New Iranian Blog, mywebloge–Here’s Wishing Them Luck


Hello, Mrs. Clinton

April 8, 2010 by mywebloge

I am a young twenty-two years old I am Iranian. Sorry to take time by.

Your country and our country are the enemy of each other. A not be denied. Of course it is not got every single country, our people are your enemy and vice versa. If you hate ask why certain issues such as embassy staff hostage in America and if you will refer this question Mabprsnd response issues, such as involvement in the coup against Mossadegh, the Iranian nation distraint in your country, interference Nojeh coup, helping the Iraqi war with Iran and … We’ll say.

But Mrs. Clinton; We are a nation that once had one of the few great civilizations were born. We are a nation that we were in the shadow of the teachings of Islam reached the peaks of knowledge, but we have neglected for some time and several hundred years that this neglect to pay compensation. From Masrman tell you: two centuries that the king is ruling Iran that property in our nation and they ruin their fun by giving different privileges to foreigners, including English on their own, adding convenience and people living in difficult said. Moreover, beliefs and convictions of people knew little value and it did not work. People of our country to revolution. Theoretical concepts were revolutionary for their faith to bring action scenes. Revolution to the king to Prince to stop them from their country.

But your country is not only the way we fight alone, but through various stopped in front of our nation.

By the way Mrs. Clinton! . Your events after the presidential elections in Iran are all well aware. So perhaps seem that you and the United States didnot play a role in these events, but your country’s annual budget row that the Senate passes it, the money Yklany for Iran’s ruling regime’s opponents can devote.

Anywhere in the world that is war and internal conflict is, when we see a good analysis of where you have interference; in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Venezuela, and …

Mrs. Clinton, because not leave nations to determine their own destiny?

These are not new words, and I know that. But I dont  know why It is interesting that in countries where the benefits you provide in the context of democracy bitter events happening in your country, but two political groups (three groups that can not be!) Why are not plotting against each other, never against do they work? Please do not say that our country is deep-rooted democracy.

I hope someday to reach that peace everywhere and among all nations will attend. That day is not too late.

Hamed Khosrowshahi Iran.


India under the Carpet Hits Back

India under the Carpet Hits Back

By B. Raman

There are two Indians.

The dazzling India which we see every day on our TV channels, in the spins of our political leaders and in the writings of our so-called strategic analysts. This is the India which, according to them, is moving rapidly forward to take up its position as a world power, which is courted by the other nations of the world.

But there is another India which we rarely see or write about. This is the India of grinding poverty—- a victim of social exploitation of the worst kind, where the inhabitants—mainly tribals— are treated like chattels and domestic animals by the upper caste political leaders, landlords and forest contractors.

We rarely see India of negative images because it has been sought to be pushed under the carpet by the dazzling India, which feels embarrassed to admit to the world that such an India exists 63 years after independence.

It is this India kept pushed under the carpet, which has managed to struggle its way out from under the carpet and is hitting out with ferocity at all its perceived exploiters—- whether in the Government or in the society.

It is this India coming out from under the carpet, which is flocking to the banners of the Maoist ideologues and taking to arms against the Government and its social exploiters. For it, the Government is not of the people, by the people and for the people, but of the exploiters, by the exploiters and for the exploiters.

Unless we have the moral courage to admit this harsh reality we are going to see more and more incidents of utter savagery as we saw on April 6, 2010, in the Dantewada district of Chattisgarh where a group of Maoists —estimated at between 300 and 1000— ambushed and butchered about 75 members of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), who had gone into the jungles for counter-insurgency operations.

This is not the first incident of butchery of the security forces in the history of our counter-insurgency operations. This will  not be the last unless and until we realize that counter-insurgency is not only about putting down violence against the State and Society, but also about making resort to violence unnecessary by addressing the problems and grievances of the tribals.

It would be very easy to dismiss the Maoist insurgency as the political manipulation of illiterate or semi-literate tribals by Maoist ideologues from cities to achieve political power through the barrel of the gun. Yes, there is an element of cynical political manipulation of the tribals by many city-bred Maoist ideologues.

