After the murder of Alavi, there was the usual, initial attempt of putting everything on the shoulders of al-Qaeda bogey monster. The material which exploits the situation well came out later and is still shaping up.

Imagine if the killed general was really doing something that would help the US and UK and their “war on terrorism,” Mush would/could never have removed him overnight the way he did. Therefore, with the available information, one tends to that whatever General Alavi was doing was definitely linked to undermining Pakistan army. As a result, he was killed by the army before he could talk more after getting exposed.

The story was shaping up with the initial meetings with the journalist from UK. Now the intelligence community in UK and US and their embedded allies in media will do the same without Alavi.
Unfortunately, like all the patsies, Pakistani General also think that they will be serving their handlers in a way that it will not harm interest of the armed forces. They will never kill the military as an institution, which like the proverbial hen, lays golden eggs for the armed forces. This delusion/misunderstanding is well ingrained and all those who serve the colonial masters do the job with the belief that this is not undermining the army; that it is just a matter of time, and that they will get away with selling their conscience without undermining armed forces of Pakistan.

Keeping these facts, including General Musharraf proven record of working for the foreign agencies, it is evident that Alavi was definitely involved in something extra-ordinary against the interest of the armed forces which forced Musharraf- himself a sold-out mercenary - to force General into resignation and later on the army giving a green signal to silencing him forever. Now the enemies of Pakistan army are set to exploit the situation even after his death with the support of more lies and deceptions. In the end, this will become one point on the long indictment of Pakistan armed forces when it is time to turn them into Iraqi Republic Guards.

IAF plans to hit targets in 24 hours

IAF plans to hit targets in 24 hours

Source: SPECIAL REPORT submitted 18 hours 8 minutes ago

Meanwhile, the ex-Army Chief of Pakistan General (R) Aslam Baig has said that US General Mullen is pressing our authorities to allow India to hit certain targets, keeping silent and indifferent to the situation as they have been doing in case of US attacks, which he believes, will cool down India and diffuse tensions between the two countries.
I don’t think that conscientious Pakistani nation and brave armed forces of Pakistan will accept such a situation. This will be shameful and render Pakistan submission to India,” the retired General said. While talking to the Nawa-i-Waqt/The Nation.
He further said that the nation would lose its confidence in their government and the armed forces for ever and the nation would stand no where, should such a situation prevailed. He called upon the rulers to explain their position in this regard.
He said that the US was after ridiculing the sovereignty of Pakistan only to please India and Mullen had come with a dangerous message.
“We are ten times more powerful than in 1965 and twenty times stronger than we were in 1971,” the General said.

Apologetic stance will not appease our detractors

Apologetic stance will not appease our


By Asif Haroon Raja

Kashmir is the unfinished agenda of partition of India in 1947. India not only treacherously occupied two-third of Kashmir by force but also failed to implement the 1948 UNSC Resolution of holding a plebiscite to determine the wishes of the people of Kashmir whether they wanted to be part of Pakistan or India. The Kashmiris kept demanding this right but their voices were suppressed through use of brute force. After 42 years of political struggle when the Kashmiris lost all hopes of an amicable solution, they decided to pick up arms in 1989 and confronted the Indian security forces. Tens of militant groups including Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM) and Hizbul Mujahideen emerged in occupied Kashmir during nineties to achieve freedom from the shackles of India. Over 7 lacs Indian security forces were inducted to crush the movement but despite sustained ruthless operations and inhuman atrocities they could not extinguish the flame of liberty. Pakistan was morally bound to extend diplomatic and political support to the freedom movement much to the dislike of Indians.

The resistance movement was so fierce that India sought assistance from Israel how to tackle with insurgency and also started to accuse Pakistan of aiding and abetting terrorism in Kashmir. It continuously played the theme of cross border terrorism and also accused Pakistan of developing an Islamic bomb. Once India became the strategic partner of USA from 1992 onwards, the latter started to listen to Indian complaints more attentively and western media raised the spectre of Islamic bomb going into the hands of radical states like Iran and Libya. Israel developed special ties with India and both planned to destroy Kahuta plant through a surgical strike. Pakistan was placed on the watch list of terrorism and cautioned to watch its steps. USA shared the idea of India that UN Resolutions on Kashmir had become outdated. Acquisition of nuclear capability and delivery means by Pakistan led to forging of deeper collaboration between USA, Israel and India and the trio schemed how to denuclearise, de-Islamise, destabilise and possibly balkanise Pakistan. 9/11 and pliant leadership in Pakistan provided an opportunity to them to achieve their sinister objectives.

Notwithstanding the past tainted history of Indian intelligence agencies it is now an open secret that RAW is misusing Afghan soil for covert operations against Pakistan with the connivance of Karzai regime. CIA, Mossad and MI-6 are part of its team working zealously to achieve mutually beneficial common objectives. Foreign agencies have achieved appreciable success in making large parts of Pakistan volatile. They could never have made such inroads under normal conditions. USA, India and UK befooled Musharraf led regime to be its friends because of which the CIA and FBI were granted unlimited freedom to operate inside Pakistan. The two agencies worked in close collaboration with ISI and FIA to hunt terrorists throughout the length and breadth of the country from October 2001 onwards. The four air bases in Baluchistan made available to US troops for operations against Afghanistan were also used by the spy agencies to cultivate Baloch leaders and activists and also to carryout subversive activities against Iran.

The CIA and FBI having established its networks in Baluchistan and in FATA and took over intelligence acquisition duties on the western front because of superior technology. Drones were given permission to operate inside Pak territory to acquire intelligence. The ISI was pushed in the background and the army operated under intelligence provided by US agencies. Having established a firm base, RAW and MI-6 agents were brought in large numbers in desired areas of interest. To reduce the clout of government and the ISI, the pro-government Maliks, notables and officials as well as ISI agents were gunned down in hundreds and anti-government chieftains were brought into prominence. Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) under Abdullah Mahsud and later under Baitullah Mahsud was created to gain influence over all the tribal agencies of tribal belt. It was only when Pakistan began to sink under the weight of militancy that the ISI in desperation looked for clues and to its horror learnt the CIA doing the Satan work. It made the ISI cautious and once it confirmed the double game of CIA it undertook preventive measures and started to regain the lost ground to achieve some semblance of order. The drones switched from photography to offensive actions to do what CIA and RAW agents were doing on ground.

Musharraf was advised by wise people not to trust India since it is more cunning than a fox but riding on a high saddle he ignored saner advices and went ahead inking peace deal with India to make eastern border including Kashmir quiet. India extracted far too many concessions from obliging Musharraf without giving anything in return. Having lulled our leadership into snooze, fenced the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir, got all Jihadi outfits operating in occupied Kashmir banned and accounts frozen, forced Pakistan to stop cross-LoC movement, India then began to work on its game-plan to soften Pakistan from within and eventually denuclearise and truncate it. Under the smoke-screen of friendship and people-to-people contacts, India unleashed cultural invasion in all major urban centres of Pakistan.

Under pressure from USA, schools and colleges syllabi were revised by liberal minded educationists. Portions of Islamic history of the subcontinent causing embarrassment to India were removed. Islamic studies too were tampered with by removing Surat Tauba and teachings highlighting concept of Jihad. The argument given was that hate mongering material which negated Indo-Pakistan peace process must be got rid of. None bothered to take a look at Indian educational curriculum how heavily it was Hinduised and how drastically history books had been distorted.

While Muslim extremists? irked western and Hindu worlds, the liberal ruling class in Pakistan hated them with same intensity and persecuted them ruthlessly. On the other hand Hindu extremists advocating Hindutva and indulging in genocide against Indian Muslims and other non-Hindu minorities as well as low caste Hindus were patronised by Indian ruling elite. No complaint was ever made by Pakistan or by the western world. The BJP which is godfather of several Hindu extremist parties like RSS, VHP and Shev Sena ruled India from 1997 till 2005 and is again waiting in the wings to take over from Congress. During its rule, it enforced Hindutva strictly in all the states where it had formed governments. The demolition of Babri Mosque in 1992, five nuclear tests in May 1998, shooting down of Pakistan Navy Atlantic plane in August 1998, Gujarat massacre of Indian Muslims in 2002, ten-month military stand off in 2002, slaughter of Pakistanis in Samjhota Express in February 2007 and many other offensive acts go to the discredit of BJP. The Congress is no less hostile since Pakistan had been cut into two in 1971 by Indira led Congress regime. Her son Rajiv had come close to third round in 1986 and 1990.

