The world’s most dangerous prime minister

The world’s most dangerous prime minister

—Brian Cloughley

There is an “apocalyptic cult” controlling over 100 nuclear weapons. It is a cult commanded by Binyamin Netanyahu, a psychotic warmonger who also exercises control over US foreign policy

One of the more intriguing international headlines last week was “Growing Anger at US Killings in Afghanistan: Unborn Baby Shot in the Womb Definitely Not a Militant”; and I began to write about the foreign cowboys whose slaughter has alienated so many citizens of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and encouraged countless young men into the welcoming explosive jackets of the barbaric Taliban.

The unborn baby story is terrible, but it didn’t get much international coverage, and none in the United States. One account was that “When the killings were reported…US forces claimed they had killed ‘four militants’ and wounded another. It was only later that they were forced to acknowledge that the house they attacked belonged to a Afghan Army officer, and that the people killed were his wife, a brother, and two of his children…the wounded woman [described] in the initial report was nine-months pregnant, and the attacking US forces shot the unborn baby in her womb. The troops now say they don’t believe the people they killed were involved in militant activities.”

How evocative, to my generation, at least, of Nazi Germany’s savagery in Poland and other occupied countries in the hideous years of Hitler’s war.

But something else came to my attention, an even graver matter. For while foreign forces in Afghanistan killed some 600 civilians last year, it is likely that many more civilians will die in another country in the near future as a result of indiscriminate attacks ordered by a very strange prime minister.

Much world attention is being given to Pakistan at the moment. Internal security — or lack of it — is alarming, and nobody can say where the next bomb will go off, except the fanatical savages who explode them. I am deeply worried, and have never been so pessimistic about Pakistan’s future.

But this is not the fault of Prime Minister Gilani, who, in spite of being a politician, is a decent man (like his Indian counterpart). As the world’s prime ministers go, he rates pretty high — although admittedly he hasn’t got much of a challenge for top of the pops.

A to Z, they’re a pretty dismal lot. From Australia’s clever but vulgar Kevin Rudd, who enjoys swearing at defenceless female air force sergeants, reducing them to tears (what a grubby little creep), to Zimbabwe’s pathetic and powerless Morgan Tsvangirai, they have as much charm and appeal as a moderately mobile amoeba. Britain’s Gordon Brown is a dreary disaster, and Thailand’s man, Mr Abhasit, was roundly humiliated last week by his inability to prevent demonstrators driving every prime minister from the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations out of his capital. Some were airlifted from the roof of their hotel. How splendid.

But there is a dangerous prime minister. He is Binyamin Netanyahu of Israel, whose scheming resulted in his recent accession to Israel’s highest post. ‘Highest’, because the position of president is entirely ceremonial in Israel (and India); which might be a good idea in some other countries.

Netanyahu is a poisonous reptile whose delight in power is terrifying. He hates Muslims and has indicated his intention to attack Iran. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that “Benjamin Netanyahu laid down a challenge for Barack Obama. The American president, he said, must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons — and quickly — or an imperilled Israel may be forced to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities itself.”

In an unconsciously ironic diatribe, Netanyahu declared “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying…”

Indeed there is an “apocalyptic cult” controlling over 100 nuclear weapons. It is a cult commanded by Binyamin Netanyahu, a psychotic warmonger who also exercises control over US foreign policy. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Washington idolises Netanyahu and is immensely powerful. No US politician dare fall foul of it, and Mr Obama duly bent the knee when he was a candidate for the presidency. And it was AIPAC that got Congress to pass a bill condemning the Palestinians in Gaza for having their hospitals bombed and suffering the deaths of 111 children in January.

The Guardian recorded that two medical assistants in Gaza were “hit by an Israeli tank shell packed with 8,000 flechettes — dart-like nails — as they moved one of three wounded civilians into their ambulance. The patient died instantly; the paramedic died on the way to hospital.” Gallant little Israel.

And Netanyahu complained that the genocidal assault on the Palestinians did not go far enough or last long enough. So much for the Fourth Geneva Convention that stipulates that “parties to the conflict shall endeavour to conclude local agreements for the removal from besieged or encircled areas, of wounded, sick, infirm, and aged persons, and for the passage of ministers of all religions, medical personnel and medical equipment on their way to such areas.”

