Pakistan: the next US target

[Scrooge]

Pakistan: The Next US Target Tuesday, 09 September 2008 Bill Kristol Fox Television commentator and arch neoconservative revealed recently what many had long suspected was US thinking about the current international situation.
Kristol recounts that in a 90-minute, mostly off-the-record meeting with a small group of journalists in early July, President Bush "conveyed the following impression, that he thought the next president's biggest challenge would not be Iraq, which he thinks he'll leave in pretty good shape, and would not be Afghanistan, which is manageable by itself. ... It's Pakistan." We have "a sort of friendly government that sort of cooperates and sort of doesn't. It's really a complicated and difficult situation." Right on cue, presidential candidate Barack Obama took the baton from Bush in his speech on July 15th in which he argued that more focus and resource were required on both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Kristol revelation on the surface is staggering yet not a surprise to those who have long suspected that the US presence in Afghanistan constitutes a Trojan horse for a more insidious plan the US has for Pakistan. Some may find it surprising that the US now believes Pakistan to be more challenging than Iraq where the US has 150,000 troops, has spent almost a trillion dollars and has incurred over 4,000 fatalities. The Neocon vision was that the capture of Iraq, a state that lies at the heart of the Middle East, would allow it to control not just the resources of the region but more importantly the geo politics. Of course the post invasion challenge was severely underestimated and despite some reduction in violence (albeit from a high benchmark), Iraq remains a mess. The US would like Iraq to be stable but not too stable, independent but not too independent, have an effective military but not too effective. John McCain compares the US role in Iraq with that of Korea and Germany and believes the US could be there for a hundred years. To justify a continued presence the US needs to keep Iraq weak and divided. No one can seriously dispute the growth in sectarianism that has been seen since the US occupation. With a self governed Kurdish north, a Shia dominated central government and now US support for the Sunni tribes, Petraeus has presided over a de facto partitioned state.

So with Iraq closer to de facto partition, America can now turn its attention to Pakistan. This change of focus has been sign posted now for at least twelve months. In June 2007 the US published its National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) with some startling new revelations. Despite citing its numerous successes against Al-Qa’ida since September 2001 including these statements in a declassified document titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States” dated April 2006 stated the following “United States - led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of Al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations….We assess the global jihadist movement is decentralised, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse.”

Yet the collective US intelligence community made a volte face fourteen months later when it said the following: “We assess the group (Al Qa’ida) has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safe haven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership.”

So in effect what the US intelligence community was saying was that its six year war against Al-Qa’ida had been a failure and that to win the war effectively required action within Pakistan. The pretext for war within Pakistan was therefore created, any attack on any US target from now on that was traced to the FATA would give the US “cause belli” to undergo a massive retaliatory attack within Pakistan. Indeed Frances Townsend Homeland Security adviser to Bush said shortly after the NIE was published that the United States would be willing to send troops into Pakistan to root out Al-Qa’ida, noting specifically that “no option is off the table if that is what is required”

The US has been itching to get into Pakistan for some time, first using remote controlled Predator aircraft to attack targets within Pakistan almost on a daily basis. Secondly the US has spent $10 billion on Pakistan’s military since 2001 and more specifically in trying to make Pakistan’s Frontier Corps into a fighting unit for the US military. To ensure Washington gets better value for money, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee Senator Joe Biden is seeking to enact legislation in Congress to tie future security aid to performance. Thirdly by promoting General Petraeus from heading up the Iraq campaign to become Central Command (Centcom’s) new head, clearly indicates that Iraq has become subservient to Pakistan in Washington’s thinking. Fourthly the continued barrage of criticism within Capitol Hill, by Afghan officials and western think tanks of Pakistan’s failure to stem cross border insurgency prepares the ground for an eventual attack in Pakistan. Indeed eliminating the Pakistan sanctuary bases is one of the RAND Corporation’s key recommendations in a recent report entitled “Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan.” (funded by the US DOD). The report does not confine criticism to the FATA but states that the insurgency also finds refuge in the North Western Frontier Province (NWFP) as well as the province of Balochistan so extending the area substantially for future retaliation. Lastly according to a New York Times report in June, top Bush administration officials drafted a secret plan in 2007 to make it easier for US Special Operations forces to operate inside Pakistan’s tribal areas but that turf battles and the diversion of resources to Iraq held up the effort. However now that forces are being reduced in Iraq, it is inevitable that such programs will be stepped up.

