The American War Moves To Pakistan

[BanglaBhoot]

By Tariq Ali

17 September, 2008

TomDispatch.com

The decision to make public a presidential order of last July authorizing American strikes inside Pakistan without seeking the approval of the Pakistani government ends a long debate within, and on the periphery of, the Bush administration. Senator Barack Obama, aware of this ongoing debate during his own long battle with Hillary Clinton, tried to outflank her by supporting a policy of U.S. strikes into Pakistan. Senator John McCain and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin have now echoed this view and so it has become, by consensus, official U.S. policy.

Its effects on Pakistan could be catastrophic, creating a severe crisis within the army and in the country at large. The overwhelming majority of Pakistanis are opposed to the U.S. presence in the region, viewing it as the most serious threat to peace.

Why, then, has the U.S. decided to destabilize a crucial ally? Within Pakistan, some analysts argue that this is a carefully coordinated move to weaken the Pakistani state yet further by creating a crisis that extends way beyond the badlands on the frontier with Afghanistan. Its ultimate aim, they claim, would be the extraction of the Pakistani military's nuclear fangs. If this were the case, it would imply that Washington was indeed determined to break up the Pakistani state, since the country would very simply not survive a disaster on that scale.

In my view, however, the expansion of the war relates far more to the Bush administration's disastrous occupation in Afghanistan. It is hardly a secret that the regime of President Hamid Karzai is becoming more isolated with each passing day, as Taliban guerrillas move ever closer to Kabul.

When in doubt, escalate the war is an old imperial motto. The strikes against Pakistan represent -- like the decisions of President Richard Nixon and his National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger to bomb and then invade Cambodia (acts that, in the end, empowered Pol Pot and his monsters) -- a desperate bid to salvage a war that was never good, but has now gone badly wrong.

It is true that those resisting the NATO occupation cross the Pakistan-Afghan border with ease. However, the U.S. has often engaged in quiet negotiations with them. Several feelers have been put out to the Taliban in Pakistan, while U.S. intelligence experts regularly check into the Serena Hotel in Swat to discuss possibilities with Mullah Fazlullah, a local pro-Taliban leader. The same is true inside Afghanistan.

After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, a whole layer of the Taliban's middle-level leadership crossed the border into Pakistan to regroup and plan for what lay ahead. By 2003, their guerrilla factions were starting to harass the occupying forces in Afghanistan and, during 2004, they began to be joined by a new generation of local recruits, by no means all jihadists, who were being radicalized by the occupation itself.

Though, in the world of the Western media, the Taliban has been entirely conflated with al-Qaeda, most of their supporters are, in fact, driven by quite local concerns. If NATO and the U.S. were to leave Afghanistan, their political evolution would most likely parallel that of Pakistan's domesticated Islamists.

The neo-Taliban now control at least twenty Afghan districts in Kandahar, Helmand, and Uruzgan provinces. It is hardly a secret that many officials in these zones are closet supporters of the guerrilla fighters. Though often characterized as a rural jacquerie they have won significant support in southern towns and they even led a Tet-style offensive in Kandahar in 2006. Elsewhere, mullahs who had initially supported President Karzai's allies are now railing against the foreigners and the government in Kabul. For the first time, calls for jihad against the occupation are even being heard in the non-Pashtun northeast border provinces of Takhar and Badakhshan.

The neo-Taliban have said that they will not join any government until "the foreigners" have left their country, which raises the question of the strategic aims of the United States. Is it the case, as NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer suggested to an audience at the Brookings Institution earlier this year, that the war in Afghanistan has little to do with spreading good governance in Afghanistan or even destroying the remnants of al-Qaeda? Is it part of a master plan, as outlined by a strategist in NATO Review in the Winter of 2005, to expand the focus of NATO from the Euro-Atlantic zone, because "in the 21st century NATO must become an alliance… designed to project systemic stability beyond its borders"?

As that strategist went on to write:


"The centre of gravity of power on this planet is moving inexorably eastward. As it does, the nature of power itself is changing. The Asia-Pacific region brings much that is dynamic and positive to this world, but as yet the rapid change therein is neither stable nor embedded in stable institutions. Until this is achieved, it is the strategic responsibility of Europeans and North Americans, and the institutions they have built, to lead the way… ecurity effectiveness in such a world is impossible without both legitimacy and capability."

Such a strategy implies a permanent military presence on the borders of both China and Iran. Given that this is unacceptable to most Pakistanis and Afghans, it will only create a state of permanent mayhem in the region, resulting in ever more violence and terror, as well as heightened support for jihadi extremism, which, in turn, will but further stretch an already over-extended empire.

Globalizers often speak as though U.S. hegemony and the spread of capitalism were the same thing. This was certainly the case during the Cold War, but the twin aims of yesteryear now stand in something closer to an inverse relationship. For, in certain ways, it is the very spread of capitalism that is gradually eroding U.S. hegemony in the world. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's triumph in Georgia was a dramatic signal of this fact. The American push into the Greater Middle East in recent years, designed to demonstrate Washington's primacy over the Eurasian powers, has descended into remarkable chaos, necessitating support from the very powers it was meant to put on notice.

Pakistan's new, indirectly elected President, Asif Zardari, the husband of the assassinated Benazir Bhutto and a Pakistani "godfather" of the first order, indicated his support for U.S. strategy by inviting Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai to attend his inauguration, the only foreign leader to do so. Twinning himself with a discredited satrap in Kabul may have impressed some in Washington, but it only further decreased support for the widower Bhutto in his own country.