But the claim of political manipulation alone cannot explain how hundreds and hundreds of tribals are flocking to the banners of the Maoists. Intense anger over the failures of successive Governments to recognize and address their problems are driving them to heed the calls of the ideologues to massacre their perceived class enemies.

Unless and until we have a two-pronged approach to the problem—better counter-insurgency to put down violence and better governance and administration to remove the exploitation of the tribals by the non-tribals and improve their quality of life, blood will continue to flow in the jungles and roads of the tribal homelands in Central India.

Tribal India had always posed law and order problems. The tribal homelands in the North-East did so when Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi were Prime Ministers. They put down the Chinese and Pakistani supported tribal insurgency in the North-East with a firm hand. At the same time, they interacted vigorously with the tribal people and addressed their problems in an attempt to wean them away from violence. Nehru started a special service called the Indian Frontier Administration Service (IFAS) and inducted the best officers from other services into it to improve governance in the tribal areas not only in the North-East, but also in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands. They were always ready for a dialogue with the tribal leaders—even with those who had taken to arms against the State.

They addressed poverty and social injustice not only in the tribal areas, but also in  the rest of the country. Indira Gandhi used to start her day every day by mingling with poor and exploited people outside her residence and listening to their tales of woe. Her shoulders were always available to the poor and exploited to rest their head on and cry.

After Rajiv Gandhi, we have had a succession of Prime Ministers without a human touch in governance and administration in the tribal areas. They tend to look upon the tribal revolt in Central India as purely a problem of law and order, but not also as a problem with human dimensions.

The Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh is rarely seen or heard. He hardly ever mingles with the poor and downtrodden in the tribal belt of Central India. He deals with the tribal belt of Central India in the same way as the Pakistani leaders deal with the tribals of the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)—- as mainly a problem to be tackled by the security forces as if the political class has no responsibility for leadership.

There is hardly a medium and long-term strategy — with a judicious mix of the law and order and hearts and minds dimensions. All new ideas on counter-insurgency coming up are about how to make the security forces more effective. It is important for them to be effective. But it is equally—if not more—important for the political leadership to be seen by the tribals as caring and sensitive to their anger and bitterness towards their exploiters.

The time has come for the Prime Minister to take up in his hands the responsibility for working out a comprehensive political, operational and human strategy for dealing with the problems of the tribal homelands in Central India

If we continue to dither as we are doing now, Mao Zedong may have his last laugh in India. 

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail:

Blackwater Clone Embedded in FATA, Allegedly Fighting Opium Production

DynCorp to stay on for anti-narcotics Ops in Pakistan: US

* Assistant secretary David Johnson appreciates Pakistani authorities’ measures to combat drug trafficking

By Irfan Ghauri

ISLAMABAD: DynCorp International will continue to provide maintenance facilities at the Interior Ministry’s Air Wing in Balochistan and does not plan to terminate its contract with the organisation, said David T Johnson, assistant secretary of the US Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs.

Johnson told reporters on Wednesday that under an agreement, an anti-narcotics chopper surveillance squad was set up in Quetta in 2002 by the Interior Ministry with US assistance, which includes 14 Huey II helicopters and three Cessna Caravan aircraft. To a question, he disclosed that the Pakistan and US governments had agreed to carry out the maintenance of these helicopters for which Washington had engaged DynCorp.

Regarding Islamabad’s reservations over the presence of DynCorp officials, Johnson clarified that Washington was not considering changing them in the near future.

Drug trafficking: He appreciated the efforts of Pakistan’s law enforcement agencies for taking effective measures against drug-trafficking and poppy cultivation, saying poppy still continues to be cultivated at a small scale in FATA due to the poor law and order situation there.

“There are some very small areas in Pakistan where poppy is still being cultivated, but these are relatively very small,” he added.

Johnson said the US is working on a $150-million programme against drug trafficking with the cooperation of Pakistan’s anti-narcotics forces.

He said over 93 percent of the poppy used around the world was being supplied from Afghanistan, adding that Pakistan’s share in the drug’s supply was very low.

On achieving a “poppy-free” status for Pakistan, Johnson said it depended on how soon the law enforcement agencies could regain control of the areas where an anti-terror operation was going on.