Disregarding its own perverse role, Indian leaders blame Pakistan for any act of terror taking place in India. The LeT and the ISI were held responsible for terrorist act against Indian parliament without and made this as an excuse to carry out biggest ever troop mobilisation of troops against Pakistan. Till this date no linkage has been established. The ISI was again blamed for Samjhota Express terrorist act in February 2007 in which 69 Pakistanis were burnt to death. It has now been established by Indian agencies that a Hindu extremist group patronised by serving Indian officers was involved in the grisly act. The ISI was blamed for the suicide attack on Indian Embassy in Kabul in July 2008 but could not provide any proof to substantiate their allegation. In concert with USA, maximum pressure was put on Pakistan to defang ISI and had almost succeeded in its design when PM Gilani issued orders to place the ISI under Ministry of Interior but took back his verdict because of domestic backlash. Once again Manmohan Singh led Congress regime has upped the ante and has created a warlike situation in the wake of Mumbai attacks on 26 November. Pakistan, LeT and ISI have once again been blamed without providing any concrete evidence.

Emulating USA, India has described Pakistan as the epicentre of terrorism and has desired to carryout surgical strikes against suspected targets on the pattern of drone attacks. It has also demanded extradition of 20 Pakistanis and has got Jamaatud Dawa (JuD), a welfare outfit declared as a terrorist organisation by UNSC and leaders of JuD and three other religious groups placed on watch list on the plea that these are linked with LeT. To further inflame the volatile situation, two Indian jets menacingly entered Pakistan?s airspace to test the alertness of PAF but turned back when it found that PAF jets had scrambled.

Despite meek stance adopted by Pakistan?s leadership and having taken host of steps in the form of crackdown against members of JuD, putting its leaders under house arrest and banning it without receiving any evidence from India, the Indian leadership is dissatisfied and say that Pakistan still needs to do a lot more. They haughtily add that they don?t need promises but desire concrete results. The peace process has been put on the hold till the fulfilment of Pakistan?s commitment of not allowing its territory for terrorist attacks against India. In this regard India wants all infrastructures of so-called terrorist groups that were banned in 2001/02 to be dismantled and the ISI pulverised.

After Condi Rice veiled threat, British PM Brown espoused the cause of India and pressed Pakistan to take physical acts to defuse tension. Other visitors from USA, UK and Sweden too exerted pressure on Zardari. US Senator John Kerry let the cat out of the bag when he reiterated Indian stance of bringing ISI under civilian control and disallowed to operate independently. He affirmed that LeT was ISI creation which India accuses of planning Mumbai attacks. If ISI is to be defanged for patronising LeT, CIA too should be held equally guilty since it was party to its creation during Afghan Jihad. CIA has throughout its history indulged in covert operations to topple democratic regimes and bringing in dictatorial regimes to serve American interests. Undesirable leaders refusing to tow US dictates were assassinated or got hanged as was the case with ZA Bhutto, Gen Ziaul Haq and Saddam Hussein. CIA engineered Ojhri camp disaster in April 1988 to deprive Pakistan of weapon stocks particularly stinger missiles. RAW too is notorious for clandestine operations in the region. Both CIA and RAW in concert are presently engaged in subversive activities in Pakistan to destabilise it. RAW too should be given similar if not worst treatment for patronising Al-Zulfiqar, MQM, BLA and TTP and for destabilising Baluchistan, FATA and Swat.

Our leadership breathlessly assure each visitor from USA, UK and other western capitals that Pakistan will not allow its soil to be used for terror activity against any neighbour but get out of breath when it comes to seeking similar assurance from other side. Indian jets intrusions were termed by Zardari and Gilani as a technical error, implying that the acts were not provocative but inadvertent. They have thus become the spokespersons for India and are defending their cause instead of Pakistan. Disempowerment of ISI has remained one of the agenda of PPP. Benazir had tried through retired Lt Gen Kalu and Air Marshal Zulfiqar but failed. Zardari could be wishing to complete the unfinished agenda since he and his team as well as the MQM do not feel easy with ISI.

In spite of the fact that India has removed the mask of friendship and has come out in its true colours, and USA and UK too have once again shown their traditional bias towards India by saying that steps taken by Pakistan are insufficient and should do more, our leaders continue to treat them as friends and are lying prostrate in submission. They are receiving lashes uncomplainingly and without a whimper in the vain hope that their apologetic and defeatist attitude would evoke sympathy in the hearts of the persecutors. They not only accept allegations but promise to take rectification measures to the satisfaction of accusers. They do not pickup courage to show mirror to the detractors and are constantly ceding ground to appease them not realising that the adversaries of Pakistan would neither get appeased nor rest till the accomplishment of all their objectives.

Asif Haroon Raja is a defence and political analyst.

- Asian Tribune -

Azerbaijan threatens to muzzle independent radio

Azerbaijan threatens to muzzle independent


Foreign licenses, such as the BBC’s, could be yanked as Baku tilts away from the West.

Recent government threats to stop issuing broadcast licenses to foreign media, including the BBC and Voice of America, is further evidence of crumbling press freedom here and may reflect the country’s shift away from Washington in favor of Russia, experts say.

Earlier this fall, government officials threatened to terminate the licenses of several prominent foreign broadcasters. Although these news organizations could continue to work in other mediums – including the Web, cable, and satellite – radio remains king of independent media in this tiny, oil-rich nation.

The decision would effectively silence foreign media, says Kenan Aliyev, director of Radio Liberty in Azerbaijan. “If we lose FM, we lose 95 percent of our audience.”

The popularity of foreign broadcasters has skyrocketed in recent years, and the threats to remove them from the airwaves have sparked grass-roots opposition campaigns on the Web. One listener recently wrote to Radio Liberty, “I was not this upset when my father died.”

Although the government defends its decision as lawful, critics call it a political move aimed at consolidating state control over media and silencing criticism.

US diplomats have spoken out against the threat to yank licenses, but Azerbaijan’s strategic and energy importance makes the issue delicate, says Sean Roberts, Director of the International Development Studies program at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs.

“It would be naive to expect that [the press freedom issue] will eclipse the rest of America’s strategic interest in the country,” he says. “The US has already shown a serious commitment to its relationship with Baku: Azerbaijan has oil, borders with Iran, and has demonstrated that it is capable of repelling Russian efforts to make it anti-American.”

Publicly, US officials have reproached Azerbaijan, saying relations could suffer if the threat is carried out. “Discontinuing [radio] broadcasts would send a disturbing message,” says Robert Wood, deputy spokesman at the State Department.

Behind the scenes, however, top US officials are negotiating with their Azeri counterparts – including meeting directly with President Ilham Aliyev – to keep the broadcasters on the air.

The move to silence foreign broadcasters is the latest in a series of attacks on free press here. Ten journalists were imprisoned in 2008, many on charges of criminal defamation. Emin Huseynov, a journalist and media advocate, was hospitalized after the police detained and severely beat him. Authorities have never investigated the incident.

In its yearly press freedom index, Reporters Without Borders ranked Azerbaijan 150 out of 173 nations. Even Russia, not known for liberal media policies, fared better with a ranking of 143.

Should Azerbaijan pull the licenses, Azerbaijani citizens will have almost no access to uncensored media, says Charles Rice with the International Center for Journalists. Unlike the local and state-owned media, the foreign stations “are not afraid to speak out about issues, including corruption and bribery that would never see the light of day otherwise,” he says.

The foreign broadcasters have a long history of covering events no one else will. More than 100 Azerbaijanis were killed in 1990 during the country’s fight for independence from the USSR.

“Without Radio Liberty, the world would know nothing about the Soviet invasion,” says Khadija Ismayilova, the station’s bureau chief in Azerbaijan.

Some experts say the dispute may indicate a struggle within the Azerbaijan government as some officials seek closer ties to Russia. The conflict in Georgia this past summer struck fear in many post-Soviet nations of resurgent Russian power.