The key in Pakistan, as always, is the army. If the already heightened U.S. raids inside the country continue to escalate, the much-vaunted unity of the military High Command might come under real strain. At a meeting of corps commanders in Rawalpindi on September 12th, Pakistani Chief of Staff General Ashfaq Kayani received unanimous support for his relatively mild public denunciation of the recent U.S. strikes inside Pakistan in which he said the country's borders and sovereignty would be defended "at all cost."

Saying, however, that the Army will safeguard the country's sovereignty is different from doing so in practice. This is the heart of the contradiction. Perhaps the attacks will cease on November 4th. Perhaps pigs (with or without lipstick) will fly. What is really required in the region is an American/NATO exit strategy from Afghanistan, which should entail a regional solution involving Pakistan, Iran, India, and Russia. These four states could guarantee a national government and massive social reconstruction in that country. No matter what, NATO and the Americans have failed abysmally.

Tariq Ali, writer, journalist, filmmaker, contributes regularly to a range of publications including the Guardian, the Nation, and the London Review of Books. His most recent book, just published, is The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power (Scribner, 2008). In a two-part video, released by TomDispatch.com, he offers critical commentary on Barack Obama's plans for Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as on the tangled U.S.-Pakistani relationship.


Copyright 2008 Tariq Ali

The American War Moves To Pakistan By Tariq Ali

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Is A US Attack On Pakistan Imminent?

By Usman Khalid

17 September, 2008

Countercurrents.org

Pakistan is nervous; it cannot believe that the USA can turn on its ally so fast and easy. The escalation of the ‘terror war’ to include Pakistan was announced by President Bush himself. He proclaimed a new war theatre in Pakistan alongside Iraq and Afghanistan. He said, “ They are all theatres in the same overall struggle. In all three places, extremists are using violence and terror in an attempt to impose their ideology on whole populations." But President Bush is dead wrong; the nature of the war in the three countries is quite different.

In Iraq, the resistance to US occupation is organised by sectarian militias who are not excluded from participation in politics; they even have representation in government. In Afghanistan, the resistance is carried out primarily by the Pashtun majority, which is represented in government only by traitors and turncoats. Pakistan is not occupied; there is no resistance as such. In Pakistan, the main terrorist organisation - Tehrik i Taliban Pakistan (TTP) – has political aims and it seeks to capture and control territory. The TTP is sponsored by the CIA, which provides it money, weapons and equipment. However, all the three countries are similar as the American aim is the same – to fragment the country and impose unpopular/ weak government who will bend to their will.

Although the story came out several weeks ago, the people Pakistan are still stunned by the revelation of the TTP being CIA sponsored. The public first came to know of this in the newspapers that during the visit of Prime Minister Gilani to the USA, his staff showed evidence of CIA support to TTP. Tt took some courage to tell the USA that the ‘foreign support’ to Baitullah Mehsud came from the USA. One thought it would put the USA on the defensive that those being accused and targeted by America for cross-border raids have been trained and supported by the US. Instead, the USA ratcheted up its propaganda against Pakistan. Baitullah Mehsud moves freely throughout the region promoting terrorism that will justify American actions. His men possess the most-advanced communication and possibly even satellite intelligence. Pakistan army took a long time to read the signs because it just could not believe that the USA could resort to such diabolical stratagem against its ‘ally’.

The Army Chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani announced on September 10, that the coalition forces would not be allowed to operate inside Pakistan. His statement came within hours of the testimony by US Chief of Joint Staff, Admiral Mullen, that the strategy for the war in Afghanistan had been revised and that targets in Pakistan would be struck without prior notice or warning to Pakistan. General Kayani expressed outrage at the US helicopter raid near Angor Adda on the Pakistan Afghan border that lasted 30-minute; three houses owned by the Wazir tribesmen were the target of the raid that killed 15 people, including women and children. What added insult to injury was the report that Prime Minister Gilani's National Security Adviser Major General (retd) Mehmud Durrani formally wrote to his US counterpart Steve Hadley, on September 5, warning that Pakistan would not allow any foreign forces to operate on its territory. In his letter, Durrani made it clear that the rules of engagements of the coalition forces were well defined and there was no provision that allowed the US/NATO forces in Afghanistan to operate inside Pakistan.

On Thursday, September 11, the Pakistan Army was given permission to retaliate against any action by foreign troops inside the country. The same day, the Pakistan ambassador to the US also met some national security advisers of the Bush administration and got the assurance that the US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan would not operate inside Pakistan or launch any strike. As if to rub salt in the wound, the same night the coalition forces launched another missile attack on Miranshah, killing more than 12 people. What is happening? What is the USA up to? More important, what can Pakistan do?

Clearly, the USA is stung by Pakistan discovering who is the real enemy. Pakistan has decided to liquidate the TTP and is succeeding with popular support. The USA should have been satisfied that the Pakistan Army is pursuing the TTP, but it is not. Clearly, the TTP is the excuse not the target. The American objective is to destabilise Pakistan. I refer to the article titled ‘The Destabilisation of Pakistan’ by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research, Canada, in which it was revealed, l before 18 February elections, that the USA sees an opportunity in the elections to advance its agenda and is supporting the terrorists inside Pakistan towards that end. He wrote:

“Washington will push for a compliant political leadership, with no commitment to the national interest, a leadership which will serve US imperial interests, while concurrently contributing under the disguise of "decentralization", to the weakening of the central government and the fracture of Pakistan's fragile federal structure.”…. "U.S. Special Forces are expected to vastly expand their presence. The official justification and pretext… to extend the "war on terrorism". Concurrently, to justify its counter-terrorism program, Washington is also beefing up its covert support to the "terrorists."