The US assistant secretary said political will could play an important role in achieving a “poppy-free” status for Pakistan. He agreed that money earned through drug trafficking was being used to fund terrorist activities, adding that there was a need to keep a check on this type of income.

Acknowledging the processing of cases against drug traffickers, he said the rate of conviction in drug cases in Pakistan is very high. He, however, emphasised the need for scientific methods and explanations to examine evidence in drug cases to punish those responsible.

Highlighting other features of Pak-US cooperation against narcotics, Johnson said it had resulted in completion of 200 outposts in the NWFP and FATA, benefiting the Frontier Corps, Frontier Constabulary and Levies Force. He said the US had also been providing assistance and cooperation to Pakistan’s law enforcement agencies to cope with drug trafficking.

Indian Muslim scholars accuse LT of conspiring against Islam

A Pakistani police officer escorts Hafiz Mohammad Saeed outside his residence in Lahore late on Monday night.

Indian Muslim scholars accuse LT of conspiring against Islam

By Iftikhar Gilani

NEW DELHI: Indian Ahl-e-Hadees scholars accused their ideological peers in Pakistan on Wednesday – the banned Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LT) group and its parent body, Markaz Dawa al-Irshad – of being part of a global conspiracy against Islam. “We believe Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the LT chief, is a khawarij (rebel) and needs to be punished under the law,” declared Maulana Asghar Ali Imam Mehdi Salfi, secretary general of the Markazi Jamiat-e-Ahl-e-Hadees.

The Ahl-e-Hadees sect is often criticised for sharing its ideology with the LT or Dawa al Irshad, headed by Hafiz Saeed. Clarifying his stance, Maulana Salfi said both Hafiz Saeed and the Taliban were part of an international conspiracy. He called these groups marauders and said their struggle was nowhere near jihad. He questioned why these groups did not oppress America when they had aligned with it to fight against the Soviet Union?

Claiming that a majority of Ahl-e-Hadees followers in Pakistan were also “up in arms” against Hafiz Saeed for taking over their mosques and establishments, Maulana Salfi said Islam does not endorse extremism. Maintaining that bomb blasts and suicide attacks were forbidden in Islam, he said there was no justification whatsoever for such acts of terrorism and wanton killings.

Quoting a mutual edict of 36 Ahl-e-Hadees scholars, Maulana Salfi said such acts of violence were more critical than robbery. He, however, said a full and fair investigation was imperative under judicial supervision to ensure that innocent people were not punished in the name of terrorism.

Maulana Salfi said the khawarij, who first emerged in the late seventh century AD, also observed all Islamic tenants strictly, but actually created waywardness and rebellion. “Islam does not believe in extremes,” he added.

A Dangerous Reliance on Defense Contractors

A Dangerous Reliance on Defense Contractors

Has the Obama Administration Failed to Learn from Its Predecessor’s Mistakes?

Blackwater security contractors are seen inside a helicopter above central Baghdad, Iraq.

SOURCE: AP/Khalid Mohammed

By Sean Duggan

The Bush administration spent the better part of a decade refusing to face up to the manpower implications of its open-ended commitment of forces—particularly in Iraq. And because they didn’t have the courage of their convictions to reinstitute the draft, they were forced to take three disastrous steps: active duty forces have been deployed and redeployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan without sufficient dwell time; the National Guard and Reserve have been transformed from a strategic to an operational reserve, alternating deployments with active forces; and private contractors have been tasked with filling in the gaps, often taking on missions traditionally reserved for uniformed forces.

The disastrous consequences of this final step—the widespread use of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan—are already widely known. Indeed, the incidents that were arguably the most detrimental to the U.S. mission in both countries involved contractors, from the torture at Abu Ghraib and Bagram Air Base to the indiscriminate shootings at Nisour Square in Baghdad in 2007.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has not fully learned from its predecessor’s mistakes. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced late last month that the Pentagon will begin an internal investigation into the Defense Department’s broader efforts to fund information operations. The inquiry was prompted by a contract funded by the Defense Department that allegedly set up a network of private contractors in Afghanistan to help track and kill suspected militants.

