Once again - Petroleum pirces

Pak Vs France Relationships

-

Javed Chaudhry Column .. 30-06-2009

Are French Bribes Stopping Zardari Govt. From Buying German Submarines?

By AHMED QURAISHI
WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan-The stench of a multimillion dollar scam can be smelled in the Pakistani capital. This time it has to do with the estimated $1.5 to 2 billion deal that the Pakistan Navy has almost finalized with Germany. But it seems there are strong lobbies in Islamabad that want to oblige France and buy French vessels because Paris is willing to pay heavy bribes. To ensure the deal is sealed with France instead of Germany, a junior bureaucrat has been appointed as Pakistan's ambassador in Paris bypassing the Pakistani foreign office. Reports accuse President Asif Ali Zardari of orchestrating this appointment.

No one would be more disturbed at these developments than the government of Angela Merkel in Germany. Berlin went out on a limp to approve the Pakistani request for the submarines in the face of strong opposition to selling weapons to Pakistan.

India, whose 90% of weapons continue to be aimed at Pakistan while feigning peace and making excuses about threats from China, has launched a quiet diplomatic effort to convince Germany not to sell the vessels to Pakistan.

The deal with Germany is ready to be inked and the Germans await Pakistan to make a formal order for the submarines. But this order is not coming despite the visit by Pakistani Army Chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani to Berlin on 18 June. The Defense minister has also visited Germany earlier to discuss the deal.

Seven months ago, the CEO of the company that building the submarines for Pakistan visited Karachi and told The News International that the deal between Germany and Pakistan was "95% done".

So why is the Pakistani side reluctant now?

On Friday, security analysis service BRASSTACKSissued an alert that said:

"All is set for the new [German] submarines. Almost all hurdles have been removed. But we fail to understand why there is no pressure from the Naval Headquarters (NHQ) on DP MoD [Director of Purchases at the Ministry of Defense] to finalize the contract. Already the Indians are exploiting the situation and pressurizing the Germans to stop the sale. It is not less than a miracle that the Germans are adamant on going ahead with the sale despite the pressures. Pakistan Navy is set to lose this deal due to a lack of will, lack of decision making, and due to other vested interests."

One reason could be France. The French are lobbying to get Pakistan to cancel the German deal and buy French submarines.

Coincidentally, in 1995, the Pakistan People's Party was in power when the government bought three French Agosta 90-B submarines. President Zardari was an investment minister then. The incumbent French President Nicolas Sarkozy was also in power at the time as a minister and key aide to then French President Edouard Balladur. Ironically, both were powerful men who operated behind the scenes. And now both of them stand accused of receiving lavish kickbacks from the Agosta deal.

The French media has accused President Zardari of being part of a list of powerful people in both Paris and Islamabad who received kickbacks. The French judges have also accused others besides Mr. Zardari especially within the military of receiving parts of the bribe. On the French side, the bribe money from the deal helped finance the reelection campaign of Mr. Balladur in which Mr. Sarkozy played a key role.

A French judge has even accused some powerful Pakistanis including Mr. Zardari of having something to do with the murder of 11 French engineers in Karachi in May 2002 as a retaliation for the decision of France's new government to cease bribe payments from the 1995 deal.

As recently as Friday, 26 June 2009, The Independent of London published a report titled Bribes and Bombsthat mentioned the names of both President Zardari and President Sarkozy as prime suspects among others in receiving bribes for the French submarines. The opening paragraphs of the report said this:

"A political scandal is gathering pace over claims that 11 French submarine engineers were murdered in a bomb attack in Karachi seven years ago to punish France for the non-payment of arms contract "commissions" to senior Pakistani officials. Lawyers for the French victims' families believe the attack, allegedly carried out by Islamist terrorists, was in fact part of a web of financial chicanery and political maneuvering which may yet severely embarrass senior figures, including the French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his Pakistani counterpart Asif Ali Zardari."

Interestingly, when Mr. Zardari decided to pay a visit to Paris in May, Mr. Sarkozy wasn't exactly a happy man. The French media highlighted a letter that the families of the 11 engineers sent to the French president showing displeasure at meeting Mr. Zardari. The German news agency, DPA, reported that Mr. Zardari's decision to visit Paris "has placed the French president in a delicate position."

The Independent newspaper report published the following list of the key figures in the French submarine bribes scandal. This list is based on the French investigation into the murder of the 11 engineers.