So why is Pakistan so important, this was answered quite succinctly by Mitchell Shivers Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian & Pacific Security Affairs in his testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 25 June 2008 when he said the following:

Firstly, Pakistan is the second most populous Muslim state, the sixth most populous country in the world, and is located at the geopolitical crossroads of South and Central Asia.
Second, Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons and has already fought three conventional wars with another nuclear nation next door, India.
Third Pakistan has a large, growing moderate middle class striving for democracy.
Fourth, elements of extremism and terrorism are at work within Pakistan.
Fifth, the whole-hearted assistance of the Pakistani people and their government will help the United States achieve its national security objectives in Afghanistan. Sixth, and most importantly, militants and terrorists within the border region of Pakistan constitutes a direct threat to the United States homeland.

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in an article in the Washington Post in March defined US objectives in Pakistan as “control of nuclear weapons, counter-terrorism cooperation and resistance to Islamic radicalism” and believes Pakistan could turn “into the wildcard of international diplomacy.” This was echoed by Turkey’s military chief General Buyukanit who speaking in March at an international conference in Ankara warned that Pakistan’s political troubles could open the way for the Taliban to seize the country and its nuclear weapons.

The US fears Pakistan, as it contains the key mix of Islam, nuclear weapons and people who are impatient for change and who do not trust the Americans. Consistent surveys indicates that the US’s approval ratings are less than 20% in Pakistan and that the people of Pakistan desire for Islamic rule does not equate to a desire for violent extremism. The desire for Islamic governance allied with the ingredients above clearly illustrate why Pakistan has risen to the top of Washington’s radar screen and why Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen has now made four visits to Pakistan since February.

What about the war in Afghanistan, how does this fit into the plan for Pakistan? Of course Afghanistan has some value to the US but the campaign as Kristol admits will be allowed to continue on the back burner. The US objective for Afghanistan was never to defeat the Taliban or to extend its remit over the whole country. Indeed if it was the objective, the US would have sent more troops. The Soviet Union in comparison had 300,000 troops in the 1980’s and while occupying the cities, could never pacify the countryside. The US and NATO presence at about 65,000 is almost laughable when facing a population of 31 million. The US campaign in Afghanistan is more a forward base combining special forces and CIA operatives backed up with airpower and a modest number of US ground forces. The mission in 2001 was to coordinate the fight with allies within the Northern Alliance and amongst other minorities and disgruntled anti-Taliban elements. Geo strategically Afghanistan has limited value for the US, other than to ensure no one else should control it. This explains why the priority given to Afghanistan will always be less than Iraq and certainly lower than Pakistan. It also explains why Afghanistan is in the shambles it is.

According to the Afghanistan Human Development Report 2007 Afghanistan remains far behind neighbouring countries with a rank of 174 out of 178 countries on the global HDI (a composite indicator that measures education, longevity, and economic performance). 6.6 million Afghans do not meet their minimum food requirements. 2006 witnessed a significant rise in attacks and a 59% spike in the area under poppy cultivation, making the country a world leader in the production of illegal opium (90% of global production). Low literacy and a lack of access to safe drinking water, food, and sanitation contribute to the still relatively high child mortality rate. With the maternal mortality ratio estimated at 1600 deaths per 100,000 live births, Afghanistan maintains one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world

How should Muslims in the region respond? They need to do at least three things:

1 Pakistan should realise what the US is trying to do. It doesn’t require an international relations genius to conclude that the US is seeking to do to Pakistan what it has done to Iraq, namely decimating its military capability and fracturing the country into separate entities. The army who effectively control Pakistan are not stupid, they understand the political dynamic at place. Four star General Tariq Majeed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee recently said at an international conference in Singapore that cross-border missile strikes into Pakistan's tribal belt are killing civilians and contributing to the popular perception that U.S. military operations in the region are "anti-Islam." They understand that when the US talks about reforming the Frontier Corps, this is about ensuring that they fight more effectively for the US not Pakistan. They also understand that while the US has a tactical relationship with Pakistan, it seeks a strategic relationship with India even to the extent of offering it unprecedented civil nuclear assistance. The $10 billion or so that the US has given Pakistan since 2001 means nothing if Pakistan eventually fragments into multiple pieces. With NWFP, Balochistan and Karachi all teetering at the edge, the US has a once in a generation opportunity to turn Pakistan into a balkanised hell hole.