Leaders throughout the region now must contemplate the meaning of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s vague yet aggressive assertion that Moscow has “privileged interests” in countries “with which we share special historical relations.”

Then again, the ruling elite might just be trying to play both sides. “The post-Soviet states that have been the most successful internationally … have found ways to court both Russia and the US,” says Professor Roberts.

US officials are now using the prospect of a new presidential administration as a negotiating tool. The State Department has encouraged Azerbaijan to send “positive signals” to President-elect Obama.

That chance may come Thursday when the Azerbaijan National Television and Radio Council convenes to address the issue. Radio Liberty’s Ms. Ismayilova is cautiously optimistic. “At the end of the day it’s about the mission. We’ll find a way to continue.”

A Lesson in Liberality

A Lesson in Liberality

Ann Weaver Hart

As Barack Obama prepares to take office, some people think that the country is being loaded into a handbasket with launch set for January 20, 2009. Contrary to conservative opinion, the world will not end that day; and contrary to what some think liberals hope, the second coming is not scheduled for that day, either.

Some people think that the liberal agenda revolves around the destruction of the United States. For the last 8 years, conservative mouthpieces have bombarded audiences with the message that liberals have a single goal in mind, to harm conservative interests. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Some people are bracing themselves to resist whatever comes out of Washington, certain that a liberal agenda will harm them. They may not know what is going on, but they know that “liberal” is a bad word and they know that there are liberals in Washington, so woe betide us all. Talk radio has made a boogieman of all things liberal. What a shame.

The founders were all about liberty; so are liberals. The only liberty liberals oppose are the liberties some in business and government like to take with what does not belong to them; for example, they frown on stealing natural resources that belong to other countries. This brings us immediately to the great malediction, “Tax and Spend Democrats!” It never occurs to some folks that they pay taxes regardless of who is in the White House. Apparently, conservatives simply resent paying for necessities more than liberals do. If someone were to claim that they should have free groceries, people would laugh them out of town. Why should government be free? Someone has to pay for it, and that someone is us, folks.

Back to liberty, liberals believe that people should be free to live as they please. It’s difficult to do that with people throwing rocks at your house because you are Black, Hispanic, White, Asian, immigrant, natural-born, gay, straight, old, young, childless, Buddhist, Catholic, Muslim, or atheist. Liberty does not apply only to conservative Christian heterosexual couples who belong to megachurches. It applies to all of us. So liberals plan to allow the rest of the country to have some freedom, too, just like the founders planned.

It may be true that the founders had an idea of preserving an elite ruling class. Those who support this plan can rest assured that that elite ruling class remains firmly entrenched in government. A look at the pedigrees of most of the members of congress bears this out.

Meanwhile, bad things are happening in the economy, and it will take the entire country, and perhaps the entire world working together to pull our collective toochis out of the fire. It might be entertaining to find ways to blame the previous administration’s policies for the current situation, but it would not be productive. Those people who plan to resist simply because there is a liberal at the helm are not playing nice. Rather than looking back, people of good will should look forward: “What can I do to help?” This country belongs to liberal and conservative alike. Imagine a sculling team where half of the members either don’t pull on cue or who push instead of pull. That boat goes nowhere.

It is true that liberals have a different way of doing things. Sometimes conservatives attack the way liberals approach problems. Liberals think it is cheaper to provide free birth control than to raise children on welfare. Conservatives tend to preach to people about not having sex. Liberals simply accept the fact that people get procreation and recreation mixed up, and let them have their way. It isn’t hard, once you get the hang of it. My freedom ends at the end of my nose.

Liberals like to spend money. Conservatives like to spend money. The difference lies in what we like to spend money on. Conservatives like to buy toys for the elite: guns, bombs, Bradley fighting vehicles, designer flak jackets. Liberals tend to buy education, the arts, housing and health care. One shopping list is destructive, the other constructive.

In the end, everyone benefits from the liberal agenda, with better schools, roads, housing and health care. Those who tell you that these things only benefit the poor are fooling themselves or lying to you. They benefit us all.

The Five Bridges Of Waziristan

The Five Bridges Of Waziristan

December 22, 2008

Most opinion makers and foreign-policy gurus agree that President-elect Barack Obama’s principal foreign-policy challenge is centered on the complex sets of conflicts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, particularly the mountainous border region the two neighbors share.

Most of the advice directed at him advocates two primary approaches. One centers on increasing the troop numbers in Afghanistan to fill the gaps in the U.S. military strategy and aim at defeating the “enemy.” And, in turn, to be able to talk to them from a position of strength.

Others advocate robust diplomacy to engage and convince all global powers, Afghanistan, and its various near and far neighbors to give up their various proxy wars and put an end to the two-century-old “Great Game.”

Most observers and commentators argue that it is important to find innovative ways to accommodate the interests and aspirations of various capitals: Islamabad, New Delhi, Moscow, Tehran, and Riyadh.

Nobody, however, worries about the more than 40 million Pashtuns who consider themselves to be the rightful owners of one of the most strategically important pieces of real estate on the planet: the borderlands between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But their interaction with the outside world — the West in particular — reminds me of the story of the five bridges in Waziristan that were never built.

During the 1980s when the Afghan mujahedin were fighting against the Soviet occupation, they were seen by many in the West as struggling for the very survival of the Western civilization against godless communism.

The bulk of the estimated $50 billion the United States and its allies gave the holy warriors was spent on weapons, training, paying fighters, and supporting some 3 million Afghan refugees who lived in refugee camps across western Pakistan. And no doubt a large chunk of the cash ended up in the pockets of corrupt officials.

There were, however, modest efforts at developing one of the most impoverished communities in the world. One such project was a USAID road that aimed to connect half a dozen villages to a market in a remote valley called Wana, the administrative headquarters of South Waziristan tribal district.

When work began on the USAID road in the mid 1980s, nobody knew if the Soviets would ever be defeated in Afghanistan. So the planning was for the long war, down to the last Pashtun.

Thus the farm-to-market road the USAID was building in Wana was something unheard of in that part of Pakistan. It was nearly 15 meters wide and tough enough to weather the summer monsoon and occasional snow in the winter.

By late 1980s the nearly 20-kilometer-long road was complete and preparations were under way to build the five bridges, which were necessary to cross the perennial stream that traversed the road in many places. The stream would turn into a torrent whenever it rained in the Wana valley or the surrounding mountains. But the bridges weren’t built.

In the early 1990s, communism had been successfully defeated in neighboring Afghanistan, but it was replaced by anarchy and a fratricidal civil war. The U.S. foreign-policy establishment became less interested in a bloody civil war in a distant land. Politicians and strategists in Washington concluded that they had won “the war” — the  Berlin Wall had fallen, and the Iron Curtain had come down.

And that is why the five bridges were never built. Warlords were left to fight it out to decide who was most suited to occupy Arg — the presidential palace in Kabul. Waziristan and the rest of the tribal agencies merged into the Afghan battle space and turned into laboratories for a new kind of warfare in the 21st century.

It’s a reminded that for Obama’s foreign policy to succeed in this part of the world, it will have to build the bridges in Waziristan — both literally and figuratively.

It will be hard to solve the complex Afghanistan-Pakistan conundrum without paying attention to political, social, and economic transformation in one of the world’s most intricate tribal societies. It won’t be an easy undertaking and will require more schools, hospitals, and bridges — the very things extremists are blowing up almost every day.

– Abubakar Siddique

“al Qaida” (American mercenaries) Fought Russians for Georgia

Russia accuses foreign nationals in Georgia war

MOSCOW (AP) — Russian investigators on Tuesday charged that volunteers from the United States and a number of other countries fought on the side of Georgia in its war against Russia.

Russian news agencies reported that Aleksandr Bastrykin, chairman of an investigative committee with the Russian prosecutor’s office, said the mercenaries included nationals of the U.S., Ukraine, the Czech Republic and Turkey.

Russian officials have previously accused the U.S. and Ukraine of sending servicemen to take part in the fighting in August — claims both countries have denied.