But humanitarian law appears to mean nothing to the US Congress which immediately expressed “vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of the State of Israel,” and so on, at length.

So what will the US do should Netanyahu attack Iran? It would be impossible for such a strike to be carried out without Washington’s approval, because Israeli aircraft would have to fly through airspace dominated by the US Air Force. The world would then realise that Washington continues “vigorous support” for the kid-killers of Gaza. And countless ordinary citizens would be killed by Israel’s US-supplied cluster bombs, as they were in Lebanon.

Will the world’s most dangerous prime minister be the beneficiary of “unwavering commitment” by the world’s most popular president?

Brian Cloughley’s book about the Pakistan army, War, Coups and Terror, has just been published by Pen & Sword Books (UK) and is distributed in Pakistan by Saeed Book Bank

Guantanamo “Revelation,” Take With a Grain of Salt


Guantanamo detainee claims abuse

Al-Qurani said he has been subjected to ill-treatment almost every day

An inmate in the US prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has told Al Jazeera that he has been beaten while in custody and had tear gas used on him after refusing to leave his cell.

Mohammad al-Qurani, a Chadian national, said in a phone call to Al Jazeera that the alleged ill-treatment “started about 20 days” before Barack Obama became US president and “since then I’ve been subjected to it almost every day”.

“Since Obama took charge he has not shown us that anything will change,” he said.

On his second day in office, Obama ordered the closure of the prison, which has been heavily criticised by rights groups over reports of ill-treatment of detainees.

Obama also signed an order ending the harsh interrogation of prisoners – including the waterboarding technique that causes detainees to feel like they are drowning.

The prison camp was set up by the Bush administration in 2002 to hold prisoners it detained as part of its so-called war on terror.

Several hundred detainees have since been released but more than 240 prisoners remain there, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is suspected of planning the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US.

‘No change’

After being transferred to a different area of the prison for those awaiting release from Guantanamo Bay, al-Qurani was allowed to make phone calls and he called Sami al-Hajj, an Al Jazeera cameraman who spent six years in Guantanamo before being released last year.

Al-Hajj said that while the US did have a new administration, “there has been no change in the administration of Guantanamo”.

“The people managing the detainees there haven’t changed yet. These are the same people who were there during the Bush years and so they use the same methods,” al-Hajj said.

In video
New Guantanamo abuse claim

Sami al-Hajj on Guantanamo abuse

Describing a specific incident, which took place after change in the US administration, al-Qurani said he had refused to leave his cell because they were “not granting me my rights”, such as being able to walk around, interact with other inmates and have “normal food”.

A group of six soldiers wearing protective gear and helmets entered his cell, accompanied by one soldier carrying a camera and one with tear gas, he said.

“They had a thick rubber or plastic baton they beat me with. They emptied out about two canisters of tear gas on me,” he told Al Jazeera.

“After I stopped talking, and tears were flowing from my eyes, I could hardly see or breathe.

“They then beat me again to the ground, one of them held my head and beat it against the ground. I started screaming to his senior ‘see what he’s doing, see what he’s doing’ [but] his senior started laughing and said ‘he’s doing his job’.

“He broke one of my front teeth. Of course they didn’t film the blood, they filmed my back so it doesn’t show.”

Pentagon reaction

Al Jazeera provided detailed information of al-Qurani’s mistreatment claim to the Pentagon and the US justice department but only received a reply from Navy Lt-Cmdr Brook DeWalt, a Guantanamo spokesman.

“I have no record of authenticity of this,” he told Al Jazeera, referring to al-Qurani’s accusations.

In depth

“It is an alleged phone transcript. … We don’t have any evidence supporting or substantiating any of these claims.” Ahmed Ghappour, a lawyer for Reprieve, a human rights group representing some of the Guantanamo Bay detainees, told Al Jazeera last month that conditions at the facility were deteriorating.

“There has been an increase in the number of reported incidents in Camp Five of Guantanamo Bay, that’s one of the isolation camps,” he said.

“I filed at least three sets of complaints since December 22 with the military and each one of those complaints called for an investigation, specified guards by number, specified incidents by dates and I’ve not heard back from a single one of these complaints that I’ve filed.”

