Marx's Revenge: How Class Struggle Is Shaping the World

Related
- Karl Marx: A Nineteenth-Century LifeChristian Science Monitor

Abject Pakistan Army Failure-Taliban kill officers probing massacre of foreign climbers
UNLESS WAR IS TAKEN TO FATA IN FULL FORCE PAKISTAN WILL REMAIN DESTABILISED
PAKISTANS NAUKRI BAZ AND SELF SERVING CIVIL AND MILITARY RULERS ONLY STRATEGY IS TO MAKE MORE MONEY AND ASSETS !
BRIGADIER SHAFILLUAH QURESHI FROM 5 BALUCH SUMMED IT UP VERY WELL
" LANGAR KEE DAAAIL ASAAR KARTEE HAI "
A.H AMIN
Taliban kill officers probing massacre of foreign climbers
PESHAWAR: Taliban fighters opened fire on a group of security officers investigating a June massacre of foreign climbers, killing three, officials said on Tuesday. The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan claimed responsibility for the June 22-23 pre-dawn attack when gunmen dressed as policemen stormed a base camp on Pakistan's second-highest peak of Nanga Parbat, killing 10 foreign climbers and a local guide.
On Monday, two army officers and a senior superintendent of police (SSP) were shot dead while a soldier sustained injuries during an armed attack on the vehicle of SSP near Ronai, Chilas. Diamer SSP Hilal Ahmad was returning from the DC House along with Colonel Ghulam Mustafa and Captain Ashfaq Aziz when unidentified gunmen opened fire on their vehicle. The SSP and colonel died instantly while Captain Aziz and a security personal were wounded. The inured were rushed to the District Headquarters Hospital where Captain Aziz succumbed to the injuries. Chilas DCO Ajmal Bhatti said the officers were hit by the assailants hiding in mountains in the area. "Though no major arrests have been made so far related to the June 23 shooting of foreigners, these officials were investigating the killings of foreigners," a senior security official told Reuters. According to the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan's (TTP) spokesperson, the banned outfit's subsidiary group Janood-e-Hafsa is behind Tuesday's attack. He added the attack had been carried out to divert the world's attention towards drone attacks in the Tribal Areas. Victims of the mountain assault included climbers from China, Lithuania, Nepal, Slovakia, Ukraine and one person with joint U.S.-Chinese citizenship. One Chinese climber escaped.
Nanga Parbat, one of the world's highest mountains, is popular among international mountaineers because of its challenging terrain, but growing violence has damaged the potentially lucrative tourism industry. agencies
Pakistani Military and Civilian Leadership Intellectually and Resolutionwise Incapable of Strategic Response to Terrorist Threat
Agha H Amin
Havinng served in the military and knowing most of the present Pakistani key decision makers personally I am of the firm conviction that :---
" Pakistani Military and Civilian Leadership Intellectually and Resolution wise Incapable of Strategic Response to Terrorist Threat "
Failure is on following accounts and facets :---
Pakistans Strategic Mess is USAs Strategic Mess too
1978 Revolution ,Pakistan and Strategic Anarchy--Pakistans uncertain future
Agha H Amin
The April 1978 Saur Revolution was a historic event in modern history.
While the revolution merits a whole book or many volumes , we will just very briefly discuss its salient parts.
Afghanistan status as a buffer state was irrevocably transformed into a state where super powers fought proxy wars.Thus some 98 years of Afghan history of being a buffer state was changed.
Power shifted in Afghanistan from a Durrani-Persianised feudal elite into a more broad based multi ethnic state.The new leftist regime had Tajiks ,Hazaras and Uzbeks previously regarded as second and third rate citizens !
Although the coups major leaders were Pashtuns from Paktia and Khost like the indomitable Aslam Watanjar the PDPA was essentially a mix of Persian speaking urbanised intellectuals organised as Parchamis and a more radiacal Pashtun section from Paghman Khost and Paktia known as Parchamis.The Khalqis were rash , bold , impetuous and radiacal , while the Parchamis were more moderate.
The Saur revolution proved a gold mine for Pakistans illegitimate military junta of Zia which till April 1978 was politically an illegitimate bastard child regime.This regime used the Afghan revolution as a pretext to get dollars from USA and Saudi Arabia.Power shifted in Pakistan from a more progressive PPP regime to a more Punjabised regime dominated by refugees from Jullundhur and Batala etc .
Since this new clique was fatherless and illegitimate it used religion as well as caste as a political tool.Thus it outlawed political parties and Pakistani politics became more ethnic andsub ethnic with Punjab divided into castes as political forces and Sindh divided into urban and rural ! The division of Sindh into urban and rural was a planned reaction by the Pakistani illegal military regime as a counter to the MRD Movement of 1983 which had its roots in rural Sindh !
Pashtuns were used as cannon fodder by the military junta as proxies in Afghan war and thus the seeds of religious extremism were planted in Pakistan .
Foreign policy and all security and defence matters in Pakistan became the preserve of Pakistani military which continues till to date !
All civilian governments which came into power after 1988 elections in Pakistan were remote controlled by the Pakistani military and when Nawaz Sharif tried to assert civilian control in 1997-99 he was removed by a military coup.
It would not be wrong to call Pakistan an army with a country and not a country with an army since 5th July 1977, with a short stint of full civilian control by the second PML N Government from February 1997 to October 1999 !
There is no doubt that Pakistan is a state with dual controls since 5th July 1977 with a civilian co pilot who in reality is a flight steward and a hidden real piolt who controls major financial and security issues !
The imbalance in this situation are three new factors i.e (1) religious extremism which is now on a reverse boomerang course against the Pakistani elite (2) regional centrifugal forces in Balochistan (3) an increased foreign interest in Pakistan where foreign powers led by USA see Pakistan as an anachroninistic and adventurist state .
Five cardinal fact stand out in this scenario , (1) The USA severely lacks long term strategic insight and US policy is run on short term objectives which is well proven from how it behaved after USSR withdrew from Afghanistan and till 9/11 (2) Pakistan alone will not be able to restore strategic stability in Afghanistan or even Pakistan itself .Its military which controls major part of Pakistans financial and security policy is not intellectually capable of understanding the immense complexity of strategy andgeopolitics (3) The Pakistani state will not be able to control Islamic extremism (4) The multiplicity of state and non state actors can lead to severe strategic stability culminating in an India Pakistan nuclear stand off.
The Islamists are far more powerful than they seem ! The Pakistani military is not as clever as it thinks it is ! The Americans are strategically pathetic ! Thus the issue will be decided by random and unforeseeable forces !
Certainly what mean mortals who are in charge of affairs in this whole complex drama want may not happen ! Thus the relative less visible forces will take over !
The scene is thus set for strategic anarchy ! The real danger is that Pakistan cannot afford it but it is heading straight into a diasaster course because it has no able navigator at the highest level !
<<...Big size is also blamed for Punjabi influence in Pakistan through the political setup and domination of military. Presently PPP is ruling the federation having won seats in smaller, as well as in the largest province. At the moment, the highest political posts in the center are held by politicians from Sindh and would-be Saraiki area. Even the governor of Punjab belongs to Saraiki area. Furthermore, Punjabi politicians are very diverse and have never been in one party to influence the center in one direction. Therefore, the notion of size being the basis of Punjabi influence is false. However, if the central Punjab has largest chunks of population then that cannot be changed even after creating the Saraiki province, Punjab will still have more national assembly seats than other provinces if it is to be based on a democratic process of one-person-one-vote...>>---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Shahid Husain <Husainfive@yahoo.com>
Date: 2011/4/19
Subject: Washington Diary: What if Punjab is too large?
To: Shahid Husain Husainfive@yahoo.comWashington Diary: What if Punjab is too large?Dr. Manzur EjazThe pretext given for the creation of a separate Saraiki province has no validity if we examine the past experience within Indo-Pak or in the rest of the world. However, if the Saraiki province is being created on the basis of linguistic differentiation and presumed cultural differences, then it should be recognized as a principle and implemented in the rest of the country as well. As a matter of fact, it would be followed by creation of other provinces on the linguistic basis even some political parties like MQM are hiding their ultimate agenda to set a precedent and then follow up.The major argument in favor of breaking up Punjab into smaller provinces is that the province too large as it currently exists. California, Texas, Florida and New York states have 37, 25, 19, 18 million people respectively, while there are 8 US states that have less than one million, and North Dakota and Vermont have populations of around half a million. The bulk of the US states has a population around five million. But does it mean that South Dakota is being run more efficiently then even New York City, a part of New York State. Most of the smaller southern states are poor, badly managed, and serve as the hub of extreme conservatism because a tiny elite have unlimited influence over smaller populations. However, when it comes to highly populated large states like Texas or California, the rich individual's influence is diluted, and they cannot create small fiefdoms out of large diverse states.This is also true within Pakistan. Whatever is being heard from the professionals working in the international agencies is that Punjab, since Nawaz Sharif's days, is a better managed province. Along with the Sharif brothers, people give a lot of credit to Ch. Pervaiz Elahi for running an efficient administration in Punjab. On the contrary, smaller provinces, without naming the names, are extreme examples of poor governance. Therefore, the rationale that a bigger province should be broken into smaller ones based on efficiency is utterly false and baseless.In the last couple of decades many tehsils were upgraded to break the large districts. For example, Sahiwal was divided adding two new districts, Okara and Pakpattan. The question is: Has the management improved or just resulted in additional administrative layers and tripling administrative costs? Other than local landed aristocracy and bureaucracy who has benefitted by such moves? Has any cost-benefit study been conducted on this change? I do not think so.To support the case for creating a new province, Afghanistan's example is often quoted. Have Afghan provinces ever governed—even before 70s—better than Pakistani Punjab or even other Pak provinces which are much larger than their counterparts in the northern neighbor? Malaysia is another country quoted more often. Again were these provinces being run better and, furthermore, what is the concept of 'province' in Afghanistan or Malaysia? I think we are comparing oranges and apples because Afghan provinces are like our districts with a different set up. In India and Pakistan, provinces have legislative assemblies, chief ministers (ever heard of chief minister of an Afghan province?), governors and an army of provincial cabinet ministers. Therefore, creating new provinces multiplies the quantity of bureaucrats, administrative staffs and hence the recurrent costs.Big size is also blamed for Punjabi influence in Pakistan through the political setup and domination of military. Presently PPP is ruling the federation having won seats in smaller, as well as in the largest province. At the moment, the highest political posts in the center are held by politicians from Sindh and would-be Saraiki area. Even the governor of Punjab belongs to Saraiki area. Furthermore, Punjabi politicians are very diverse and have never been in one party to influence the center in one direction. Therefore, the notion of size being the basis of Punjabi influence is false. However, if the central Punjab has largest chunks of population then that cannot be changed even after creating the Saraiki province, Punjab will still have more national assembly seats than other provinces if it is to be based on a democratic process of one-person-one-vote.As for as the Punjabi influence through military is concerned, that should have been thought out by wizards who created Pakistan, because most of the Muslim Punjabi military was comprised of Punjabis before 1947. As a matter of fact the bulk of the military comes from five or six districts of northern Punjab and that is not going to change even after Saraiki Province is created. If these districts are put into another province, namely Pothohar, then it will be renamed as Pothoharri army. Furthermore, the ratio of army men from KP is massively understated.While the arguments of size and efficiency hold no grounds the linguistic and cultural differentiation is the only remaining valid reason for creating Saraiki province. As a principle, every enlightened person supports the nationality rights without any if's and butts. However, it is almost certain that instead of Saraiki, Urdu will be the official language of the new province: Sajjada Nashins of Multan are not known to be fond of people's language in the last ten centuries. If that is going to be the case then linguistic pretext is irrelevant as well. The ethnic differentiation is also a doubtful denominator because people of ex-Bahawalpur state, even Saraiki speaking, want their state to be recognized as a separate province. Nawab Salahud Din, heir to the state has negated the ethnic basis by declaring that migrants, settlers and indigenous people are equal and united.If Pakistan People's Party (PPP) is trying to contain Nawaz Sharif's influence then it is extremely unwise step. Such decisions having very long-term effects and should be taken to get rid of temporary difficulties. However, if the feudals of Sindh are hoping to care out a fiefdom in Punjab to get rid of forward-looking central Punjabi population, then it is another matter. If central Punjab had not overwhelmingly supported Zulifqar Ali Bhutto in 1970 election, he could not have been able to rehabilitate Sindhi language to its long deserved status. If the precedent of Saraiki province is established no one can stop creation of Karachi-Hyderabad province. That will decimate Sindhi aspirations.The role of middle classes of Punjab has been crucial in present Pakistan's democratic movements. It is this area where persons from Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chauhdry to Mukhtaran Mai find supporters. The fear is that oppressed people of the feudal belt of Punjab will lose their supporters like Pakistan did when East Pakistan broke away: Pakistanis lost the best vanguards of democratic rights. Nevertheless, we wish good luck to Saraiki people if they think Saraiki province will fulfill their desire of nationality rights even if it is transformed into feudal fiefdoms!
The Development of Taliban Factions in Afghanistan and Pakistan: A Geographical Account, February 2010
Amin, Agha , Osinski, David J. , & DeGeorges, Paul Andre
http://mellenpress.com/mellenpress.cfm?bookid=8028&pc=9
BOOKS ON PAKISTAN REVIEWED-AMAZON UK
Military Leadership
Taliban war in Afghanistan
Atlas and History of Wars
THE ESSENTIAL CLAUSEWITZ
USA,ISI,AL QAEDA and TALIBAN-Setting Straight Bruce Riedels Strategic Narrative
1971 War
Mans Role in History
How a private English Company conquered a sub continent
Atlas of a great tank battle
Atlas of a bloody Indian Pakistan battle
A forgotten and Bloody British Failure
The Pakistani Tank Divisions Failure in 1965
Second World Wars Forgotten History
How Indian Army saved France and Suez Canal
Sepoy Rebellion of 1857-59 Reinterpreted
|
You are currently subscribed to dickmorris-reports as: gopmarathonman@yahoo.com Add subscribers@dickmorris.com to your email address book to ensure delivery. Forward to a Friend | Subscribe | Remove gopmarathonman@yahoo.com from this list |
Utopians in India are jubilant that Pakistan has made peace with India.
Nothing in reality can be farther from the truth.
The recent sudden angelic desire on part of the Pakistani establishment to make peace with India has nothing to do with any major shift in Pakistans foreign policy written in the Pakistani military headquarters popularly known as the GHQ.
The Pakistani apparent shift is merely a tactical response to extreme confrontation with the US over perceived US view that Pakistan is playing a double game in Afghanistan.
This is similar to Musharrafs flirtation with India from 2000 to 2007 which in reality was a gambit to prevent a two front war with Afghanistan occupied by the USA and a hostile India in the east.
The real picture of true intentions of the Pakistani military will emerge when the US withdraws from Afghanistan.
This will be the time when the Russians ,Iranians and Indians will have no choice but to support the Northern Alliance against Pakistan sponsored Taliban who regard all Shias, Ismailis,Non Pashtuns,moderate Pashtuns as infidels who deserve to be massacred.
The Pakistani politicians are a compromised manipulated lot who are under firm control of the Pakistani military thanks to the politicians own massive financial corruption.They will do what the Pakistani generals tell them whether it is the PPP, PML or any new party like Imran Khans Tehrik i Insaaf.
Pakistan will remain the same state run by an army rather than a state with an army.The Pakistani generals will control Pakistans politics and foreign policy and Pakistan India relations will remain a mix of an uneasy and an unpredictable peace.
Pakistan will remain embroiled in an ever continuous civil unrest.Baloch will be gunned down by the Pakistani military while Pakistans politicians will remain the puppets of the military that they have been since 1977.
Terrorism will remain a tool of foreign policy while the Pakistani military runs the Pakistani state under a facade of PPP or PML or Tehrik i Insaaf.
By that time Pakistani military will be hoping to achieve all its objectives–
1. An extremist dominated Afghanistan.
2. A Balochistan fully fragmented and crushed.
3. A Pakistani political party leading Pakistan fully subservient to the Pakistani military.
4. A renewed infiltration in Kashmir.
5. A brinkmans nuclear policy with India .
6. A greater Chinese vassal with far greater Chinese interests in Pakistan.
There is no doubt that Pakistan will be a semi autonomous Chinese province by 2030 or so.Its relations with India will be run on two basis , Pakistani military retaining its nuisance value based on the much trumped and misused Indian threat and secondly Pakistan as a Chinese pawn acting as Chinas western bastion in West Asia.Pakistani Balochistan by 2030 would be a completely Chinese run show while Pakistans military and corrupt politicians will control Pakistans corrupt par excellence economy.
Manmohan Singh will remain dupes that they always were.The region will remain unstable because instability is custom made to suit the Pakistani elite both military and civilian.
Indias budding middle class wants to make peace with the Pakistani establishment because they want to have a good time.
Manmohan Singh is a cheap social climber with no strategic vision.This means that the common man in both India and Pakistan will both come to grief.
Pashtuns and Baloch will remain pawns of Pakistani establishment with Baloch regarded as Red Indians and Pashtuns regarded as good cannon fodder to be launched like fools in the name of Islam.Pakistans economy will remain centred to serve the good of Pakistan elite and prosperity will remain confined to the triangle Pindi Multan Lahore and Karachi-Hyderabad.
The Pakistani supreme court will remain an arm of the Pakistani elite who turns a blind eye when any one challenges Pakistani military in the courts.
Pakistan shall remain a mirage which serves a 5 % elite and the region will remain unstable and a hostage to nuclear brinkmanship.
Pakistans pensioners will die like stray dogs ! Pakistans youth will be gunned down by the corrupt Pakistani police for money ! Pakistani intelligence will continue the kill and dump policy all over Pakistan and specially in Balochistan !
This is not about Islam ! This is not about Pakistan ! This is all about a 5 or 10 % establishment that has controlled Pakistan since 1948.
All that this elite wants is to preserve their unfair advantage ! These are the new Banias,the new Muslim Banias of Pakistan !
In 1947 Muslims of Pakistan got rid of Hindu Banias but the idea of the Muslim elite was that the Muslim masses need to be buggered not by the Hindu Banias but by Muslim Banias from Gujerat,Chiniot,Khotian (later Saigal Abad) and the elite feudals who had joined the Muslim League by the 1946 elections.
Third rate Pakistani lower middle class young men will continue to pass the CSS exam and join Police,FBR and DMG to become billionaires with phenomenal corruption of all types with houses in posh DHA Karachi or Lahore within ten years of passing the CSS exam !