It has become apparent that the insurgency in the FATA and elsewhere in NWFP is aided and abetted by the US. It wants to weaken the control of the federal government over the provinces and regions of Pakistan and it does not care whether it is achieved by Islamists or by ethnic nationalists. It supports the BLA as well as Baitullah Mehsud. It maintains its contacts with the MQM, the ANP, Baloch Nationalists as well as the JUI. It came to court the PPP as it concluded it was not overly concerned with ‘national interests’. The economic conditions have been deteriorating so fast that the economy is being described as close to ‘melt-down’. The only remaining condition yet to be met for ‘destabilisation’ to become unstoppable is the ‘demonisation’ of the Pakistan Army.

That explains why General Kayani’s defiant statement was quickly followed by another Predator attack. Now the ball is in General Kayani’s court; will he be the one to blink first? Will he be forced by his civilian masters – Zardari and Gilani – not to follow up on his promise and become subject of ridicule. But Pakistan has options. First and foremost, the objectives of the so-called ‘war on terror’ would have to be revised; it must henceforth deal exclusively with clearing FATA and Swat of TTP, and pacifying the area. The approach of the people of Pakistan towards the US has been transformed by the raid on Pakistan’s soil. Until now, they thought that the US presence in Afghanistan was no threat to Pakistan. They had a benign view of the war despite the horrendous civilian casualties. They thought the war brought funds for development and democracy in its wake. Now the support for US presence in the region is zero. The people see the USA as the main enemy; the so-called extremists are the proxies and surrogates of the USA.

Second, the firm forthrightness of the Army Chief has made him popular and brought admiration for the armed forces, instead of being demonised. The PPP, who felt secure in power after the elevation of its co-chairman to the office of the President, is likely to feel threatened. The Prime Minster has already said that his Government would deal with the situation through diplomacy. But if the bombs continue to rain in FATA and more helicopter raids occur, the people would be outraged and demand retaliation. What would the Government do? It is time to be cool and act; diplomacy rarely works when it is mere talk. Since most of the raids are by air, Pakistan needs to deploy anti-aircraft weapons to protect outposts and villages. The USA and NATO would need to be informed that violation of air space would be considered ‘hostile’ and dealt with as such.

US and NATO forces in Afghanistan depend on supply from or transit through Pakistan for a number of things. None need to stop but accidents do happen. After all, the USA did not solicit the assassination of Benazir Bhutto; they just let Baitullah Mehsud go through with what he was planning any way. After deployment of anti-aircraft weapons on the border and ‘go slow’ strike on the tail from Karachi to Kheybar, the ball would be in the US court. It could take another step on the escalation ladder or sense might prevail. However, Pakistan cannot afford to blink first. There will be rows between the civil and military leadership and it is hard to tell if the military advice would be accepted. But the Zardari Administration is already on the wrong side of the public opinion on the issue of restoration of the judges made dysfunctional by General Musharraf. He will be on the wrong side of the public opinion once again if he did nothing in the face of mounting casualties of soldiers and civilians a the hands of the USA.

Usman Khalid is Director London Institute of South Asia

Is A US Attack On Pakistan Imminent? By Usman Khalid

 

[ejaz007]

A very serious situation is indeed building up in the tribal areas. Pakistan needs to stand firm and take bold decision if we are to evade an even dangerous situation than the one existing.

US is known to take stupid decision when faced with defeat. Vietnam war is an example so is Iraq war where they are blaming Syria and Iran for the internal problems.

 

[T-Rex]

Is A US Attack On Pakistan Imminent?

By Usman Khalid

17 September, 2008

Countercurrents.org

Pakistan is nervous; it cannot believe that the USA can turn on its ally so fast and easy. The escalation of the ‘terror war’ to include Pakistan was announced by President Bush himself. He proclaimed a new war theatre in Pakistan alongside Iraq and Afghanistan. He said, “ They are all theatres in the same overall struggle. In all three places, extremists are using violence and terror in an attempt to impose their ideology on whole populations." But President Bush is dead wrong; the nature of the war in the three countries is quite different.

In Iraq, the resistance to US occupation is organised by sectarian militias who are not excluded from participation in politics; they even have representation in government. In Afghanistan, the resistance is carried out primarily by the Pashtun majority, which is represented in government only by traitors and turncoats. Pakistan is not occupied; there is no resistance as such. In Pakistan, the main terrorist organisation - Tehrik i Taliban Pakistan (TTP) – has political aims and it seeks to capture and control territory. The TTP is sponsored by the CIA, which provides it money, weapons and equipment. However, all the three countries are similar as the American aim is the same – to fragment the country and impose unpopular/ weak government who will bend to their will.