Source: Al Jazeera

National Guard on Alert for Violence from TEA Party Protesters?

National Guard on Alert for Violence from TEA Party Protesters?

A reader just sent me a Force Protection Advisory issued by the Maryland National Guard dated April 9, two days after the DHS report. It warns that during the protests that Guardsmen and Guard facilities might become “targets of opportunity.”

There is a list of TEA party protest sites in Maryland included.

WTF? Leftwing protesters might show up at National Guard offices, but rightwing protesters are almost universally pro-military. If any one from the National Guard shows up at the protest in uniform (which they aren’t supposed to do, but hypothetically) I’m betting he’ll have a lot of high-fives, back-slaps, thank-yous, and more than a single offer to buy him a beer.

Oddly, the contact e-mail is for the Antiterrorism Program Coordinator.

One of three things is going on here:

1) There is some intel that the public isn’t aware of connecting extremists to the TEA Party movement.

2) The Maryland National Guard is just being overcautious — perhaps these kinds of memos are sent out for all major protests?

3) Someone somewhere is unable to distinguish between mainstream conservative resentment of Obama’s disastrous economic policies — which the TEA Party movement represents — and fringe conspiracy and supremacist groups.

I’m hoping it’s number 2. In fact, since the recommendations from the memo are that there be no change in alert status, I’m guessing it’s just an over precautionary measure. But it does warn National Guardsmen to stay out of the protest area.

I asked the reader if she got this at another blog and she said she hadn’t but it was given to her by a friend. Apologies if others have this up already, but I’ve been preoccupied with other matters and haven’t been following this closely.

Here’s the text of the memo. I’ve redacted the email from it and the name of the individual who produced the report.

: I just got an email from an old friend who works in government security and he says #2 is right:

Anything that could impact forces – including transiting to/from a base – is included in FPAs. They do them for protests by the left (there was one by animal rights folks protesting pigs being used in military experiments testing damage from roadside bombs) to right (like when the Phelps family showing up to spew their vitriol). All the other stuff in it is boilerplate.

Which kind of backs up my initial feeling about it. So, this is probably just a case of someone knowing a protest was coming up and then adding it to a boilerplate memo.

Possibly bad judgment thinking protesters = kooks, but then again you have to admit most of the time it’s the kooks that come out to protests. Which is why the right has far fewer protests than the left.

Here it is anyway:

HEADQUARTERS, MARYLAND ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 13620 Meuse Argonne Circle Camp Fretterd Military Reservation Reisterstown, Maryland 21136JFHQ-MDARNG-G3 9 April 2009


SUBJECT: Planned TEA Party Protests (FPCON Advisory 09-004)

1. (U) This Maryland Army National Guard (MDARNG) Force Protection advisory is in response to a nationwide planned protest activities scheduled for April 15, 2009. Although there is no known direct threat to MDNG facilities and MDNG members, they may become a target of opportunity during plan protest activities throughout Maryland.
a. (U) USNORTHCOM FPCON baseline for the continental United States, Alaska, and Canada remains unchanged at ALPHA.
b. (U) MDARNG is not recommending a FPCON baseline change at this time.
3. (U//FOUO) SITUATION: Numerous entities have formed recently to express displeasure/anger over recent federal/state government actions: more taxes, increased spending, higher deficits, a surge of borrowing to pay for it all, bailout of the financial institutions, and etc. This movement can be identified by different variations of “TEA Party” or “Tea Party.” Past “TEA Party” events have been peaceful. There was a “Tea party” event at Solomons, Maryland, on March 22, 2009. “TEA” stands for “Taxed Enough Already.”
4. (U) KNOWN LOCATIONS AND EVENTS: According various websites and open source information, planned protest locations and time on April 15 in Maryland are:


Annapolis, 12:00 pm – 2:00 pm, Campbell Park (Dock/Boardwalk), Annapolis Harbor

Baltimore, 3:00 pm – 5:00 pm, The Inner Harbor

Bel Air, 12:00 pm, Bel Air Courthouse Plaza on Main Street

Cecil County, 4:00 pm – 6:00 pm, Elkton Christian Academy, 144 Appleton Road

Frederick, 3:00 pm, City Hall then march to Winchester Hall

Cumberland, 12:00 pm, Baltimore and Mechanic Streets

Havre de Grace, 4:00 pm – 6:00 pm, Tydings Park Gazebo

Salisbury, 4:30 pm – 6:30 pm, Downtown Salisbury

Westminster, 6:30 pm, Legends Cafe off of Route 140 in Westminster

Washington DC, 12:00pm-2:00pm, US Treasury Department – National Stage; 11:00am-3:00pm Lafayette Park – Grassroots Stage (not MD)
a. (U) Full-time personnel (i.e. armories) and recruiters need to be aware their surroundings. Contact local law enforcement when feel threaten by protesters or protesters trespass into MDNG property.
b. (U//FOUO) Commanders at all levels should establish relationship with local police in order to understand the local threats. Keep family members informed. Talk to other service personnel to share information. Practice OPSEC. Don’t provide personal information to anyone you don’t know. Avoid high risk areas.
c. (U//FOUO) Commanders are encouraged to update alert rosters and review emergency evacuation plans/rally points. Ensure all facilities have emergency phone lists posted (i.e. FBI, FIRE, POLICE, HOSPITALS, EMS, ETC…). Be aware of and avoid local protests. Report all potential protest activities to your next higher headquarters.
d. (U//FOUO) Continue implementation of RAM and a review of policies and procedures, especially in regards to cooperation or assistance with local emergency responders.
5. POC is Antiterrorism Program Coordinator, –[redacted- at (410) 702-[redacted] or by e-mail [redacted]

[Redacted LTC author’s name]

Meddlers botched Somalia

Meddlers botched Somalia

The great irony of Somalia, an irony accentuated by the ongoing pirate dramas off its coastal waters, is not that the world intervened too little in that failed state. It is that the world, particularly the United States, intervened too much.

Indeed, for those enthusiasts who want Western troops to fight terrorism everywhere – as well as fix all the social ills in far-off places such as Afghanistan or Darfur – Somalia should act as a warning.

Those who mess about in other people’s countries very often make matters worse for themselves.

The real messing about in Somalia was not the United Nations’ ill-fated military intervention in the early ’90s to deliver food aid. That one, while undertaken for noble reasons, was simply a naive gambit that ignored the tribal complexities of the country.

Foreign forces withdrew after a well-publicized 1993 incident in which a mob of alarmingly ungrateful Somalis dragged the bodies of downed U.S. fighters through the streets of the capital.

After the outsiders left, Somalia returned to the clan wars that had been plaguing it since the collapse of its central government in 1991.

Few in the West paid much attention to Somalia after that. But at the grassroots, something was happening. A small group of fighters, disgusted with the chaos, reached back into the country’s past to revive two institutions that superseded clan divisions – religion and customary tribal law.

Armed with what was literally a law-and-order platform, this Islamic Courts Union took on the warlords. Its methods of justice, resting on a combination of sharia and tribal law, were brutal but effective. Its popularity grew.

But by then, the world was in the post-9/11 era. Washington, seeing all Islamists as evil, quietly had its Central Intelligence Agency back the increasingly unpopular warlords in the Somali civil war.

Nonetheless, the Islamic Courts Union, led by a cleric named Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, won control of the entire country in 2006, forcing the titular but ineffective, UN-backed government into exile.

As the New York Time would later report, for six months Somalia enjoyed its first full period of peace in 15 years.

Even the increasingly troublesome pirates were brought to heel. In November 2006, Islamist government fighters stormed a hijacked foreign ship, freed its captives and arrested the pirates.

“We will not tolerate anyone creating trouble in our waters,” Islamist leader Ahmed announced.

It was too good to last. In early 2007, backed by U.S. air power, Ethiopia invaded to topple Ahmed’s Islamic government (and, incidentally, kidnap Canadian citizen Bashir Makhtal as an alleged terror supporter).

From that invasion came more civil war, more unrest and more piracy. In 2007, the International Maritime Bureau announced that after years of decline, piracy off the Somali coast was soaring. By 2008, Somali pirates were making the front pages of newspapers around the world.

The Ethiopians pulled out this year. They’re sick of Somalia. In the U.S. media, Ahmed, the Islamic cleric that Washington once deposed, is now labelled a moderate. He has just been named president of the (still powerless) UN-backed government.