2 The only supply lines into Afghanistan for the US are either through the mountains of Central Asia or through the port of Karachi. Without Pakistan, logistics, the flow of supplies, fuel and other military hardware would soon stop the campaign in Afghanistan. There is no strategic interest for Pakistan to continue to support America’s war in Afghanistan. Firstly it allows 65,000 NATO and US troops to permanently occupy a Muslim country creating an anti Pakistani government in Kabul. Secondly instead of having a secure western border, Pakistan has to have 100,000 troops permanently supporting the US effort thus taking valuable resources from its more vulnerable eastern border with India. Lastly Pakistan has to face the blowback, of fighting not just its own citizens in NWFP and FATA, but fellow Muslims across the border.

3 Lastly the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan have to realise that neither brutal dictatorship or secular democracy can succeed in the Muslim world. As has been witnessed since February, Pakistan’s political class have no solutions with respect to high fuel costs, high food prices and the deterioration in the financial environment. The Afghan President has also presided over a country where after nearly 7 years, hunger, corruption, electricity shortages and killing civilians are the watchwords of todays Afghanistan. Only the tried and trusted Islamic system of the Khilafah (Caliphate) can succeed in the Muslim world. A coherent effort at re-establishing the Khilafah is now the urgent requirement and is gaining momentum. According to an opinion poll carried out by the University of Maryland, 74% of Pakistanis support the establishment of a unified Khilafah in the Muslim world, the establishment of such an entity is therefore not a question of if, but when.

Indeed the major problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not one of economic resources but of political will. Afghanistan and Pakistan are not ‘failing states.’ Unfortunately for the people of Afghanistan they’ve been invaded twice by external powers in the last 25 years and this remains the hub of their problem. For the Pakistani people they have seen over 60 years of political failure with so called “independence” a mere charade.

Yet the world is entering a new paradigm in international relations.. No longer will the Fed in Washington be calling the shots. No longer will the Dollar reign supreme. No longer is the US military invincible. What started with self evident truths in Philadelphia over two centuries ago has now morphed into implosion on Wall Street and an economic tsunami across the globe.

Many cite the Khilafah as a utopian dream, yet those in the know are not so sure. A US government intelligence study by the National Intelligence Council in 2004 called “Mapping the Global Future” presented as one future scenario the rise of a new pan-national Caliphate. Thomas Ricks the Washington Post’s senior Pentagon correspondent in his book “Fiasco” says there is precedent for the emergence of a unifying figure in the Muslim world a modern day Saladin someone who can revive the region through combining popular support with huge oil revenues. A real “nightmare scenario” for the western world as Richard Nixon once described it in his book 1999.

So Muslims face a strategic choice either support the US led coalition or politically unify under the banner of Islam. Whereas the former guarantees national oblivion and further balkanisation, the latter should allow the Muslim world to flourish and meet head on the challenges of the 21st century.

[Scrooge]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7609073.stm

its already started. how much more blatant nd in your face do u want it.

with mr 10 per cent in power, pakistan is destined for hell, coz that son of a ***** is going to allow americans into the country

[Scrooge]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7606110.stm

[Scrooge]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7607998.stm

[Scrooge]

Obama: Pakistan, Afghanistan central front in war on terrorism Western Intervention Wednesday, 10 September 2008 WASHINGTON: Barack Obama said President George W. Bush isn't acting quickly or forcefully enough to get more U.S. forces into Afghanistan and out of Iraq.

The Democratic presidential nominee said Bush doesn't understand that Afghanistan and Pakistan are the central front in the war on terrorism, not Iraq. He said his Republican White House rival, John McCain, doesn't get that, either.