Pakistan does not have hawks with aristocratic backgrounds like ZA Bhutto nor visionary generals ! It is run by carpetbaggers,robber industrial barons,arch intriguer feudals and generals who are NCOs sons and are just simply ambitious !
This means that Pakistans political economy of exporting terrorism as a foreign policy tool,massive corruption at home and the resultant ever growing reservoir of economically deprived youngsters who will fill ranks of extremists and suicide bombers will continue.
We salute the age of West Asian strategic anarchy
aaron polish • @ Lucy, If your favorite president Obama was such a great president, then why is he wanting to send back the terrorists back to their country and close Gitmo Prison. That means that those terrorists will do the same thing as before. As Americans we need to gather ourselves and destroy those terrorists. As a father, Obama might be a great father, but he also wants to have a couple of flings with different women instead of his own wife. This is indeed true. Right now I don't call President Obama my president because all he is is a talker not a doer. I have to call Joe Biden a walker around here, being that he is not doing any talking whatsoever. Also Obama says that Trayvon could have been his son, and sparking up riot, does not help him out at all. So my dear frenemy Lucy think before you speak.
How a Single Spy Helped Turn Pakistan Against the United States
Photo illustration from photographs by Arif Ali/AFP, via Newscom (left) and Douglas County sheriff's office (right).By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: April 9, 2013 256 Comments
- GOOGLE+
- SAVE
- SHARE
- REPRINTS
The burly American was escorted by Pakistani policemen into a crowded interrogation room. Amid a clatter of ringing mobile phones and cross talk among the cops speaking a mishmash of Urdu, Punjabi and English, the investigator tried to decipher the facts of the case.Tariq Saeed/Reuters
Raymond Davis, who was employed by the C.I.A. as a contractor, was escorted out of court after facing a judge in Lahore, January 28, 2011.Ilyas J. Dean/PAK/Newscom
Pakistani rage at the United States — in particular at the drone attacks in the tribal areas — found focus with the Raymond Davis affair.K.M. Chaudary/Associated Press
An armored car carrying Raymond Davis leaves a courthouse in Lahore, Pakistan.Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article."America, you from America?""Yes.""You're from America, and you belong to the American Embassy?""Yes," the American voice said loudly above the chatter. "My passport — at the site I showed the police officer. . . . It's somewhere. It's lost."On the jumpy video footage of the interrogation, he reached beneath his checkered flannel shirt and produced a jumble of identification badges hanging around his neck. "This is an old badge. This is Islamabad." He showed the badge to the man across the desk and then flipped to a more recent one proving his employment in the American Consulate in Lahore."You are working at the consulate general in Lahore?" the policeman asked."Yes.""As a . . . ?""I, I just work as a consultant there.""Consultant?" The man behind the desk paused for a moment and then shot a question in Urdu to another policeman. "And what's the name?""Raymond Davis," the officer responded."Raymond Davis," the American confirmed. "Can I sit down?""Please do. Give you water?" the officer asked."Do you have a bottle? A bottle of water?" Davis asked.Another officer in the room laughed. "You want water?" he asked. "No money, no water."Another policeman walked into the room and asked for an update. "Is he understanding everything? And he just killed two men?"Hours earlier, Davis had been navigating dense traffic in Lahore, his thick frame wedged into the driver's seat of a white Honda Civic. A city once ruled by Mughals, Sikhs and the British, Lahore is Pakistan's cultural and intellectual capital, and for nearly a decade it had been on the fringes of America's secret war in Pakistan. But the map of Islamic militancy inside Pakistan had been redrawn in recent years, and factions that once had little contact with one another had cemented new alliances in response to the C.I.A.'s drone campaign in the western mountains. Groups that had focused most of their energies dreaming up bloody attacks against India were now aligning themselves closer to Al Qaeda and other organizations with a thirst for global jihad. Some of these groups had deep roots in Lahore, which was why Davis and a C.I.A. team set up operations from a safe house in the city.But now Davis was sitting in a Lahore police station, having shot two young men who approached his car on a black motorcycle, their guns drawn, at an intersection congested with cars, bicycles and rickshaws. Davis took his semiautomatic Glock pistol and shot through the windshield, shattering the glass and hitting one of the men numerous times. As the other man fled, Davis got out of his car and shot several rounds into his back.He radioed the American Consulate for help, and within minutes a Toyota Land Cruiser was in sight, careering in the wrong direction down a one-way street. But the S.U.V. struck and killed a young Pakistani motorcyclist and then drove away. An assortment of bizarre paraphernalia was found, including a black mask, approximately 100 bullets and a piece of cloth bearing an American flag. The camera inside Davis's car contained photos of Pakistani military installations, taken surreptitiously.More than two years later, the Raymond Davis episode has been largely forgotten in the United States. It was immediately overshadowed by the dramatic raid months later that killed Osama bin Laden — consigned to a footnote in the doleful narrative of America's relationship with Pakistan. But dozens of interviews conducted over several months, with government officials and intelligence officers in Pakistan and in the United States, tell a different story: that the real unraveling of the relationship was set off by the flurry of bullets Davis unleashed on the afternoon of Jan. 27, 2011, and exacerbated by a series of misguided decisions in the days and weeks that followed. In Pakistan, it is the Davis affair, more than the Bin Laden raid, that is still discussed in the country's crowded bazaars and corridors of power.Davis was taken to Kot Lakhpat prison, on the industrial fringes of Lahore, a jail with a reputation for inmates dying under murky circumstances. He was separated from the rest of the prisoners and held in a section of the decaying facility where the guards didn't carry weapons, a concession for his safety that American officials managed to extract from the prison staff. The United States Consulate in Lahore had negotiated another safeguard: A small team of dogs was tasting Davis's food, checking that it had not been laced with poison.For many senior Pakistani spies, the man sitting in the jail cell represented solid proof of their suspicions that the C.I.A. had sent a vast secret army to Pakistan, men who sowed chaos and violence as part of the covert American war in the country. For the C.I.A., the eventual disclosure of Davis's role with the agency shed an unflattering light on a post–Sept. 11 reality: that the C.I.A. had farmed out some of its most sensitive jobs to outside contractors — many of them with neither the experience nor the temperament to work in the war zones of the Islamic world.The third child of a bricklayer and a cook, Davis grew up in a small clapboard house outside Big Stone Gap, a town of nearly 6,000 people in Virginia coal country. He became a football and wrestling star at the local high school, and after graduating in 1993, Davis enlisted in the Army and did a tour in Macedonia in 1994 as a United Nations peacekeeper. When his five-year hitch in the infantry was up, he re-enlisted, this time in the Army's Third Special Forces Group based at Fort Bragg, N.C. He left the Army in 2003 and, like hundreds of other retired Navy SEALs and Green Berets, was hired by the private security firm Blackwater and soon found himself in Iraq working security for the C.I.A.Little is known about his work for Blackwater, but by 2006, Davis had left the firm and, together with his wife, founded a security company in Las Vegas. Soon he was hired by the C.I.A. as a private contractor, what the agency calls a "Green Badge," for the color of the identification cards that contractors show to enter C.I.A. headquarters at Langley. Like Davis, many of the contractors were hired to fill out the C.I.A.'s Global Response Staff — bodyguards who traveled to war zones to protect case officers, assess the security of potential meeting spots, even make initial contact with sources to ensure that case officers wouldn't be walking into an ambush. Officers from the C.I.A.'s security branch came under withering fire on the roof of the agency's base in Benghazi, Libya, last September. The demands of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had so stretched the C.I.A.'s own cadre of security officers that the agency was forced to pay inflated sums to private contractors to do the security jobs. When Davis first deployed with the C.I.A. to Pakistan in 2008, he worked from the agency's base in Peshawar, earning upward of $200,000 a year.By mid-February 2011, with Davis still sitting in prison, anti-American passions were fully inflamed, and daily street protests and newspaper editorials demanded that the government not cave to Washington's demands for Davis's release but instead sentence him to death. The evidence at the time indicated that the men Davis killed had carried out a string of petty thefts that day, but there was an added problem: the third man killed by the unmarked American S.U.V. fleeing the scene. Making matters even worse for Davis was the fact that he was imprisoned in Lahore, where the family of Nawaz Sharif dominated the political culture. The former leader of the country made no secret about his intentions to once again run Pakistan, making him the chief antagonist to President Asif Ali Zardari and his political machine in Islamabad, a four-hour drive away. As the American Embassy in Islamabad leaned on Zardari's government to get Davis released from jail, the diplomats soon realized that Zardari had little influence over the police officers and judges in the city of the president's bitter rival.But the most significant factor ensuring that Davis would languish in jail was that the Obama administration had yet to tell Pakistan's government what the Pakistanis already suspected, and what Raymond Davis's marksmanship made clear: He wasn't just another paper-shuffling American diplomat. Davis's work in Pakistan was much darker, and it involved probing an exposed nerve in the already-hypersensitive relationship between the C.I.A. and Pakistan's military intelligence service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or I.S.I.Ever since the Pakistani militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (the Army of the Pure) dispatched teams of assassins to lay siege to luxury hotels and other sites in Mumbai, India, in November 2008, killing and wounding more than 500 people over four days of mayhem, C.I.A. analysts had been warning that the group was seeking to raise its global profile by carrying out spectacular attacks beyond South Asia. This spurred the agency to assign more of its expanding army of operatives in Pakistan toward gathering intelligence about Lashkar's operations — a decision that put the interests of the C.I.A. and the I.S.I. in direct conflict. It was one thing for American spies to be lurking around the tribal areas, hunting for Al Qaeda figures; it was quite another to go into Pakistani cities on espionage missions against a group that the I.S.I. considered a valuable proxy force in its continuing battle with India.The I.S.I. had nurtured the group for years as a useful asset against India, and Lashkar's sprawling headquarters outside Lahore housed a radical madrassa, a market, a hospital, even a fish farm. The group's charismatic leader, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, had been put under house arrest at various times, but in 2009 the Lahore High Court quashed all terrorism charges against him and set him free. A stocky man with a wild beard, Saeed preached out in the open on many Fridays, flanked by bodyguards and delivering sermons to throngs of his followers about the imperialism of the United States, India and Israel. Even after the U.S. offered a $10 million reward for evidence linking Saeed to the Mumbai attacks, he continued to move freely in public, burnishing his legend as a Pakistani version of Robin Hood.By the time Raymond Davis moved into a safe house with a handful of other C.I.A. officers and contractors in late 2010, the bulk of the agency's officers in Lahore were focused on investigating the growth of Lashkar. To get more of its spies into Pakistan, the C.I.A. had exploited the arcane rules in place for approving visas for Americans. The State Department, the C.I.A. and the Pentagon all had separate channels to request visas for their personnel, and all of them led to the desk of Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's pro-American ambassador in Washington. Haqqani had orders from Islamabad to be lenient in approving the visas, because many of the Americans coming to Pakistan were — at least officially — going to be administering millions of dollars in foreign-aid money. By the time of the Lahore killings, in early 2011, so many Americans were operating inside Pakistan under both legitimate and false identities that even the U.S. Embassy didn't have accurate records of their identities and whereabouts.The American Embassy in Islamabad is essentially a fortress within a fortress, a pile of buildings enclosed by walls topped with razor wire and surveillance cameras and then encircled by an outer ring of walls that separates a leafy area, called the Diplomatic Enclave, from the rest of the city. Inside the embassy, the work of diplomats and spies is kept largely separate, with the C.I.A. station occupying a warren of offices in its own wing, accessed only through doors with coded locks.After Davis was picked up by the Lahore police, the embassy became a house divided by more than mere geography. Just days before the shootings, the C.I.A. sent a new station chief to Islamabad. Old-school and stubborn, the new chief did not come to Pakistan to be friendly with the I.S.I. Instead, he wanted to recruit more Pakistani agents to work for the C.I.A. under the I.S.I.'s nose, expand electronic surveillance of I.S.I. offices and share little information with Pakistani intelligence officers.That hard-nosed attitude inevitably put him at odds with the American ambassador in Islamabad, Cameron Munter. A bookish career diplomat with a Ph.D. in history, Munter had ascended the ranks of the State Department's bureaucracy and accepted several postings in Iraq before ultimately taking over the American mission in Islamabad, in late 2010. The job was considered one of the State Department's most important and difficult assignments, and Munter had the burden of following Anne W. Patterson, an aggressive diplomat who, in the three years before Munter arrived, cultivated close ties to officials in the Bush and Obama administrations and won praise from the C.I.A. for her unflinching support for drone strikes in the tribal areas.Munter saw some value to the drone program but was skeptical about the long-term benefits. Arriving in Islamabad at a time when relations between the United States and Pakistan were quickly deteriorating, Munter wondered whether the pace of the drone war might be undercutting relations with an important ally for the quick fix of killing midlevel terrorists. He would learn soon enough that his views about the drone program ultimately mattered little. In the Obama administration, when it came to questions about war and peace in Pakistan, it was what the C.I.A. believed that really counted.With Davis sitting in prison, Munter argued that it was essential to go immediately to the head of the I.S.I. at the time, Lt. Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha, to cut a deal. The U.S. would admit that Davis was working for the C.I.A., and Davis would quietly be spirited out of the country, never to return again. But the C.I.A. objected. Davis had been spying on a militant group with extensive ties to the I.S.I., and the C.I.A. didn't want to own up to it. Top C.I.A. officials worried that appealing for mercy from the I.S.I. might doom Davis. He could be killed in prison before the Obama administration could pressure Islamabad to release him on the grounds that he was a foreign diplomat with immunity from local laws — even those prohibiting murder. On the day of Davis's arrest, the C.I.A. station chief told Munter that a decision had been made to stonewall the Pakistanis. Don't cut a deal, he warned, adding, Pakistan is the enemy.The strategy meant that American officials, from top to bottom, had to dissemble both in public and in private about what exactly Davis had been doing in the country. On Feb. 15, more than two weeks after the shootings, President Obama offered his first comments about the Davis affair. The matter was simple, Obama said in a news conference: Davis, "our diplomat in Pakistan," should be immediately released under the "very simple principle" of diplomatic immunity. "If our diplomats are in another country," said the president, "then they are not subject to that country's local prosecution."Calling Davis a "diplomat" was, technically, accurate. He had been admitted into Pakistan on a diplomatic passport. But there was a dispute about whether his work in the Lahore Consulate, as opposed to the American Embassy in Islamabad, gave him full diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. And after the shootings in Lahore, the Pakistanis were not exactly receptive to debating the finer points of international law. As they saw it, Davis was an American spy who had not been declared to the I.S.I. and whom C.I.A. officials still would not admit they controlled. General Pasha, the I.S.I. chief, spoke privately by phone and in person with Leon Panetta, then the director of the C.I.A., to get more information about the matter. He suspected that Davis was a C.I.A. employee and suggested to Panetta that the two spy agencies handle the matter quietly. Meeting with Panetta, he posed a direct question.Was Davis working for the C.I.A.? Pasha asked. No, he's not one of ours, Panetta replied. Panetta went on to say that the matter was out of his hands, and that the issue was being handled inside State Department channels. Pasha was furious, and he decided to leave Davis's fate in the hands of the judges in Lahore. The United States had just lost its chance, he told others, to quickly end the dispute.That the C.I.A. director would be overseeing a large clandestine network of American spies in Pakistan and then lie to the I.S.I. director about the extent of America's secret war in the country showed just how much the relationship had unraveled since the days in 2002, when the I.S.I. teamed with the C.I.A. in Peshawar to hunt for Osama bin Laden in western Pakistan. Where had it gone so wrong?While the spy agencies had had a fraught relationship since the beginning of the Afghan war, the first major breach came in July 2008, when C.I.A. officers in Islamabad paid a visit to Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the Pakistani Army chief, to tell him that President Bush had signed off on a set of secret orders authorizing a new strategy in the drone wars. No longer would the C.I.A. give Pakistan advance warning before launching missiles from Predator or Reaper drones in the tribal areas. From that point on, the C.I.A. officers told Kayani, the C.I.A.'s killing campaign in Pakistan would be a unilateral war.The decision had been made in Washington after months of wrenching debate about the growth of militancy in Pakistan's tribal areas; a highly classified C.I.A. internal memo, dated May 1, 2007, concluded that Al Qaeda was at its most dangerous since 2001 because of the base of operations that militants had established in the tribal areas. That assessment became the cornerstone of a yearlong discussion about the Pakistan problem. Some experts in the State Department warned that expanding the C.I.A. war in Pakistan would further stoke anti-American anger on the streets and could push the country into chaos. But officials inside the C.I.A.'s Counterterrorism Center argued for escalating the drone campaign without the I.S.I.'s blessing. Since the first C.I.A. drone strike in Pakistan in 2004, only a small number of militants on the C.I.A.'s list of "high-value targets" had been killed by drone strikes, and other potential strikes were scuttled at the last minute because of delays in getting Pakistani approval, or because the targets seemed to have been tipped off and had fled.So, in July 2008, when the C.I.A.'s director, Michael Hayden, and his deputy, Stephen Kappes, came to the White House to present the agency's plan to wage a unilateral war in the mountains of Pakistan, it wasn't a hard sell to a frustrated president. That began the relentless, years-long drone assault on the tribal areas that President Obama continued when he took office. And as the C.I.A.'s relationship with the I.S.I. soured, Langley sent station chiefs out to Islamabad who spent far less time and energy building up good will with Pakistani spies than their predecessors had. From 2008 on, the agency cycled a succession of seasoned case officers through Islamabad, and each left Pakistan more embittered than the last. One of them had to leave the country in haste when his identity was revealed in the Pakistani press. The C.I.A. suspected the leak came from the I.S.I.Even many of the operations that at first seemed likely to signal a new era of cooperation between the C.I.A. and the I.S.I. ended in recriminations and finger-pointing. In January 2010, a clandestine team of C.I.A. officers and American special-operations troops working in Karachi traced a cellphone to a house in Baldia Town, a slum in the western part of the sprawling city. The C.I.A. did not conduct unilateral operations inside large Pakistani cities, so the Americans notified the I.S.I. about the intelligence. Pakistani troops and policemen launched a surprise raid on the house.Although the C.I.A. didn't know in advance, hiding inside the house was Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, a man considered to be the Afghan Taliban's military commander and the second in command to Mullah Muhammad Omar, the leader of the Taliban. Only after suspects in the house were arrested and