Meanwhile, civil war still rages. The most powerful anti-government Islamist faction in that war is more brutal and more anti-American that the Islamic Courts Union ever was.

And yes, thanks in large part to the last ill-conceived foreign intervention, piracy is even more of a booming business.

Blackmail In Balochistan

Blackmail In Balochistan

The truth is that the three murdered Pakistani Baloch politicians had become a political liability and a security risk for Brahamdagh Bugti and a threat to his entire infrastructure of terror inside Pakistan. The three had developed a good working relationship with Pakistani security officials during hostage negotiations. Brahamdagh and his handlers knew that the three were in direct contact with Pakistani security officials and could compromise the security of the terrorist activity and the routes of secret funding from across the border and the terrorist hideouts inside Pakistan. The inside story of five days that changed Balochistan, a story of deception, intrigue and espionage.


Tuesday, 14 April 2009.


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—Two distinct sketches are emerging of what happened in Pakistan’s largest province –Balochistan— over the past ten days.

The three murdered Pakistani Baloch political activists were in contact with Pakistani security and intelligence officials during the negotiations to release John Solecki, an American citizen and U.N. official. The three were also in contact with U.S. diplomats, U.N. officials, and with the kidnappers. In fact, the three politicians were considered to be part of the political front of the terrorist-insurgent movement that has its logistical, financial, and military bases in Afghanistan, built with generous funding over the past five years after the American occupation of that country.

So there is no question that Pakistan’s security agencies were in direct contact with the three politicians. Before their murder, the terrorists-separatists did not dare publicize their presence and actions and relied on sporadic violence to spread terror and create media impact. The triple murder changed everything. It gave these separatist and terrorist elements an opportunity for the first time to publicly display their anti-Pakistan activities. In a tribal society like that of the Pakistani Baloch, controlled by a handful of tribal bosses through intimidation, brutality and economic control, the majority succumbed to the terror.

But who murdered the three local politicians?

The following report is based on firsthand information of what transpired between April 4 and April 9, five days that give the clearest insight yet into the wider battle in and around Pakistan.


What is beyond doubt is that Mr. Solecki was kidnapped by terrorists trained and financed by Brahamdagh Bugti, a grandson of the late politician-turned-terrorist Akbar Bugti. [Mr. Bugti was a smalltime village thug who murdered his cousins and relatives, stole their lands and exiled them to other parts of Pakistan. He got lucky when huge reservoirs of natural gas were found in the lands under his forced control. Mr. Bugti received a fortune every year from the federal government as ‘royalty’ for selling the gas. For three decades, his village lived in abject poverty as Mr. Bugti refused to allow the government to build schools or allow the poor villagers to improve their lifestyles. Mr. Bugti spent the money on building and maintaining a small army, a chain of underground prisons and on defending himself against his numerous enemies. After the occupation of Afghanistan, it is believed that the Indians and the Americans sold him on the idea that he could launch a war for an independent country. He apparently received strong guarantees that he will be supported and protected by the United States and India in case of an angry Pakistani reaction, which encouraged him to go to extremes. An advanced insurgency infrastructure complete with printed material in Urdu and English, audio and video tapes and propaganda in local dialects was prepared inside Afghanistan and smuggled to Pakistan. Mr. Bugti launched the war in January 2005, with massive supply of weapons and money. He died almost two years later when his own cousins backed by the Pakistani government stormed into his stronghold and seized their lands and forced him to flee to the mountains.]

Brahamdagh was last sighted in Kabul. Indian intelligence agents posing as diplomats in the Afghan capital are some of his most frequent visitors. The Indian diplomacy and intelligence have been keen since 2002 on finding ways to drive a wedge between Washington and Islamabad. India’s diplomatic actions in this regard are well known but the British and the American media have been silent on growing evidence of Indian covert activities in Afghanistan under an American nod.

One of the earliest Indian actions in Afghanistan after 2002 included acting as a spoiler, poisoning the minds of U.S. military commanders on the ground regarding Pakistan. One of the most common tactics has been to identify and penetrate groups of Afghan resistance fighters and then indirectly goad them into attacking the Americans and leaving behind evidence pointing the finger at Pakistan. Similarly, there have been attacks inside Pakistan where evidence was left behind implicating U.S. intelligence operatives to mislead Pakistani investigators.