The key figures: 15 years ago and now

Edouard Balladur, 80

THEN Centre-right prime minister in cohabitation with the Socialist president, François Mitterrand. Ran for presidency in 1995 but was knocked out by Chirac in first round.

ROLE It is alleged in documents seized by French police that his campaign - quite possibly without his knowledge - benefited from illegal kickbacks.

NOW Retired.

Jacques Chirac, 76

THEN Mayor of Paris and leader of the centre-right RPR party. Ran for the presidency in 1995 for the third time and won.

ROLE As president, he ordered the cancellation of the Pakistani "commissions", allegedly in pique against M Balladur.

NOW Retired.

Charles Millon, 63

THEN Chirac's defence minister in 1995.

ROLE Admits he cancelled Pakistani commissions on Chirac's orders.

NOW Faded from mainstream politics.

Asif Ali Zardari, 53

THEN Minister in government of his wife, Benazir Bhutto, who was murdered in 2007 after she returned to Pakistan.

ROLE Alleged to have "distributed" part of the commissions paid by France, which were legal under French law.

NOW President of Pakistan.

What is compounding suspicions is the decision by the Pakistani government to appoint a civil servant from the District Management Group [a classification within the Pakistani bureaucracy] as the Ambassador of Pakistan to France. This is an unusual appointment. For the first time, the Pakistan Foreign Office and the veteran diplomats there have been bypassed for this critical station.Again, Mr. Zardari's name has come up as the man behind the move and his spokesman had to step in to deny it.

So is the delay in the issuing of the order for the German submarines that were almost finalized in December 2008 has something to do with President Zardari's meeting with President Sarkozy of France in May 2009? Is the appointment of a junior civil servant as the envoy to Paris related to this? And has all of this something to do with the reluctance of the Ministry of Defense in issuing a purchase order for the German submarines?

The delay could also be an attempt at hurting the fast developing military ties between Pakistan and Germany.

Pakistan and Germany have deepened military and security ties over the past years.

Germany has become the fourth country after the United States, Japan and Russia to begin a strategic dialogue with Pakistan.

There are regular political-military talks with Pakistan army officials on security and military issues which include counter- terrorism and training of Pakistani officers in Germany.

Pakistani officers have received military training and education in Germany in recent years as part of military education and training programs

Pakistan needs the German Class-214 submarines. India's military buildup is coupled with renewed aggressiveness toward Pakistan. The Indians are expected to use the naval buildup to bully Pakistan. It is imperative that Islamabad build up its naval defense to maintain peace through deterrence.

REAL LIFE DRAMA IN THE AIR

Remembering 12th October, 1999

October, 1999 Capt Sarwat of Pakistan International Airlines Airbus-300, an old buddy, and I had gone to Colombo , Sri Lanka for Airlanka Golf classic tournament.

On the 10th October, after returning from the 18th hole (towards the finish of the game) that I saw General Pervez Musharraf (chief of Joint staff and Chief of the army staff) teeing- off with the Bangladeshi COAS for a friendly match. Gen Musharraf had gone to Colombo to represent Pakistan on the 50th anniversary of Sri Lankan armed forces. On the 12th October we were to return back to Pakistan and our flight route was Colombo-Male (Maldives )- Karachi . The flight time between Male and Karachi was almost three and a half hours. Capt. Sarwat was Commander of the flight PK/805 and I was traveling as a passenger in the club class but being cockpit crew of PIA I could visit the cockpit with the consent of the Capt. of the flight. The First officer of the flight was Mr. Shami {who was on his first clearance check flight to Sri Lanka } and the flight engineer Mr. Amir. Gen Pervez Musharraf boarded the plane with his wife and two of his personal staff officers. Gen. Musharraf and his wife were seated in the front extreme right hand side seats and the PSO's occupied the last two seats on the same side. There were a total of 198 persons aboard that flight out of which almost 50 were children from the American school with six foreign teachers.

The flight to Male was bumpy due to rain and clouds. At Male, which was a transit stop, Gen. Musharraf, his wife and the PSO's disembarked to see the strange looking island which had nothing but just a runway strip. At Male, Capt. Sarwat after getting the weather information of Karachi and Nawabshah decided to refuel the aircraft, keeping Nawabshah airfield as an alternative (Nawabshah airfield is almost 110 nautical miles north east of Karachi ). It meant that the aircraft could reach Karachi and in contingency could divert to Nawabshah and keep flying in air for another 45 minutes before landing at Nawabshah which is normally the fuel policy of the airlines throughout the world.