questioned did the C.I.A. learn that Baradar was among the detainees. The I.S.I. took him to a detention facility in an industrial section of Islamabad and refused the C.I.A. access to him. "At that point, things got really complicated," one former C.I.A. officer said.Was the entire episode a setup? Rumors had circulated inside Pakistan that Baradar wanted to cut a deal with the Americans and bring the Taliban to the negotiating table in Afghanistan. Had the I.S.I. somehow engineered the entire arrest, feeding intelligence to the C.I.A. so that Baradar could be taken off the street and the nascent peace talks spoiled? Had the I.S.I. played the C.I.A.? Months later, senior C.I.A. officials at Langley still couldn't answer those questions. Today, more than three years later, Mullah Baradar remains in Pakistani custody.As Davis languished in the jail cell in Lahore, the C.I.A. was pursuing its most promising lead about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden since 2001, when he escaped from Tora Bora, in Afghanistan, and fled across the border into Pakistan. A small group of officers inside the agency's Counterterrorism Center had become convinced that Bin Laden was hiding in a large compound in Abbottabad, a quiet hamlet north of Islamabad. For months, Panetta had been pushing clandestine officers to find a shred of hard proof that Bin Laden was hiding in the compound. The intelligence-gathering operating in Abbottabad had become the highest priority for the C.I.A. in Pakistan.It was therefore more than a bit inconvenient that one of its undercover officers was sitting in a jail in Lahore facing a double murder charge. Pakistan's Islamist parties organized street protests and threatened violent riots if Raymond Davis was not tried and hanged for his crimes. American diplomats in Lahore regularly visited Davis, but the Obama administration continued to stonewall Pakistan's government about the nature of Davis's work in the country.And then the episode claimed another victim. On Feb. 6, the grieving widow of one of Davis's victims swallowed a lethal amount of rat poison and was rushed to the hospital in Faisalabad, where doctors pumped her stomach. The woman, Shumaila Faheem, was certain that the United States and Pakistan would quietly broker a deal to release her husband's killer from prison, a view she expressed to her doctors from her hospital bed. "They are already treating my husband's murderer like a V.I.P. in police custody, and I am sure they will let him go because of international pressure," she said. She died shortly afterward and instantly became a martyr for anti-American groups inside Pakistan.The furor over the Davis incident was quickly escalating, threatening to shut down most C.I.A. operations in the country and derail the intelligence-gathering operation in Abbottabad. But the C.I.A. stood firm and sent top officials to Islamabad, who told Ambassador Munter to stick to the strategy.By then, though, Munter had decided that the C.I.A.'s strategy wasn't working, and eventually even high-level officials in the agency began to realize that stonewalling the Pakistanis was only causing the I.S.I. to dig in. After discussions among White House, State Department and C.I.A. officials in Washington, Munter approached General Pasha, the I.S.I. chief, and came clean. Davis was with the C.I.A., he said, and the United States needed to get him out of the country as quickly as possible. Pasha was fuming that Leon Panetta had lied to him, and he was going to make the Americans squirm by letting Davis sit in jail while he considered — on his own timetable — the best way to resolve the situation.Back in Washington, Ambassador Haqqani was summoned to C.I.A. headquarters on Feb. 21 and taken into Panetta's spacious office overlooking the agency's campus in Langley, Va. Sitting around a large conference table, Panetta asked Haqqani for his help securing Davis's release."If you're going to send a Jason Bourne character to Pakistan, he should have the skills of a Jason Bourne to get away," Haqqani shot back, according to one person who attended the meeting.More than a week later, General Pasha came back to Ambassador Munter to discuss a new strategy. It was a solution based on an ancient tradition that would allow the matter to be settled outside the unpredictable court system. The issue had already been discussed among a number of Pakistani and American officials, including Ambassador Haqqani in Washington. The reckoning for Davis's actions would come in the form of "blood money," or diyat, a custom under Shariah law that compensates the families of victims for their dead relatives. The matter would be handled quietly, and Davis would be released from jail.Pasha ordered I.S.I. operatives in Lahore to meet the families of the three men killed during the January episode and negotiate a settlement. Some of the relatives initially resisted, but the I.S.I. negotiators were not about to let the talks collapse. After weeks of discussions, the parties agreed on a total of 200 million Pakistani rupees, approximately $2.34 million, to offer "forgiveness" to the jailed C.I.A. officer.Only a small group of Obama administration officials knew of the talks, and as they dragged on, Lahore's high court was preparing to rule on whether Davis would be granted diplomatic immunity, a decision the C.I.A. expected to go against the United States and worried might set a precedent for future cases in Pakistan.Davis remained in the dark about all of this. When he arrived for his court appearance on March 16, he was fully expecting to hear that the trial would proceed and that the judge would issue a new court date. He was escorted into the courtroom, his wrists cuffed in front of him, and locked inside an iron cage near the judge's bench. According to one person's account, General Pasha sat in the back of the courtroom, his cellphone out. He began sending out a stream of nervous text messages to Ambassador Munter, updating him about the court proceedings. Pasha was one of the most powerful men in Pakistan, and yet the I.S.I. had little control over the mercurial courts in Lahore, and he wasn't entirely sure that things would proceed according to plan.The first part of the hearing went as everyone expected. The judge, saying that the case would go ahead, noted that his ruling on diplomatic immunity would come in a matter of days. Pakistani reporters frantically began filing their stories about how this seemed a blow to the American case, and that it appeared that Davis would not be released from jail anytime soon. But then the judge ordered the courtroom cleared, and General Pasha's secret plan unfolded.Through a side entrance, 18 relatives of the victims walked into the room, and the judge announced that the civil court had switched to a Shariah court. Each of the family members approached Davis, some of them with tears in their eyes or sobbing outright, and announced that he or she forgave him. Pasha sent another text message to Munter: The matter was settled. Davis was a free man. In a Lahore courtroom, the laws of God had trumped the laws of man.The drama played out entirely in Urdu, and throughout the proceeding, a baffled Davis sat silently inside the cage. He was even more stunned when I.S.I. operatives whisked him out of the courthouse through a back entrance and pushed him into a waiting car that sped to the Lahore airport.The move had been choreographed to get Davis out of the country as quickly as possible. American officials, including Munter, were waiting for Davis at the airport, and some began to worry. Davis had, after all, already shot dead two men he believed were threatening him. If he thought he was being taken away to be killed, he might try to make an escape, even try to kill the I.S.I. operatives inside the car. When the car arrived at the airport and pulled up to the plane ready to take Davis out of Pakistan, the C.I.A. operative was in a daze. It appeared to the Americans waiting for him that Davis realized only then that he was safe.The Davis affair led Langley to order dozens of covert officers out of Pakistan in the hope of lowering the temperature in the C.I.A. – I.S.I. relationship. Ambassador Munter issued a public statement shortly after the bizarre court proceeding, saying he was "grateful for the generosity" of the families and expressing regret for the entire incident and the "suffering it caused."But the secret deal only fueled the anger in Pakistan, and anti-American protests flared in major cities, including Islamabad, Karachi and Lahore. Demonstrators set tires ablaze, clashed with Pakistani riot police and brandished placards with slogans like "I Am Raymond Davis, Give Me a Break, I Am Just a C.I.A. Hit Man."The entire episode — and bin Laden's killing in Abbottabad later that spring — extinguished any lingering productive relations between the United States and Pakistan. Leon Panetta's relationship with General Pasha, the I.S.I. chief, was poisoned, and the already small number of Obama officials pushing for better relations between Washington and Islamabad dwindled even further. Munter was reporting daily back to Washington about the negative impact of the armed-drone campaign and about how the C.I.A. seemed to be conducting a war in a vacuum, oblivious to the ramifications that the drone strikes were having on American relations with Pakistan's government.The C.I.A. had approval from the White House to carry out missile strikes in Pakistan even when the agency's targeters weren't certain about exactly whom they were killing. Under the rules of so-called "signature strikes," decisions about whether to fire missiles from drones could be made based on patterns of activity deemed suspicious. For instance, if a group of young "military-age males" were observed moving in and out of a suspected militant training camp and were thought to be carrying weapons, they could be considered legitimate targets. American officials admit it is nearly impossible to judge a person's age from thousands of feet in the air, and in Pakistan's tribal areas, adolescent boys are often among militant fighters. Using such broad definitions to determine who was a "combatant" and therefore a legitimate target allowed Obama administration officials at one point to claim that the escalation of drone strikes in Pakistan had not killed any civilians for a year. It was something of a trick of logic: in an area of known militant activity, all military-age males could be considered enemy fighters. Therefore, anyone who was killed in a drone strike there was categorized as a combatant.The perils of this approach were laid bare on March 17, 2011, the day after Davis was released from prison and spirited out of the country. C.I.A. drones attacked a tribal council meeting in the village of Datta Khel, in North Waziristan, killing dozens of men. Ambassador Munter and some at the Pentagon thought the timing of the strike was disastrous, and some American officials suspected that the massive strike was the C.I.A. venting its anger about the Davis episode. More important, however, many American officials believed that the strike was botched, and that dozens of people died who shouldn't have.Other American officials came to the C.I.A.'s defense, saying that the tribal gathering was in fact a meeting of senior militants and therefore a legitimate target. But the drone strike unleashed a furious response in Pakistan, and street protests in Lahore, Karachi and Peshawar forced the temporary closure of American consulates in those cities.Munter said he believed that the C.I.A. was being reckless and that his position as ambassador was becoming untenable. His relationship with the C.I.A. station chief in Islamabad, already strained because of their disagreements over the handling of the Davis case, deteriorated even further when Munter demanded that the C.I.A. give him the chance to call off specific missile strikes. During one screaming match between the two men, Munter tried to make sure the station chief knew who was in charge, only to be reminded of who really held the power in Pakistan."You're not the ambassador!" Munter shouted."You're right, and I don't want to be the ambassador," the station chief replied.This turf battle spread to Washington, and a month after Bin Laden was killed, President Obama's top advisers were arguing in a National Security Council meeting over who really was in charge in Pakistan. At the June 2011 meeting, Munter, who participated via secure video link, began making his case that he should have veto power over specific drone strikes.Panetta cut Munter off, telling him that the C.I.A. had the authority to do what it wanted in Pakistan. It didn't need to get the ambassador's approval for anything."I don't work for you," Panetta told Munter, according to several people at the meeting.But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came to Munter's defense. She turned to Panetta and told him that he was wrong to assume he could steamroll the ambassador and launch strikes against his approval."No, Hillary," Panetta said, "it's you who are flat wrong."There was a stunned silence, and National Security Adviser Tom Donilon tried to regain control of the meeting. In the weeks that followed, Donilon brokered a compromise of sorts: Munter would be allowed to object to specific drone strikes, but the C.I.A. could still press its case to the White House and get approval for strikes even over the ambassador's objections. Obama's C.I.A. had, in essence, won yet again.As for Raymond Davis, he tried to settle back into his life in the United States after being flown out of Pakistan. He found work as a firearms instructor, but in the end he couldn't stay out of trouble. On Oct. 1, 2011, just seven months after his abrupt departure from Pakistan, Davis was eyeing a parking spot in front of a bagel shop in Highlands Ranch, Colo., a suburb of Denver. So was Jeffrey Maes, a 50-year-old minister who was driving with his wife and two young daughters. When Maes beat Davis to the spot, Davis shouted profanities through his open window. Then he jumped out of his car and confronted Maes, telling the minister that he had been waiting for the parking spot.According to an affidavit given by Maes, he told Davis to "relax and quit being stupid."Davis struck Maes in the face, knocking him to the pavement. Maes said in court that when he stood up from the fall, Davis continued to hit him. The minister's wife, later recalling the episode, said she had never in her life seen a man so full of rage. Just last month, after protracted legal proceedings, Davis pleaded guilty to a charge of third-degree misdemeanor assault and was sentenced to two years of probation. A judge ordered him to pay restitution and attend anger-management classes.On the streets and in the markets of Pakistan, Raymond Davis remains the boogeyman, an American killer lurking in the subconscious of a deeply insecure nation. On a steamy summer night last summer, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed — the head of Lashkar-e-Taiba and the reason Davis and his team were sent to Lahore in the first place — stood on the back of a flatbed truck and spoke to thousands of cheering supporters less than a mile from Pakistan's Parliament building in Islamabad. A $10 million American bounty still hung over Saeed's head, part of a broader squeeze on Lashkar-e-Taiba's finances. But there he was, out in the open and whipping the crowd into a fury with a pledge to "rid Pakistan of American slavery." The rally was the culmination of a march from Lahore to Islamabad that Saeed ordered to protest American involvement in the country. The night before the march reached the capital, six Pakistani troops were killed by gunmen riding motorcycles not far from where the marchers were spending the night, leading to speculation that Saeed had ordered the attack.But Saeed insisted that night that he was not to blame for the deaths. The killers were foreigners, he told the crowd, a group of assassins with a secret agenda to destabilize Pakistan and steal its nuclear arsenal. With a dramatic flourish, he said he knew exactly who had killed the men."It was the Americans!" he shouted to loud approvals. "It was Blackwater!" The cheers grew even louder. He saved the biggest applause line for last: "It was another Raymond Davis!"This article is adapted from "The Way of the Knife: The C.I.A., a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth," published by the Penguin Press.Mark Mazzetti is a national-security correspondent for The Times. He shared a 2009 Pulitzer Prize for coverage of Afghanistan and Pakistan.Editor: Joel Lovell
![]() |
Lord Mayo Viceroy of India stabbed to death by Sher Ali Afridi in 1872.Only an Afridi and a tribal Pashtuncould have done it ! They are the only ones with some spine left ! HA HA HA |
![]() |
Sher Ali Afridi who was not a mercenary ,but an Afridi is an Afridi |
![]() |
Like a blossom today then scattered, how can the fragrance last forever , |
![]() |
Sher Ali Afridi |
![]() |
So what if he was not a Muslim , he is and will remain our hero , because he was one! |
Mehsud warriors fighting against British |
![]() |
Waziristan being bombed 1919 |
![]() |
Macho soldier of Islam is at his knees on one phone call from Uncle Bush,HA HA HA |
![]() |
The macho soldier ! HA HA HA |
![]() |
Is this helicopter for external enemies or killing your own people ! HA HA HA |
Ishtiaq Ahmed
Billumian@gmail.com
Ishtiaq Ahmed
Ishtiaq Ahmed
Billumian@gmail.com
Loading...
Published on Aug 7, 2013
No description available.
Standard YouTube License
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Best Regards,
Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed
Visiting Professor, LUMS, Pakistan; Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Stockholm University; and Honorary Senior Fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. Latest publications: Winner of the Best Non-Fiction Book award at the Karachi Literature Festival: The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed), Oxford, 2012; and, Pakistan: The Garrison State, Origins, Evolution, Consequences (1947-2011), Oxford, 2013. He can be reached at: billumian@gmail.com
Free Syrian Army fighters near the Menagh air base in Aleppo Province, which rebels captured this week after months of trying.
BEIRUT, Lebanon — As foreign fighters pour into Syria at an increasing clip, extremist groups are carving out pockets of territory that are becoming havens for Islamist militants, posing what United States and Western intelligence officials say may be developing into one of the biggest terrorist threats in the world today.
Follow@nytimesworldfor international breaking news and headlines.
Known as fierce fighters willing to employ suicide car bombs, the jihadist groups now include more than 6,000 foreigners, counterterrorism officials say, adding that such fighters are streaming into Syria in greater numbers than went into Iraq at the height of the insurgency there against the American occupation.
Many of the militants are part of the Nusra Front, an extremist group whose fighters have gained a reputation over the past several months as some of the most effective in the opposition.
But others are assembling under a new, even more extreme umbrella group, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, that is merging some Syrians with fighters from around the world — Chechnya, Pakistan, Egypt and the West, as well as Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni insurgent group that rose to prominence in the fight against the American occupation in the years after the 2003 invasion. The concern is that a new affiliate of Al Qaeda could be emerging from those groups.
It was the fear of militants coming to dominate the opposition that caused the United States and its Western allies to hold off providing lethal aid to the Syrian opposition, at least until now. But as a result, counterterrorism analysts say, they lost a chance to influence the battle in Syria. Even Congressional supporters of the C.I.A.'s covert program to arm moderate elements of the Syrian opposition fear the delivery of weapons, set to begin this month, will be too little, too late.
The stakes are high. American intelligence officials said this week that Ayman al-Zawahri, the overall leader of Al Qaeda in Pakistan, has had regular communications with the Nusra Front in Syria, reflecting how favorably the Qaeda leadership views the long-term potential for Syria as a safe haven. Juan Zarate, a former senior counterterrorism official in the George W. Bush administration, said that Syria lay in the center of an arc of instability, stretching from Iran through North Africa, and "in that zone, you may have the regeneration and resurrection of a new brand of Al Qaeda."
In Syria, the battle lines have hardened in recent months. The Syrian government, backed by Iran and Hezbollah, has seized new momentum and retaken territory in the south and east from the rebels. At the same time, power within the badly fractured opposition, numbering about 1,200 groups, has steadily slipped into the hands of the jihadists based in the northeast, where this week they seized a strategic airport in the area. They also hold sway in the provincial capital of Raqqa.
The idea that Syria could supplant Pakistan as the primary haven for Al Qaeda someday, should the government fall, is a heavy blow to the Western-backed Syrian opposition and its military arm, the Free Syrian Army. It plays directly into the hands of Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, whose government has sought to portray itself as the only alternative to Islamic extremism and chaos and has made the prospect of full-on American support even more remote than it already was.
Mr. Assad's argument "began as a fiction during the period of peaceful, unarmed protests but is now a reality" because of Mr. Assad's own efforts to divide the country as well as the success of the extremists, Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine, wrote in a recent essay that appeared in The National.
In Raqqa recently, a commander of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria sipped coffee after breaking the Ramadan fast, wearing a Pakistani-style outfit. The commander, Abu Omar, was Syrian, a member of a tribe in the area, but he described his movement's goals as reaching far beyond the country's borders.
He did not speak of attacking the United States. But he threatened Russia, and he spoke of a broad-based battle against Shiite-led Iran and its quest to dominate the region, and said Sunnis from across the world were justified in flocking to Syria to fight because of the government's reliance on Shiite fighters from Lebanon and Iraq.