One line of thinking in the current Pakistani investigation into the murder of the three politicians is that there is a high probability that the Indians initially encouraged Brahamdagh to kidnap Solecki to add new tensions to the frail Pak-American relationship. That was the original plan. The U.S. media would jump on the story as another example of anti-Americanism in Pakistan and embarrass the Pakistani government and military. The upshot for Brahamdagh would be more international news coverage.

That was apparently the original plan. What Brahamdagh and his handlers did not expect is that the kidnapping would backfire and blow the cover of the terrorists and their links all the way inside Afghanistan.

Rich Akbar Bugti, poor people of his village

Immediately after Solecki’s kidnap, the Pakistani authorities wasted no time in reminding the Americans of the information that Pakistan shared at the highest levels with the United States in July 2008 about Indian activities inside Afghanistan. Adm. Mullen and Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Stephen R. Kappes were shown irrefutable evidence on how the Indians were using Brahamdagh right under the nose of the U.S. military in Afghanistan.

In February 2009, after kidnapping Solecki, Brahamdagh’s men and his backers tried to create the impression that there are many separatist groups backing his cause. The first demand made by the kidnappers was to release Pakistani Baloch women detained by security forces. This turned out to be an outright lie. Prisons in the entire province and other parts of Pakistan were checked and it was confirmed there was not a single Pakistani Baloch woman in jail or detention. No one had registered any case of missing Pakistani Baloch women as the separatist propaganda from Afghanistan alleged. The elected provincial government of Balochistan, which is considered to be sympathetic to the separatist tribal chiefs including Brahamdagh, was allowed access to all parts of the Pakistani security establishment – civilian and military – to ascertain this fact. This proved a blessing in disguise. One of the most lethal propaganda tools exploited by Brahamdagh Bugti and his backers was proven false.

In the initial days after Solecki’s kidnapping, some of the Baloch tribal chieftains sympathetic to Brahamdagh and his grandfather [and equally corrupt and tyrannical like him] tried to mislead Washington and the U.N. against Pakistan by suggesting that Pakistani intelligence agencies were behind the kidnapping of Solecki.

But the Pakistani government moved quickly to turn the tables on the terrorists and their Afghan-based masters.

On Feb. 27, 2009, Frontier Corps Chief Maj. Gen. Saleem Nawaz told reporters in Quetta that all the four major separatist groups that release statements to the media don’t even exist. “Organizations like the Balochistan Liberation United Front, the Baloch Liberation Army, the Baloch Republican Party, and the Baloch Republican Army are one and the same. Brahamdagh Bugti is behind these organizations,” he said. Brahamdagh is involved in a series of kidnappings, targeted killings, sabotage and attacks on forces and installations in different parts of the province.”

None of these groups existed before the Americans came to Afghanistan in 2001.

Terrorist Brahamdagh Bugti: An Indian asset working from US-controlled Afghanistan.

So the writing was clear on the wall for the Pakistanis, the United Nations and the United States that the Indians at some level were involved in kidnapping Mr. Solecki through Brahamdagh Bugti and their recruits inside Pakistan and that individuals based in U.S.-run Afghanistan issued the orders for the kidnap.

But did Pakistani intelligence agencies kill the three politicians who helped release Solecki?

Why The Three Were Killed

Terrorist Brahamdagh Bugti: An Indian asset working from US-run Afghanistan

The timeline here is very important:

  1. 4 April 2009: Mr. Solecki is released by the terrorists after receiving a huge payment worth several million dollars.

  1. 6-7 April 2009: Mr. Richard Holbrooke receives the biggest cold shoulder any senior U.S. official has received on Pakistani soil since 9/11.

  1. 9 April 2009: The mutilated bodies of the three politicians are found dumped in a public area.

Pakistani police, security and intelligence organizations are not beginners in their fields. Even if any one of them were to kill the three activists, no one would have dumped the bodies in full public view and certainly never after a high profile hostage negotiation involving the three murdered activists where they also interacted with U.N. and U.S. officials.