Although the story came out several weeks ago, the people Pakistan are still stunned by the revelation of the TTP being CIA sponsored. The public first came to know of this in the newspapers that during the visit of Prime Minister Gilani to the USA, his staff showed evidence of CIA support to TTP. Tt took some courage to tell the USA that the ‘foreign support’ to Baitullah Mehsud came from the USA. One thought it would put the USA on the defensive that those being accused and targeted by America for cross-border raids have been trained and supported by the US. Instead, the USA ratcheted up its propaganda against Pakistan. Baitullah Mehsud moves freely throughout the region promoting terrorism that will justify American actions. His men possess the most-advanced communication and possibly even satellite intelligence. Pakistan army took a long time to read the signs because it just could not believe that the USA could resort to such diabolical stratagem against its ‘ally’.

The Army Chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani announced on September 10, that the coalition forces would not be allowed to operate inside Pakistan. His statement came within hours of the testimony by US Chief of Joint Staff, Admiral Mullen, that the strategy for the war in Afghanistan had been revised and that targets in Pakistan would be struck without prior notice or warning to Pakistan. General Kayani expressed outrage at the US helicopter raid near Angor Adda on the Pakistan Afghan border that lasted 30-minute; three houses owned by the Wazir tribesmen were the target of the raid that killed 15 people, including women and children. What added insult to injury was the report that Prime Minister Gilani's National Security Adviser Major General (retd) Mehmud Durrani formally wrote to his US counterpart Steve Hadley, on September 5, warning that Pakistan would not allow any foreign forces to operate on its territory. In his letter, Durrani made it clear that the rules of engagements of the coalition forces were well defined and there was no provision that allowed the US/NATO forces in Afghanistan to operate inside Pakistan.

On Thursday, September 11, the Pakistan Army was given permission to retaliate against any action by foreign troops inside the country. The same day, the Pakistan ambassador to the US also met some national security advisers of the Bush administration and got the assurance that the US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan would not operate inside Pakistan or launch any strike. As if to rub salt in the wound, the same night the coalition forces launched another missile attack on Miranshah, killing more than 12 people. What is happening? What is the USA up to? More important, what can Pakistan do?

Clearly, the USA is stung by Pakistan discovering who is the real enemy. Pakistan has decided to liquidate the TTP and is succeeding with popular support. The USA should have been satisfied that the Pakistan Army is pursuing the TTP, but it is not. Clearly, the TTP is the excuse not the target. The American objective is to destabilise Pakistan. I refer to the article titled ‘The Destabilisation of Pakistan’ by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research, Canada, in which it was revealed, l before 18 February elections, that the USA sees an opportunity in the elections to advance its agenda and is supporting the terrorists inside Pakistan towards that end. He wrote:

“Washington will push for a compliant political leadership, with no commitment to the national interest, a leadership which will serve US imperial interests, while concurrently contributing under the disguise of "decentralization", to the weakening of the central government and the fracture of Pakistan's fragile federal structure.”…. "U.S. Special Forces are expected to vastly expand their presence. The official justification and pretext… to extend the "war on terrorism". Concurrently, to justify its counter-terrorism program, Washington is also beefing up its covert support to the "terrorists."

It has become apparent that the insurgency in the FATA and elsewhere in NWFP is aided and abetted by the US. It wants to weaken the control of the federal government over the provinces and regions of Pakistan and it does not care whether it is achieved by Islamists or by ethnic nationalists. It supports the BLA as well as Baitullah Mehsud. It maintains its contacts with the MQM, the ANP, Baloch Nationalists as well as the JUI. It came to court the PPP as it concluded it was not overly concerned with ‘national interests’. The economic conditions have been deteriorating so fast that the economy is being described as close to ‘melt-down’. The only remaining condition yet to be met for ‘destabilisation’ to become unstoppable is the ‘demonisation’ of the Pakistan Army.

That explains why General Kayani’s defiant statement was quickly followed by another Predator attack. Now the ball is in General Kayani’s court; will he be the one to blink first? Will he be forced by his civilian masters – Zardari and Gilani – not to follow up on his promise and become subject of ridicule. But Pakistan has options. First and foremost, the objectives of the so-called ‘war on terror’ would have to be revised; it must henceforth deal exclusively with clearing FATA and Swat of TTP, and pacifying the area. The approach of the people of Pakistan towards the US has been transformed by the raid on Pakistan’s soil. Until now, they thought that the US presence in Afghanistan was no threat to Pakistan. They had a benign view of the war despite the horrendous civilian casualties. They thought the war brought funds for development and democracy in its wake. Now the support for US presence in the region is zero. The people see the USA as the main enemy; the so-called extremists are the proxies and surrogates of the USA.

Second, the firm forthrightness of the Army Chief has made him popular and brought admiration for the armed forces, instead of being demonised. The PPP, who felt secure in power after the elevation of its co-chairman to the office of the President, is likely to feel threatened. The Prime Minster has already said that his Government would deal with the situation through diplomacy. But if the bombs continue to rain in FATA and more helicopter raids occur, the people would be outraged and demand retaliation. What would the Government do? It is time to be cool and act; diplomacy rarely works when it is mere talk. Since most of the raids are by air, Pakistan needs to deploy anti-aircraft weapons to protect outposts and villages. The USA and NATO would need to be informed that violation of air space would be considered ‘hostile’ and dealt with as such.