The volatility of Gas, Geo-Politics and the Greater Middle East. An Interview with Major Agha H. Amin
CL. Not long ago we were discussing the situation in Syria, and the fact that the root cause for the attempted subversion of Syria is the 10 billion USD PARS gas pipeline project from Iran, via Iraq and Syria to the Easter Mediterranean Coast, the most important factors being the political leverage Iran would acquire if it, together with Russia provided more than 40 % of the gas consumed in the EU over the coming 100 – 120 years, a US and a US and UK attempt to sabotage the further integration of the continental European and Russian national economies and energy sectors. Both high ranking members of the Workers Party Turkey and retired Turkish military officers accuse the AKP government of Prime Minister R. Tayyip Erdogan of being involved in the implementation of the Greater Middle East Project, developed by the RAND Corporation for the US Defense Department in 1996. This plan includes the "balkanization" of Turkey into smaller states. We discussed a possible plan to establish a NATO Corridor from Turkey to India. In our discussion you said: "I would like to add to them that the establishment of the Kurdistan part of the corridor would significantly change the security dynamics of the Russian South Stream gas pipeline which is part of the causes for the war on Syria." Could you please brief us on the most important factors with regard to the security dynamics of the Russian South Stream gas pipeline ?
AHA. The strategic idea of NATO, is aiming at securing the northern borders of Israel against Hezbollah and the southern borders against Hamas; to eliminate the Russian naval base in the eastern Mediterranean, Syrian city of Tartous. NATO is planning to create a western strategic corridor to maintain energy-security in the case that oil supplies through the Strait of Hormuz are disrupted because of a war with Iran or otherwise.
One of the first steps toward the implementation of the long-term strategic plan, is the partition of Turkey by creating separate Kurdish areas, thereby providing NATO a direct access to Russia´s soft underbelly in the Caucasus.
This can ideally be used to dominate the Caucasian oil as well as support the Chechen against Russia in a low intensity conflict. Also, to create a viable independent Kurd state, it would need a windpipe access to the sea. This can be provided via the southern coast of Turkey and the Northern Coast of Syria. Whether a Syrian government soldier or a Syrian Islamist "Nut" dies in the process, "both are equally beneficial to the US/NATO".
The cardinal strategic idea is to internalize the war within the Islamic world so that Europe and the USA become safer while the enemies of western civilization destroy each other.
NATO is a club of wolves and Turkey is the odd wolf in NATO. Once the wolves have eaten Syria, they will eat the odd wolf Turkey. Yes, Turkey has been getting huge funds from Saudi Arabia, especially the clown Islamist Freedom and Justice Party. The clown Islamist Party is corrupting Turkey´s secularism. On the other side, Turkey is playing as NATO´s best chattel.
To use a historic comparison. When Hitler started eating the lambs of Europe like the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia and Austria, the world tolerated it. The limit was reached in 1939. It is comparable with the NATO, led by the USA, eating the lambs since 1991. First Serbia was destroyed, then came Kosovo, then came Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
I think and hope that Syria would be the turning point. With Libya a most negative practice of using Islamist mad dogs and proxies started. Al Qaeda and other most rabid Islamist groups were used in Libya and now again in Syria. The NATO is unleashing the same savages that it claims to fight in Afghanistan on secular states like Libya and Syria.
If Russia had not asserted itself, the wolves would have attacked Syria by now. These wolves only fear Weapons of Mass Destruction, WMD´s, and any state not having WMD´s will be shred into bits and devoured by the wolves. Lets hope that Putin proves to be like a new Moses who challenges the wolves who have the souls of Pagans.
CL. Considering the volatility of the situation in Syria and that a conflict of that nature easily can develop a dynamic on its own, even a dynamic that was neither planned nor wanted by any of the stakeholders, and considering that the aggravation of the crisis into a regional war with the involvement of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, the Gulf Arab States, Turkey and NATO countries as well as Russia could have catastrophic consequences,- furthermore considering that the situation as it is seems so that non of the stakeholders can win, but all can loose, which diplomatic, political and economic initiatives would you consider necessary and feasible to solve the crisis ?
AHA. "We are moving toward a great global war and supreme strategic anarchy by remote pilot".
This happened, because the pilots who were supposed to man policy and regulate the tide of history did not have the talent to exercise their due role in history ! These pilots in reality wore the uniforms of pilots but had the caliber of air stewards and air pursers! This includes Obama, Yusuf Raza Gillani, Man Mohan Singh and the Saudi king. This brought us into a Sarajevo situation, where events started moving decision makers rather than decision makers moving events.
Till 2008 the USA was led by an impetuous pilot with a low IQ but a definite strategic decisiveness. A man with limited intellect, but one who could take strategic decisions. After 2008 the USA got a social climber who looked outwardly smart and bright but lacked statesmanship and had near zero strategic vision. Thus Afghanistan, after 2008, moved from relative calm into anarchy, as far as the South was concerned.
Pakistan was the worst case. It was led by an opportunist who attempted to please all parties, including the Americans, Islamists, Pakistani liberals and the Indians. As as result Pakistan developed such a fatal "confusion of principle" that the whole Pakistani society was fractured down into its deepest foundations. This military opportunist in turn, made peace with the corrupt politicians to prolong his rule. Subsequently, the whole political fabric of Pakistan was shattered.
The Pakistani military was attacked by Islamists, for allegedly being in league with the Christian powers. The Pakistani military lost its entire credibility when it emerged as the main party in the controversial NRO deal, which legitimized past corruption of Pakistan´s politicians, which the army had prosecuted with zeal from 1999 to 2002. Pakistan became engulfed in two major insurgencies. One with the Islamists and the other in Baluchistan. Both have the potential to destabilize and even to destroy Pakistan.
The USA has no strategy in Afghanistan and is in a catch 22, unless it decides on a strategy of decisive action. While the US policy makers saw Pakistan as a center of gravity of Islamists, including the Afghan Taliban, the US failed to frame a decisive strategy for dealing with Pakistan. Pakistan´s nuclear assets, Chinese support, and a growing Russian support are principal obstacles that the USA faces in formulating a strategy of decisive action against Pakistan. Both Iran and Pakistan remain two strategic thorn lands that the USA faces and which are being constantly watered by China and Russia.
The Osama Raid and the Salala incident forced Pakistan´s military and political elite to close the NATO supply line to Afghanistan. The memogate scandal also increased the civil military divide in Pakistan but this appears to be more of a US ploy to divide and weaken Pakistan.
The key strategic trends in this scenario are the following:
Any US withdrawal, in totality or partially, would strengthen the Islamists in Afghanistan who will see full or partial defeat of the US as a great victory for Islam. This would destabilize Pakistan and increase the chances of a war between India and Pakistan.
The US missile shield has permanently alienated Russia, and Russia will re-assert itself and take the lead in aiding all anti US forces. US failure to correctly deal with Iran and Pakistan will further destabilize the situation. Pakistan´s nuclear assets will deter the US from any grand adventure against Pakistan.
The US´s chances of an internal pro US coup in Pakistan by the PPP have become week after the Osama bin Laden incident and the Salala incident. The chances of a military coup in Pakistan will get stronger as the situation moves and if the Pakistani´s ISI´s (Inters Services Intelligence-service) plan to bring a national government led by Imran Khan fails.
India still perceives Pakistan as a grave strategic threat and remains apprehensive of Pakistan's strategic nukes. This will ensure that the Indians will continue with aiding the low intensity war in Pakistan. The US will try to follow a policy that reduces Pakistan to a smaller size and confines Pakistan´s nukes to Punjab.
In the case of Baluchistan, it will not be difficult for the USA to Balkanize Pakistan if the USA decides to support Baloch secessionists. Karachi remains a strategic US asset with the MQM and other elements who can paralyze Karachi at few hours notice.
US policy will be difficult to formulate and execute. No nuclear state was ever denuclearized by war. The policy that the US will follow will be to destabilize Pakistan and to present it as a danger to world peace, like the Democratic Peoples´ Republic North Korea. In the process, even a small incident can initiate a grand strategic earthquake. God help the USA, Pakistan, India and the world.
CL. The US-led war on Afghanistan has now lasted for more than ten years. After NATO´s 25th Summit in Chicago in 2012 it transpired that NATO will maintain a presence in Afghanistan until at least 2014, and most likely until 2025 and beyond. NATO and western mainstream media continue marketing the argument that the NATO presence is necessary for fighting "the Taliban" and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the US Aggressions in Pakistan, predominantly in the form of drone attacks increase, and are also being marketed under the slogan of combating "the Taliban". Could you please help us deconstruct the tale of "the Taliban" and elicit who is meant with "the Taliban", which nuances should we should be aware of. It seems that the USA in many regards is fighting an enemy which it creates.
AHA. To answer your questions, let me refer to my 2008 assessment. "Note that Obama is just a clever social climber, a mixed breed who was kicked upwards, a President with no control over anything."
The objectives are not Al Qaeda, the Taliban or bin Laden. The objectives are to attack Iran, Russia´s soft Central Asian State and oil-rich belly, to destabilize China´s Sinkiang province with an Islamist insurrection, to denuclearize Pakistan and to consolidate the US – India base against China after Pakistan has been Balkanized.
The objectives on the ground are neither Al Qaeda, the Taliban or Bin Laden. The droning of random targets continues to convince public opinion and gives the rich friends in the defense industry more ammunition and equipment contracts. US troops consolidate the oil transmission route on the herat Kandahar road.
No real offensive is launched against the Taliban. They are the good reason for why the USA is in Afghanistan, so why would the US/NATO want to eliminate "them". US policy is pressuring Pakistan by the means of drone attacks, forcing Pakistan to take military action in Fata is designed to destabilize Pakistan so that final grounds for the denuclearization of Pakistan are being set in place. The US tools in this exercise are US contractors in Pakistan and Afghanistan, US and British security companies in Pakistan, US or EX-US Bankers and Corporate Executives in Pakistan who are subverting civil and military brass. Through the 2008 elections the US has already achieved a political regime change in Pakistan, while the Pakistani military, who are safeguarding Pakistan´s nuclear assets are the next target.
The objective to attack Iran and Russia´s soft Central Asian State oil-rich belly has so far been a miserable failure, with US proxies being checked bu Central Asia, Iran and China. However, secret training of proxies is going on in US bases in Afghanistan. With regard to the objective to destabilize the Chinese Sinkiang province with an Islamist insurrection, it is a logical objective, but there is the independent will of the enemy, backed with WMDs. China is "not" Iraq.
The denuclearization of Pakistan is proceeding at a good pace, although no major success has been achieved. The Pakistani civilian government is fully on the US payroll while it may take 2 – 5 years for the Pakistani military to become a full-time US chattel. With regard to the objective of consolidating the US – India base after Pakistan is Balkanized, the program for Balkanization includes a Baloch State, a Pashtunistan, a City State of Karachi, Sindhu Desh. A denuclearized Pakistan will only be consisting of Punjab and northern areas controlled by China. This is to take five to ten years. With Pakistan Balkanized the US and India will have a complete, contiguous base against China and Russia.
The Analysis.
The present US strategic position is the silent registration of targets in Pakistan, Iran, Chinese Sinkiang and Russian dominated Central Asia. By trying to base logistics on Russian Ex Soviet Central Asian states, the USA is trying to bring economic benefits to Central Asia, so that the Russian hold can be weakened. However, Russia is convinced, that the US must fail in Afghanistan and it has made considerable efforts to aid anti US forces in Afghanistan through Iran and through Central Asian republics. US forces will not be able to control Afghanistan unless Pakistan is Balkanized and this would at least take 3 to 5 years.
The first state to secede with US support would be Baluchistan. This is so, because the Base of anti US forces in Afghanistan is Pakistani Baluchistan, and Russia, Iran, and China have a combined interest in making the USA bleed in Afghanistan through Pakistani proxies known as Taliban. When Pakistan aids the Taliban in Afghanistan it is actually defending Pakistan. The maneuver to fix the situation for the USA would be an US manipulated India Pakistan war that would be leaving Pakistan severely damaged and India less damaged, followed by a denuclearization of Pakistan.
China, Russia and Iran are the US opponents. They have the potential to throw a spanner in US plans. There is the unforeseen Factor X.
There appears to be a strong evolving consensus in the USA as well as its NATO allies that Pakistan is the center of gravity of the Islamists in the ongoing, so-called war on terror. The idea gained currency in various high US policy making circles as well as think tanks around 1987 – 89 and then assumed a solid shape in the decade 1990 – 2000. After it was adopted as policy and concrete albeit top-secret planning was started to deal with Pakistan, which at the ulterior level was seen as part of the problem rather than a solution.
Let me also refer a 2006 assessment that is still valid: A Brief Strategic Assessment of US Presence in Afghanistan Made in September 2005. By Agha Amin.
The distinction between Islamist and non Islamist is being fast transformed into US versus Anti US Forces. Afghanistan may prove to be an area of strategic convergence for Islamists, China, Russia and even Pakistan and Iran which are logically phase two US targets. It is naive to think that the USA came to Afghanistan to deal with Talibs.
The choices of the USA: The USA has several choices. It can deal with Afghanistan alone and consolidate. This would not be cost-effective for the USA. The investment it has made is too big. It could widen the front to Phase Two, Pakistan and Iran. Phase Three may be Chinese Sinkiang and Phase Four Central Asian Republics. The US can also chose to withdraw from Afghanistan while retaining a central position to strike at any target in the area. Possibly and independent Baloch State, carved out of Iran and Pakistan alone at first and Pakistani Baluchistan later.
China´s and Russia´s Choices: China and Russia can allow the USA an uncontested stay and risk a Muslim rising in Sinkiang within the next ten years and US domination of Central Asian Republics. They can aid anti US forces, using non state actors in Pakistan and state actors in other areas, and they can strengthen alliances with Iranian and Pakistani states.
Pakistan and Iran's choices: Pakistan and Iran can either accept US domination and scrap WMD programs, strengthen alliances with China and Russia, or aid anti US forces in Afghanistan with Chinese and Russian blessings.
The Major Actors: The anti US forces are divided in two parts , state and non state actors. The main bases of non state actors are in Pakistan,Iran and Middle East. The Pakistani and Iranian states are the forward states having direct borders with Afghanistan and are involved in the Afghan game via state and non state actors.
Key Strategic trends: A realization in Pakistan, that the Pakistani WMD apparatus is a future target of the USA which will have Afghanistan as its base. A realization in both China and Russia that the strategic salvation of both lies in aiding anti US groups , particularly those in Afghanistan. The development of Pakistan as the best base area of anti US groups operating in Afghanistan more because of non state actors. In order to deal with non state actors, the USA at some stage, will have to deal with both Pakistan and Iran. The USA seems strategically clueless and is playing a waiting game. Time is the key. Anti US forces can wait for ten years but every second, the USA is losing money. The USA has to achieve a tangible strategical objective. Both China and Russia will use the Islamic card, like the USA used it in Afghanistan from 1979 till 1989.
Militarily, an anti US war in Afghanistan aided by China and Russia can prove to be USA's Spanish ulcer. Anti US forces in Afghanistan Pakistan and Iran are intact and can change the strategic balance. The USAs hold in Afghanistan is confined to key cities only.
The drug mafia is a major US opponent and can sustain anti US forces in Afghanistan. Islamists have realized that they must have China and Russia as allies. The same realization is taking place in China and Russia. Thus, there arises the convergence of interest.
The strategic options of the USA are: To create an alternate drug mafia which is non Pashtun and create new states, which are US allies like Baluchistan,Kurdistan. Possibly the USA could also work toward a non Pashtun state in North Afghanistan.
CL. In one of our discussions you said that there was a significant discrepancy between the areas where the USA is deploying drones and where the so-called "Taliban" attacks US troops. You also stated that many of the drone attacks are carried out in areas where the Pakistani military controls and secures the Af-Pak border while very few, if any drone attacks are carried out in areas where it would actually make sense. Could you please describe this in some detail and elicit the most important strategic as well as political implications ?
AHA. Drone attacks are being carried out in the two agencies North and South Waziristan and 90 % are carried out in the Datta Khel Sub District. These are aimed at Haqqani Group which is regarded as an ISI asset by the USA.
A major aim with the drone attacks is also to benefit private contractors who are involved in these attacks at all levels from intelligence gathering down to munitions and drone suppliers. Another major idea is to demoralize the Pashtuns, so that any war against the USA would bring such a retribution that they will be unable to answer or match it with equal fire.
CL. You stated that Iran has a significant interest in South West Afghanistan. WE hear very little about this in western media and I have not been able to find any detailed analysis in Iranian media either. Could you please give us your position on which role Iran is playing in Afghanistan ?
AHA. Iran is active in West Afghanistan as well as Central Afghanistan. Iran is a most important supporter of the Northern Alliance after Russia and India . Iran views the Taliban as an existential threat. It regards non Pashtuns as well as moderate Pashtuns as its allies.
CL. There is little doubt among analysts that the USA and some NATO member states are attempting to "balkanize" Pakistan into smaller nations. We observe increased activities of often Soros-funded UN agencies and NGOs, especially in Northern Pakistan, indicating an attempt to play on ethnicity. It is a standard strategy which has been used by the West in Yugoslavia, especially in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the strategy is currently being implemented in Nepal, and it is being implemented in Myanmar, in an attempt to create so-called inter-communal violence in Myanmar´s Rakhine State. Could you give us your perspective about attempts to destruct the nation-state Pakistan ?
AHA. Let me also here refer to a previous assessment which I made in April 2009. Every movement in history has a direction, a quantum, a modus operandi. According to the father of the philosophy of war Carl Von Clausewitz everything in strategy moves slowly, imperceptibly, subtly, somewhat mysteriously and sometimes invisibly.
The greatness of a military commander or statesman lies in assessing these strategic movements. The USA inherited a historical situation in the shape of 9/11.At this point in time it was not making history if we agree that 9/11 was the work of Al Qaeda for which so far the USA has failed to furnish any solid evidence.
After 9/11 when the USA attacked Afghanistan ,US leaders and key military commanders were making history. They had a certain plan in mind. The stated objectives of these plan were the elimination of Al Qaeda. The unstated objective was the denuclearization of Pakistan. This scribe has continuously held this position, held consistently, in articles published in Nation from September 2001,all through 2002,2003,2004,2005 and till 2009.
The US strategic plan followed the following distinct phases
*An initial maneuver occupying Afghanistan in 2001.
*Establishing and consolidating US military bases near the Afghan Pakistan border. Most prominent being the Khost, Jalalabad, Sharan and Kunar US bases. Some military bases like Dasht I Margo in Nimroz and three other bases in Kandahar, Badakhshan and Logar were so secret that their construction was not even advertised. Even in the case of sensitive areas the contracts were awarded to the US Government owned Shaw Inc and the CIA proxy operated Dyncorps Corporation.
Patriotic Afghans trained in the USSR were removed from Afghan Intelligence because they would not agree to be a party to USA's dirty game in between 2001 and 2007. Similarly many patriotic Afghan officers trained in USSR were removed from the Afghan military establishment.
* Cultivating various tribes in ethnic groups on the Pakistan Afghan border by awarding them lucrative construction and logistic sub contracts.