The departure from Male was uneventful. The airplane started cruising at 29000 feet, I was sitting in the cockpit jump seat and occasionally would stand up to stretch and walk in the cabin. During the flight, the air guards and the cabin crew requested Gen Pervez Musharraf for individual and group photographs. Capt Sarwat also came to the club class from the cockpit to greet the VIP.

After two and half hours of flight and now cruising at 33000 feet, we established contact with Karachi air traffic controller. The first thing the Karachi radio controller asked was how much fuel was on board? What was our alternate airfield? And how many passengers were on board? I was standing behind the flight Engineer's seat and listening to the whole conversation through the cockpit speakers. On hearing this I did point out to Capt. Sarwat "Isn't it strange for Karachi to be asking this?" to which he nodded "yes". It was a clear night and probably the third of moon was out but we could later on see Karachi very clearly. The initial approach given to us was direct Marvi (shortest route) but after a while Karachi changed the clearance via Nansi (the longer route) and gave us descent clearance to 10000ft. As the airplane reached almost within 60 miles the Karachi tower said "PK /805 you are not cleared to land at Karachi ". "Can we proceed to Nawabshah?" Capt Sarwat asked ATC after pondering for a little while as to what must be going on down below. "Nawabshah is also closed" came the reply. "But Nawabshah is our alternate!" said Capt Sarwat forcefully. Karachi ATC said "you will land at your own risk you cannot land in Pakistan . All airfields are closed". "We do not have fuel for any other airfield!" Capt. Sarwat replied but once again but there was complete silence from the ATC.

The Karachi ATC was questioned thrice but all in vain ---- there was no answer. During the ATC conversation it seemed quite obvious that someone behind the controller was passing the instruction because more than three or more persons could be heard in the background of the reception. A KLM flight which was somewhere in air and listening to this conversation also shouted, "Karachi why don't you give the reason to the PK 805". While the commotion was on, Capt Sarwat assumed that perhaps it may be due to the VIP sitting aboard. Sarwat knowing my air force background asked me and the other crew "Partner what do you think, should I tell the general about this?" I butted in and said why not, let's get whatever help we can!"

Capt called the purser and asked him to inform the personal staff officers of the general. Both the PSO's were informed and they came rushing into the cockpit. After listening to the Capt. they went to inform the General. Meanwhile Capt Sarwat asked the flight engineer as to how much fuel was left, and if we could make it to Muscat . "No way, we have only five and a half tons of fuel left at this 10000 feet altitude" he calculated. Meanwhile General Musharraf had entered the cockpit. During the discussion between the flight crew members, two other alternate airfields for diversion were considered. Chahbahar in Iran and Ahmedabad in India . After a little discussion with the flight engineer regarding remaining fuel and new airfield and night landing facility, Chahbahar was not considered as an alternate airfield. "Do we have the approach and landing information on Ahmedabad? Please open and consult Jeppesen (the flight crew bible} immediately" Sarwat asked the co-pilot.

General Musharraf was listening to the conversation and he asserted "We will not go to India, that is not an option", to which Capt Sarwat said "okay General as you say." Now the Gen said that he wanted to talk to the Corp commander Karachi , immediately. After a while the PSO gave the mobile telephone number to the flight engineer and wrote the land telephone number of the Corp. Commander. Karachi . The flight engineer Amir tried many times to dial the telephone but there was no dial tone. In this hurry and in presence of the general, the flight engineer mishandled his flash light and broke its glass. The flight engineer Amir said we are not getting the connection through and it seems as if the telephone lines have been cut. The general then asked as to why we couldn't speak on the long range radio- the high frequency. The flight engineer tried to establish contact through company high frequency phone patch but it was all quiet, and no answer was received.