Bush “is tinkering around the edges and kicking the can down the road to the next president'' with his decision Tuesday to bring home only 8,000 combat and support troops from Iraq by February, said Obama, who hopes to be that next president.

Bush said a Marine battalion scheduled to be sent to Iraq in November would instead be deployed to Afghanistan, followed by an Army combat brigade early next year. In all, that would add 4,500 to 4,700 combat troops in Afghanistan.

Less than two hours later, Obama went before reporters during a campaign stop in this mid western battleground state to respond.

“His plan comes up short it is not enough troops, not enough resources, with not enough urgency,'' Obama said. “The next president will inherit a status quo that is still unstable.''

Obama said if elected in November, he would remove troops from Iraq in a measured but methodical way and send more into Afghanistan. He recently proposed sending two brigades, or about 7,000 more troops, into Afghanistan, while withdrawing one or two brigades a month from Iraq.

Except for bringing home the 8,000 troops, Bush said, he'll keep the U.S. force strength in Iraq intact until the next president takes over. He said more U.S. forces could be withdrawn if conditions allow in the first half of 2009, but that will be the decision of his successor. About 146,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq.

The News

[Scrooge]

Bush secret order to send special forces into Pakistan

A secret order issued by George Bush giving US special forces carte blanche to mount counter-terrorist operations inside Pakistani territory raised fears last night that escalating conflict was spreading from Afghanistan to Pakistan and could ignite a region-wide war.


The unprecedented executive order, signed by Bush in July after an intense internal administration debate, comes amid western concern that the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and its al-Qaida backers based in "safe havens" in western Pakistan's tribal belt is being lost.
Following Bush's decision, US navy Seals commandos, backed by attack helicopters, launched a ground raid into Pakistan last week which the US claimed killed about two dozen insurgents. Pakistani officials condemned the raid as illegal and said most of the dead were civilians. US and Nato commanders are anxious to halt infiltration across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border of insurgents and weapons blamed for casualties among coalition troops. The killing of a US soldier in eastern Afghanistan yesterday brought American losses in 2008 to 112, the deadliest year since the 2001 intervention. The move is regarded as unprecedented in terms of sending troops into a friendly, allied country.
But another American objective is the capture of Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaida leader held responsible for organising the 9/11 attacks. He and his second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are thought to be hiding in the tribal areas of north and south Waziristan.
Bush's decision to extend the war into Pakistan, and his apparent hope of British backing, formed the background to a video conference call with Gordon Brown yesterday. "What's happening on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan is something where we need to develop a new strategy," Brown said before talking to Bush.

Brown said he would discuss the border issue with Pakistan's new president, Asif Ali Zardari, who visits Britain next week.
Bush's unusual move in personally calling the prime minister for an Afghan strategy discussion has led to speculation that the US president was trying to line up British support for the new policy, including the possible involvement of British special forces in future cross-border incursions.

Bush's executive order is certain to cause strains with some Nato allies fearful that a spreading conflict could bring down Pakistan's weak civilian government and spark a wider war. Last night there were indications of open disagreement.

James Appathurai, a Nato spokesman, said the alliance did not support cross-border attacks or deeper incursions in to Pakistani territory.
"The Nato policy, that is our mandate, ends at the border. There are no ground or air incursions by Nato forces into Pakistani territory," he said.

Nato has 53,000 troops in Afghanistan, some of which are American. But the US maintains a separate combat force dedicated to battling al-Qaida and counter-terrorism in general. Nato defence ministers are due to discuss Afghanistan in London next week.

Last week's raid, and a subsequent attack on Monday by a Predator drone firing Hellfire missiles, provoked protests across the board in Pakistan, with only Zardari among leading politicians refusing to publicly condemn it.

Pakistan's armed forces chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, said the army would defend the country's sovereignty "at all costs". He went on: "No external force is allowed to conduct operations inside Pakistan."
He denied there was any agreement or understanding to the contrary. His comments were widely interpreted as a warning to Zardari not to submit to the American importunity. But his tough words also raised the prospect of clashes between US and Pakistani forces if American military incursions continue or escalate.