* Forcing the Pakistani military to act against the FATA tribes thus destabilizing Pakistan's North West area close to the strategic heartland of Peshawar-Islamabad-Lahore where Pakistan's political and military nucleus is located.
* Creating a situation where mysterious insurgencies erupted in various parts of Pakistan including FATA, Swat and Baluchistan.
* Carrying forward urban terrorism into Punjab through various proxies. Now it appears that the strategic plan is entering its final stage of launching a strategic coup de grace to Pakistan.
These may be assessed as following
* A US military buildup in Afghanistan and the launching of an offensive against Taliban, with an aim of pushing them into Pakistan.
* Simultaneously pressuring the Pakistan Army into launching an operation in Waziristan. Thus Pakistan´s Army gets severely bogged down and hundreds of thousands of refugees enter Pakistan's NWFP and Baluchistan provinces. Infiltrators and fifth columnists being a heavy promiscuous mixture of this movement.
* Since 2001 the USA has spent a great fortune collecting information on Pakistan's strategic nuclear assets. It appears that in 2009 it has sufficient data to launch a covert operation. The covert nuclear operation could have a civilian and a military part. The civilian part may involve an attack on Pakistan's non-military nuclear reactors like Chashma and KANUPP. The military covert operation could involve an attack on any of Pakistan's strategic nuclear groups anywhere in Pakistan.
Once this type of attack is done the USA with its NATO lackeys like Britain, France and Germany would go the UN and maneuver an international resolution, demanding the denuclearization of Pakistan. The international opinion may be so strong that Pakistan's government may capitulate.
* Once Pakistan is denuclearized, the USA would encourage Pakistan's Balkanization into a Baloch US satellite, a city-state of MQM in Karachi, a Pashtunistan badly bombed and in tatters and a Punjab stripped of nuclear potential, kicked and bullied by India. A Northern Area republic which is an US lackey unless China decides to call the US bluff by occupying the Northern Area.
CL. At closing, I remember that you stated, that international law was irrelevant because nothing had changed since the time of Alexander the Great. I agree that for instance the International Criminal Court has more to do with victor's justice than with international law. We see over the last decade a serious explosion of international law at its very root. The Geneva Conventions are circumvented by creating artificial constructs such as unlawful combatant, enhanced interrogation methods, the use of "contractors", as if they were workers to build public schools and hospitals, being deployed to maintain military tasks. Extraordinary rendition, just to mention a few of the most obvious problems. As a man of military education, which risks do you see in the deterioration of international law ?
AHA. We are heading towards an international new order where the power of the state will be totally in hands of a corrupt mafia, who will usurp all human rights on pretext of controlling terrorism. This would result in grand strategic anarchy and even the US will Balkanize. The boomerang will come back and as they say the wheel turns !
Interview with Maj. Agha H. Amin by Christof Lehmann
Free Syrian Army fighters near the Menagh air base in Aleppo Province, which rebels captured this week after months of trying.
BEIRUT, Lebanon — As foreign fighters pour into Syria at an increasing clip, extremist groups are carving out pockets of territory that are becoming havens for Islamist militants, posing what United States and Western intelligence officials say may be developing into one of the biggest terrorist threats in the world today.
Follow@nytimesworldfor international breaking news and headlines.
Known as fierce fighters willing to employ suicide car bombs, the jihadist groups now include more than 6,000 foreigners, counterterrorism officials say, adding that such fighters are streaming into Syria in greater numbers than went into Iraq at the height of the insurgency there against the American occupation.
Many of the militants are part of the Nusra Front, an extremist group whose fighters have gained a reputation over the past several months as some of the most effective in the opposition.
But others are assembling under a new, even more extreme umbrella group, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, that is merging some Syrians with fighters from around the world — Chechnya, Pakistan, Egypt and the West, as well as Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni insurgent group that rose to prominence in the fight against the American occupation in the years after the 2003 invasion. The concern is that a new affiliate of Al Qaeda could be emerging from those groups.
It was the fear of militants coming to dominate the opposition that caused the United States and its Western allies to hold off providing lethal aid to the Syrian opposition, at least until now. But as a result, counterterrorism analysts say, they lost a chance to influence the battle in Syria. Even Congressional supporters of the C.I.A.'s covert program to arm moderate elements of the Syrian opposition fear the delivery of weapons, set to begin this month, will be too little, too late.
The stakes are high. American intelligence officials said this week that Ayman al-Zawahri, the overall leader of Al Qaeda in Pakistan, has had regular communications with the Nusra Front in Syria, reflecting how favorably the Qaeda leadership views the long-term potential for Syria as a safe haven. Juan Zarate, a former senior counterterrorism official in the George W. Bush administration, said that Syria lay in the center of an arc of instability, stretching from Iran through North Africa, and "in that zone, you may have the regeneration and resurrection of a new brand of Al Qaeda."
In Syria, the battle lines have hardened in recent months. The Syrian government, backed by Iran and Hezbollah, has seized new momentum and retaken territory in the south and east from the rebels. At the same time, power within the badly fractured opposition, numbering about 1,200 groups, has steadily slipped into the hands of the jihadists based in the northeast, where this week they seized a strategic airport in the area. They also hold sway in the provincial capital of Raqqa.
The idea that Syria could supplant Pakistan as the primary haven for Al Qaeda someday, should the government fall, is a heavy blow to the Western-backed Syrian opposition and its military arm, the Free Syrian Army. It plays directly into the hands of Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, whose government has sought to portray itself as the only alternative to Islamic extremism and chaos and has made the prospect of full-on American support even more remote than it already was.
Mr. Assad's argument "began as a fiction during the period of peaceful, unarmed protests but is now a reality" because of Mr. Assad's own efforts to divide the country as well as the success of the extremists, Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine, wrote in a recent essay that appeared in The National.
In Raqqa recently, a commander of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria sipped coffee after breaking the Ramadan fast, wearing a Pakistani-style outfit. The commander, Abu Omar, was Syrian, a member of a tribe in the area, but he described his movement's goals as reaching far beyond the country's borders.
He did not speak of attacking the United States. But he threatened Russia, and he spoke of a broad-based battle against Shiite-led Iran and its quest to dominate the region, and said Sunnis from across the world were justified in flocking to Syria to fight because of the government's reliance on Shiite fighters from Lebanon and Iraq.
The volatility of Gas, Geo-Politics and the Greater Middle East. An Interview with Major Agha H. Amin
CL. Not long ago we were discussing the situation in Syria, and the fact that the root cause for the attempted subversion of Syria is the 10 billion USD PARS gas pipeline project from Iran, via Iraq and Syria to the Easter Mediterranean Coast, the most important factors being the political leverage Iran would acquire if it, together with Russia provided more than 40 % of the gas consumed in the EU over the coming 100 – 120 years, a US and a US and UK attempt to sabotage the further integration of the continental European and Russian national economies and energy sectors. Both high ranking members of the Workers Party Turkey and retired Turkish military officers accuse the AKP government of Prime Minister R. Tayyip Erdogan of being involved in the implementation of the Greater Middle East Project, developed by the RAND Corporation for the US Defense Department in 1996. This plan includes the "balkanization" of Turkey into smaller states. We discussed a possible plan to establish a NATO Corridor from Turkey to India. In our discussion you said: "I would like to add to them that the establishment of the Kurdistan part of the corridor would significantly change the security dynamics of the Russian South Stream gas pipeline which is part of the causes for the war on Syria." Could you please brief us on the most important factors with regard to the security dynamics of the Russian South Stream gas pipeline ?
AHA. The strategic idea of NATO, is aiming at securing the northern borders of Israel against Hezbollah and the southern borders against Hamas; to eliminate the Russian naval base in the eastern Mediterranean, Syrian city of Tartous. NATO is planning to create a western strategic corridor to maintain energy-security in the case that oil supplies through the Strait of Hormuz are disrupted because of a war with Iran or otherwise.
One of the first steps toward the implementation of the long-term strategic plan, is the partition of Turkey by creating separate Kurdish areas, thereby providing NATO a direct access to Russia´s soft underbelly in the Caucasus.
This can ideally be used to dominate the Caucasian oil as well as support the Chechen against Russia in a low intensity conflict. Also, to create a viable independent Kurd state, it would need a windpipe access to the sea. This can be provided via the southern coast of Turkey and the Northern Coast of Syria. Whether a Syrian government soldier or a Syrian Islamist "Nut" dies in the process, "both are equally beneficial to the US/NATO".
The cardinal strategic idea is to internalize the war within the Islamic world so that Europe and the USA become safer while the enemies of western civilization destroy each other.
NATO is a club of wolves and Turkey is the odd wolf in NATO. Once the wolves have eaten Syria, they will eat the odd wolf Turkey. Yes, Turkey has been getting huge funds from Saudi Arabia, especially the clown Islamist Freedom and Justice Party. The clown Islamist Party is corrupting Turkey´s secularism. On the other side, Turkey is playing as NATO´s best chattel.
To use a historic comparison. When Hitler started eating the lambs of Europe like the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia and Austria, the world tolerated it. The limit was reached in 1939. It is comparable with the NATO, led by the USA, eating the lambs since 1991. First Serbia was destroyed, then came Kosovo, then came Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
I think and hope that Syria would be the turning point. With Libya a most negative practice of using Islamist mad dogs and proxies started. Al Qaeda and other most rabid Islamist groups were used in Libya and now again in Syria. The NATO is unleashing the same savages that it claims to fight in Afghanistan on secular states like Libya and Syria.
If Russia had not asserted itself, the wolves would have attacked Syria by now. These wolves only fear Weapons of Mass Destruction, WMD´s, and any state not having WMD´s will be shred into bits and devoured by the wolves. Lets hope that Putin proves to be like a new Moses who challenges the wolves who have the souls of Pagans.
CL. Considering the volatility of the situation in Syria and that a conflict of that nature easily can develop a dynamic on its own, even a dynamic that was neither planned nor wanted by any of the stakeholders, and considering that the aggravation of the crisis into a regional war with the involvement of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, the Gulf Arab States, Turkey and NATO countries as well as Russia could have catastrophic consequences,- furthermore considering that the situation as it is seems so that non of the stakeholders can win, but all can loose, which diplomatic, political and economic initiatives would you consider necessary and feasible to solve the crisis ?
AHA. "We are moving toward a great global war and supreme strategic anarchy by remote pilot".
This happened, because the pilots who were supposed to man policy and regulate the tide of history did not have the talent to exercise their due role in history ! These pilots in reality wore the uniforms of pilots but had the caliber of air stewards and air pursers! This includes Obama, Yusuf Raza Gillani, Man Mohan Singh and the Saudi king. This brought us into a Sarajevo situation, where events started moving decision makers rather than decision makers moving events.
Till 2008 the USA was led by an impetuous pilot with a low IQ but a definite strategic decisiveness. A man with limited intellect, but one who could take strategic decisions. After 2008 the USA got a social climber who looked outwardly smart and bright but lacked statesmanship and had near zero strategic vision. Thus Afghanistan, after 2008, moved from relative calm into anarchy, as far as the South was concerned.
Pakistan was the worst case. It was led by an opportunist who attempted to please all parties, including the Americans, Islamists, Pakistani liberals and the Indians. As as result Pakistan developed such a fatal "confusion of principle" that the whole Pakistani society was fractured down into its deepest foundations. This military opportunist in turn, made peace with the corrupt politicians to prolong his rule. Subsequently, the whole political fabric of Pakistan was shattered.
The Pakistani military was attacked by Islamists, for allegedly being in league with the Christian powers. The Pakistani military lost its entire credibility when it emerged as the main party in the controversial NRO deal, which legitimized past corruption of Pakistan´s politicians, which the army had prosecuted with zeal from 1999 to 2002. Pakistan became engulfed in two major insurgencies. One with the Islamists and the other in Baluchistan. Both have the potential to destabilize and even to destroy Pakistan.
The USA has no strategy in Afghanistan and is in a catch 22, unless it decides on a strategy of decisive action. While the US policy makers saw Pakistan as a center of gravity of Islamists, including the Afghan Taliban, the US failed to frame a decisive strategy for dealing with Pakistan. Pakistan´s nuclear assets, Chinese support, and a growing Russian support are principal obstacles that the USA faces in formulating a strategy of decisive action against Pakistan. Both Iran and Pakistan remain two strategic thorn lands that the USA faces and which are being constantly watered by China and Russia.
The Osama Raid and the Salala incident forced Pakistan´s military and political elite to close the NATO supply line to Afghanistan. The memogate scandal also increased the civil military divide in Pakistan but this appears to be more of a US ploy to divide and weaken Pakistan.
The key strategic trends in this scenario are the following:
Any US withdrawal, in totality or partially, would strengthen the Islamists in Afghanistan who will see full or partial defeat of the US as a great victory for Islam. This would destabilize Pakistan and increase the chances of a war between India and Pakistan.
The US missile shield has permanently alienated Russia, and Russia will re-assert itself and take the lead in aiding all anti US forces. US failure to correctly deal with Iran and Pakistan will further destabilize the situation. Pakistan´s nuclear assets will deter the US from any grand adventure against Pakistan.
The US´s chances of an internal pro US coup in Pakistan by the PPP have become week after the Osama bin Laden incident and the Salala incident. The chances of a military coup in Pakistan will get stronger as the situation moves and if the Pakistani´s ISI´s (Inters Services Intelligence-service) plan to bring a national government led by Imran Khan fails.
India still perceives Pakistan as a grave strategic threat and remains apprehensive of Pakistan's strategic nukes. This will ensure that the Indians will continue with aiding the low intensity war in Pakistan. The US will try to follow a policy that reduces Pakistan to a smaller size and confines Pakistan´s nukes to Punjab.
In the case of Baluchistan, it will not be difficult for the USA to Balkanize Pakistan if the USA decides to support Baloch secessionists. Karachi remains a strategic US asset with the MQM and other elements who can paralyze Karachi at few hours notice.
US policy will be difficult to formulate and execute. No nuclear state was ever denuclearized by war. The policy that the US will follow will be to destabilize Pakistan and to present it as a danger to world peace, like the Democratic Peoples´ Republic North Korea. In the process, even a small incident can initiate a grand strategic earthquake. God help the USA, Pakistan, India and the world.
CL. The US-led war on Afghanistan has now lasted for more than ten years. After NATO´s 25th Summit in Chicago in 2012 it transpired that NATO will maintain a presence in Afghanistan until at least 2014, and most likely until 2025 and beyond. NATO and western mainstream media continue marketing the argument that the NATO presence is necessary for fighting "the Taliban" and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the US Aggressions in Pakistan, predominantly in the form of drone attacks increase, and are also being marketed under the slogan of combating "the Taliban". Could you please help us deconstruct the tale of "the Taliban" and elicit who is meant with "the Taliban", which nuances should we should be aware of. It seems that the USA in many regards is fighting an enemy which it creates.
AHA. To answer your questions, let me refer to my 2008 assessment. "Note that Obama is just a clever social climber, a mixed breed who was kicked upwards, a President with no control over anything."
The objectives are not Al Qaeda, the Taliban or bin Laden. The objectives are to attack Iran, Russia´s soft Central Asian State and oil-rich belly, to destabilize China´s Sinkiang province with an Islamist insurrection, to denuclearize Pakistan and to consolidate the US – India base against China after Pakistan has been Balkanized.
The objectives on the ground are neither Al Qaeda, the Taliban or Bin Laden. The droning of random targets continues to convince public opinion and gives the rich friends in the defense industry more ammunition and equipment contracts. US troops consolidate the oil transmission route on the herat Kandahar road.
No real offensive is launched against the Taliban. They are the good reason for why the USA is in Afghanistan, so why would the US/NATO want to eliminate "them". US policy is pressuring Pakistan by the means of drone attacks, forcing Pakistan to take military action in Fata is designed to destabilize Pakistan so that final grounds for the denuclearization of Pakistan are being set in place. The US tools in this exercise are US contractors in Pakistan and Afghanistan, US and British security companies in Pakistan, US or EX-US Bankers and Corporate Executives in Pakistan who are subverting civil and military brass. Through the 2008 elections the US has already achieved a political regime change in Pakistan, while the Pakistani military, who are safeguarding Pakistan´s nuclear assets are the next target.
The objective to attack Iran and Russia´s soft Central Asian State oil-rich belly has so far been a miserable failure, with US proxies being checked bu Central Asia, Iran and China. However, secret training of proxies is going on in US bases in Afghanistan. With regard to the objective to destabilize the Chinese Sinkiang province with an Islamist insurrection, it is a logical objective, but there is the independent will of the enemy, backed with WMDs. China is "not" Iraq.
The denuclearization of Pakistan is proceeding at a good pace, although no major success has been achieved. The Pakistani civilian government is fully on the US payroll while it may take 2 – 5 years for the Pakistani military to become a full-time US chattel. With regard to the objective of consolidating the US – India base after Pakistan is Balkanized, the program for Balkanization includes a Baloch State, a Pashtunistan, a City State of Karachi, Sindhu Desh. A denuclearized Pakistan will only be consisting of Punjab and northern areas controlled by China. This is to take five to ten years. With Pakistan Balkanized the US and India will have a complete, contiguous base against China and Russia.
The Analysis.
The present US strategic position is the silent registration of targets in Pakistan, Iran, Chinese Sinkiang and Russian dominated Central Asia. By trying to base logistics on Russian Ex Soviet Central Asian states, the USA is trying to bring economic benefits to Central Asia, so that the Russian hold can be weakened. However, Russia is convinced, that the US must fail in Afghanistan and it has made considerable efforts to aid anti US forces in Afghanistan through Iran and through Central Asian republics. US forces will not be able to control Afghanistan unless Pakistan is Balkanized and this would at least take 3 to 5 years.
The first state to secede with US support would be Baluchistan. This is so, because the Base of anti US forces in Afghanistan is Pakistani Baluchistan, and Russia, Iran, and China have a combined interest in making the USA bleed in Afghanistan through Pakistani proxies known as Taliban. When Pakistan aids the Taliban in Afghanistan it is actually defending Pakistan. The maneuver to fix the situation for the USA would be an US manipulated India Pakistan war that would be leaving Pakistan severely damaged and India less damaged, followed by a denuclearization of Pakistan.
China, Russia and Iran are the US opponents. They have the potential to throw a spanner in US plans. There is the unforeseen Factor X.
There appears to be a strong evolving consensus in the USA as well as its NATO allies that Pakistan is the center of gravity of the Islamists in the ongoing, so-called war on terror. The idea gained currency in various high US policy making circles as well as think tanks around 1987 – 89 and then assumed a solid shape in the decade 1990 – 2000. After it was adopted as policy and concrete albeit top-secret planning was started to deal with Pakistan, which at the ulterior level was seen as part of the problem rather than a solution.