US and NATO forces in Afghanistan depend on supply from or transit through Pakistan for a number of things. None need to stop but accidents do happen. After all, the USA did not solicit the assassination of Benazir Bhutto; they just let Baitullah Mehsud go through with what he was planning any way. After deployment of anti-aircraft weapons on the border and ‘go slow’ strike on the tail from Karachi to Kheybar, the ball would be in the US court. It could take another step on the escalation ladder or sense might prevail. However, Pakistan cannot afford to blink first. There will be rows between the civil and military leadership and it is hard to tell if the military advice would be accepted. But the Zardari Administration is already on the wrong side of the public opinion on the issue of restoration of the judges made dysfunctional by General Musharraf. He will be on the wrong side of the public opinion once again if he did nothing in the face of mounting casualties of soldiers and civilians a the hands of the USA.

Usman Khalid is Director London Institute of South Asia

Is A US Attack On Pakistan Imminent? By Usman Khalid

I knew this to be the case for a long time. Pakistan should have known this, it's not that they did not have any warning from the friends, but they found it more convenient to ignore those warnings and now this. Pakistan did not do many things it should have done to consolidate its defences(testing long range ICBMs), thinking that they would upset her so-called "ally " in the war against terror. Now who is gonig to account for the lost time and lost opportunity since Pakistan has found out the hard way that its prime enemy is not India but the so-called "trusted ally" itself? First of all,Pakistan should disclose this to all the members of the UN and specially to the Muslim states and make a big noise to draw the attention of the world media and the international community. Secondly Pakistan should immediately start working on a long range ICBM with a range of at least 12000 km or a space rocket that can be used as a re-entry vehicle carrying nuclear payload and test it as soon as possible.

 

[third eye]

I knew this to be the case for a long time. Pakistan should have known this, it's not that they did not have any warning from the friends, but they found it more convenient to ignore those warnings and now this. Pakistan did not do many things it should have done to consolidate its defences(testing long range ICBMs), thinking that they would upset her so-called "ally " in the war against terror. Now who is gonig to account for the lost time and lost opportunity since Pakistan has found out the hard way that its prime enemy is not India but the so-called "trusted ally" itself? First of all,Pakistan should disclose this to all the members of the UN and specially to the Muslim states and make a big noise to draw the attention of the world media and the international community. Secondly Pakistan should immediately start working on a long range ICBM with a range of at least 12000 km or a space rocket that can be used as a re-entry vehicle carrying nuclear payload and test it as soon as possible.

Not that I have the right to comment, but are you sure that this is the best way to counter percieved moves ? An arms race with US is what brought the USSR down. Individually, when a nation confronts US head on it soon runs out of friends and money.

Why should the people of a nation suffer for the errors in judgement by its un elected rulers who are not present to answer for it now or control the situation ?

Long range msls did not help Pyongyang much. Without ruling out the option, it should be exercised when all else fails & not merely to draw attention to one's self.

 

[third eye]

Sorry .. double post.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

New US theatre in Pakistan may turn into a regional conflagration

M. Shahidul Islam

HOLIDAY - September 19, 2008

For too long we talked about an impending shift in US policy in South Asia and the impact it could have on peace and stability of the region. That dreaded moment of reckoning has finally arrived and the entire region is now on the verge of a mammoth conflagration.

The US has opened a third front in its stagnated war on terror, the ultimate aim of which is to break up Pakistan and take possession of its nuclear weapons, according to veteran Pakistani analysts.

The strategy is primed to fulfil the combined geopolitical vision of the US-India-Afghanistan trio, and it takes advantage of Bangladesh's fluxing political situation. That makes the visit of Chief Adviser Fakhruddin Ahmed to China as being tied to testing Dhaka's stand in this regional and global chess game, although the timing of it is coincidental.

Pakistan's new President, Asif Ali Zardari, too was due to cross path in Beijing with Bangladesh's CA, but the pro-Washington Zardari deferred his Beijing trip at the last moment and decided instead to fly to London to court with Gordon Brown.

According to investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, incapacitating Pakistan's nuclear teeth was the initial aim of this war which kicked off following the dubious attacks on the US in September 2001 and the US's invasion of Afghanistan within days. But an intelligent Pervez Musharraf has eluded that prospect by playing cat and mouse with Washington for nearly seven years.

Now, General Musharraf having been removed from power, the new US strategy has unfurled with a vengeance. The crux of the new policy appeared in the New York Times newspaper on September 11 which claimed that President Bush secretly approved orders in June allowing US forces to conduct ground operations inside Pakistan without Islamabad's prior approval.

Two days earlier, Bush gleefully broached his new strategy during a speech at the National Defence University in which he named Pakistan as one of the major battlegrounds in the fight against terrorism and confirmed that the US has stepped up raids into Pakistani territory from Afghanistan to attack militants.

Then, on September 10, a detailed roadmap of the new strategy was outlined by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, during an address to the US Congress.

Mullen reiterated that the only way to win in Afghanistan is to open a new war theatre in Pakistan. Conceding that the US was loosing the war and 'running out of time,' he said sending in more troops would not guarantee victory. "In my view, these two nations (Pakistan and Afghanistan) are inextricably linked in a common insurgency that crosses the border between them," said Mullen, adding, "I planned to commission a new, more comprehensive strategy for the region, one that covers both sides of the border".

Mullen's game plan entails opening of a third front of the anti-terror war- following Afghanistan and Iraq- and it seems to have begun in earnest since September 1 with over twelve different types of attacks having conducted by US forces inside Pakistan. One of the most audacious and objectionable attacks was conducted on September 4 by the US's Green Beret Special Forces, who, backed by helicopter and transport aircraft, landed deep inside Pakistani territory and raided an alleged militant hideout.