Until now, Washington has regarded Pakistan as a staunch ally in the "war on terror" that was launched in 2001. But the alliance has been weakened by last month's forced resignation of the army strongman, former general Pervez Musharraf, and his replacement by Zardari, Benazir Bhutto's widower.

Polls suggest most Pakistanis favour ending all counter-terrorism cooperation with Washington, which is blamed for a rising civilian casualty toll in Afghanistan and in the tribal areas.

Yousaf Raza Gilani, Pakistan's prime minister, joined the chorus of condemnation yesterday. He reportedly told state media Kayani's warning that unilateral US actions were undermining the fight against Islamist extremism represented the government's position.
Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs, and Robert Gates, defence secretary, told Congress this week that victory in Afghanistan was by no means certain and the US needed to take the fight to the enemy inside Pakistan.

Mullen called for a "more comprehensive strategy" embracing both sides of the border. "Until we work more closely with the Pakistani government to eliminate the safe havens from which they operate, the enemy will only keep coming," he said.

US and Pakistani forces have clashed by accident in the past during operations to root out militants, although sections of the Pakistani military and intelligence services are said to harbour deep resentment about perceived American interference.

[Scrooge]

Pakistan Did Not Agree to New Rules, Officials Say Sunday, 14 September 2008 New rules of engagement authorizing U.S. ground attacks inside Pakistan, signed by President Bush in July, were not agreed to by that country's civilian government or its military, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials.
Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, the Pakistani army's chief of staff, was informed last month by senior U.S. defense officials that if Pakistan failed to stem the flow of Taliban and other militant fighters into Afghanistan, the United States would adopt a new strategy, one allowing ground strikes on targeted insurgent encampments. A senior Pakistani official said that Kiyani believed the strategy was still under discussion and that Pakistan's counterinsurgency performance was improving.

News of Bush's order, following a strike last week by helicopter-borne U.S. commandos on a village about 20 miles inside Pakistan, brought denunciation yesterday from Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani, who echoed Kiyani's earlier charge that the attack had violated Pakistani sovereignty.

Meanwhile, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said at a news conference in Kabul that he approved of the new U.S. strategy, citing the need to "remove and destroy" insurgent sanctuaries in Pakistan. But NATO said it had no intention of sending any of the 48,000 troops under its command in Afghanistan across the border. NATO's U.N. mandate does not include "ground or air incursions . . . into Pakistani territory," said spokesman James Appathurai.

Nearly 31,000 U.S. troops are in Afghanistan, divided between the NATO command and a separate force under the U.S. Central Command.

A senior European official said that the NATO allies shared U.S. concern over the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and were aware new U.S. rules were under consideration, but that they were unaware the rules had been approved. Bush's July order, first reported yesterday by the New York Times, was confirmed by several U.S. officials.

Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, said U.S. officials assured him yesterday that "no such order had been given." The United States, he said, "respects Pakistan's sovereignty."

The senior European official called the implementation of the new strategy "peculiar," since its timing coincided with this week's inauguration of Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.

"If you're going to invade another country . . . without their permission, after you've just spent eight years trying to get a democratic government in place, it strikes me as kind of confused politics," the official said.

Zardari plans to meet with Bush this month, either in Washington or in New York at the U.N. General Assembly, U.S. officials said.

Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Wednesday that he had called for an overhaul of U.S. strategy, including greater U.S. military involvement in Pakistan's tribal areas, but gave no indication that orders had already been given.

"I'm not convinced that we're winning it in Afghanistan," Mullen told the House Armed Services Committee. But, he added, "I'm convinced we can."

"That is why I intend to commission and have looked -- are looking -- I'm looking at a new, more comprehensive military strategy for the region that covers both sides of that border," Mullen said. "That is why I pressed hard on my counterparts in Pakistan to do more against extremists and to let us do more to help them."

Mullen and other senior U.S. military officials have met repeatedly with Kiyani to urge a more robust offensive to roust Taliban, al-Qaeda and other militant fighters from safe havens in the rugged Pakistani border region.

Gillani, who heads Pakistan's first democratic government since 1999, told Bush during a Washington visit in July that he needed more time to implement an economic development strategy to pacify the border region.