Let me also refer a 2006 assessment that is still valid: A Brief Strategic Assessment of US Presence in Afghanistan Made in September 2005. By Agha Amin.
The distinction between Islamist and non Islamist is being fast transformed into US versus Anti US Forces. Afghanistan may prove to be an area of strategic convergence for Islamists, China, Russia and even Pakistan and Iran which are logically phase two US targets. It is naive to think that the USA came to Afghanistan to deal with Talibs.
The choices of the USA: The USA has several choices. It can deal with Afghanistan alone and consolidate. This would not be cost-effective for the USA. The investment it has made is too big. It could widen the front to Phase Two, Pakistan and Iran. Phase Three may be Chinese Sinkiang and Phase Four Central Asian Republics. The US can also chose to withdraw from Afghanistan while retaining a central position to strike at any target in the area. Possibly and independent Baloch State, carved out of Iran and Pakistan alone at first and Pakistani Baluchistan later.
China´s and Russia´s Choices: China and Russia can allow the USA an uncontested stay and risk a Muslim rising in Sinkiang within the next ten years and US domination of Central Asian Republics. They can aid anti US forces, using non state actors in Pakistan and state actors in other areas, and they can strengthen alliances with Iranian and Pakistani states.
Pakistan and Iran's choices: Pakistan and Iran can either accept US domination and scrap WMD programs, strengthen alliances with China and Russia, or aid anti US forces in Afghanistan with Chinese and Russian blessings.
The Major Actors: The anti US forces are divided in two parts , state and non state actors. The main bases of non state actors are in Pakistan,Iran and Middle East. The Pakistani and Iranian states are the forward states having direct borders with Afghanistan and are involved in the Afghan game via state and non state actors.
Key Strategic trends: A realization in Pakistan, that the Pakistani WMD apparatus is a future target of the USA which will have Afghanistan as its base. A realization in both China and Russia that the strategic salvation of both lies in aiding anti US groups , particularly those in Afghanistan. The development of Pakistan as the best base area of anti US groups operating in Afghanistan more because of non state actors. In order to deal with non state actors, the USA at some stage, will have to deal with both Pakistan and Iran. The USA seems strategically clueless and is playing a waiting game. Time is the key. Anti US forces can wait for ten years but every second, the USA is losing money. The USA has to achieve a tangible strategical objective. Both China and Russia will use the Islamic card, like the USA used it in Afghanistan from 1979 till 1989.
Militarily, an anti US war in Afghanistan aided by China and Russia can prove to be USA's Spanish ulcer. Anti US forces in Afghanistan Pakistan and Iran are intact and can change the strategic balance. The USAs hold in Afghanistan is confined to key cities only.
The drug mafia is a major US opponent and can sustain anti US forces in Afghanistan. Islamists have realized that they must have China and Russia as allies. The same realization is taking place in China and Russia. Thus, there arises the convergence of interest.
The strategic options of the USA are: To create an alternate drug mafia which is non Pashtun and create new states, which are US allies like Baluchistan,Kurdistan. Possibly the USA could also work toward a non Pashtun state in North Afghanistan.
CL. In one of our discussions you said that there was a significant discrepancy between the areas where the USA is deploying drones and where the so-called "Taliban" attacks US troops. You also stated that many of the drone attacks are carried out in areas where the Pakistani military controls and secures the Af-Pak border while very few, if any drone attacks are carried out in areas where it would actually make sense. Could you please describe this in some detail and elicit the most important strategic as well as political implications ?
AHA. Drone attacks are being carried out in the two agencies North and South Waziristan and 90 % are carried out in the Datta Khel Sub District. These are aimed at Haqqani Group which is regarded as an ISI asset by the USA.
A major aim with the drone attacks is also to benefit private contractors who are involved in these attacks at all levels from intelligence gathering down to munitions and drone suppliers. Another major idea is to demoralize the Pashtuns, so that any war against the USA would bring such a retribution that they will be unable to answer or match it with equal fire.
CL. You stated that Iran has a significant interest in South West Afghanistan. WE hear very little about this in western media and I have not been able to find any detailed analysis in Iranian media either. Could you please give us your position on which role Iran is playing in Afghanistan ?
AHA. Iran is active in West Afghanistan as well as Central Afghanistan. Iran is a most important supporter of the Northern Alliance after Russia and India . Iran views the Taliban as an existential threat. It regards non Pashtuns as well as moderate Pashtuns as its allies.
CL. There is little doubt among analysts that the USA and some NATO member states are attempting to "balkanize" Pakistan into smaller nations. We observe increased activities of often Soros-funded UN agencies and NGOs, especially in Northern Pakistan, indicating an attempt to play on ethnicity. It is a standard strategy which has been used by the West in Yugoslavia, especially in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the strategy is currently being implemented in Nepal, and it is being implemented in Myanmar, in an attempt to create so-called inter-communal violence in Myanmar´s Rakhine State. Could you give us your perspective about attempts to destruct the nation-state Pakistan ?
AHA. Let me also here refer to a previous assessment which I made in April 2009. Every movement in history has a direction, a quantum, a modus operandi. According to the father of the philosophy of war Carl Von Clausewitz everything in strategy moves slowly, imperceptibly, subtly, somewhat mysteriously and sometimes invisibly.
The greatness of a military commander or statesman lies in assessing these strategic movements. The USA inherited a historical situation in the shape of 9/11.At this point in time it was not making history if we agree that 9/11 was the work of Al Qaeda for which so far the USA has failed to furnish any solid evidence.
After 9/11 when the USA attacked Afghanistan ,US leaders and key military commanders were making history. They had a certain plan in mind. The stated objectives of these plan were the elimination of Al Qaeda. The unstated objective was the denuclearization of Pakistan. This scribe has continuously held this position, held consistently, in articles published in Nation from September 2001,all through 2002,2003,2004,2005 and till 2009.
The US strategic plan followed the following distinct phases
*An initial maneuver occupying Afghanistan in 2001.
*Establishing and consolidating US military bases near the Afghan Pakistan border. Most prominent being the Khost, Jalalabad, Sharan and Kunar US bases. Some military bases like Dasht I Margo in Nimroz and three other bases in Kandahar, Badakhshan and Logar were so secret that their construction was not even advertised. Even in the case of sensitive areas the contracts were awarded to the US Government owned Shaw Inc and the CIA proxy operated Dyncorps Corporation.
Patriotic Afghans trained in the USSR were removed from Afghan Intelligence because they would not agree to be a party to USA's dirty game in between 2001 and 2007. Similarly many patriotic Afghan officers trained in USSR were removed from the Afghan military establishment.
* Cultivating various tribes in ethnic groups on the Pakistan Afghan border by awarding them lucrative construction and logistic sub contracts.
* Forcing the Pakistani military to act against the FATA tribes thus destabilizing Pakistan's North West area close to the strategic heartland of Peshawar-Islamabad-Lahore where Pakistan's political and military nucleus is located.
* Creating a situation where mysterious insurgencies erupted in various parts of Pakistan including FATA, Swat and Baluchistan.
* Carrying forward urban terrorism into Punjab through various proxies. Now it appears that the strategic plan is entering its final stage of launching a strategic coup de grace to Pakistan.
These may be assessed as following
* A US military buildup in Afghanistan and the launching of an offensive against Taliban, with an aim of pushing them into Pakistan.
* Simultaneously pressuring the Pakistan Army into launching an operation in Waziristan. Thus Pakistan´s Army gets severely bogged down and hundreds of thousands of refugees enter Pakistan's NWFP and Baluchistan provinces. Infiltrators and fifth columnists being a heavy promiscuous mixture of this movement.
* Since 2001 the USA has spent a great fortune collecting information on Pakistan's strategic nuclear assets. It appears that in 2009 it has sufficient data to launch a covert operation. The covert nuclear operation could have a civilian and a military part. The civilian part may involve an attack on Pakistan's non-military nuclear reactors like Chashma and KANUPP. The military covert operation could involve an attack on any of Pakistan's strategic nuclear groups anywhere in Pakistan.
Once this type of attack is done the USA with its NATO lackeys like Britain, France and Germany would go the UN and maneuver an international resolution, demanding the denuclearization of Pakistan. The international opinion may be so strong that Pakistan's government may capitulate.
* Once Pakistan is denuclearized, the USA would encourage Pakistan's Balkanization into a Baloch US satellite, a city-state of MQM in Karachi, a Pashtunistan badly bombed and in tatters and a Punjab stripped of nuclear potential, kicked and bullied by India. A Northern Area republic which is an US lackey unless China decides to call the US bluff by occupying the Northern Area.
CL. At closing, I remember that you stated, that international law was irrelevant because nothing had changed since the time of Alexander the Great. I agree that for instance the International Criminal Court has more to do with victor's justice than with international law. We see over the last decade a serious explosion of international law at its very root. The Geneva Conventions are circumvented by creating artificial constructs such as unlawful combatant, enhanced interrogation methods, the use of "contractors", as if they were workers to build public schools and hospitals, being deployed to maintain military tasks. Extraordinary rendition, just to mention a few of the most obvious problems. As a man of military education, which risks do you see in the deterioration of international law ?
AHA. We are heading towards an international new order where the power of the state will be totally in hands of a corrupt mafia, who will usurp all human rights on pretext of controlling terrorism. This would result in grand strategic anarchy and even the US will Balkanize. The boomerang will come back and as they say the wheel turns !
Interview with Maj. Agha H. Amin by Christof Lehmann
The writer is a columnist, a former major of the Pakistan Army and served as press secretary to Benazir Bhutto.kamran.shafi@tribune.com.pk
For, we too are floating about merrily, unaware that we are plumb in the sights of a dangerous, most fearful, and cruel enemy who would not think twice about cutting men, women and children's heads off with a blunt knife (to cause the most pain) in his quest for complete control of the Citadel of Islam. And thence onwards to the Caliphate through Global Jihad.
And here we are, bringing out Eid fashion lines; putting up billboards with pretty young models showing off the latest in shoes, and handsome men sporting the latest waistcoats with gilded buttons; and advertising flights to some delightful Eden or other on one of the seven airlines that condescend to fly into one of our airports.
Despite the fact that we are regaled daily with the latest figures of our brave young soldiers and policemen and levies and khasadars, and plain innocent civilians being put to the knife by the savages; shot dead; blown up and kidnapped for ransom. Of the latest jailbreaks with not one casualty suffered by the terrorists; of the newest attempt at attacking the airport of the capital itself by up to 20 of the murderers and that too on the very night that the US secretary of state is in town.
Not even the wanton killing of 13 poor Punjabi labourers, brutally killed in Balochistan by terrorists while on their way home for Eid; not even the bombing of a football game in Lyari in which 11, mostly teenagers and even younger, are blown up, moves a hair on our heads. We go for sehri and iftar at Lahore's fancy restaurants, and tooling about in our fancy SUVs and BMWs.
Let's face it friends: the Taliban and their cohorts have us over a barrel, helped along by those who say all will be well after the Americans leave Afghanistan. I can just hear the Taliban laughing up their sleeves as they advance their project of taking over the whole blessed country. All IS lost already: what is left is for us to beseech the terrorists to go easy on us. Unless, that is, we wake up and do something about it, and stand behind our army solidly to give it the support it needs to root out this evil.
Which reminds me: while I thought there was just the Corps of Military Police Centre (CMP) and School stationed in DI Khan Cantonment, we are now informed by fellow tweeter and good man Major Agha Amin, formerly of the 11th(PAVO) Cavalry, that there is a whole Artillery Division and two Brigades stationed just 10 minutes' drive from DIK: near enough to hear the massive explosions caused by the rampaging Taliban.
And what indeed of the CMP Centre stationed in DIK city itself? Was no alarm raised; no probe sent to see what all the racket was about? Could this not have developed into an attack on the CMP itself? Will someone in authority, such as the ISPR, clarify this please? WE have to act soon, or else we are really, really done for.
Lethargically and very, very slowly, the PTI government has started to blame (let us not be afraid to name it) the army for not coming out to help when asked, not only by the local officials concerned, but by the Chief Minister of K-P himself: Dunya August 5, 2013.
The paper says that whilst the army was in the loop and took part in making the arrangements to face the onslaught as foretold in the intelligence reports, it was not there when the assault did happen. The K-P CM has gone to the extent of saying that he himself called the Corps Commander, etcetera.
These are most serious charges and while the 'security establishment' has said that it will share the inquiry report with the provincial government, you and I, reader, taxpaying citizens whose money pays for both the provincial government and the military, don't know what the blazes is going on.
However, the K-P government, specially the Chief Minister, must answer some most critical questions: 1) What time did he first find out about the assault on that critically important jail which held so many violent criminals, one of them with a half-million dollars bounty on his head? 2) Who informed him in the chain of command: the Chief Secretary, the Commissioner, the IG Prisons,or the IG police? 3) What time did he call the Corps Commander for help and what was his exact response?
This is no laughing matter: this is that critical and perilous and dire time that comes upon nations facing extreme threats to their very existence; this is not to be fobbed off by either the government of K-P under whose watch this extremely dreadful event happened, or by the army which has been directly accused by an elected chief minister of the most strategically important province of the country of not doing its bounden duty: which is coming to the aid of the Civil Power when specifically requisitioned, not only by local civilian officials authorised according to law, but by the chief executive of the province himself.
The military too needs to look inwards and see where it failed. As if the earlier raids and attacks and killings and destruction of our assets (yes, such as AWACS; PC-3 Orions; and Naval helicopters) was not enough.
As the great poet said, this is that "tide in the affairs of men. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries". For us it simply means that if we do not stop confusing the people about who their real enemy is; if we do not start telling the truth about the terrorists' 'takeover' project which started in 1994, a full seven years before the Americans ever entered the 'War on Terror'; if we do not make the people fighting mad, we are dead in the water: like those sitting ducks we spoke about earlier.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 9th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
"A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself." - Joseph Pulitzer
"Organized religion is like organized crime, it preys on people's weaknesses, generates huge profits for its operators and is almost impossible to eradicate" Mike Hermann
USA wants Saudi-Iran War & Shia-Sunni Killings.
Imran Khan's Friend Cameron Munter's Interference in Iran.
RICHARD Holbrook, US Special Envoy for Pakistan mandated to secure and promote US agenda in the region, is now a familiar figure with frequent visits to Islamabad. He has gradually become more intrusive in Pakistan politics and governance and consequently more unwelcome. Holbrook carries an unsavoury record and reputation for his diplomatic exploits in Latin America. During his recent call on Islamabad, Holbrook evinced deep interest in the energy requirements of Pakistan and offered $1billion to boost the energy sector, stating that "US is determined to support Pakistan for peace and stability, for fight against terrorism and for alleviation of poverty".
The offer however is not an altruistic as Holbrook made it out. The severe energy crisis that Pakistan is facing today has had enormous negative impact on its economic development and political stability. The long power outages across the country has made it an issue of extreme volatility causing suffering in the daily life of Pakistani and putting Pakistan`s economic future in serious jeopardy . Pakistan`s energy requirements are increasing in geometrical ratio, and not only economic growth but political stability is directly linked with the availability of adequate energy resources. Pakistan initiated discussions with Iran in 1985 for construction of a natural gas pipeline linking Karachi with the South Pars natural gas field. The agreement called "peace pipeline" was signed by the president of Iran and Pakistan in Turkey on June 4, 2009, after considerable delay and lengthy negotiations, on price formula, security guarantee and transit royalties.
Iran has some 15.7 per cent of the world`s natural gas reserves, second only to Russia. Although its share in the global market does not reflect it, primarily due to US sanctions against Iran since the Islamic Revolution in 1980. However, now Iran is following an aggressive export policy and it is expected that given the ever increasing demand for energy by China, India and Europe, Iran`s total gas export will reach $18 billion in 2025. The pipeline would run about 1,115 km in Iran, 705 km in Pakistan and 850 km in India, had it joined IPI. Total investment is estimated at $7.04 billion and may take 4-5 years for completion. The US has continued its opposition to the proposed pipeline and urged India and Pakistan to abandon the project and instead explore alternative sources, such as coal, wind or solar energy. Samuel Bodman, Energy Secretary under Bush administration conveyed US concerns "If IPI is allowed to be formed in our judgment, this will contribute to the development of nuclear weapons by Iran. We need to stop this". The US has periodically conveyed its concerns at the highest level. This policy remains constant and now even more strident in the context of Iran nuclear standoff with US.
Despite the fact that energy needs of Pakistan are desperate and immediate, the US ignoring this consideration has mounted strong pressure on Pakistan to abandon Iran pipeline accord. Ambassador Holbrook in his discussion with Pakistani authorities assured them that the US was well aware of the energy crisis confronting Pakistan. He told them that if Pakistan foregoes the agreement providing gas import from Iran the US would help import electricity from Tajikistan through Afghanistan via Wakhan corridor. It would construct high voltage power transmission lines from Tajikistan to Pakistan. Holbrook assured that within the next four years US will assist another mega project in Pakistan costing 1 billion dollars. India was involved in the IPI project in the beginning but succumbed to the US pressure and opted out. Pakistan under the circumstances is not likely to resist any longer. The World Bank has also joined the US effort and warned Pakistan that major multilateral donors will stay away from the projects due to US opposition and hence the safe course for Pakistan would be to give up the project of Iran. It has instead proposed gas line project with Tajikistan known as TAPI.
TAPI is a 1680-km, 56-inch diameter gas pipeline starting from Dauletabad field in Turkmenistan to Fazilka at the Pakistan-India border, passing through Herat and Kandahar in Afghanistan and Multan in Pakistan. It is estimated that the pipeline will carry $3 to 5 trillion oil and natural gas from the Caspian Sea basin via Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Two oil refineries and four thermal power houses, with a 1,000 MW capacity will also be built for shipment of gas to other Asian markets. Pakistan government has already awarded the contract for laying the TAPI gas pipeline project to US-based International Oil Company (IOC). The four nation — Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India (TAPI) pipeline — project is part of the grand US design to set up a regional power grid stretching from Almaty to New Delhi. Central Asia with abundance of existing and potential oil gas and electricity sources can meet the growing demands of South Asia and also advance regional economic development and integration.