The other airplanes flying in Karachi vicinity were instructed by the Karachi ATC to divert because Karachi airport was closed. An aircraft of Pakistan Air Force which was in inbound to Karachi from Islamabad was instructed by the Karachi air traffic controller to land at Nawabshah, immediately. But the PAF Captain was not willing to accept this order and asserted that the PAF flight would go back to Islamabad . While the argument between the PAF aircraft and Karachi ATC were going on the Capt Sarwat changed the radio frequency. However later on I investigated about the PAF flight and I found out that it was a Boeing 737 VIP aircraft, which was on routine maintenance trip to Karachi but was forced to land at Nawabshah airfield. The police at Nawabshah, with special instructions was waiting for the two engine jet aircraft. Since it is difficult for a common man to distinguish between a Boeing 737 and an Airbus A-300, therefore Nawabshah police cordoned off the aircraft after parking. But as the doors were opened Pakistani Army soldiers rushed to the aircraft and shouted at the police to buzz off otherwise they would be shot at. The Police dispersed and now the army took charge of the aircraft. An Army officer entered the aircraft. To their dismay, they found the wife and children of the PAF Capt sitting inside, "Where is the General?" inquired the army officer. "What General?" asked the crew? PAF crew told them that they were going to Karachi from Islamabad . "But we were told that you are coming from Colombo " said the officer surprised

In the air at the very same time, the first officer of the aircraft saw two blips on traffic collision avoidance system and shouted "We are being intercepted; probably there are two fighter aircraft".

The conversation in the cockpit our plane had become tense and was blended with other actions in the cockpit, which had become rather twice demanding. I noticed that at no point any of the crew or the VIP lost their cool. The general insisted several times that we land at Karachi . He also inquired as to why we couldn't land at the air force runways at Karachi . But probably due to the fighter aircraft and no knowledge as to what was happening below on ground, with no runway lights landing at PAF Airfields was considered as the last option. If we could not land at Karachi or at Nawabshah due to runway blockade with tractors and bulldozers etc then Shahrah-e-Faisal or Masroor was the last option anyways. At this point Capt Sarwat changed to PIA company radio channel. Sarwat was asked about the remaining fuel. Someone at the company channel directed PK805 to proceed and land at Nawabshah, then refuel the airplane with 30 tones of fuel and once again get airborne and wait for further instructions.

After a few minutes, the Karachi ATC came on air and cleared PK805 to divert to Nawabshah. . Capt Sarwat then heaved a sigh of relief and said "Let's go to Nawabshah". The Airbus climbed like a missile to 20000 feet in no time since there was hardly any fuel left in the aircraft and it was rather light. At about 60 miles north of Karachi PK805 was redirected to come and land at Karachi by the Karachi ATC. A quick turnabout and descent was initiated. Someone from the ATC asked to speak to the general. Capt Sarwat gave his microphone to the general and said, "Sir please speak".

"This is Pervez Musharraf, who is there?" the general inquired very assertively. "I am Gen. Iftikhar sir, your retirement was announced two hours before but we are in control. Please land at Karachi "Where is the Corp Commander?" the general questioned "He is in the next room waiting for you "was the reply. Both the PSO's were listening and the younger PSO (a Major) said" Sir, ask him the name of his dog". Probably he wanted to be sure in recognizing the GOC, but the general who had kept his cool all along said confidently, "He is my man, don't worry!"(Later on this officer on ground happened to be a friend of mine who told me that General Musharraf had given him two puppies and that's how the PSO wanted to determine his identity)

Meanwhile he plane was reaching for its final approach. Suddenly the low fuel warning light of right wing fuel tank came on with an audio chime. The cockpit was dead silent and everyone was waiting to feel the touchdown as soon as possible. We had waited almost one hour and ten minutes in the air. The remaining fuel of 1.2 ton in the wing tanks, if reliable, was only available for approximately ten minutes of flight time. At twelve miles short of landing, the left wing fuel tank warning light also appeared with chime.

After touch down PK 805 was asked to park at the remote area (Bay 66) and was informed that no other person than the VIP will come out of the aircraft. After the engines shut down, the army soldiers who were almost two hundred cordoned-off the aircraft. The General was looking from the cockpit window and seemed relaxed. Before disembarking from the aircraft the general shook hands with all of us and said, "Thank you, don't worry all is well, he's my man." And he immediately passed his very first order through his PSO, "Tell them I don't want anyone to leave the country."

The General, his wife, who was trying to control her tears, and the two PSO's disembarked from the plane and were greeted by the Corp. Commander and the GOC with salutes from the soldiers. They all went inside a building for a short conference, which took almost 15 min after which the whole contingent drove away very fast. PK805 was not allowed to start the engines perhaps because of the security and almost no remaining fuel and was thus towed to the international arrival side (Bay 23). During the whole episode I was the quietest and the closest observer in the cockpit and was thoroughly impressed to watch total professionalism from Capt Sarwat and his crew. Not to mention the way General carried himself and remained confident and totally composed throughout the whole episode.