Revelations of similar contracts under the Bush administration have not been uncommon, but these new allegations demonstrate the Obama administration’s disconcerting willingness (or acquiescence) to continue its predecessor’s reliance on private contractors to execute wartime operations traditionally carried out only by U.S. special forces, intelligence agencies, and the State Department. Equally troubling is the clear lack of oversight over the ballooning DOD-wide information operations budget despite numerous instances of flagrant contractor abuse in the recent past.

The scale of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan require the United States to employ contractors in logistical and on-base functions such as supply and equipment delivery or food preparation services. But the Obama administration must make a clean break from the Bush administration’s overreliance on private contractors to conduct security and intelligence missions in combat zones.

The New York Times broke the story in mid-March that a senior civilian Defense Department employee, Michael Furlong, had inappropriately used $25 million “from the Pentagon’s program against roadside bombs to hire private contractors to gather information on suspected insurgents in Afghanistan—activities that Furlong says were authorized by top U.S. military commanders.” Furlong allegedly hired former Special Forces and intelligence personnel to undertake surveillance on potential targets in both countries—an act that is generally considered illegal when carried out by civilian personnel.

Perhaps such instances of abuse were inevitable given the dramatic increase in funding for Department of Defense-wide information operations in the past several years, particularly within the Central Command area of operations. Funding for such operations in that theater (which includes Iraq and Afghanistan) increased from $40 million in 2008 to $110 million in 2009 to a requested $244 million in 2010. And overall information operations throughout DOD in fiscal year 2010 amounted to over $528 million. Funds under this broad category have been used to finance news articles, billboards, radio and television programs, and even public opinion polls in several countries.

The high-level priority that the Pentagon’s civilian and military leaders have placed on such operations has created an atmosphere of virtually unconstrained funding in which abuses were bound to occur. In fact, when Congress pressed the Pentagon to report the total amount budgeted for information operations—or strategic communications as they are frequently called—across all services and commands late last year, Secretary Gates “found that no one could say because there was no central coordination.” This realization prompted “multiple studies” in late 2009 that were aimed at getting a better understanding of individual services’ plans for strategic communications this year. It is unclear whether the Furlong program was discovered under one of these studies or through other avenues.

The current administration is wisely following Obama’s campaign commitment to redeploy out of Iraq, which will ease the enormous strain placed on the men and women of our armed forces over the last seven years. But this latest episode reveals that it has yet to fully reverse the dangerous U.S. dependence on private contractors.

Sean E. Duggan is a research associate at the Center for American Progress.

Legalizing and Taxing Opium Production the Answer In Afghanistan?

Obama adopts Bush’s losing strategy in Afghanistan
Raymond Richman, 4/7/2010

[co-authored with Howard Richman]

Do we want to win the war against Al Qaida, which is winnable, or fight a war on drugs that cannot be won? We won the war in a blitzkrieg in Afghanistan in 2002 with the help of a people that welcomed us as liberators. We drove the little that remained of the Taliban army out of Afghanistan. The Taliban had ceased to be an organized force.

Why were we welcomed in the Afghan countryside as liberators? The Taliban were hated in the countryside because their religious leaders banned the cultivation of the opium poppy in 2000, a disaster for the Afghan farmers whose chief crop was the poppy.

But after the victory, President Bush made a huge mistake. In order to keep our troops occupied, he began a moral crusade against opium, urging the farmers to grow other products. What nonsense as it turned out! We destroyed their crops of poppy where we could. The resurging Taliban offered them protection to continue growing poppies, the chief cash crop of Afghanistan, and, as a result, regained power over the Afghanistan countryside.

On October 26, 2009, while President Obama was determining his Afghanistan policy, we wrote a commentary, published by Enter Stage Right, which urged him not to repeat Bush’s mistakes. We wrote:

Have we lost the war? Probably. Can we win it? Perhaps. We would have to declare that we shall no longer interfere with the cultivation of poppy in Afghanistan. To show we are serious, we should encourage the Afghan government to legalize the cultivation of poppy. It should tax poppies and opium as the Taliban have been doing. And to do it right, we ought to legalize drugs in the U.S. as well.