The war over the separatist province of South Ossetia devastated Georgia, crippled its military, destroyed much of the key infrastructure and uprooted more than 160,000 people. The Kremlin recognized South Ossetia and another rebel region, Abkhazia, as independent, drawing strong condemnation from the West.

Representatives of Georgia’s Defense Ministry were not immediately available to comment on the accusations that they recruited foreign volunteers during the fighting.

The U.S. Embassy in Moscow declined immediate comment. A spokesman for Ukraine’s Defense Ministry was not immediately available and UNA-UNSO, the Ukrainian nationalist organization whose members Bastrykin accused of taking part in the fighting, did not respond to an e-mail request for comment.

In Prague, Czech Defense Ministry spokesman Jan Pejsek said that no member of the Czech national army took part in the fighting and that authorities were not aware of any volunteers participating either. Authorities in Turkey could not be immediately reached for comment.

Bastrykin also released what he said were final figures for civilian deaths in the breakaway region of South Ossetia, saying that 162 residents were killed and more than 5,000 people were considered to be “victims” of the war; he did not elaborate on the concept.

Previously Bastrykin’s committee had said 133 civilians were killed. The U.S.-based group Human Rights Watch said in September that fewer than 100 civilians were killed.

Bastrykin also said 48 Russian servicemen, including 10 peacekeepers, were killed in the fighting, reducing the death toll from the previously announced figure of 64.

Bastrykin also renewed accusations that the Georgian military had committed acts of genocide against South Ossetians in the war.

Both sides have accused each other of that crime, and Georgian authorities were quick to respond. “The Russians should themselves answer for the ethnic cleansing they’ve committed, which is a proven fact,” said Georgian Interior Ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili.

Human Rights Watch and the Georgian government have said Ossetian militias were involved in systematic persecution of ethnic Georgian civilians in South Ossetia following the war.

Russia says it invaded South Ossetia and then moved deep into Georgia proper to protect Russian passport-holders and peacekeepers after Tbilisi launched an assault on the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali. Georgia blames Russia for the war, saying it was forced to act by growing Russian support for South Ossetia and a buildup of troops around the region.


AP writers Mansur Mirovalev in Moscow and Matt Siegel in Tbilisi, Georgia, contributed to this story.

World Leaders Sing The Praise of Fruitless Peace Talks

World Leaders Sing The Praise of Fruitless

Peace Talks

…and sweep international law under the carpet

Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrats’ new “shadow” foreign secretary here in Britain, reports on his first trip to Palestine/Israel in, a strange choice of platform for a self-styled “liberal”. His biggest impression, he says, was optimism for the peace process: “I developed a strong sense that both sides trusted each other.” But as far as I’m aware he didn’t meet the Palestine side – only the Fatah faction, whose coziness with Israel is the stuff of scandal.

Last week, in a display of mutual admiration between US President Bush and Fatah’s President Abbas, Bush reportedly said: “People must recognize that we have made a good deal of progress” and Middle East peace talks are now “irreversible”. Abbas, whose days are also numbered, praised the outgoing US president, saying: “There is no doubt that we will continue these efforts and the peace negotiations, but everything will be based on the foundation, and that foundation was laid by you during your time in office.”

But when Abbas’s team was asked if Bush would press Israel to ease its blockade of Gaza, it seemed the US president would not commit to negotiating an end to the siege. So, we can see how devoted they actually are to the cause of peace.

Meanwhile, the Quartet – America, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations – says there’s no turning back from US-led talks between Israel and the Palestinians, despite their spectacular lack of progress.

So, everyone in high places is singing from the same hymn-sheet in praise of a fruitless peace process.

They know perfectly well, of course, that the Israelis have for decades played for time, stringing the world along and whining that they have “no partner for peace” while continuing to seize and colonize all the land and water resources needed to fulfill the Zionist dream of a Greater Israel from the Jordan to the Mediterranean – or, some say, the Euphrates to the Nile. To that end, the regime has endlessly violated UN resolutions, international law and the norms of human decency.

Respected Israeli expert Jeff Halper has warned that Israel intends to make its illegal occupation permanent, hence the frenzied rush to establish irreversible facts on the ground, like the monstrous settlements and their supporting infrastructure, to press ahead with further demolition of Arab homes and more ethnic cleansing, and to fracture the remnants of Palestine so that they cannot possibly be drawn together to form a viable, independent state.

Anyone who bothers to read the manifestos of the Likud and Kadima parties understands that it is Israel, which is no partner for peace, never was and probably never will be.

Quarrel is between the international community and Israel

So, world leaders, what’s your game? Why should Palestinians have to talk to their tormentors? The path to peace is clearly marked in countless rulings by the United Nations and by the International Court of Justice. These are waiting to be implemented and enforced. Here are some examples:

  • Resolution 181: (the Partition Plan of 1947, accepted by the Jews) declares Jerusalem, including Bethlehem and Beit Sahour, a corpus separatum – to be run under an international UN administration. This was reiterated in Resolution 303 a year later. We’re still waiting.
  • Resolution 194: resolves that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage. That was 60 years ago.
  • Resolution 237: Israel to allow return of the “new” 1967 Palestinian refugees.
  • Resolution 242: emphasizes the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war and calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from land occupied in 1967.
  • Resolution 252: declares “invalid” Israel’s attempts to unify Jerusalem as the Jewish capital.
  • Resolution 271: condemns Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem.
  • Resolution 298: deplores Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem.
  • Resolution 446: determines that Israeli settlements are a “serious obstruction” to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
  • Resolution 452: calls on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories.
  • Resolution 465: deplores Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel’s settlements programme.
  • Resolution 469: strongly deplores Israel’s failure to observe the UN Security Council’s order not to deport Palestinians.
  • Resolution 471: expresses deep concern at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
  • Resolution 476: reiterates that Israel’s claims to Jerusalem are null and void.
  • Resolution 478: censures Israel in the strongest terms for its claim to Jerusalem in its Basic Law.
  • Resolution 605: strongly deplores Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
  • Resolution 608: deeply regrets that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians.
  • Resolution 641: deplores Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians.
  • Resolution 673: deplores Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
  • Resolution 681: deplores Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
  • Resolution 694: deplores Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
  • Resolution 726: strongly condemns Israel’s deportation of Palestinians.
  • Resolution 799: ditto

The Fourth Geneva Convention is supposed to protect civilians under military occupation – no violence to life or person, no cruelty or torture; no taking of hostages; no outrages upon personal dignity; no collective punishment, no sentencing or executions unless ordered by a properly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees demanded by civilized peoples.

In 2004 the International Court of Justice – that “principal judicial organ of the United Nations” – ruled that the Separation Wall is illegal and must be dismantled, and Israel must compensate Palestinians for damage. Furthermore, said the ICJ, all states are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the Wall and to ensure Israel complies with international humanitarian law.

Israel is still building it.

The quarrel is clearly between the international community and Israel. So please, world leaders, spare us all this tosh about peace negotiations. There can be no peace while one party has his jackboot on the other’s throat. The major powers must first ensure all relevant UN resolutions are respected and international law enforced, not swept under the carpet. The time for Palestinians to sit down and talk is when Israel’s forces are pulled back, as required, behind the 1967 border.

What if Israel won’t comply? Easy: suspend trade and technical cooperation.

Mr Davey said when asked about his trip: “My one regret was not being allowed to visit Gaza, something I hope to put right as soon as my diary allows.” Not allowed to? By whom? Did the Israeli authorities stop him, just as they stopped a surgeon friend from entering Gaza a month ago with a team of medics, stopped the Pope’s nuncio and stopped the UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Professor Richard Falk, who is due to report on the situation to the UN Human Rights Council in March?

Mr Davey didn’t explain. But expressing his intention to visit Gaza does him credit. He certainly won’t get a balanced view until he sees for himself and meets Hamas. I wish him well. We are in desperate need of champions for justice, a rare breed in international politics these days.

Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. For further information please visit


February 6, 2000, Mossad attempt to infiltrate Islamic radical outfits in south Asia

Aborted Mission

Investigation: Did Mossad attempt to infiltrate Islamic radical outfits in south Asia?

by Subir Bhaumik
The Week
February 6, 2000

On January 12 Indian intelligence officials in Calcutta detained 11 foreign nationals for interrogation before they were to board a Dhaka-bound Bangladesh Biman flight. They were detained on the suspicion of being hijackers. “But we realised that they were tabliqis (Islamic preachers), so we let them go,” said an intelligence official. They had planned to attend an Islamic convention near Dhaka, but Bangladesh refused them visa. Later, seemingly under Israeli pressure, India allowed them to fly to Tel Aviv.

Where’s the catch? The secret circular that warned of a possible hijack

“They had landing permits at Dhaka, but that’s not visa,” said a diplomat in the Bangladesh High Commission in Delhi. “We decided not to entertain them anymore because we cannot take chances.”

The eleven had Israeli passports but were believed to be Afghan nationals who had spent a while in Iran. They had secured landing permits for Dhaka and one-way tickets on Bangladesh Biman’s Calcutta-Delhi route through a Delhi-based travel agency.

“We have a right to deny travel facility to a passenger even if he has a valid ticket on security grounds,” said a Bangladeshi Biman official who did not want to be named. To the Bangladesh Biman officials the eleven, who were all Muslims, appeared “too murky”.

Indian intelligence officials, too, were surprised by the nationality profile of the eleven. “They are surely Muslims; they say that they have been on tabligh (preaching Islam) in India for two months. But they are Israeli nationals from the West Bank,” said a Central Intelligence official.

He claimed that Tel Aviv “exerted considerable pressure” on Delhi to secure their release. “It appeared that they could be working for a sensitive organisation in Israel and were on a mission to Bangladesh,” the official said. The Israeli intelligence outfit, Mossad, is known to recruit Shia Muslims to penetrate Islamic radical networks.

“It is not unlikely for Mossad to recruit 11 Afghans in Iran and grant them Israeli citizenship to penetrate a network such as Bin Laden’s. They would begin by infiltrating them into an Islamic radical group in an unlikely place like Bangladesh,” said intelligence analyst Ashok Debbarma. The pressure exerted on India by Israel for the release of the men, and the hurry with which they were flown back suggested an aborted operation’.

Mossad watchers say the operation was possibly blown off by “unwelcome intervention” in a friendly country, and they decided to pull out.

The Calcutta immigration authorities may have laid their hands on the wrong people. They were looking for Islamic radicals attempting hijack.

On January 11, the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) issued a top secret circular (NO: ER/BCAS/PIC/CIRCULAR/99), quoting “an intelligence input” about a possible hijack attempt on a Bangladesh Biman aircraft originating out of India. Copies of the circular signed by regional deputy commissioner of security (Calcutta Airport), L. Singsit, were issued to relevant Indian agencies and Bangladesh Biman’s station manager in Calcutta, Md. Shahjahan. It said that eight “Pushtu-speaking Mujahideen” had infiltrated into India for the purpose.

The circular also specified the motive behind the hijack: to secure the release of the prime accused in the Mujib-ur-Rehman assassination case including Major (later Colonel) Farooq Rehman and Major Bazlul Huda.

“Dhaka told us to take no chances,” said a Bangladesh Biman official. The Sheikh Hasina government is aware of the international links of the Mujib-killers. While Libya had sheltered some of them in the 70s and early 80s, middle eastern countries helped others evade justice. Major (later Colonel) Khondakhar Abdul Rashid, one of Colonel Farooq’s co-plotters, is said to be in Saudi Arabia, where he maintains close links with Pakistan’s ISI.

Meanwhile, Indian intelligence officials are still on the hunt for “Pushtu-speaking hijackers”. An additional director with Central Intelligence said at least four hijackers were in eastern India.

If the terrorists manage to extricate the likes of Colonel Farooq through a hijack, it will boost the Ôanti-Indian Islamic forces’ in Bangladesh, particularly the agitation against the Hasina government.

With a less India-friendly government in Dhaka, Pakistan’s ISI could step up its help to the insurgents in the northeast.

(The author is BBC’s eastern India correspondent)


Welcome Mossad !

Welcome Mossad !

By Subhash Gatade

24 December, 2008

(In ‘The Real Trade of CIA and Mossad,’ Paul J. Balles, a retired American professor and free lance writer says: ‘’CIA in America and Mossad in Israel should have been prize winners as terrorists, because in dozen of situations around the world they have indulged their love of instilling fear in innocent people. If the bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq were not terrorism at its worst, it is only because of the death of 4098 Americans is a more important statistics than the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.’’

- Quoted in ‘Mainstream’ Vol XLVI No 48, Terrorism Inc.: Nexus between CIA and Mossad by Shyam Chand, 16 November 2008)

The discussion and debate generated by the bloody terror attack in Bombay allegedly carried out by the dreaded Lashkar-e-Toiba still continues. While relations between India and Pakistan have reached a new low, the only saving grace of the unfolding situation is that the war of words did not transcend the level of rhetoric and ruling elites of both countries showed wisdom in not precipitating the matter further. Looking at the growing people to people relations between the two countries, and a significant section of the Pakistani people having expressed words of sympathy after the terrorist attack, one just hopes that the relations between these neighbours become normal in near future.

Of course, as far as Mossad- the notorious intelligence agency of Israel – is concerned, the terror attack had a very ‘positive fallout’.One finds its growing mention in the Indian media as well as polity as a role model supposedly for ‘being successful’ in ‘curbing the terrorist menace’ inside Israel.

Interestingly all such ignoramuses ranging from the Barkhas to the Arnabs bother to know the fifty plus year old trajectory of the organisation which is formally responsible for intelligence collection but basically engaged in counter-terrorism, covert operations and paramilitary activities and political assassinations.One could say that it is part of amnesia that none from the chatterati brigade wants to take a critical as well as dispassionate look at its ‘myth of success’ vis-a-vis the Palestinian militants nor do they want know the terrorist acts engaged in by the agency to stigmatise its opponents.

It need be told that Mossad was formed on December 13, 1949 as the “Central Institute for Coordination”, at the recommendation of Reuven Shiloah to Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. In March 1951, it was reorganized and made a part of the prime minister’s office, reporting directly to the prime minister. Mossad’s former motto can be translated with softer words as “For by wise counsel thou shalt wage thy war,” and claim it is a quote from the bible (Proverbs XXIV,6).The motto was changed recently as part of the Mossad’s public ‘coming out’ to another Proverbs passage: “Where no counsel is, the people fall, but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.” (Proverbs XI, 14)

In fact it was a marker of the growing legitimacy of Mossad that it found a respectable mention when top industrialists from Karnataka met with Mr Yediyurappa, the Chief Minister of the state recently. The delegation was led by Ms Kiran Mazumdar Shaw of the ‘Biocon’ fame and Infosys CFO Mohandas Pai. It had gone there to convey their concern about the deteriorating security situation in the state.According to a report published in DNA, they were categorical in their demands. ..“AK-47s, grenades and other modern weaponry and equipment are needed. Military patrolling should also be arranged.”The Biocon CEO suggested creating a well-equipped crack anti-terrorist squad in Karnataka. The possibilities of getting them trained by Israeli secret service Mossad should be explored, she said. ((DNA, Sunday, November 30, 2008 01:51 IST)

For any close watcher of the bloody track record of Mossad the sanitisation of the agency was disturbing.

Perhaps one rather felt that the changed ambience in the country vis-a-vis the infamous intellgence agency is due to the growing proximity of the Indian and Israeli regimes on the issue of counter-insurgency.Apart from seeking arms it is also clear that India sought help of Israeli Defence Force in the Kashmir conflict. A senior commander of the Israeli army Maj Gen Avi Mirzahi even paid an unscheunscheduled visit to Kashmir ‘ get an up-close look at the challenges the Indian military faces in its fight against Islamic insurgents.Mizrahi was in India for three days of meetings with the country’s military brass and to discuss a plan the IDF is drafting for Israeli commandos to train Indian counterterror forces.Under the proposed agreement, the IDF would send highly-trained commandos to train Indian soldiers in counterterror tactics, urban warfare and fighting in guerrilla settings.’ (Sep. 14, 2008 Yaakov Katz , THE JERUSALEM POST)

It was only few months back that Defence minister Pranab Mukherjee in a written reply in the Parliament had made a startling revealation about the military and strategic relationship between the two countries. In fact it was reported that India had concluded defence contracts with Israel worth $2.76 billion between 2002-2005. Looking at these figures it is apparent that Tel Aviv is the second largest supplier of military equipment to Delhi after Russia.