That should make Bangladesh and other regional countries wary of the prospect of their allegiance and alliance being on demand by India, Pakistan and the US during a broader conflict, the new US strategy must also be viewed in conjunction with the flawed intelligence the US used to justify the invasion of Iraq in particular.

The veracity of Iraq possessing WMD was confirmed by the UK, and, the UK later admitted that their source was Israel. It later became apparent that the entire scheme was a conspiracy hatched by a notorious Jewish lobby in London and Washington who had crafted, in mid-2001, a strategic vision in connivance with the Washington-based neo-cons to neutralise threats to Israel by rendering redundant the Pakistani nuclear arsenal and the conventional Iraqi missiles, some of which were used against the Jewish state during the first Gulf War.

Meanwhile, the thrust and the ferocity of Washington's new aggressiveness have already created schism between the military and the political leadership of Pakistan. Zardari's toying of US line aside, Prime Minister Yousaf Reza Gilani also said in a recent statement, "Pakistan can't wage war with U.S."

But senior members of Pakistani armed forces have taken a different stand altogether. Taken aback by the accelerated US aggressiveness against Pakistan's sovereignty, they've scurried to chalk out a detailed strategy to counter the new threats. First, they accused the US of violating the so-called rules of engagement and betraying the assurance General Kayani received only weeks ago when he met Admiral Michael Mullen in a US aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean to discuss counter-terrorism strategies.

Then, a day after the daring raid by US's Green Beret on September 4, Pakistan's National Security Adviser, Mehmud Durrani, accused the US of using flawed intelligence in a protest letter addressed to his American counterpart, Stephen Hadley. As more attacks followed and discontent among ordinary Pakistanis became widespread, General Kayani issued a strong protest on September 12.

"The sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country will be defended at all cost and no external force is allowed to conduct operations inside Pakistan," Kayani said. Islamabad also announced that, because of the US ground assault in South Waziristan, it was stopping NATO supplies at the Torkham border.

Ironically, within hours, that decision was rescinded by the political leadership, prompting the biggest opposition group, Nawaz Sharif's PML-N, to demand for the convening of a special session of parliament for what they said "the nation is under threat of war" from the United States.

Ever since, an already worried Pakistani population have been getting further discontented due to the main focus of the US strategy being the fulfilment of the US-India-Afghan desire to further weaken the control of Pakistani military over the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) by igniting full scale ethnic and sectarian civil wars, and, to use that pretext for a military intervention to ensure the cessation of Balochistan and the NWFP from the Pakistani federation.

The timing of this aggressive US posture seems favourable for some other reasons. It comes on the heels of the near completion of a road, mostly with Indian finance, that links Afghanistan to an Indian-built Iranian seaport. The connectivity is aimed at ending dependence of both the U.S. Army and the Karzai regime on Pakistan for access to the sea.

Analysts say, in case Pakistan and Iran take a unified stand against the US, the conflict may spread from the Arabian Sea to the Bay of Bengal littoral.

Another plank of the new strategy has been the success made by the US and India since 2005 in fomenting anti-Islamabad hostility in the FATA. Intelligence sources claim the U.S, India and Afghanistan had earlier revived the Pashtun nationalism to instigate secession of Pashtun regions from Pakistan, and, with Indian help, the so-called Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) has become functional.

The BLA has been conducting military operations against tribal populations of Pakistan since 2005 and, the US and India finds Balochistan a fertile ground of discord due to China's involvement in building a strategic sea port in the province. Between 2005 and now, the entire region - from the Arabian Sea to the border with China - has turned into a cauldron of ethnic and religious insurgencies, compelling General Musharra's regime to sign a number of peace deals with the tribal militias in 2007.

Sources also say, part of the reason for Musharraf's resignation stems from the challenge he has made on July 12 before the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, when the latter, along with CIA's Deputy Director, Stephen R. Kappes, made a secret visit to Rawalpindi. Gen. Kayani and few other Pakistani intelligence officials were present in that secret meeting, say sources.

Although many now believe that the July 7 bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul was a RAW-inspired counter-intelligence operation designed to blame the ISI and to remove Musharraf from power, analysts at the CIA and other US security agencies have been blaming the ISI for the embassy bombing and President Bush was told that the highest levels of Pakistan's security apparatus-including General Kayani-had knowledge of the plot, according to a New York Times report of September 11. "It's very difficult to imagine he was not aware," the NYT quoted a senior American official as saying of Kayani.

That has generated concerns that General Kayani could be replaced by another General from the Sindh province from where President Zardari hails.

Meanwhile, on September 13, key corps commanders of Pakistan's 600,000-strong army issued orders to retaliate against "invading" US forces that enter the country. Following the meeting, Pakistan Air Force (PAF) on September 13 dispatched fighter aircraft to the tribal region. Pakistan currently has about 120,000 troops deployed along the Durand line that divides Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In this delicate situation, the balance could be tipped by India and Bangladesh. If India decides to mobilise forces on the Line of Control (LOC) separating the Indian and Pakistani administered sections of Kashmir, Pakistani forces will face a formidable challenge in two different theatres and countries like Iran and Bangladesh will be sucked into the conflict.

HOLIDAY > FRONT PAGE

 

[jeypore]

If India decides to mobilise forces on the Line of Control (LOC) separating the Indian and Pakistani administered sections of Kashmir, Pakistani forces will face a formidable challenge in two different theatres and countries like Iran and Bangladesh will be sucked into the conflict.