Capt. Tariq

Why Pakistan Will Never Catch Terror Leader Alive

The mess in Pakistan's western areas is not just a battle with religious extremism. A larger part is a battle of proxies. There are credible reports that Indian and Israeli intelligence involvement in U.S.-controlled Afghanistan has deepened in the past seven years. American military and intelligence officials are impressed with the record of both countries in fighting Islamic groups in Kashmir and the Mideast. Israel invested heavily in establishing schools that study the art of Islamic indoctrination. These schools were used to learn how clerics can brainwash recruits and then exploit them politically. Israeli spymasters have used this knowledge to penetrate Islamic groups and plant agents. They have passed this technique on to the Indians to help them counter pro-Pakistan religious groups in Kashmir. In the Kargil war in 1999, Pakistanis and Kashmiris faced a direct Israeli special operations intervention on the side of the Indian military.

By AHMED QURAISHI
Wednesday, 24 June 2009.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan-Pakistan will probably never catch terrorist leader Baitullah Mehsud alive. Why? For the same reason that we will never really know why uncircumcised dead fighters have been turning up from the bunkers of what is supposed to be Pakistani Taliban. Or why alcoholic beverages were found from some of their hideouts. Or why citizens of China and Sri Lanka - two close military allies of Pakistan - were brutally attacked on Pakistani soil by people claiming to be fighting America. Or why this new Taliban is so eager to kill ordinary Pakistanis and harass anti-India Kashmiri activists and demand they fight Pakistan.

Similarly we will never know why listed companies like Google and Facebook are speeding up Persian translations of their sites when no profit is involved. [Will their stockholders accept democracy instead of profits?] Or why the government of President Zardari exerted pressure for the removal of the Saudi ambassador in Islamabad. And why the government did not object when the U.S. and other allied donors tried to create a special fund for Balochistan and NWFP with the condition that it operate outside Pakistan's control. And why the Saudi ambassador strongly opposed the plan when Mr. Zardari's team almost endorsed it. Could this be one of several reasons why the Saudi ambassador became unwelcome here, received threats to his life and then was unable to meet the President before leaving despite several attempts?

The popular Pakistani understanding of the battle against Baitullah Mehsud is more American than Pakistani. This prevents us from accepting that this insurgency is wrapped in multiple layers of deceit. The entire prevailing narrative of the situation is exclusively American, tailored to suit Washington's worldview. It talks about a uniform threat of Taliban and al Qaeda with no distinction made between the Afghan Taliban and the new Pakistani version; the American narrative does not explain how or why the ranks of the Pakistani Taliban have been swelling steadily when the Afghan Taliban is not experiencing a similar surge; and why the American narrative suppresses any discussion of Pakistani grievances about an organized anti-Pakistan terror wave emanating from Afghanistan.

The Pakistani counter narrative is missing on the government level and is probably limited to some circles within the Pakistani strategic and intelligence communities. The impression is that the Pakistani government is essentially bartering silence for U.S. aid.

This is a dangerous bargain.

It means that Pakistani officials won't take a stand on the use of Afghan soil to export terror to Pakistan. In fact, there are strong grounds to conclude that while other parts of the U.S. government engage Pakistan, freewheeling elements within the Central Intelligence Agency are probably conducting their own foreign policy on the ground in the region. The simultaneous trouble in both the Pakistani and Iranian parts of Balochistan is but one case in point.

Another downside to our enthusiasm for U.S. aid money at any cost is our waning ability to resist the upcoming American plan to install India as the resident guardian over Pakistan and Afghanistan. A senior US national security official is expected to bring this plan to Pakistan in the next few days. Islamabad's obsession with US aid while staying mum on vital Pakistani interest is absurd. Why is Prime Minister Gilani complaining now about the US 'surge' in Afghanistan when Mr. Zardari and his foreign minister wasted no time in warmly welcoming it when Mr. Obama unveiled the plan in March?

This explains why Mr. Zardari signed an American-proposed agreement to give India overland trade routes to Afghanistan. No wonder U.S. diplomats in Islamabad are so emboldened that recently some of them spent half the day camped at the federal petroleum ministry to force a rollback of the Iran gas deal.