But with rising troop deaths in Afghanistan, U.S. patience has run thin. On Tuesday, Bush announced he would send an additional Army combat brigade to Afghanistan early next year.

Previous military rules of engagement, agreed to by Pakistan, allowed U.S. forces to travel up to six miles across the border if they were in "hot pursuit" of fighters chased from inside Afghanistan. The senior Pakistani official said that Kiyani was told last month that failure to increase the tempo of Pakistani military operations and provide better intelligence for American cross-border air attacks could result in new rules.

"There was a conditionality," the Pakistani official said. "If we take care of certain things on our side, then the rules don't change." Improvements were "already being put into place," he said, attributing several recent U.S. strikes with Predator unmanned aircraft to Pakistani intelligence, and citing an attack this week by Pakistani security forces in the tribal region of Bajaur that reportedly left 100 fighters dead.

But a U.S. official, one of several who discussed the sensitive situation on the condition of anonymity, said that as far as the United States was concerned, "most things have been settled in terms of how we're going to proceed."

Washington Post
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 12, 2008; A10

[Scrooge]

War Against Pakistan Sunday, 14 September 2008
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—Now the Mayor of Kabul wants to invade Pakistan. Six years of Pakistani appeasement in the face of gradual loss of our legitimate security interests in the region have come down to this: the weakest leader in modern Afghan history warns Islamabad he will not only invade Pakistan but will also “rescue” the Pakistani Pashtun population—a thinly veiled threat to claim our northwestern regions as part of Afghanistan.

Hamid Karzai should not be blamed for making statements that far exceed his status as a weak ruler propped up by warlords and a foreign power, and whose authority hardly surpasses the city where he is bunkered.

Islamabad’s real problem lies not with him. It’s with Washington, whose military sided last week with Mr. Karzai’s ragtag army in a border dispute where it used massive aerial power to pound a Pakistani border post and kill eleven of our soldiers. This disproportionate use of power was so senseless it could only be a deliberate hostile act against Pakistan. The explanation given by Dr. Condoleezza Rice to our foreign minister – whom she tried to convince this was a case of friendly-fire – has no buyers in Pakistan.

If a war is being imposed on Pakistan – and all indications are that this is the case – then Islamabad should retaliate. To regain respect, Pakistani military should henceforth hold the government in Kabul and the Afghan military directly responsible for any act of aggression emanating from Afghan soil. In last week’s case, Pakistani military should have launched a retaliatory strike targeting the nearby Afghan army posts. The prime minister could have sanctioned the attack after seeking, and receiving, parliament’s consent on urgent basis, even after the operation.

A Pakistani counterstrike would have tested and exposed the intentions of the American-led NATO troops. A subsequent attack on Pakistan would have confirmed this was no misunderstanding. The Americans have been saber-rattling for months now and the June 10 attack fitted a pattern of U.S. official statements, media leaks, and cross-border violations.

In every sense of the word, an undeclared war is being waged against Pakistan from the Afghan soil since 2004. Islamabad is in possession of plenty of real and circumstantial evidence to this effect. The purpose of this war is to set off ethnic and religious wars inside Pakistan to weaken the country and precipitate its disintegration. In the past four years, separatist activity in the entire Pakistani region next to Afghanistan jumped from nil to levels not seen since the 1980s, when the Soviets used Afghan soil for the same purpose.

Afghanistan has a political problem that the U.S. and its puppet regime in Kabul have been unable to resolve for the past seven years. This U.S.-Karzai failure is destabilizing Pakistan, not the other way around. The Pakistani foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi should have used the Afghan donor conference in Paris last week to capture the international media attention and make it clear that Islamabad – and NATO for that matter – cannot be held responsible for Washington and Kabul’s inability to end the Afghan civil conflict.

It’s also time to turn the tables. Pakistan should issue a list of demands to the regime in Kabul. The list should ask for a halt in all cross-border terrorism originating from Afghan soil into Pakistan. This includes the closure of training camps for terrorists who are sent into our provinces of Balochistan and NWFP, an end to the activities of Indian intelligence posts operating under the guise of diplomatic missions near the Pakistani border, and the expulsion of all terrorist elements recruited from Pakistan and sheltered at safe houses provided by the Afghan government.