The logical fallout of the new found love for the Israeli regime and the attempts to imitate its’success’ in reining in the ‘extremist’ elements, is that no section of the Indian media reported that Mossad was found to be propping up ‘Islamic terrorist’ groups in mid-east.

Sometime back a ‘splinter group’ of Al-Qaeda was found to be involved in a terrorist attack in Yemen. As it happens in all such attacks innocent people were killed and property worth billions of Rs was destroyed. The Yemenese police could nab the culprits with its efficient handling of the case. But police officials and the people in power were in for surprise when they discovered that the splinter group was propped up by Mossad, the dreaded intelligence wing of Israel’s Zionist regime.

Dubai, Oct 8 (IANS) A terrorist cell busted in Yemen last month after a suicide attack on the US embassy there had links with an Israeli intelligence agency, the state-run Saba news agency reported.The report, quoting an unnamed source, said investigations and data retrieved from a computer seized from the cell, showed there was correspondence between the Islamic Jihad group’s deputy leader Bassam Abdullah Fadhel Al-Haidari and an Israeli intelligence agency Question naturally arises, was it for the first time that Mossad had propped up ‘Islamic terrorist’ groups ? ‘The Week’, a leading newsmagazine in the subcontinent had done a special story way back in 2000 (Aborted Mission: Investigation: Did Mossad attempt to infiltrate Islamic radical outfits in south Asia? by Subir Bhaumik, February 6, 2000, showing how the Indian intelligence agencies had nabbed a group of Islamic radicals in Kolkatta airport for their ‘suspicious’ looking activities and discovered to their dismay that this group was going to Dhaka on a special mission at the behest of Israel.

On January 12 Indian intelligence officials in Calcutta detained 11 foreign nationals for interrogation before they were to board a Dhaka-bound Bangladesh Biman flight. They were detained on the suspicion of being hijackers.“But we realised that they were tabliqis (Islamic preachers), so we let them go,” said an intelligence official. They had planned to attend an Islamic convention near Dhaka, but Bangladesh refused them visa. Later, seemingly under Israeli pressure, India allowed them to fly to Tel Aviv.

According to Indian intelligence officials,
“..[T]el Aviv “exerted considerable pressure” on Delhi to secure their release. “It appeared that they could be working for a sensitive organisation in Israel and were on a mission to Bangladesh,” the official said. The Israeli intelligence outfit, Mossad, is known to recruit Shia Muslims to penetrate Islamic radical networks.”…. ”It is not unlikely for Mossad to recruit 11 Afghans in Iran and grant them Israeli citizenship to penetrate a network such as Bin Laden’s. They would begin by infiltrating them into an Islamic radical group in an unlikely place like Bangladesh,” said intelligence analyst Ashok Debbarma. The pressure exerted on India by Israel for the release of the men, and the hurry with which they were flown back suggested an aborted operation’.

Mossad watchers say the operation was possibly blown off by “unwelcome intervention” in a friendly country, and they decided to pull out. The ‘aborted mission’ in India reminded one of the ‘Operation Susannah’ better known as ‘Lavon affair’ way back in 1954 when the nascent Israeli state witnessed a power struggle between the Prime Minister Moshe Sharret and defence minister Lavon. In an article written after the Mumbai terror attack, a south African scholar Saber Ahmed Jazbhay( 01 December, 2008 Media Monitors) provides details of the action by Jewish terrorists when they blew up British and American targets in Egypt. In fact

“[t]he intention was to blame it on the Egyptian regime headed at the time by Gamal Abdel Nasser but the affair was blown and the ring leaders, all Jewish were apprehended and a few were hanged whilst those who survived the usual prison ordeal were forgotten about in Egyptian jails. It was only in 2005 that the Israelis acknowledged involvement when President at the time,Moshe Katsav,honoured the nine Israeli agents who were involved. (For further details refer “The Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry: Culture, Politics. and the Formation of Modern Diaspora” by Joel Beinin view?docId=ft2290045n;brand=eschol view?docId=ft2290045n;brand=eschol)

Looking at the long history of the dreaded Mossad in engaging all sorts of covert operations including exporting ‘Islamic Jihad’ of a certain kind, would it be asking too much that the new apologists of the agency revisit its fifty plus year old history and then decide.

Neocon Plans for Pakistan Exposed!

This is the Neocons plan to disassemble Pakistan, give northern Pakistan to Afghanistan, Southwest Pakistan to the Balochs… all this in an effort to restrict Chinese access to energy and herd energy resources towards Israel, the Mediterranean and Europe. Whatever happinging in NWFP and Baluchistan is part of this BIG game!

Until the US disavows the Neocon plan to achieve “benevolent global hegemony” —the benevolence of which has already caused the deaths of maybe a million people— I don’t see how anyone in their right mind can expect Pakistan or any of the other proposed PNAC victims to cooperate in their own destruction. But unfortunately in Pakistan, some ignorant, selfish traitors have decided to facilitate this plan!

Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and Pakistan

project-for-the-new-american-century-pnac-and-pakistanClick on image to see larger version ( also attached)

Neocon Peters’ new map of the Middle East:

peters_map_afterClick on image to see larger version ( also attached)

Overall PNAC plan:

overall-pnac-planClick on image to see larger version ( also attached)

The Pentagon is muscling in everywhere. It’s time to stop the mission creep.

The Pentagon is muscling in everywhere. It’s

time to stop the mission creep.

By Thomas A. Schweich

Sunday, December 21, 2008; Page B01

We no longer have a civilian-led government. It is hard for a lifelong Republican and son of a retired Air Force colonel to say this, but the most unnerving legacy of the Bush administration is the encroachment of the Department of Defense into a striking number of aspects of civilian government. Our Constitution is at risk.

President-elect Barack Obama‘s selections of James L. Jones, a retired four-star Marine general, to be his national security adviser and, it appears, retired Navy Adm. Dennis C. Blair to be his director of national intelligence present the incoming administration with an important opportunity — and a major risk. These appointments could pave the way for these respected military officers to reverse the current trend of Pentagon encroachment upon civilian government functions, or they could complete the silent military coup d’etat that has been steadily gaining ground below the radar screen of most Americans and the media.

While serving the State Department in several senior capacities over the past four years, I witnessed firsthand the quiet, de facto military takeover of much of the U.S. government. The first assault on civilian government occurred in faraway places — Iraq and Afghanistan — and was, in theory, justified by the exigencies of war.

if ( show_doubleclick_ad && ( adTemplate & INLINE_ARTICLE_AD ) == INLINE_ARTICLE_AD && inlineAdGraf )
document.write(‘</div>’) ;
// –>
The White House, which basically let the Defense Department call the budgetary shots, vastly underfunded efforts by the State Department, the Justice Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to train civilian police forces, build functioning judicial systems and provide basic development services to those war-torn countries. For example, after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Justice Department and the State Department said that they needed at least 6,000 police trainers in the country. Pentagon officials told some of my former staffers that they doubted so many would be needed. The civilians’ recommendation “was quickly reduced to 1,500 [trainers] by powers-that-be above our pay grade,” Gerald F. Burke, a retired major in the Massachusetts State Police who trained Iraqi cops from 2003 to 2006, told Congress last April. Just a few hundred trainers ultimately wound up being fielded, according to Burke’s testimony.

Until this year, the State Department received an average of about $40 million a year for rule-of-law programs in Afghanistan, according to the department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs — in stark contrast to the billions that the Pentagon got to train the Afghan army. Under then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the Defense Department failed to provide even basic security for the meager force of civilian police mentors, rule-of-law advisers and aid workers from other U.S. agencies operating in Afghanistan and Iraq, driving policymakers to turn to such contracting firms as Blackwater Worldwide. After having set the rest of the U.S. government up for failure, military authorities then declared that the other agencies’ unsuccessful police-training efforts required military leadership and took them over — after brutal interagency battles at the White House.