Let us recognize the fact that prohibition did not work with alcohol and has not worked with cocaine, marijuana, or heroin. Instead of wasting money as we have been doing for decades, we shall gain revenues instead. We shall gain friends instead of making enemies abroad as we have been doing.

We believe the war against the Taliban and al-Qaida is unwinnable as long as the drug war continues in Afghanistan.

But President Obama decided to continue President Bush’s losing crusade against opium. He attacked Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai, with whom we were allied, for not joining the U.S. war against the Afghanistan farmer. Here’s a selection from an April 7 commentary by Tony Blankley detailing Obama’s attacks against Karzai:

(A)bout five months ago, the New York Times also reported that Mr. Obama “admonished President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan that he must take on what American officials have said he avoided during his first term: the rampant corruption and drug trade that have fueled the resurgence of the Taliban.”…

(B)y first hesitating to support Mr. Karzai, then saying we will support him — but only for 18 months, then publicly admonishing him to end the endemic corruption, then leaking the fact that his own brother is a major drug smuggler, we have undermined and infuriated him, without whom we cannot succeed in Afghanistan….

Blankley doesn’t agree with our conclusion that President Bush and President Obama’s crusades against opium in Afghanistan have been a mistake. Instead, he urges Obama to depose Karzai in order to secure a compliant puppet government in Kabul. In other words, he wants to repeat President Kennedy’s mistake when he deposed Ngo Dinh Diem, the President of South Vietnam, destroying the credibility of the South Vietnamese government with whom we were allied.

George Santayana once said, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” That pretty much sums up Obama’s Afghanistan policy.

Pakistan seen as a key to Afghan conundrum

Pakistan seen as a key to Afghan conundrum

The main objective of USA to occupy Afghanistan in November 2001 was to break the myth that Afghanistan is unconquerable, tame the Afghans and convert it into a permanent military base for the realization of its regional and global ambitions. After eight years of fighting the sole aim of the US is how to pullout its forces from self created Afghan quagmire safely and honorably.

Till 9/11, India taking advantage of its relationship with USA, painted Pakistan as a failed state, abettor of cross border terrorism in occupied Kashmir and involved in manufacturing an Islamic bomb. The US obliged India partly by placing Pakistan in the watch list of countries suspected of indulging in terrorism and keeping it under harsh sanctions.

9/11 helped India achieve what it could never have in normal course. New rules on global terrorism framed by USA and doctrine of pre-emption and shock and awe conceived by George W. Bush Administration helped India to convert Kashmir freedom struggle into terrorism, brand Pakistan as an extremist state indulging in international terrorism and in nuclear proliferation. Pakistan’s nuclear capability was projected as a threat to world peace. The US helped India in regaining and expanding its influence in Afghanistan to be able to encircle Pakistan and to put into operation the devised game plan.

Themes of extremism, terrorism and nuclear proliferation appealed to the jittery senses of western audience fearful of Islamists and also fitted into the policy framework of new rules injected in New World Order in which Islam figured as the chief threat to US imperialism and capitalist oriented international order. There was clear cut mutuality of interests between the four strategic partners USA, UK, Israel and India. Pakistan did not fit into George Bush doctrine but was accepted as a tactical coalition partner on condition of taking upon itself the most hazardous task of frontline state. It was to be kept within the loop till the realization of US short term gains and then dropped like a hot potato at an opportune time.

Although the ground situation made it crystal clear that Pakistan had been turned from an ally into a target from 2005 onwards, our short-vision leaders infatuated with friendship of US and India ignored repeated warnings of saner elements and  kept pursuing US agenda under the false hope that such a recourse would be beneficial for Pakistan. They received the whips without a whimper and shut their eyes to Indian ingresses into Pakistan merely to remain in their good books. As a consequence, flames of terrorism engulfed each and every part of Pakistan and caused colossal human and material losses.