There are also fresh questions on the extent of support the United States is getting from two of its closest allies India and Israel in Afghanistan. There are credible reports that Indian and Israeli intelligence involvement in U.S.-controlled Afghanistan has deepened in the past seven years. Some American military and intelligence officials are impressed with the record of both countries in fighting Islamic groups, especially the Indian experience in occupied Kashmir. The Israelis have invested heavily in establishing schools that study the art of Islamic indoctrination. These schools were used to learn how clerics can brainwash recruits and then exploit them politically. Israeli spymasters have used this knowledge to penetrate Mideastern Islamic groups. They have passed this technique to the Indians to help them counter pro-Pakistan religious groups in Kashmir. In the Kargil war in 1999, Pakistanis and Kashmiris faced a direct Israeli special operations intervention on the side of the Indian military.

The mess in Pakistan's western areas is not just a battle with religious extremism. A larger part is a battle of proxies. None of this means that we should treat Washington as an enemy. But it does have an agenda that is increasingly diverging from Pakistan's strategic interests.

Obama's Undeclared War On Pakistan Continues, Despite Attempts to Downplay It

by Jeremy Scahill, Rebel Reports

Obama says he has 'no intention' of sending troops to Pakistan. In reality, they're already there -- and U.S. drones attack Pakistan regularly.

Three days after his inauguration, on January 23, 2009, President Barack Obama ordered U.S. predator drones to attack sites inside of Pakistan, reportedly killing 15 people. It was the first documented attack ordered by the new U.S. Commander in Chief inside of Pakistan. Since that first Obama-authorized attack, the U.S. has regularly bombed Pakistan, killing scores of civilians. The New York Times reported that the attacks were clear evidence Obama "is continuing, and in some cases extending, Bush administration policy." In the first 99 days of 2009, more than 150 people were reportedly killed in these drone attacks. The most recent documented attack was reportedly last Thursday in Waziristan. Since 2006, the U.S. drone strikes have killed 687 people (as of April). That amounts to about 38 deaths a month just from drone attacks.

The use of these attack drones by Obama should not come as a surprise to anyone who followed his presidential campaign closely. As a candidate, Obama made clear that Pakistan's sovereignty was subservient to U.S. interests, saying he would attack with or without the approval of the Pakistani government. Obama said if the U.S. had "actionable intelligence" that "high value" targets were in Pakistan, the U.S. would attack. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, echoed those sentiments on the campaign trail and "did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998. 'If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured,' she said."

Last weekend, Obama granted his first extended interview with a Pakistani media outlet, the newspaper Dawn:

Responding to a question about drone attacks inside Pakistan's tribal zone, Mr Obama said he did not comment on specific operations.

'But I will tell you that we have no intention of sending U.S. troops into Pakistan. Pakistan and its military are dealing with their security issues.'

There are a number of issues raised by this brief response offered by Obama. First, the only difference between using these attack drones and using actual U.S. soldiers on the ground is that the soldiers are living beings. These drones sanitize war and reduce the U.S. death toll while still unleashing military hell disproportionately on civilians. The bottom line is that the use of drones inside the borders of Pakistan amounts to the same violation of sovereignty that would result from sending U.S. soldiers inside the country. Obama defended the attacks in the Dawn interview, saying:

"Our primary goal is to be a partner and a friend to Pakistan and to allow Pakistan to thrive on its own terms, respecting its own traditions, respecting its own culture. We simply want to make sure that our common enemies, which are extremists who would kill innocent civilians, that that kind of activity is stopped, and we believe that it has to be stopped whether it's in the United States or in Pakistan or anywhere in the world."

Despite Obama's comments about respecting Pakistan "on its own terms," this is how Reuters recently described the arrangement between Pakistan and the U.S. regarding drone attacks:

U.S. ally Pakistan objects to the U.S. missile strikes, saying they violate its sovereignty and undermine efforts to deal with militancy because they inflame public anger and bolster support for the militants.

Washington says the missile strikes are carried out under an agreement with Islamabad that allows Pakistani leaders to publicly criticize the attacks. Pakistan denies any such agreement.

Pakistan is now the biggest recipient of U.S. aid with the House of Representatives recently approving a tripling of money to Pakistan to about $1.5 billion a year for five years. Moreover, U.S. special forces are already operating inside of Pakistan, along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in Baluchistan. According to the Wall Street Journal, U.S. Special Forces are:

training Pakistan's Frontier Corps, a paramilitary force responsible for battling the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters, who cross freely between Afghanistan and Pakistan, the officials said. The U.S. trainers aren't meant to fight alongside the Pakistanis or accompany them into battle, in part because there will be so few Special Forces personnel in the two training camps.

A senior American military officer said he hoped Islamabad would gradually allow the U.S. to expand its training footprint inside Pakistan's borders.