The result of letting the Pentagon take such thorough charge of the programs to create local police forces is that these units, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, have been unnecessarily militarized — producing police officers who look more like militia members than ordinary beat cops. These forces now risk becoming paramilitary groups, well armed with U.S. equipment, that could run roughshod over Iraq and Afghanistan’s nascent democracies once we leave.

Or consider another problem with the rising influence of the Pentagon: the failure to address the ongoing plague of poppy farming and heroin production in Afghanistan. This fiasco was in large part the result of the work of non-expert military personnel, who discounted the corrosive effects of the Afghan heroin trade on our efforts to rebuild the country and failed to support civilian-run counter-narcotics programs. During my tenure as the Bush administration’s anti-drug envoy to Afghanistan, I also witnessed JAG officers hiring their own manifestly unqualified Afghan legal “experts,” some of whom even lacked law degrees, to operate outside the internationally agreed-upon, Afghan-led program to bring impartial justice to the people of Afghanistan. This resulted in confusion and contradiction.

One can also see the Pentagon’s growing muscle in the recent creation of the U.S. military command for Africa, known as Africom. This new command supposedly has a joint civilian-military purpose: to coordinate soft power and traditional hard power to stop al-Qaeda and its allies from gaining a foothold on the continent. But Africom has gotten a chilly reception in post-colonial Africa. Meanwhile, U.S. competitors such as China are pursuing large African development projects that are being welcomed with open arms. Since the Bush administration has had real successes with its anti-AIDS and other health programs in Africa, why exactly do we need a military command there running civilian reconstruction, if not to usurp the efforts led by well-respected U.S. embassies and aid officials?

And, of course, I need not even elaborate on the most notorious effect of the military’s growing reach: the damage that the military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and such military prisons as Abu Ghraib have done to U.S. credibility around the world.

But these initial military takeovers of civilian functions all took place a long distance from home. “We are in a war, after all,” Ronald Neumann, a former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, told me by way of explaining the military’s huge role in that country — just before the Pentagon seemingly had him removed in 2007 because of his admirable efforts to balance military and civilian needs. (I heard angry accounts of the Pentagon’s role in Neumann’s “retirement” at the time from knowledgeable diplomats, one of them very senior.) But our military forces, in a bureaucratic sense, soon marched on Washington itself.

As military officers sought to take over the role played by civilian development experts abroad, Pentagon bureaucrats quietly populated the National Security Council and the State Department with their own personnel (some civilians, some consultants, some retired officers, some officers on “detail” from the Pentagon) to ensure that the Defense Department could keep an eye on its rival agencies. Vice President Cheney, himself a former secretary of defense, and his good friend Rumsfeld ensured the success of this seeding effort by some fairly forceful means. At least twice, I saw Cheney staffers show up unannounced at State Department meetings, and I heard other State Department officials grumble about this habit. The Rumsfeld officials could play hardball, sometimes even leaking to the press the results of classified meetings that did not go their way in order to get the decisions reversed. After I got wind of the Pentagon’s dislike for the approved interagency anti-drug strategy for Afghanistan, details of the plan quickly wound up in the hands of foreign countries sympathetic to the Pentagon view. I’ve heard other, similarly troubling stories about leaks of classified information to the press.

Many of Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s cronies still work at the Pentagon and elsewhere. Rumsfeld’s successor, Robert M. Gates, has spoken of increasing America’s “soft power,” its ability to attract others by our example, culture and values, but thus far, this push to reestablish civilian leadership has been largely talk and little action. Gates is clearly sincere about chipping away at the military’s expanding role, but many of his subordinates are not.

The encroachment within America’s borders continued with the military’s increased involvement in domestic surveillance and its attempts to usurp the role of the federal courts in reviewing detainee cases. The Pentagon also resisted ceding any authority over its extensive intelligence operations to the first director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte — a State Department official who eventually gave up his post to Mike McConnell, a former Navy admiral. The Bush administration also appointed Michael V. Hayden, a four-star Air Force general, to be the director of the CIA. National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley saw much of the responsibility for developing and implementing policy on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — surely the national security adviser’s job — given to Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, Bush’s new “war czar.” By 2008, the military was running much of the national security apparatus.

The Pentagon opened a southern front earlier this year when it attempted to dominate the new Merida Initiative, a promising $400 million program to help Mexico battle drug cartels. Despite the admirable efforts of the federal drug czar, John P. Walters, to keep the White House focused on the civilian law-enforcement purpose of the Merida Initiative, the military runs a big chunk of that program as well.

Now the Pentagon has drawn up plans to deploy 20,000 U.S. soldiers inside our borders by 2011, ostensibly to help state and local officials respond to terrorist attacks or other catastrophes. But that mission could easily spill over from emergency counterterrorism work into border-patrol efforts, intelligence gathering and law enforcement operations — which would run smack into the Posse Comitatus Act, the long-standing law restricting the military’s role in domestic law enforcement. So the generals are not only dominating our government activities abroad, at our borders and in Washington, but they also seem to intend to spread out across the heartland of America.

If President-elect Obama wants to reverse this trend, he must take four steps — and very quickly:

1. Direct — or, better yet, order — Gates, Jones, Blair and the other military leaders in his Cabinet to rid the Pentagon’s lower ranks of Rumsfeld holdovers whose only mission is to increase the power of the Pentagon.

2. Turn Gates’s speeches on the need to promote soft power into reality with a massive transfer of funds from the Pentagon to the State Department, the Justice Department and USAID.

3. Put senior, respected civilians — not retired or active military personnel — into key subsidiary positions in the intelligence community and the National Security Council.

4. Above all, he should let his appointees with military backgrounds know swiftly and firmly that, under the Constitution, he is their commander, and that he will not tolerate the well-rehearsed lip service that the military gave to civilian agencies and even President Bush over the past four years.

In short, he should retake the government before it devours him and us — and return civilian-led government to the people of the United States.

Thomas A. Schweich served the Bush administration as ambassador for counter-narcotics in Afghanistan and deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement affairs.

Herding Humans For Profit


Herding Humans For Profit

By: Peter Chamberlin

Basically, the Pentagon and the CIA are working in tandem to force targeted nations like India and Pakistan to accept the decision which has been made to “outsource” the terror war to them and other patsy nations like them.  Agency contract hits like the Mumbai attack and bombings in FATA are blamed on “al Qaida” by the government-controlled media in the West and in the media controlled by the “patsy” foreign governments.  Biased, hate-based reporting serves to drive patriotic fervor to a frenzied state.  The duplicitous leaders in those countries then carry-out America’s will, to set them upon a path to war, in effect, driving their own people into a “kill trap” where unwanted war is forced upon them. This pattern prevails all over the earth, wherever the US has imperial designs.  We are all being herded into a global war trap, some call it world war III.

American mini-dictator generals and crime bosses knew that their global war plans would require massive numbers of committed killers, a goal that a volunteer force could not fulfill.  A conscripted army of unwilling, underpaid, over-committed soldiers, who might follow orders to commit genocide, would be unsatisfactory for the task, especially when the focus of the killing turns to their own homelands.  No, the committed killers who have volunteered to be underpaid and overworked in order to gain the right to kill were too few in number, so they had to be supplemented. This is the reason that the US has created massive armies and navies of high-paying “civilian” contract killers (mercenaries).

But even the combination of federal troops and private armies is not great enough to fulfill the mission of global conquest.  This is where the plan incorporates co-opted foreign armies, like those of India and Pakistan.  Where NATO has failed to serve as a second American force, to command at will, these co-opted foreign armies under indirect US control are meant to fill the gap.

The CIA is using all the tricks of its dark and bloody trade to harness these foreign forces.

It continues to carry-out the trademark of its craft, the creation and arming of local warlords, criminal gangs and militias, to commit the acts of terrorism that will justify the government crackdown and drive the local population to support it.  In the conflict building between India and Pakistan, American patsies on both sides are driving the two nations to serve America’s violent interests in the region, that of containing both China and India, eliminating the “Islamic bombs” held by Pakistan, seizing pipeline routes and setting the stage for the next phase of the war plan, countering Russia and Iran.