Given the US strategic interest in TAPI investment problems associated with IPI are not likely to prove a hurdle. ADB has shown interest in funding the project and agreed to a comprehensive review of the feasibility study to invite foreign investment. The four partners have agreed to formulate a long term pricing mechanism and a draft of the gas sales and purchase agreement would be ready soon. The issues of payment of transit fees to Afghanistan and Pakistan taxation structure and consortium procedures will be finalised by the end year. The supply is to begin in 2015. While the prospects for TAPI appear bright, the challenges of security situation in Afghanistan and the state of relations between India and Pakistan put a question mark on the completion of the project within stipulated time frame. The open and determined US opposition to IP project makes it highly improbable that the project signed between Pakistan and Iran on June 4, 2009 could be implemented. The project is not likely to get any investors and hence the project appears to be still born. Pakistan and Iran have already signed the Gas Sales Purchase Agreement and the deadline for the submission of conditions precedents (CP) by Pakistan was September 5, 2009 which in view of the constraint explained above has been extended until this month. The prevailing circumstances leave little space for Pakistan and it may have to opt out of the agreement. The stakes for Pakistan are very high. Pakistan`s diplomacy is facing its severest test. The negative impact on our bilateral relations with Iran could be well imagined in the event of Pakistan`s withdrawal. Pakistan should continue meeting its obligations under IPI to protect its national interests and avoid friction with the United States. There are reports of China`s interest in IPI. Pakistan should simultaneously intensify its diplomatic efforts to bring China on board, which given the rising cost of fuel and galloping needs of Chinese burgeoning economy may not be difficult to achieve. This is no small consideration for the sort of influence Pakistan would gain in resisting US pressure vis-Ã -vis IPI should TAPI run into serious schedule delays due to volatile security situation in Afghanistan. The writher is a former ambassador. REFERENCE: Energy crisis & Pakistan`s dilemma By Tayyab Siddiqui February 7, 2010 http://archives.dawn.com/archives/152745
WITH energy crisis feared to worsen next year because of the doubling of natural gas shortfalls, the only apparent hope to keep the economic engine running is the swift completion of the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project and import of liquefied natural gas. Over the next 20 years or so, the country is likely to depend primarily on timely realisation of these two projects. The country has already lost decades in development of cheap hydro and coal resources for power generation, resulting in the rising power rates and long hours of loadshedding. But the opposition to Iran-Pakistan pipeline has not died down. During the recent bilateral strategic dialogue concluded in Islamabad, the US officials clearly told Islamabad that Obama administration did not appreciate the gas import plan. They have tried to raise doubts over Iran`s reliability as a gas supplier and Tehran`s credibility not to seek tariff revisions after completion of the project. However they were surprised over the rates on which the two neighbourly countries have struck the deal.
At current oil prices, the Iranian gas is estimated to cost Pakistan around $9 per MMBTU (million British thermal unit) and the price is capped at a maximum of $100 a barrel. This could be used only for power production because of its comparatively higher rates when compared with domestic gas price of about $4.5 per MMBTU. While opposing the Iranian gas project, the US has not shown any interest in going deep into Sui field in Balochistan and in exploitation of over a trillion cubic feet of tight gas in small pockets across the country at economical rates. America is known to have made technological advancement for tapping such difficult resources. Pakistan had sought the US assistance for technical studies, surveys and latest production techniques to maximise domestic production of gas including from deep, shallow and tight horizons. This makes easier for Islamabad to resist the US pressure against Iranian gas project. It would be in the best interest of Iran and Pakistan to stick to the `peace pipeline` agreement, honour their mutual commitments and move swiftly to complete the multi-billion dollar project as early as possible.The agreements entail first gas flows by end 2014 which could be advanced by one year if domestic gas companies – SNGPL and SSGCL – are engaged to construct about 750-kilometer of pipeline. More so, because they are well versed with the terrain, routes and other technical details inside their country`s borders, given their vast existing pipeline network – one of the world`s largest integrated transmission system. The two companies have indicated to complete the pipeline in 36 months compared with estimates of minimum 48 months, presented by a consultant who had been engaged without a transparent process as required under the public procurement rules. Simultaneously, the LNG import is the key to resolution of short-term energy needs. The prime minister has decided to go ahead with the contract finalised with 4Gas and GDF Suez for import of 3.5 million tons per annum (500 million cubic feet per day), on which a lot of time has been lost due to unnecessary litigations. At the same time, the prime minister has agreed to allow other firms to bring in additional quantities of LNG. The benchmark prices agreed for contracted project would, however, need to be kept in mind to ensure that energy costs remain within affordable limits.Officials estimate that the gas shortfall is likely to almost double to more than two billion cubic feet a day (BCFD) even if the liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports planned over the next few months materialise. The most important thing is to put all resources and efforts together to expedite and enhance domestic oil and gas production. The OGDCL, the PPL and others have been sitting on vast hydrocarbon resources for decades because of bureaucratic wrangling and security reasons, which should end, given the increasing energy shortages. As of now, the gap between gas demand and supply stand at around one BCFD this year and the plan to import gas from Iran through a proposed pipeline would, at best, materialise in four to five years. The shortage of one BCFD this winter, would go up to 2.1 BCFD by next year. The demand and supply estimates suggest that the gas shortfalls would increase by more than 300 per cent to 6.5 BCFD by 2020.The projections imply that while gas demand would maintain a steady increase over the next 10 years — from 4.8 BCFD now to 8.6 BCFD in 2020 — the supplies would register a further decline, from four BCFD this year to 2.11 BCFD by 2020. Over the next two years, however, the supplies would slightly increase by 0.5 BCFD because of LNG imports. The estimates suggest the shortfalls would increase despite a projected gas import through the IPI pipeline in 2014 and LNG imports next year because of the decrease in domestic production. These estimates indicate that shortfalls would be even higher if taken at the historic 6.5 per cent growth rate rather than 4.5 per cent assumed earlier. Many believe that the demand, supply and shortfall estimates were still conservative given the fact that these had been prepared keeping in mind the current downturn in economic activities. That would mean even higher reliance on imported fuels like diesel and furnace oil to meet electricity demand. The oil import bill last year stood at about $9.5 billion and is forecast to be around $11.6 billion this year. If the gas import pipeline is not completed, oil import bill could reach $15 billion in only two years. In the recent past, the previous government had planned five major initiatives to meet energy requirements, including three gas import pipelines, Gwadar port as an energy hub and LNG import. There has been no progress on these three pipeline projects, while building energy facilities at Gwadar has remained a pipe dream chiefly because of security situation. REFERENCE: Energy security options By Khaleeq Kiani June 21, 2010 http://archives.dawn.com/archives/15865
KARACHI: A US State Department official in a meeting urged President Asif Ali Zardari against accepting Iran's offer of concessional oil for Pakistan and providing Iran with a foothold in Pakistan, a 'Secret' American diplomatic cable made available to Dawn reveals. The meeting between Richard Boucher, US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia during the Bush administration, and President Zardari took place on October 18, 2008 at the Aiwan-e-Sadr, during which Mr Zardari apprised the visiting official of the Iranian offer that the President "did not believe he could refuse." "How could he go to the National Assembly and tell them Iran had offered the assistance and Pakistan had turned it down, he asked rhetorically," the then US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W. Patterson wrote in the cable dated October 22, 2008, referring to President Zardari. She added that, "Boucher reminded him of Ambassador Haqqani's recent conversation with Deputy Secretary Negroponte in which the Deputy cautioned against providing Iran with a toehold in Pakistan." The cable illustrates how US officials tried influencing Pakistan's policy not only with regard to Iran but also indicates how and with whom Pakistan had been dealing with at the time in order to meet its energy requirements. The American caution about Irani oil is consistent with the US government's efforts to isolate Iran both militarily and economically. The oil offer was discussed months after Pakistan's Economic Coordination Committee (ECC) had approved the revised gas purchase agreement between Islamabad and Tehran for the import of gas through the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline (formerly the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline). The US has continually expressed its reservations over the project from which India withdrew in 2008. REFERENCE: Don't provide Iran with a foothold, US told Pak By Qurat ul ain Siddiqui | From the Newspaper (6 hours ago) Today http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/24/dont-provide-iran-with-a-foothold-us-told-pak.html
Months after the talks with Mr Boucher, President Zardari, in a discussion with a Congressional delegation headed by US Senator Patrick Leahy, again referred to Iran's offer to provide "oil, gas and electricity to Pakistan", another cable dated May 26, 2009 by Ms Patterson detailing the meeting states. Mr Zardari told the delegation during the May 25, 2009 meeting that "Pakistan desperately needed energy resources" and that "no on else – especially the Saudis" was ready to help. However, in a possible attempt to please the delegation, he went on to say: "I need you more than anyone else, so I will take my cue from you. Perhaps now it will be possible to work with Iran on energy issues." Interestingly, however, Ms Patterson noted in the cable that President Zardari asked for the "cue" a day after he and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had signed an inter-governmental framework declaration to support the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline agreement between the oil ministries of Pakistan and Iran. Moreover, around the time of the Boucher-Zardari meeting, along with pursuing the Iran gas pipeline project, Pakistan was in talks with the Chinese government over a deal to build two additional nuclear power plants for the country, once construction of the Chashma II reactor was completed. A contract to cooperate in building the two new nuclear reactors, commonly referred to as Chashma III and IV, at the Chashma atomic complex was eventually signed on June 8, 2010. The development occurred despite misgivings on part of the US and other governments which have every now and then stated that China should seek approval of the reactors from the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a group of nuclear supplier countries that seeks to reduce nuclear proliferation and of which China is a member. On the other hand, the US government was almost simultaneously in touch with Saudi officials regarding Saudi-Pak negotiations to assist Pakistan "by deferring crude oil payments", a previously published cable dated July 30, 2008 states. It further states that if the US government assessed that a "rapid implementation" of the Saudi offer was "critically important to the Pakistan government's stability, it will likely take USG intervention at the highest levels with senior Saudi officials…to secure its rapid implementation." REFERENCE: Cables referenced: WikiLeaks #174700, http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/24/2008-do-not-to-allow-iran-toehold-in-pakistan-us.html 208526, 164170 Don't provide Iran with a foothold, US told Pak By Qurat ul ain Siddiqui | From the Newspaper (6 hours ago) Today http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/24/dont-provide-iran-with-a-foothold-us-told-pak.html
The arrest of Jundallah leader Abdolmalek Rigi on Tuesday should have a positive impact on Iran-Pakistan relations. The terrorist leader and his deputy were arrested by Iranian security forces when a Bishkek-bound flight was diverted to Iran to catch a man whose organisation was responsible for a deadly terrorist attack last October that killed 35 civilians, besides seven revolutionary guards. While Tehran never really joined the `do more` chorus to pressure Islamabad for action against the plethora of banned — and not banned — militant outfits in this country, the Iranian government had serious reservations about the efficacy of Pakistan`s policy, especially with regard to the anti-Iran terrorists operating close to its border in Pakistani Balochistan. On a visit to this country following last October`s crime, Iranian Interior Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar reportedly provided Islamabad with proof of Jundallah`s activities here and its use of Pakistani soil for acts of terrorism against his country. For its part, Islamabad was vocal in denying that Rigi was ever based in Pakistan. But the ease with which militants of various nationalities have operated in this country for years has given a hollow ring to official protestations. Look at the most recent example Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, one of the Afghan Taliban`s top commanders, was arrested earlier this month in Karachi. He reportedly lived in Pakistan for several years and seemingly enjoyed the freedom to direct Taliban operations inside Afghanistan. Many people have aired suspicions that the so-called Quetta Shura leadership has started moving to the port city now. Against this backdrop, Jundallah`s claim that Pakistani intelligence helped in Rigi`s arrest should serve to remove some misunderstandings between Tehran and Islamabad. Additionally, along with Mullah Baradar`s arrest it may also mark a dramatically different, and welcome, approach by the Pakistani security set-up. REFERENCE: Jundallah chief`s arrest February 25, 2010 http://archives.dawn.com/archives/32473 Iran's Arrest of an Extremist Foe: Did Pakistan Help? By Ishaan Tharoor Thursday, Feb. 25, 2010 http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1968126,00.html
Annals of National Security - The Iran Plans Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb? by Seymour M. Hersh April 17, 2006 The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium. American and European intelligence agencies, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.), agree that Iran is intent on developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons. But there are widely differing estimates of how long that will take, and whether diplomacy, sanctions, or military action is the best way to prevent it. Iran insists that its research is for peaceful use only, in keeping with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that it will not be delayed or deterred. There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush's ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change. Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that Israel must be "wiped off the map." Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. "That's the name they're using. They say, 'Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?' " REFERENCE: Annals of National Security - The Iran Plans Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb? by Seymour M. Hersh April 17, 2006 http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact Target Iran: Former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter and Investigative Journalist Seymour Hersh on White House Plans for Regime Change December 21, 2006 http://www.democracynow.org/2006/12/21/target_iran_former_un_weapons_inspector
Annals of National Security - The Coming Wars What the Pentagon can now do in secret. by Seymour M. Hersh January 24, 2005 George W. Bush's reëlection was not his only victory last fall. The President and his national-security advisers have consolidated control over the military and intelligence communities' strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War national-security state. Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for using that control—against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the ongoing war on terrorism—during his second term. The C.I.A. will continue to be downgraded, and the agency will increasingly serve, as one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon put it, as "facilitators" of policy emanating from President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. This process is well under way. Despite the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the Bush Administration has not reconsidered its basic long-range policy goal in the Middle East: the establishment of democracy throughout the region. Bush's reëlection is regarded within the Administration as evidence of America's support for his decision to go to war. It has reaffirmed the position of the neoconservatives in the Pentagon's civilian leadership who advocated the invasion, including Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Douglas Feith, the Under-secretary for Policy. According to a former high-level intelligence official, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly after the election and told them, in essence, that the naysayers had been heard and the American people did not accept their message. Rumsfeld added that America was committed to staying in Iraq and that there would be no second-guessing. "This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone," the former high-level intelligence official told me. "Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign. We've declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we've got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism." Bush and Cheney may have set the policy, but it is Rumsfeld who has directed its implementation and has absorbed much of the public criticism when things went wrong—whether it was prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib or lack of sufficient armor plating for G.I.s' vehicles in Iraq. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have called for Rumsfeld's dismissal, and he is not widely admired inside the military. Nonetheless, his reappointment as Defense Secretary was never in doubt. REFERENCE: Annals of National Security - The Coming Wars What the Pentagon can now do in secret. by Seymour M. Hersh January 24, 2005 http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/01/24/050124fa_fact Target Iran: Former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter and Investigative Journalist Seymour Hersh on White House Plans for Regime Change December 21, 2006 http://www.democracynow.org/2006/12/21/target_iran_former_un_weapons_inspector
Amazon.co.uk Trade-In Store Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Visit the Books Trade-In Store for more details. Learn more. |
Product details
|
On Wednesday September 19, 2007 the U.S. State Department and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) announced the provision of $496,000 of new funds for wildlife conservation in the Virunga National Park in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. According to a State Department press release, poaching, armed conflict and "demographic pressures" are justification for the grant.
But investigations in Eastern Congo reported by these authors over the past six months indicate that USAID "conservation" funds—millions of taxpayer's dollars—have been misappropriated, misdirected and disappeared. Evidence suggests that ongoing guerrilla warfare in Central Africa is receiving clandestine financial support in AID-for-ARMS type financial transfers.
"Our efforts are focused on conserving and protecting the habitat of these magnificent animals," said Claudia A. McMurray, U.S. Assistant Secretary for State Oceans, Environment, and Science. "The survival of the mountain gorillas of Virunga is severely threatened by the tragic events in the region, and we will continue to devote whatever resources we can to protect the gorillas and other threatened species there."
However, as reported by these authors, millions of dollars in USAID funds given to Virunga Park through the Central African Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE) over the past ten years have virtually disappeared. Wildlife conservation in eastern Congo is a shambles, and "rebel" armies fighting in the region are receiving massive military support from unknown sources.
The realities on the ground in Central Africa are disturbingly different from those painted in the fundraising drives and brochures produced by the big conservation organizations, and their partners and sponsors. Are these conservation programs merely providing a smokescreen for other activities?
The Virungas region is located in North Kivu province of the Democratic Republic of Congo, also the base for long-time Rwandan-backed warlord General Laurent Nkunda.
There is evidence that the United States backs General Laurent Nkunda through both clandestine and open military program and missions in Congo, Rwanda and Uganda.
Fighting in Congo's North Kivu province has displaced hundreds of thousands of people in the past year alone. The death toll for the region is unknown but cataclysmic—in the millions of people dead since warfare began in the area in 1996.
Playwright Eve Ensler, producer of the Vagina Monologues, recently launched a campaign to stop sexual violence in Eastern Congo that is unprecedented. Sexual violence is used as a weapon of war to sow terror and break down resistance to facilitate military occupation and conquest by invading forces. Hundreds of thousands of women and girls have suffered attacks of sexual violence in the area.
THE MISSING USAID MONEY
In 2005, after years of activity with zero oversight or program verification, the activities of Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund-International (DFGFI) and Conservation International expenditures of USAID funds ostensibly for gorilla conservation in Central Africa came under scrutiny.
A Freedom of Information Act request was submitted regarding DFGFI's failure to file required A-133 audit forms on its USAID funding. These A-133 forms are federally mandated from every non-governmental organization (NGO) receiving USAID monies, which come from U.S. taxpayers.
A Freedom of Information Act request determined that DFGFI has not filed audits for more than two years, while they received a total of at least $4,693,384 from USAID between September 24, 2001 and September 29, 2004.
In September of 2005, US Congressman James Oberstar was contacted by a constituent who claimed that the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International had failed to file federally mandated audits (Form A-133) after receiving millions of dollars in grants from USAID.
Congressman Oberstar's informal inquiry found that, indeed, the DFGFI had failed to file required forms accounting for millions of dollars in USAID money.
"USAID is covering up for the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International," said a source close to this investigation, in January 2006. "The US government has backed off their investigation of where the million's of dollars in grants went."
The source claims that DFGFI officials working in Congo and Rwanda are using the gorilla conservation as a front for other activities. The source also provided information revealing the interesting backgrounds of top-level DFGFI directors.
"The little old lady in Iowa who sends in her five bucks to save the gorillas would freak out if she knew where her money was really going," the source said. "The gorillas are getting zip in the wild."
In 2006 Congressman Oberstar demanded that USAID produce a report on the activities of the DFGFI in Central Africa, but as of this writing there had been no substantive action by the DFGFI or USAID. Oberstar noted that the DFGFI has violated U.S. law by not filing required audit reports.
"I'm personally pursuing the matter" Oberstar told a reporter for the Rwanda-owned state newspaper, the New Times, in November 2005, "and have to make sure that USAID explains to the government why DFGFI has not been presenting their audit reports."