To the utter bad luck of people of Pakistan, even the new leaders whom they had elected with fond hopes brought no change in the highly damaging policies. They too took no notice of the deadly game of our adversaries’, hell bent to destabilize, denuclearize and balkanize Pakistan and continued to follow the dictates of US energetically. Already reeling under the impact of fruitless war on terror, Pakistan’s position became more fragile when its economy collapsed and the country fell into the clasp of IMF.

I have not an iota of doubt that the US gave all out support to India and would have continued to support its filibustering, blackmailing tactics and covert operations till the accomplishment of laid down sinister objectives against Pakistan had the security situation in Afghanistan not spun out of control and US economy nosedived radically making the stay of  coalition forces dangerous. Afghanistan became the proverbial Achilles heel of USA and military defeat at the hands of rag tag Taliban became a reality.

Decision to withdraw from Afghanistan starting mid July 2011 and to gradually hand over security responsibilities to Afghan security forces was a tough one. Extremely bitter pill was swallowed by Obama only when he found out that monster of terrorism had become so powerful that it could become a catalyst for downfall of US Empire. The US-NATO military commanders operating in Afghanistan had realized much earlier that they were fighting a losing battle and reliance on military force was no more a viable option. They were dissatisfied with the performance of Afghan National Army (ANA). Another factor that worried them was the glumness and disheartenment that set in among foreign troops deployed in Afghanistan and 80% increase in desertion rate since 2003.

Their desire for a political solution to Afghan imbroglio and early exit based on realistic appraisal compelled Obama to take the decision which brought some relief to the world in general but caused immense heart burns to India, Israel, Karzai regime and hawks within US corridors of power. Troop surge was meant to enable Gen McChrystal to win some tactical battles in southern and eastern Afghanistan and place USA in better bargaining position by mid 2011. It was also meant to put extra pressure on Pakistan to deal with Al-Qaeda, Quetta Shura and Haqqani network more effectively since in US view the tide in Afghanistan couldn’t be changed in its favor without dismantling Pakistan based bases.

In contrast to poor showing of ISAF, Pakistan military had performed exceptionally well against more well equipped and well entrenched militants in Malakand Division, Swat, South Waziristan and Bajaur duly supported by foreign agencies. Its outstanding achievements helped in raising its image in the eyes of US military and NATO very high.

It also enabled Gen Kayani to remind Washington that 148000 troops were deployed in the northwest as against nearly 100,000 coalition troops from 43 countries and that for the time being his troops could stretch no further. He refused to give in to US demand to further thin out troops from its eastern border and start another operation in North Waziristan on the silly plea that India posed no threat. The US was also told that Pakistan’s gains were much more and sacrifices much larger than anyone else and hence do more demand was no more applicable to Pakistan. The US was clearly informed that increased Indian military presence in Afghanistan was a cause of concern and unacceptable.

Once USA, India, Karzai regime, Saudi Arabia and the UN failed in breaking the alignment between al-Qaeda and Taliban and in dividing Taliban, a hard reality stared in the face of US military that given the resurging power of Taliban-Haqqani network-Gulbadin Hikmatyar-alQaeda nexus and lack of commitment among coalition soldiers and ANA; resistance forces would make the pullout of coalition troops very costly. Carrying out an in-house appraisal, US policy makers had to grudgingly admit that Pakistan was a key to Afghan conundrum and the only country that could help USA in its withdrawal, possibly on a triumphant note. Changed geo-strategic realities coupled with altered perceptions have transformed Pakistan from a pariah state into a most sought state.

There is now a marked change in the attitude of US officials compared with the hawkish and demeaning attitude of US officials against Pakistan which they had adopted for so many years. Transformation from haughtiness to affability led to holding of strategic dialogue in Washington in the last week of March. The hosts were extremely respectful, affectionate, responsive and accommodating; on no occasion any American official tried to be nasty. Laudatory phrases were on the lips of all and so were the promises for a mutually beneficial long lasting relationship. For the first time the hosts refrained from singing nauseating mantra of ‘do more’ since they knew that it was their time to payback. Even US media remained in check. The superstar on whom the spotlight remained focused was Gen Ashfaq Kayani. Pakistan’s pivotal position in Afghan affairs has been re-emphasized and ground is being paved to bridge trust deficit and remove some if not all grievances.