foxhound
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 473
- Reaction score
- 0
Salaam....
What do 'hidden powers' want?
What do 'hidden powers' want?
Shafqat Mahmood
Turkey is on the rise. Its politics is stable, its economy doing well and, for a change, its voice independent and assertive. The old military-led oligarchy was deeply under the American shadow. It is very different now with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the ruling AKP emerging as a strong independent voice in the international arena.
Turkey took a strong stand after Israeli brutality on the flotilla trying to break the Gaza blockade. Many Turkish citizens were killed, but its stand was on the principle of human rights. It has also consistently ignored US pressure to isolate Iran and has had no problem dealing with another of America's pet hates, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
Turkey has also strongly reached out to Pakistan. It would not be wrong to say that if there is any country in the world where both the people and the government care for us, it is Turkey. The Pakistani green passport and identification nowhere evokes as much affection as it does in that country.
It is therefore important for us to pay attention to what the Turkish prime minister says. On his visit to Pakistan to express solidarity with the flood victims, he has said that "hidden powers are sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey." The implication is quite clear.
These hidden powers are not Russian or Chinese but a combination of Israeli, American and, perhaps, European. If this is correct, the next question that needs to be explored is what motivates them to sponsor terrorism in these four Muslim countries. What concerns us most is, of course, Pakistan, but first let us consider what the motivation could be in the other three countries. There is little doubt that those in the US and Israel that saw Turkey as a compliant power and firmly in their pocket must be disappointed with the Erdogan government.
They were always suspicious of the AKP because it had an "Islamist" slant and now their worst fears are being realised. This party's government is strongly nationalistic. From refusing to allow passage to American troops during the Iraq war to now condemning Israel, it is in the eyes of some committing egregious sins.But how can stray acts of terror within Turkey counter that? The only plausible explanation is that it could be an attempt to create instability so that opportunities are created for the old military-led oligarchy to stage a comeback.
Let us not forget that Turkey is a deeply divided society where a minority is strongly secular, Westernised, and suspicious of the AKP's allegedly Islamic agenda. It has ruled in the past but now cannot beat the party at the polls. So, are elements within it collaborating with Western intelligence to perpetuate instability in Turkey? I don't know, but that is the only plausible explanation for what the Turkish prime minister is saying.
Iran is a straightforward case. The Israelis are deeply antagonistic to it because it confronts their domination of the region. This challenge has the potential to multiply if Iran acquires a nuclear bomb, although Israel itself is a nuclear power many times over. This fact is conveniently overlooked by its US and Western supporters who keep pressurising Iran, but no one questions Israel.
Iran is also assisting forces opposed to Israel in its neighbourhood, like Hezbollah in Syria and allegedly Hamas in Gaza. In a region where no one can stand up to Israel, Iran, by assisting others to do so, becomes a real threat. Hence the possibility of "hidden forces" fomenting terrorism within it is plausible, considering that not-so-hidden forces are constantly threatening to attack it.
On to Afghanistan. The fact that there were indeed Al Qaeda elements in the country and some of them did conspire to attack the US on 9/11 does become a cause for US intervention. Particularly so because the Taliban government was not willing to hand them over or expel them from the country. But could there be more?
Possibly. It is obvious that if the US wanted a permanent military location in this region, the only plausible candidate was Afghanistan. It was virtually a failed state, deeply divided between different ethnicities. This divide had the potential to be widened to ensure little opposition to a permanent American military presence in the country.
This is indeed what is happening. The target after the invasion was to create a compliant state structure, and this was done. A major base at Bagram has been established and the other was to be Kandahar, but the Taliban refuse to give up.
Now the plan has shifted somewhat to strengthening the northern tribes and establishing more bases in their areas. A settlement is being worked out where the Taliban would virtually be left in charge of the Pakhtun areas minus Kabul, and the northern tribes would be assisted by the Americans to resist them if they seek to expand.
A stalemate would thus be established with the continuing presence of more than fifty thousand troops in the country. They would, however, be withdrawn from the battlefield to the sanctuary of permanent bases such as Bagram.
So just like Iraq, Obama would declare an end to the Afghan war and withdrawal of American forces. This would obviously not be true but will have propaganda value. In reality, the American objective of establishing a permanent presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan would have been achieved.
The story in Pakistan is much more complex. With permanent bases in Afghanistan, there is no need to have more in Pakistan. The only requirement is transit points such as Jacobabad, which are available. There is, of course, the overland supply route that will need to remain active, but if the fighting in Afghanistan winds down, the traffic over it might reduce.
So are the American objectives in Pakistan confined to ensuring permanent supply routes? Of course not. It has many other concerns, the principle one being our nuclear programme. Does the US want to take control of it? Or, more appropriately, does it have the capacity to take control of it if it does want to?
These questions are repeatedly debated and out of these emerge all kinds of theories. One of these is that the US wants to destabilise Pakistan through sponsoring terrorism. In this view the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan is its creation and it is being used to create opportunities for direct intervention of American forces.
These are important questions and need to be discussed thoroughly and carefully. Woodward in his book Obama's Wars even quotes Mr Zardari as saying similar things, and he is certainly not an enemy of the US. It is a widely held view in the country, particularly within the security establishment.
This puts us in a strange position of being a friend and a target of the US at the same time. But my space for the week has run out, so more next time.