Failure to meet these legitimate demands should result in punitive measures; including restricting both Afghanistan’s overland trade and U.S. fuel supplies through Pakistani land and airspace.

Washington has been double-crossing Pakistan from the moment Islamabad joined America’s war on terror. In the seven years since 9/11, Washington has deliberately ignored Pakistan’s legitimate security needs and concerns in Afghanistan on every count. Under American watch, rabidly anti-Pakistan warlords and exiled elements with Indian connections going back to the days of the Soviets have been encouraged to wield influence in Kabul. The narcotic trade has been allowed to recover from near-total eradication under the previous regime, giving a boost to organized crime affecting both Pakistan and Iran.

Pakistani officials have long been suspecting that some Indian and Afghan elements operating in Afghanistan have an interest in inciting a confrontation between Pakistan and the United States. But it is also true that Washington has accorded little importance, by design or by coincidence, to the legitimate security and strategic interests of its Pakistani ally.

We should win together in Afghanistan. Washington’s victory should not become a Pakistani loss.

Ahmed Quraishi - 6/18/2008
Ahmed Quraishi is a Pakistani public affairs professional. He heads the Pakistan Task Force at FurmaanRealpolitik, an independent Pakistani think tank based in Islamabad. He also produces and hosts a weekly foreign policy show for PTV World.

[Scrooge]

Pakistan soldiers 'confront US'



Pakistani troops have fired shots into the air to stop US troops crossing into the South Waziristan region of Pakistan, local officials say.
Reports say nine US helicopters landed on the Afghan side of the border and US troops then tried to cross the border.
South Waziristan is one of the main areas from which Islamist militants launch attacks into Afghanistan.

The incident comes amid growing anger in Pakistan over increasingly aggressive US attacks along the border.
The latest confrontation began at around midnight, local people say.
They say seven US helicopter gunships and two troop-carrying Chinook helicopters landed in the Afghan province of Paktika near the Zohba mountain range.

US troops from the Chinooks then tried to cross the border. As they did so, Pakistani paramilitary soldiers at a checkpoint opened fire into the air and the US troops decided not to continue forward, local Pakistani officials say.

Reports say the firing lasted for several hours. Local people evacuated their homes and tribesmen took up defensive positions in the mountains.
The incident happened close to the town of Angoor Adda, some 30km (20 miles) from Wana, the main town of South Waziristan.

A Pakistani military spokesman in Islamabad confirmed that there was firing but denied that Pakistani troops were involved.

Diplomatic fury
It emerged last week that US President George W Bush has in recent months authorised military raids against militants inside Pakistan without prior approval from Islamabad.

The BBC's Barbara Plett in Islamabad says there is a growing American conviction that Pakistan is either unwilling or unable to eliminate militant sanctuaries in its border area.

There have been a number of missile attacks aimed at militants in Pakistan territory in recent weeks.

Pakistan reacted with diplomatic fury when US helicopters landed troops in South Waziristan on 3 September. It was the first ground assault by US troops in Pakistan.

Locals in the Musa Nikeh area said American soldiers attacked a target with gunfire and bombs, and said women and children were among some 20 civilians who died in the attack.

In the latest incident, the tribesmen say they grabbed their guns and took up defensive positions after placing their women and children out of harm's way.

Pakistan's army has warned that the aggressive US policy will widen the insurgency by uniting the tribesmen with the Taleban.

Last week the army chief declared that Pakistan would defend the country's territorial integrity at all cost, although the prime minister has since said this would have to be through diplomatic channels rather than military retaliation.

[Scrooge]

Pakistan is under attack yet Zardari meets Brown pledging support for the war on terror


Tuesday, 16 September 2008 London, UK, September 16 2008 – Pakistan President Zardari met UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown in London today slavishly pledging continued cooperation in the West’s war on terror – war on Islam – at a time when the same western forces are attacking Pakistan as part of that war. Also today, British Justice Secretary Jack Straw met Prime Minister Gilani in Islamabad and held talks on improving relations!