It would be really foolish for India to mount anything at the line of control, just because pakistan to defend itself would give a treat or launch of nuclear bomb to India. So, I find it very improbable in regards to LOC that India would make any move at this critical juncture.

 

[ejaz007]

It would be really foolish for India to mount anything at the line of control, just because pakistan to defend itself would give a treat or launch of nuclear bomb to India. So, I find it very improbable in regards to LOC that India would make any move at this critical juncture.

I think a situation is being conceived that is rather not going to happen. The reason is that India already has 700,000 troops in occupied Kashmir out of around 1.2 million. They also need to protect their international borders. So induction of more troops is rather not going to happen. Also please note that Kashmir theater of action is not like one where overwhelming numbers are of any great help. These are not plains of Punjab or Rajisthan where frontal assaults with armour and infantry can be mounted in large numbers. IF your opposition has strong anti armour and artillery defenses than you are going to suffer more than the opposition.

However India is expected to create some noise and then shall gradually bring the situation back to normal. If such a situation does arise then Pakistan shall redeploy its forces from Afghanistan to India sector and shall leave the miscreants to deal with USA. Relocation of 6 SU-30 fighters might just be that move.

By the way this would be more damaging for USA then for Pakistan. Pakistan army would be out of the way and US will have to deal with these elements themselves. Pakistan will only gain because if US fails that is good for Pakistan and if miscreants get killed then Pakistan gains. Its going to be win win situation for us.

 

[jeypore]

.

By the way this would be more damaging for USA then for Pakistan. Pakistan army would be out of the way and US will have to deal with these elements themselves. Pakistan will only gain because if US fails that is good for Pakistan and if miscreants get killed then Pakistan gains. Its going to be win win situation for us.

I do not get your logic on this paragraph. I think leaving US to fight by itself there will be no garuntee that they will not approach islamabad.

I was approaching in a way that if Pakistan is cornered between US and India, it is bound to make Nuclear treath. So it would be very foolish for India to do anything.

 

[muse]

Khaleej Times Online

Downhill in Kabul

Jonathan Power

19 September 2008
How far is downhill? Well, that’s like asking how long is a piece of string. But whatever the answer, the American/Nato military effort in Afghanistan, triggered by 9/11, seems to have all the marks of a quick descent.

In Barack Obama’s phrase, American public opinion doesn’t get it. How could they when Obama himself, supposedly a fresh eye on the international scene, bangs the drum for more troops and yet more force?

Does European and Canadian opinion get it? Apart from the Canadians, who have had the good sense and the foresight to give a date for the withdrawal of their troops, public opinion appears to be asleep at the switch. Their young men are dying for a method of attack that the older men have devised without ever being challenge d to think it through.

The policy, made within hours of the atrocity of 9/11, seemed to be to try to bomb the country to cinders, irrespective of the number of civilian casualties, not learning the lesson of Dresden, that wild bombing rather than leading to capitulation merely reinforces local opinion against the aggressor. Later, troops on the ground have continued to alienate local opinion with their seeming inability to differentiate between fighters and civilians.

The war is being lost as the Taleban, defending Al Qaeda or just fighting for their own piece of earth, gain the upper hand, improving their strength and their military skills by the month. The poppy growers watch their profits soar, with plenty of the profits going into Taleban coffers, because the West is unable to face honestly the one policy that might work- legalisation of the drug trade, as the former minister of finance of Pakistan, Sartaj Aziz, suggested in Prospect magazine. (He argued for a controlled experiment in one province.)

Bush, the American military and now Obama seem to think the only way out is to take their failed tactics into Pakistan, despite the opposition of the Pakistani government and its powerful military chiefs. (So much for territorial integrity, the war cry of Nato for Georgia.)

Last week, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress, that he wanted “a new, more comprehensive military strategy that covers both sides of that border.” Al Qaeda bases inside Pakistan will be hit hard and the West wonders anxiously why public opinion within Pakistan is becoming dangerously anti-American and why, after many quiescent years, the anti-Indian mujahideen have retooled for new attacks on the Indian presence in Kashmir and even the Indian embassy in Kabul, and done so with the clandestine support of Pakistan’s secret service.

India is increasingly seen as an ally of America which, although exaggerated, highlights India missing the opportunity offered by ex president Pervez Musharraf, with his generous compromises, to end the Kashmir conflict once and for all. In the eyes of Pakistan and many outsiders America should have pressed India to agree.

The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is 1,640 miles long, much of it virtually inaccessible remote and mountainous, with only the locals able to move freely on goat and foot paths. This is the distance between New York and New Mexico. It contains the warlike Pashtuns who provide nearly all the Taleban insurgents. The 25 million Pashtuns are one of the largest tribal groups in the world. In fact they are the largest ethnic group without a state of their own. Pakistani and Afghan government institutions have never been able to gain a foothold in these areas. Taxes are not paid and outsiders repulsed. This goes back to the time of Macedonian would-be conquerer Alexander.

The British likewise were defeated. So were the Afghans and the Soviets. The latter killed more than a million Pashtuns and drove three million into exile in Pakistan and Iran and still they were compelled to retreat. As for post-independence Pakistan it has never controlled more than 100 metres to the left and right of the few paved roads.