The truth is that the three murdered Pakistani Baloch politicians had become a political liability and a security risk for Brahamdagh Bugti and a threat to his entire infrastructure of terror inside Pakistan. The three had developed a good working relationship with Pakistani security officials during hostage negotiations. Brahamdagh and his handlers knew that the three were in direct contact with Pakistani security officials and could compromise the security of the terrorist activity and the routes of secret funding from across the border and the terrorist hideouts inside Pakistan.

Mounting evidence indicates that Brahamdagh or his handlers in Afghanistan ordered the elimination of the three Baloch politicians. The triple murder has clearly served the interest of the separatists-terrorists and their backers. The Pakistani state has been a net loser.


After Mr. Holbrooke’s failed visit to Pakistan on April 6 and 7, three things happened in fast succession.

One, Britain discovered a “very big” terrorist plot, as a British police officer described it, involving 12 Pakistani students. The British Prime Minister immediately telephoned President Zardari and threw his usual line about Pakistan needing to do more in the war against terror. The interesting part is that the Brits failed to offer any evidence to support the existence of the “very big” terrorist plot. Knowing that the charge won’t stick in the courts, London announced it was arbitrarily deporting the students.

At the same time, Indian prime minister made the startling announcement that the Afghan Taliban, who have never operated outside their country, were planning to bomb Indian elections. Again, no evidence whatsoever.

Pakistani officials smelled a rat in both of these statements coming from two close allies of the United States.

These statements, and the dramatic terrorism in Pakistan’s Balochistan province, came immediately after the dressing down that Mr. Holbrooke received in Pakistan.

Could there be an American connection to the disturbances in Balochistan in addition to the Indian connection? The answer, in my view, is yes. Balochistan has U.S. military bases dating back to 2001. Washington has been opposed to China constructing the Gwadar sea port in the province overlooking the Gulf oil supply lines. And CIA is using Pakistani Balochistan to infiltrate the Iranian province of Sistan-Balochistan and ignite a Sunni rebellion there against Iran’s religious Shia regime.

Within hours of the news that the bodies of the three Pakistani politicians were found near the Iran border, and while separatists and terrorists exploited the story to ignite violence and destroy public property, the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad released a press statement that appeared to pour fuel on fire and give the impression that Pakistan was somehow responsible for killing its own three politicians. The statement was also a blatant interference in an internal Pakistani issue where the U.S. diplomats had no business sticking their noses.

Encouraged by this unexpected support from the U.S. Embassy, some of the opportunist tribal chiefs in Balochistan who are supporting terrorism were emboldened to demand a U.N. probe, scoring a cheap point against Pakistan and implying that the state was involved in the murders.


Feudal chiefs in Pakistan, whether in Balochistan or Punjab, Sindh, and NWFP, have traditionally been protégés of the British colonial rule. While there are bright exceptions of Pakistani nationalism by some of the feudal gentry, the majority damaged the interests of Pakistan over the longer run and has generally shown little commitment or a sense of nationalism and destiny with regards to the homeland.

For the short term, Pakistan needs to register murder cases against Brahamdagh Bugti and other terrorists. They should be charged of murdering the poor Pakistani Baloch driver who accompanied Mr. John Solecki’s. The driver was killed in cold blood by Brahamdagh’s terrorists.

The issue of Balochistan is part of a wider problem facing a failed Pakistani political system led by failed feudal politicians. This system needs to be changed and de-politicized to focus on economic development and providing opportunities to Pakistani citizens.

Ethnic-based provinces need to be abolished and existing districts converted into provinces with their own directly elected governors and local parliaments and development budgets. This way Pakistani politics will be localized and prevented from becoming a source of constant headache and destabilization for the state.

This change cannot come through democracy and requires a period of technocratic government backed by the military in the background and tasked with strictly executing a list of urgent political and administrative reforms.

The U.S. is clearly working against Pakistan’s vital security and economic interests in the region. Islamabad should declare Washington’s occupation of Afghanistan as illegal and advise the U.S. to desist from using Afghan soil to destabilize neighboring countries. Pakistan needs to immediately distance itself from the messy American agenda in Afghanistan that is fast turning Pakistan into a war zone. Islamabad should also confront the Americans and the Indians with the evidence that both are exporting terrorism into Pakistan and fostering insurgencies using the Afghan soil. Let the world know what the Americans and their Anglo-Indian poodles are doing in the region.

© 2007-2009. All rights reserved. & PakNationalists