The Rwandan state-run newspaper New Times reported that DFGFI President and CEO Clare Richardson told their reporter that DFGFI had presented audits to USAID in March 2005. The New Times also reported that the Director General of the Office of Rwanda Tourism and National Parks (ORTPN), Rosette Rugamba, told the New Times that she didn't understand the activities of the DFGFI.
"I don't know what they are doing in Rwanda," Rugamba told the New Times. "They have been here for over three decades claiming they are doing research work but they haven't given us any results. The living conditions of the DFGFI trackers are miserable and yet the DFGFI has lots of money."
According to Congressman Oberstar's office, on March 31, 2006, Congressional Affairs at USAID told a House International Relations Committee staff-member "that an audit is being conducted by a third party auditor, but it has not yet been completed."
Also, the U.S. government Office of Acquisition and Assistance was reportedly forcing DFGFI to respond to all allegations leveled against them about finance and budget issues.
The "third-party" auditor performing a "private" audit is the Defense Contract Audit Agency, a U.S. government agency responsible for auditing U.S. Department of Defense contracts.
Why is the U.S. Defense Contracts Audit Agency auditing programs and funds designated for "gorilla conservation" in Central Africa?
"The Defense Contract Audit Agency," reads their web site, "is under the authority, direction, and control of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), is responsible for performing all contract audits for the Department of Defense (DoD), and providing accounting and financial advisory services regarding contracts and subcontracts to all DoD Components responsible for procurement and contract administration."
The Defense Contract Audit Agency completed the DFGFI/USAID audit in March 2007, but the audit has not been released due to the claimed "proprietary nature" of the audit.
We repeat the question: Why is the U.S. Department of Defense Contract Audit Agency auditing the finances and programs of a conservation organization like the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund?
While oversight and accountability for past USAID 'investment" in the region has not been achieved, even under the pressure of a U.S. Congressman, some $496 million dollars is being directed to the ongoing black hole in Central Africa.
DIAN FOSSEY GUERILLA FUND
Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International also receives funds from private donors, foundations and corporate sponsors, and they have regular fundraising drives where callers solicit donations from members and the general public.
Sponsors and friends listed in DFGFI documents for January to December of 2003, in the $25,000 and above category included, Dr. and Mrs. Nick Faust and CNN, and certain mining and intelligence connected interests.
Dr Nicholas Faust has deep connection to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense.
CNN's Ted Turner is an owner-shareholder in a high-tech company called Earth Search Sciences Inc. (ESSI) based out of McCall, Idaho. In 1999 ESSI loaned a state-of-the-art "hyperspectral" probe—a remote sensing instrument carried on an aircraft or satellite platform—to a DFGFI and Georgia Institute of Technology team who performed some interesting "studies" in Rwanda.
The project was directed by Dr. Nicholas Faust who is one of the key scientists with the Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), Redlands, California, USA, which is directly linked to ESSI.
ESRI Corporation (www.esri.com) is self-described as "the world leader in GIS (geographic information system) modeling and mapping software and technology."
ESRI is a key contractor for the U.S. Department of Defense and Intelligence sector, providing battle theatre GIS mapping and support technologies used, for example, for "a defense-wide infrastructure, supporting fighting missions, command and control, installation management, and strategic intelligence."
http://www.esri.com/industries/defense/business/military_ops.html
Remote sensing of gorilla habitat reportedly provides essential information about food sources, like the availability of species of bamboos, or encroaching threats from slash-and-burn agriculture, or other changes to gorilla habitat. But the remote sensing arena has proliferated due to the efficacy of these technologies in identifying deposits of minerals or hydrocarbons (oil & gas)—prospecting from aerospace platforms—and the data was therefore far more significant than a few species of bamboos.
According to two independent inside sources, the 21 data CD's from the ESSI/ESRI remote sensing over-flights ostensibly for Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International were delivered directly by the DFGFI's CEO Clare Richardson into the hands of Rwandan President Paul Kagame and the Rwandan Minister of Defense.
"These guys aren't looking for habitat," comments one remote sensing expert (who has visited the facilities of ESSI), "they are looking for oil, which is what they do, and they probably got funding for habitat assessment from USAID and are using the data to provide their owners with oil, minerals and uranium info. I'm not aware of any natural resource vegetative project that they have done in the past. It strictly sounds like taking the taxpayer dollar to fatten some oil guys pockets."
The Albertine Rift area and so-called World Heritage Sites of the border zone between Uganda, Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo are at present enmeshed in massive petroleum and natural gas exploration and exploitation projects.
Some 1000 people a day die in war-torn Eastern Congo due to guerrilla warfare and covert operations. The extent of western petroleum, mining or military involvement in Eastern Congo is never reported by the international press.
Former CNN journalist Gary Strieker became a member of the DFGFI Board of Trustees. Strieker was the CNN journalist embedded with the Rwandan Patriotic Army during the Pentagon's covert operation that overthrew the government of Juvenal Habyarimana in Rwanda in 1994.
CNN is deeply embedded with the Pentagon in reporting the U.S. government slant on military operations in U.S. military hotspots, including Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and Sudan.
CNN reportage never establishes any connections to, or stories about, the deeper, hidden realities of western involvement in war, mining, extortion, pillage, dictatorship, arms-running, genocide, disease, or population control programs in Central Africa. Like virtually all of the western media, there is never any attention to the perpetuation of structural violence or the institutions of control and domination.
WEIDEMANN CHALLENGES CONSERVATION
In a telling memo written in December 2004, Robert Hellyer—USAID Mission Director for DRC—wrote to the USAID Africa Bureau in Washington regarding the Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE), the "principal vehicle for United States participation in the Congo Basin Forest Project."
Buried in the February 2006 Annex of the supporting documents for the report of the Weidemann Consortium—an evaluation of the CARPE program in Central Africa—is the admission that the rational of "overpopulation" was bogus.
"Of the more than 60 million people that live in the region," Hellyer wrote, "about 22 million are located in urban areas. At present rates of population growth, the region is expected to contain 150 million people by the year 2025. Population density is on the whole quite low, with a regional average of 14 persons per square kilometer."
Wildlife conservation and state department interests have repeatedly trumpeted population pressures as the reason for gorilla and habitat decline in Central Africa, yet the above report makes it clear that "population density is on the whole quite low."
Robert Hellyer elaborates on the global demand for petroleum and timber, and on the adverse impacts of human populations in a landscape—Congo—where "it is in the self-interest of the United States government" to support "sustainable development" in the region. Hellyer confirmed that CARPE and USAID are not interested in the Congolese people, or even biodiversity protection, but only in the interests of the United States.
The Virungas National Park has become the focus of international investigations around white western mercenary operations. Top former U.S. state department officials involved in mining companies now plundering eastern Congo have turned up on the boards of some of the "conservation" organizations involved in the Virungas and other protected areas in Central Africa.
One of these conservation mercenary organizations is Richard Leakey's Wildlife Direct, a newcomer in Congo that operates under the mantle of the Africa Conservation Fund, a tax-exempt (501-c-3) registered with the Internal Revenue Service.
Gorilla killings in the Virungas increased when Wildlife Direct appeared in the Virungas in January 2007.
One former sate department official involved in the region is Walter H. Kansteiner III, an Africa Conservation Fund board member since the founding of ACF in 2004. Kansteiner was a top-level National Security Agency official in both the William J. Clinton and G.W. Bush administrations.
In 2003 Kansteiner appeared as an expert witness in the U.S. Congressional Hearing before the Subcommittee on Africa of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on International Relations titled "Saving the Congo Basin, the Stakes, the Plan." At the time, Kansteiner was Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. He formerly served with the National Security Council as director of African Affairs and as an African specialist on the staff of the Secretary of State.
Kansteiner has been a constant presence behind the scenes in Congo's war since 1996. Kansteiner worked on a strategic minerals task force at the Department of Defense and was Executive Vice President of a commodity trading and manufacturing company specializing in tropical commodities in the developing world: one of these was coltan, one of the mineral byproducts of warfare in DRC's Kivu provinces today.
The Democratic Republic of Congo has the world's purest and largest deposits of strategic minerals, such as gold, coltan, niobium, cobalt and columbite (columbium-tantalite or coltan). Niobium, coltan, tantalum and cassiterite are found in the Virungas region.
Walter H. Kansteiner III is on the Board of Directors of Moto Gold, now operating in the killing fields of the bloody Ituri district near Lake Albert.
RESOURCE WARS IN CENTRAL AFRICA
One petroleum firm involved in the great lakes region of Central Africa is Heritage Oil and Gas, a Canadian company involved in Kazakhstan, Russia, Iraq, Oman, Kurdistan, Gabon and on Lake Albert—on both sides of the war-torn DRC-Uganda border—where fighting between the Congolese FARDC army and Ugandan soldiers and Heritage Oil guards killed a British Heritage Oil subcontractor on August 3, 2007.
Heritage Oil (Canada) and Tullow Oil (London) are operating around Lake Albert in areas that recently saw major fighting. In mid-August the Uganda government commenced a build-up of troops on the DRC border. Congolese survivors in frontier towns along Lake Albert saw Ugandan military and their "rebel" allies—believed to be troops allied with Congolese warlord Jean-Pierre Bemba—marching into Congo with heavy weapons in late August.
By September 5, 2007, UPDF troops—and rebels reportedly aligned with Jean-Pierre Bemba—had occupied the DRC's oil- and gold-rich Semliki Basin on the western shores of Lake Albert. Heavily armed foreign forces occupied the villages of Aru, Mahagi, Fataki, Irengeti and the Ruwenzori mountains. The international press and the United Nations Observers Mission in DRC (MONUC) remained completely silent about the Ugandan incursions.
By September 8, 2007, Ugandan troops were heavily massed on the DRC border while Kabila and Museveni were signing oil and gold sharing agreements in Tanzania. UPDF forces and "rebel" troops alleged to be Bemba's remained in DRC as of September 15.
Heritage Oil and Gas is tied to mercenary companies and a long list of shady operators and offshore subsidiaries and partner companies.
Bechtel Corporation subsidiary Nexant is involved in the oil pipeline being constructed across Uganda to the U.S. military port at Mombasa Kenya.
The Ugandan People's Defense Forces and Museveni government genocide against the Acholi people of northern Uganda is driven by transboundary petroleum and gold concessions linked to foreign corporations like Heritage, Tullow, and Bechtel.
Uganda and Rwanda are two of the Pentagon's premier military partners in Africa: some 150 U.S. Special Forces were added to the Pentagon's Uganda arsenal in March 2007 and U.S. and U.K. military have been training UPDF troops.
Heritage has already reported pumping some 13,000 barrels per day from its "Kingfisher" 1-A site on Lake Albert.
In March 2007, the government of Rwanda awarded massive oil concessions to Vangold Resources. The 2700 square kilometer Vangold concession—named White Elephant"—is believed to be part of the underground basin connected to the Heritage and Tullow Oil fields in the Semliki basin of DRC/Uganda.
Vangold Resources is a Canadian Company with Canadian and US principals.
The "White Elephant" concession is located in northern Rwanda in areas where the Rwandan Patriotic Army has led massive military operations, driving forced displacements premised on depopulating the area of Hutu villagers, since their initial invasions in 1990.
COVERT ALLIANCES WITH LAURENT NKUNDA
Congolese warlord Jean-Pierre Bemba met with Rwandan-backed General Laurent Nkunda during his Vice-Presidency (2003-2006) and he is now one of General Nkunda's secret backers in the ongoing bloodletting in eastern Congo.
Jean-Pierre Bemba's brother-in-law Anthony "Tony" Teixeira deals in blood diamonds, criminal networks and mercenary operations. Tony Teixeira is one of three pivotal businessmen who, along with Jacques Lemaire and Victor Bout, were cited in 2000 for sanctions busting by supporting the UNITA rebels in Angola's war. Bout and other businessmen with U.S. connections have been involved in weapons transfers to Congo.
According to insider MONUC sources, Jean-Pierre Bemba has been buying off high-level MONUC officials. This would partially explain MONUC's unwillingness to challenge or dislodge General Nkunda.
Congolese people in the Kivu province have been throwing stones at MONUC vehicles because they believe MONUC is not serious about "peacekeeping" in eastern Congo but is pursuing a political agenda.
On September 17, 2007 a "resource hungry" China signed an agreement to invest five billion dollars in Congo's infrastructure. Anglo-European interests are now using the military occupation of General Laurent Nkunda—backed by client regimes in Uganda and Rwanda, by Jean-Pierre Bemba and MONUC—to leverage their position with Kabila.
General Laurent Nkunda earns at least $100,000 a month in extortion and minerals theft, and he is buying officials. Most important, General Laurent Nkunda is the "insurance policy" for the U.S. and German companies preventing Congo's access to the Lueshe niobium mines and other mineral bonanzas, including coltan, cassiterite and, allegedly, uranium, under Nkunda's control.
Over the past decade, USAID has become closer and closer to Pentagon interests. While originally a "soft" instrument of U.S. foreign policy around the world, the Pentagon has openly sided with USAID in recent military programs. One of these is AFRICOM, the Pentagon's new Africa Command, which count USAID as a major partner.
[Note from Wildlife Direct] Editor.
"Wildlife Direct, doing business in the U.S. as the non-profit Africa Conservation Fund, is not in any way associated with African Conservation Fund (http://www.africanconservationfund.org), a non-profit established in 2003 to support longtime conservation projects in Kenya, including the African Conservation Centre."
I begin with the disclaimer that this blog is not for 3 kinds of people:
1. Those who have an issue with the sweeping generalizations I am about to make in the spirit of fun, though parts will be definitely based on truth and years of research-based observation.
2. Ladies who are non-Punjabi and take the title as a jibe against themselves, and say to themselves "what does she mean? Don't men like non-Punjabi women? She doesn't know what she's talking about! I know my husband would never be able to do with a Punjabi woman…..they're so loud!"
3. Punjabi women who, well, have ended up with the "non-Karachiite-type" thaith, purely Punjoo men.
Ok so it just me or do you see it all around you? Out of the inter-provincial, inter-cultural marriages, engagements and other stuff, as a Karachiite I have always seen non-Punjabi men falling for Punjabi women. I on purpose used the term "karachiite-type" men, but to be more specific, we can use the term "Urdu-Speaking" men. So WHY do urdu-speaking men keep falling for Punjabi women? Specially considering the fact that many stereo-typical terms are associated with Punjabi women: Loud. Tacky. Dominating. Laraaki. Big in size. And again, loud.
We seem to forget, generally, the beautiful, slender, groomed and talented Punjabi girls who are quite the norm. It seems like the image that comes to our mind when we say "Punjabi girl" is a big-sized female in a colourful Laacha, helping irrigate Pakistan's agricultural lands by jumping in the fields trying to entertain a disinterested man, or eating a HUGE paratha dripping with ghee, and yelling so loudly that her lungs are about to fall off on G T Road, screaming "mere naal bakwaas na keeta kar naeen te tera bootha tor diyaan gee". And yes, she IS pretty, even though she is all of the above.
Yet, day after day, the civil, tameezdaar and wonderfully peace-loving Karachiite (or Urdu-speaking) men fall in love with Punjabi women. And not just them. The other provinces have joined in too……Sindhis, Balochs, Pathans. The question remains "why"?
A few probable answers I discovered, after careful observation and asking around, are these:
1. Need a Change:
"All my life," said a friend when he was choosing a girl to marry at the ripe old age of 23, "I have seen my mom, sisters, cousins, aunts – so proper. They don't laugh too loud. They talk in aap janaab. They wear light blues and pastel pinks and beige. And I am like that too….the subtle aap janaab type. So somehow, the idea of a colourful lady in red appeals to me. Who laughs to her hearts desire and speaks her mind. You know, Phuljharee-type." "Phuljharee-type?" I asked him to confirm I had heard correctly. "Yes yes. the Phuljhuree, Titlee type. For a change you know," he affirmed. That's when I somehow understood it. The firecracker butterfly fun brand actually works for a lot of men. That DOES NOT mean other provinces and ethnicities are bereft of phuljharees. But maybe it is inbuilt genetic selection that men seem to like the "made in Punjab" variety increasingly.
2. The "Khulla Dulla Ishtyle"
"At least with a Punjabi girl, you don't spend your life wondering what's under the cool demeanour," said another anon friend. (And yes, it's better my informants stay unnamed, lest they face consequences at the hands of the non-Punjoo women in their lives!). "She is who she is. Ghussay mein ho ya khush, kam az kam pata to chal jaata hai. You know how we men are, yaar. We are bad mind-readers, and women expect us to be just that. At least this way, you know that it is what it is. In your face. Jo hay wo hay. At least she'll say it and not keep it in her heart for the next decade," he said. And that's one general impression about Punjabis that yes, under the umbrella term "Punjabi" come people who are not afraid to be. Plus, they are less formal and more casual. Less takallufaat and formalities, and more of Lath Maar stuff.
3. They Are Lookers:
"For guys, it's all about looks. And Punjabi girls are mostly good looking. For me that is the single most important factor. As it is, I like her to be not stick thin," said another informant. Need I say more?
4. They Have A Lot Of Fire:
With the package of the whole loud, khulla dulla ishtyle, comes a genuine spirited fieriness. Being passionate. Being fiesty. Humourous. Hulla gulla and fun. "I'm telling you, the 'wujood e zann se hai tasweer e kainaat mein rang' wala shair was written for Punjoo girls," said one know-it-all, in his second year of a happy engagement with a Punjabi girl, while he himself has ancestors from Lucknow. My two cents to my friend were: Make sure you know how to handle the fire, before you get scalded.
5. They Are Such Foodies:
And men like food. So in a Punjabi girl, they dream of someone who will be able to share his excitement over puri bhaaji, nihari, gola kabab, kharay masalay ka qeema and biryani. But she will also bring into his life the joys of aloo kay parathay, murgh cholay, sarson ka saag and makkai ki roti, and Punjabi pulao. She will understand the cliche that the way to his heart is through his tummy, simply because hey, the way to HER heart is also through her tummy.
To each his own. Whatever ethnicity works for you, go for it. And rather than the ethnicity, whatever "package deal" works for you, go for it. Meanwhile, let me sit and think over a sequel – Why Do Punjabi Women Fall For Karachiite-type Guys!
It is indeed very odd that USA elects someone whose first name is after Prophet Muhammad's mythical horse of his ascent to Heaven, the middle name is the same as the Iraqi dictator, and the last name rhymes with the terrorist of Tora Bora.
ReplyDeleteis this humour or sarcasm mohtaram?
ReplyDeleteIt's mostly sarcasm!