The most remote place on earth has now become the most dangerous. But both history and present day activity suggest it can never be subdued by outside powers. At best, over generations, it can be quietly subverted. The Pashtuns want schools — at least for males — health services and agricultural development. (Twenty years ago I was the guest of the Pashtuns as I studied the work of the successful Pakistani NGO, “The Motorbike Bank”, that offered credit and farming advice from a travelling motorcyclist, trained as an agronomist.)

Osama bin Laden is their guest and in the Pashtun tribal code a guest must be looked after and given protection. Bin Laden will have to be found by careful police work, as Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi war criminal, was run to earth by the Israelis.

Jonathan Power is a veteran foreign affairs commentator based in London

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Washington Is Risking War with Pakistan

By Robert Baer

17/09/08 - "Time"

As Wall Street collapsed with a bang, almost no one noticed that we're on the brink of war with Pakistan. And, unfortunately, that's not too much of an exaggeration. On Tuesday, the Pakistan's military ordered its forces along the Afghan border to repulse all future American military incursions into Pakistan. The story has been subsequently downplayed, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Mike Mullen, flew to Islamabad, Pakistan's capital, to try to ease tensions. But the fact remains that American forces have and are violating Pakistani sovereignty

You have to wonder whether the Bush administration understands what it is getting into. In case anyone has forgotten, Pakistan has a hundred plus nuclear weapons. It's a country on the edge of civil war. Its political leadership is bitterly divided. In other words, it's the perfect recipe for a catastrophe.

All of which begs the question, is it worth the ghost hunt we've been on since September 11? There has not been a credible sighting of Osama bin Laden since he escaped from Tora Bora in October 2001. As for al-Qaeda, there are few signs it's even still alive, other than a dispersed leadership taking refuge with the Taliban. Al-Qaeda couldn't even manage to post a statement on the Internet marking September 11, let alone set off a bomb.

U.S. forces have been entering Pakistan for the last six years. But it was always very quietly, usually no more than a hundred yards in, and usually to meet a friendly tribal chieftain. Pakistan knew about these crossings, but it turned a blind eye because it was never splashed across the front page of the country's newspapers. This has all changed in the last month, as the Administration stepped up Predator missile attacks. And then, after the New York Times ran an article that U.S. forces were officially given the go-ahead to enter Pakistan without prior Pakistani permission, Pakistan had no choice but to react.

On another level the Bush Administration's decision to step up attacks in Pakistan is fatally reckless, because the cross-border operations' chances of capturing or killing al Qaeda's leadership are slim. American intelligence isn't good enough for precision raids like this. Pakistan's tribal regions are a black hole that even Pakistani operatives can't enter and come back alive. Overhead surveillance and intercepts do little good in tracking down people in a backward, rural part of the world like this.

On top of it, is al-Qaeda worth the candle? Yes, some deadender in New York or London could blow himself up in the subway and leave behind a video claiming the attack in the name of al-Qaeda. But our going into Pakistan, risking a full-fledged war with a nuclear power, isn't going to stop him.

Finally, there is Pakistan itself, a country that truly is on the edge of civil war. Should we be adding to the force of chaos? By indiscriminately bombing the tribal areas along the Afghan border, we in effect are going to war with Pakistan's ethnic Pashtuns. They make up 15% of Pakistan's 167 million people. They are well armed and among the most fierce and xenophobic people in the world. It is not beyond their military capabilities to cross the Indus and take Islamabad.

Before it is too late, someone needs to sit the President down and give him the bad news that Pakistan is a bridge too far in the "war on terror."

Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down.

 

[T-Rex]

Is there any possibility of Zardari and Gilani handing over the command and control of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal to the US ? These characters are cowardly and unscrupulous, specially Zardari. The US has already been informed that the national interest is not of prime concern to the PPP and perhaps this is why the US might be tempted to think about the unthinkable.

 

[Omar1984]

I think a situation is being conceived that is rather not going to happen. The reason is that India already has 700,000 troops in occupied Kashmir out of around 1.2 million. They also need to protect their international borders. So induction of more troops is rather not going to happen. Also please note that Kashmir theater of action is not like one where overwhelming numbers are of any great help. These are not plains of Punjab or Rajisthan where frontal assaults with armour and infantry can be mounted in large numbers. IF your opposition has strong anti armour and artillery defenses than you are going to suffer more than the opposition.

However India is expected to create some noise and then shall gradually bring the situation back to normal. If such a situation does arise then Pakistan shall redeploy its forces from Afghanistan to India sector and shall leave the miscreants to deal with USA. Relocation of 6 SU-30 fighters might just be that move.

By the way this would be more damaging for USA then for Pakistan. Pakistan army would be out of the way and US will have to deal with these elements themselves. Pakistan will only gain because if US fails that is good for Pakistan and if miscreants get killed then Pakistan gains. Its going to be win win situation for us.

Well said bro. The tribal people are known to be warriors, its in their blood they can take care of the U.S.
Pakistani army should be on the eastern borders making sure India is not taking advantage of the situation, leave the U.S. to the tribal warriors they will destroy any invaders.

 

[genmirajborgza786]

sad is it. the above posts only show how US is exploiting pakistan, first against soviet block(USSR-INDIA) and now against taliban,iran,china,etc.
it will be exploited to the fullest and these skirmishes on pak-afghan border are just fake shows to outside world that US is really serious about isi-taleban. instead it wants taliban,alqaida,osama,to stay in pak as lond as they could to compliment nato presence

brilliantly said no doubt