American foreign aid and military assistance are twin traps for erasing national sovereignty and entrenching US interests within the aid-receiving governments.  Targeted governments, like India and Pakistan are made so dependent upon the inflow of US dollars that they see the cut-off of that aid as an existential threat to their existence, equal to or surpassing the threat of war.  What these leaders (who have all grown wealthy from skimming these dollars) either fail to realize or to consider at the cost of losing that wealth, is that the aid itself represents the greatest threat that their nations have ever faced.  Their leaders, just like our leaders, whom they emulate, represent only themselves, as they continue to hoard the lifeblood of our nations.

American leaders and all the foreign leaders who work with them represent the greatest evil that this world has ever known.  They are carrying-out and cooperating with the bloodiest, most devious plan ever devised by human minds, to grab all the wealth from all nations, regardless of the cost in human and animal life.  Hitler and Stalin were mere “pikers,” compared to our neocon/Zionist overlords.  No previous tyrant or would-be dictator ever came as close to snuffing-out human freedom and individualism as these “Neo-American” dreamers have positioned themselves to do.

Collective human nature has never been so ready to surrender all rights for the privilege of working, eating or obtaining health care as it now stands prepared to do.  Desperation remains the key to the warlords’ success.  The more desperation spreads, and the more desperate that people become to obtain the most basic of human needs, the more easily they will volunteer to become killers and to forsake all those insignificant things like human rights and morality that all of us resisters consider sacred.

What’s at stake, besides the massive loss of life, is the massive reversal of all the gains and inroads made by human rights advocates throughout history and the complete elimination of the concepts of freedom and inalienable rights professed by America’s founding fathers, for the sake of preserving the profit margins of today’s robber barons.

Obama, the military and the threat of dictatorship

Obama, the military and the threat of dictatorship

Bill Van Auken

With his choice of Admiral Dennis Blair as director of national intelligence, President-elect Barack Obama has now named three recently retired four-star military officers to serve in his cabinet. This unprecedented representation of the senior officer corps within the incoming Democratic administration is indicative of a growth in the political power of the US military that poses a serious threat to basic democratic rights.

As head of the US military’s Pacific command in 1999-2000, Blair was distinguished by his efforts to solidarize the Pentagon with the military of Indonesia as it carried out butchery in East Timor, effectively vetoing the half-hearted human rights concerns voiced by the Clinton administration.

Before tapping Blair, Obama named former Marine Gen. James Jones as his national security adviser and former Army chief of staff Gen. Erik Shinseki as secretary of veterans affairs. It is also reported that the incoming administration may ask retired Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden to stay on as director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The Washington Post last Saturday described this concentration of former senior officers in the administration as “an unusual trend for a Democratic administration and one that has surprised both political camps.”

The appointments follow the announcement that Robert Gates, Bush’s defense secretary, will stay on at the Pentagon, where multiple “transition teams” are at work to assure that continuity is maintained in America’s ongoing wars of aggression and that the immense power of the military remains unchecked.

Earlier this month Obama spelled out his subservience to the Pentagon by declaring, “To ensure prosperity here at home and peace abroad, we all share the belief we have to maintain the strongest military on the planet.” To that end, he has pledged to increase the size of US ground forces by 100,000 soldiers and Marines and made it clear that there will be no significant cuts to a military budget that is gobbling up some $850 billion annually under conditions of soaring deficits and an intensifying financial crisis.

There is no doubt a significant element of political calculation in Obama’s decision to surround himself with military brass and assure that he is seen as “supporting our troops.” There is, after all, the bitter experience of the last Democratic administration. Bill Clinton’s first term was nearly shipwrecked by his confrontation with the uniformed command over his proposal to scrap the ban on gays in the military. For the remainder of his presidency, he was treated with open or barely concealed contempt by much of the officer corps.

The threat of an even uglier confrontation under Obama is very real given the disastrous effects of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on the military and reports of a growing delusional sentiment within the officer corps that the failures of the US operations in these countries were the result of a “stab in the back” delivered by the civilian authorities, the media and the American people themselves.

But there is a more fundamental process underlying both Clinton’s experience and Obama’s bowing before the military today. It is the immense growth in the power of the “military industrial complex” against which President Dwight Eisenhower warned nearly half a century ago—a power which grew uninterruptedly during the whole of the Cold War.

During the last seven years of the so-called “global war on terrorism,” this expansion of power—together with the rise in military funding—has only escalated, accompanied by increasingly sinister features bound up with US imperialism’s growing reliance on militarism as a means of offsetting the decline in its global economic position.

The military chiefs of the Pentagon’s regional commands—CENTCOM, PACOM, SOUTHCOM and the new AFRICOM—have largely supplanted ambassadors and civilian officials as the representatives of US interests and power around the globe.

Meanwhile, in prosecuting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military command has been tasked with running colonial-style administrations with virtually unfettered power over entire populations.

Finally, with the creation of military tribunals and military prisons, such as the one in Guantánamo, the military has usurped tasks that historically have been assigned to civilian courts operating under the rules of the US Constitution.

These momentous changes have taken place even as the military, and particularly its officer corps, has grown increasingly separate and estranged from the civilian world and become ever more dominated by Republican politics in general and evangelical Christian beliefs in particular. A “professional” and “volunteer” force, it is more insulated from the popular pressures felt by armies made up of draftees and “citizen soldiers” of earlier generations.

The Washington Post Sunday published an extraordinarily blunt opinion piece by a former assistant secretary of state in the Bush administration, Thomas Schweich, on the increasing dominance of the American state by its military apparatus.

“Our Constitution is at risk,” wrote Schweich. He warned that the elevation of an unprecedented number of former senior officers into Obama’s cabinet could “complete the silent military coup d’etat that has been steadily graining ground below the radar screen of most Americans and the media.”

Schweich, who served as an ambassador for counter-narcotics in Afghanistan and then oversaw international law enforcement affairs at the State Department, wrote that he “saw firsthand the quiet, de facto military takeover of much of the US government,” which in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said, “was, in theory, justified by the exigencies of war.”

He stressed that what began abroad is coming home. “Now the Pentagon has drawn up plans to deploy 20,000 US soldiers inside our borders by 2011, ostensibly to help state and local officials respond to terrorist attacks or other catastrophes.” This mission, he warned, “could easily spill over from emergency counter-terrorism work into border-patrol efforts, intelligence gathering and law enforcement operations.”

A report that appeared in a magazine published by the US Army War College last month, just weeks after the election, indicates that the Pentagon is preparing its own “transition,” a process that is being driven not by Obama’s vague promises of “change” but by what the military command sees as a historic crisis of the existing order that could require the use of armed force to quell social struggles at home.

Entitled “Known Unknowns: Unconventional ‘Strategic Shocks’ in Defense Strategy Development,” the monograph was produced by Nathan Freier, a recently retired Army lieutenant colonel who is a professor at the college, the Army’s main training institute for prospective senior officers. According to the magazine, he “continues to provide expert advice to key actors in the security and defense policymaking and analysis communities.”

One of the key contingencies for which Freier insists the US military must prepare is a “violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States,” which could be provoked by “unforeseen economic collapse” or “loss of functioning political and legal order.”

He writes: “To the extent events like this involve organized violence against local, state, and national authorities and exceed the capacity of the former two to restore public order and protect vulnerable populations, DoD [Department of Defense] would be required to fill the gap.”

Freier continues: “Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order … An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home.”

In other words, a sharp intensification of the unfolding capitalist crisis accompanied by an eruption of class struggle and the threat of social revolution in the US itself could force the Pentagon to call back its expeditionary armies from Iraq and Afghanistan for use against American workers.

Given such conditions, he adds: “DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance.”

This peculiar phrase—“an essential enabling hub for continuity of authority” —is a euphemism for military dictatorship.

He concludes this section of the article by noting, “DoD is already challenged by stabilization abroad. Imagine the challenges associated with doing so on a massive scale at home.”

The point is well taken. Having failed to quell resistance and restore order in Iraq and Afghanistan, what would be the prospect of the military succeeding in an occupation of the US itself?

That these questions are being asked by the Pentagon’s strategic planners should be taken with deadly seriousness. Those commanding the armed forces of the US capitalist state foresee the present crisis creating conditions for revolution and are preparing accordingly.