Email: shafqatmd@gmail.com
What do 'hidden powers' want?
What do 'hidden powers' want?
Shafqat Mahmood
Turkey is on the rise. Its politics is stable, its economy doing well and, for a change, its voice independent and assertive. The old military-led oligarchy was deeply under the American shadow. It is very different now with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the ruling AKP emerging as a strong independent voice in the international arena.
Turkey took a strong stand after Israeli brutality on the flotilla trying to break the Gaza blockade. Many Turkish citizens were killed, but its stand was on the principle of human rights. It has also consistently ignored US pressure to isolate Iran and has had no problem dealing with another of America's pet hates, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
Turkey has also strongly reached out to Pakistan. It would not be wrong to say that if there is any country in the world where both the people and the government care for us, it is Turkey. The Pakistani green passport and identification nowhere evokes as much affection as it does in that country.
It is therefore important for us to pay attention to what the Turkish prime minister says. On his visit to Pakistan to express solidarity with the flood victims, he has said that "hidden powers are sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey." The implication is quite clear.
These hidden powers are not Russian or Chinese but a combination of Israeli, American and, perhaps, European. If this is correct, the next question that needs to be explored is what motivates them to sponsor terrorism in these four Muslim countries. What concerns us most is, of course, Pakistan, but first let us consider what the motivation could be in the other three countries. There is little doubt that those in the US and Israel that saw Turkey as a compliant power and firmly in their pocket must be disappointed with the Erdogan government.
They were always suspicious of the AKP because it had an "Islamist" slant and now their worst fears are being realised. This party's government is strongly nationalistic. From refusing to allow passage to American troops during the Iraq war to now condemning Israel, it is in the eyes of some committing egregious sins.But how can stray acts of terror within Turkey counter that? The only plausible explanation is that it could be an attempt to create instability so that opportunities are created for the old military-led oligarchy to stage a comeback.
Let us not forget that Turkey is a deeply divided society where a minority is strongly secular, Westernised, and suspicious of the AKP's allegedly Islamic agenda. It has ruled in the past but now cannot beat the party at the polls. So, are elements within it collaborating with Western intelligence to perpetuate instability in Turkey? I don't know, but that is the only plausible explanation for what the Turkish prime minister is saying.
Iran is a straightforward case. The Israelis are deeply antagonistic to it because it confronts their domination of the region. This challenge has the potential to multiply if Iran acquires a nuclear bomb, although Israel itself is a nuclear power many times over. This fact is conveniently overlooked by its US and Western supporters who keep pressurising Iran, but no one questions Israel.
Iran is also assisting forces opposed to Israel in its neighbourhood, like Hezbollah in Syria and allegedly Hamas in Gaza. In a region where no one can stand up to Israel, Iran, by assisting others to do so, becomes a real threat. Hence the possibility of "hidden forces" fomenting terrorism within it is plausible, considering that not-so-hidden forces are constantly threatening to attack it.
On to Afghanistan. The fact that there were indeed Al Qaeda elements in the country and some of them did conspire to attack the US on 9/11 does become a cause for US intervention. Particularly so because the Taliban government was not willing to hand them over or expel them from the country. But could there be more?
Possibly. It is obvious that if the US wanted a permanent military location in this region, the only plausible candidate was Afghanistan. It was virtually a failed state, deeply divided between different ethnicities. This divide had the potential to be widened to ensure little opposition to a permanent American military presence in the country.
This is indeed what is happening. The target after the invasion was to create a compliant state structure, and this was done. A major base at Bagram has been established and the other was to be Kandahar, but the Taliban refuse to give up.
Now the plan has shifted somewhat to strengthening the northern tribes and establishing more bases in their areas. A settlement is being worked out where the Taliban would virtually be left in charge of the Pakhtun areas minus Kabul, and the northern tribes would be assisted by the Americans to resist them if they seek to expand.
A stalemate would thus be established with the continuing presence of more than fifty thousand troops in the country. They would, however, be withdrawn from the battlefield to the sanctuary of permanent bases such as Bagram.
So just like Iraq, Obama would declare an end to the Afghan war and withdrawal of American forces. This would obviously not be true but will have propaganda value. In reality, the American objective of establishing a permanent presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan would have been achieved.
The story in Pakistan is much more complex. With permanent bases in Afghanistan, there is no need to have more in Pakistan. The only requirement is transit points such as Jacobabad, which are available. There is, of course, the overland supply route that will need to remain active, but if the fighting in Afghanistan winds down, the traffic over it might reduce.
So are the American objectives in Pakistan confined to ensuring permanent supply routes? Of course not. It has many other concerns, the principle one being our nuclear programme. Does the US want to take control of it? Or, more appropriately, does it have the capacity to take control of it if it does want to?
These questions are repeatedly debated and out of these emerge all kinds of theories. One of these is that the US wants to destabilise Pakistan through sponsoring terrorism. In this view the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan is its creation and it is being used to create opportunities for direct intervention of American forces.
These are important questions and need to be discussed thoroughly and carefully. Woodward in his book Obama's Wars even quotes Mr Zardari as saying similar things, and he is certainly not an enemy of the US. It is a widely held view in the country, particularly within the security establishment.
This puts us in a strange position of being a friend and a target of the US at the same time. But my space for the week has run out, so more next time.
Email: shafqatmd@gmail.com