Taji Mustafa, a media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, said, "At a time when the US and its allies are engaged in an undeclared war on Pakistan, Zardari remains silent over the invasion at Angoor Adda and travels abroad to pledge continued support to the same western nations. How can the President of a nation under attack declare that ‘we stand with the United States, Britain, Spain and others who have been attacked,’ and that ‘the war we are fighting is our war’? Zardari is the force behind Prime Minister Gilani who displayed his cowardice by declaring that Pakistan cannot fight the US. Despite the fact that it is not Pakistan but the US that cannot openly take on Pakistan while it is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and struggling to respond to Russia over the conflict in Georgia.”

“Since taking power, the PPP has done nothing to address the suffering of the people except that these criminal leaders have gone to the US with a begging bowl and accepted $365 million as reimbursement for their efforts in fighting in the FATA. Once again, democracy has delivered another government compliant to American wishes over the wishes of its people and prepared to jeopardise the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan in exchange for a few dollars.”

“Zardari’s visit is yet again another illustration of the warm relationship between western governments seeking to further their colonial policies in the Muslim world and the spineless Muslim rulers who aid them."

“Pakistan doesn't need to discuss its territorial integrity with Western nations. They are the problem not the solution to Pakistan's current crisis. The solution for Pakistan lies in establishing the Khilafah which will never allow the spilling of its citizen’s blood, will be a truly sovereign state which establishes the interests of the people on the basis of the Islamic shariah. The Islamic ideology elevated Muslims and created a great civilisation and indeed Islam will do so once again. It is fear of the establishment of a strong sovereign state in the Muslim world that disturbs Western capitals.”

[Scrooge]

Another US attack in Pakistan: 'US drone' kills five in Pakistan


Wednesday, 17 September 2008 At least five people have been killed in a suspected missile attack by a US drone on a village in north-west Pakistan, local officials say.

The officials said missiles hit the village of Baghar in South Waziristan, close to the Afghan border.

The missiles are reported to have struck a militant training camp.

The incident came as the top US military commander met Pakistani officials to discuss growing tension over US attacks along the border.

At least six people were injured in the attack, according to BBC correspondent Dilawar Khan in the neighbouring North West Frontier Province.

Four missiles were reportedly fired at the village of Baghar Cheena, about half a kilometre from the Afghan border.

Two reportedly hit a house occupied by militants while two landed on the hillside.

Baghar Cheena is about 4km (2.5 miles) from Angoor Adda, the village which Pakistani officials say was the scene of a US ground assault earlier this month.

Observers say the attack may be an indication that the Americans have told Pakistan there will be no more ground assaults, but that drone attacks are to continue as before.

'Ground violations'

On Wednesday, US Adm Michael Mullen met Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to discuss US operations along the troubled border with Afghanistan.

The men discussed "measures to defuse tension between the two countries, following a spate of air and ground violations along the Pakistan-Afghan border", Pakistani state news agency APP said.

The tribal region of South Waziristan is one of the main areas from which Islamist militants launch attacks into Afghanistan.

Last week, an unnamed Pentagon official told the BBC that President George Bush had authorised cross-border attacks by US troops based in Afghanistan.

There have been a number of missile attacks aimed at militants in Pakistani territory in recent weeks.

The BBC's Shoaib Hasan, in Islamabad, says tensions between the two countries remain high after the attacks.

The Pakistani army has said that they will not tolerate such incursions and the US has insisted that it respects Pakistan's sovereignty.

But the inability of the US to match its diplomatic efforts on the ground means the situation will continue to remain volatile, says our correspondent.

BBC

[m4_Rahim_ZRahman]

All I did was read the two words "Fox News", I just couldn't bother reading the rest.

[Ranj]

Originally Posted by m4_Rahim_ZRahman All I did was read the two words "Fox News", I just couldn't bother reading the rest.

That channel is completely biased - fair and balanced my ass.

[Guji-Ji]

Originally Posted by Ranj That channel is completely biased - fair and balanced my ass.

What do you expect? It's owned by Rupert Murdoch.

[Ranj]

Originally Posted by Guji-Ji What do you expect? It's owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Argh and he's Australian too. I'm embarrassed.