In February, The New York Times reported that U.S. forces are also engaged in other activities inside of Pakistan:

American Special Operations troops based in Afghanistan have also carried out a number of operations into Pakistan's tribal areas since early September, when a commando raid that killed a number of militants was publicly condemned by Pakistani officials. According to a senior American military official, the commando missions since September have been primarily to gather intelligence.

It is clear -- and has been for a long time -- that the Obama administration is radically expanding the U.S. war in Afghanistan deeply into Pakistan. Whether it is through U.S. military trainers (that's what they were called in Vietnam too), drone attacks or commando raids inside the country, the U.S. is militarily entrenched in Pakistan. It makes Obama's comment that "[W]e have no intention of sending U.S. troops into Pakistan" simply unbelievable.

For a sense of how significant U.S. operations are and will continue to be for years and years to come, just look at the U.S. plan to build an almost $1 billion massive U.S. "embassy" in Islamabad, which is reportedly modeled after the imperial city they call a U.S. embassy in Baghdad. As we know very clearly from Iraq, such a complex will result in an immediate surge in the deployment of U.S. soldiers, mercenaries and other contractors.

The Taliban will ‘never be defeated’: Sunday Times

Colonel Amir Sultan speakes about his involvement in Afghan Jihad.

 

'Colonel Imam', the Pakistani agent who trained Mullah Omar and the warlords to fight the Soviets, says the US must negotiate with its enemies.The Pakistani intelligence agent who trained Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, to fight has warned that Nato forces will never overpower their enemies in Afghanistan and should talk to them rather than sacrifice more lives. "You can never win the war in Afghanistan," said so-called "Colonel Imam", who ran a training programme for the Afghan resistance to the Soviet Union's occupation from 1979 to 1989, then helped to form the Taliban. "I have worked with these people since the 1970s and I tell you they will never be defeated.

Anyone who has come here has got stuck. The more you kill, the more they will expand."A tall, bearded figure, whose real name is Amir Sultan Tarar, he trained at Fort Bragg, the US army base where America's special forces are stationed. During the late 1970s and 1980s he controlled CIA-funded training camps for 95,000 Afghans and often accompanied his students on missions. After the Soviet defeat and the collapse of communism, he was invited to the White House by the first President George Bush and was given a piece of the Berlin Wall with a brass plaque inscribed: "To the one who dealt the first blow." Today western intelligence agencies believe Imam is among a group of renegade officers from Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) who continued to help the Taliban after Pakistan turned against them following the attacks of September 11, 2001. United Nations officials and Afghanistan's intelligence service have reported sightings of him in the Afghan provinces of Helmand and Uruzgan. It is a charge he shrugs off, claiming that at 65 he has not worked for almost eight years. "I wish I could do it but they don't need me any more," he says. "My students are far ahead of me now. They are giving a lesson to the world. I am very proud of them."

Although he expresses great admiration for the British military ("far more gallant than the Americans"), Imam says that in sending troops to Helmand, Britain had forgotten its previous wars in Afghanistan. In particular, he chides, they should have remembered the battle of Maiwand in 1880, in which 2,500 British troops took on 25,000 Afghans and suffered a devastating defeat. "When people in Helmand heard the British were coming back, the cry went up all over: 'Remember Maiwand? Our old enemy has come to the same area where they were once defeated to take revenge'. Then everyone, Taliban and nonTaliban, joined together. They told me on the phone, 'Don't worry, we'll make sure the Brits don't have an easy time'."

His comments come as the number of British soldiers killed by enemy action in Afghanistan has risen to 137, one more than the number who have died in Iraq. According to Imam, Helmand is particularly difficult because of the character of the people. "They couldn't care less about loss of property or loss of life," he said. It is unlikely that anybody alive today knows the Afghans as well as Imam. All the key figures were trained in his camps, from the late Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Lion of Panj-shir, to warlords such as Gul-buddin Hekmatyar, his "naughtiest" student. "It was a matter of pride for me that my students later became big commanders," he said. "The Afghan is a very cunning soldier," he added. "He picks things up very quickly and never forgets. As a Pakistani unit commander I'd be training my men for six months and maybe they would remember 70%. But in Afghanistan teenagers came, had only three days weapon training and they remembered 100%. In just 15 days they mastered the Stinger [the shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missile]."

Mullah Omar passed through his camps in 1985. "He was a simple man, a small commander leading a maximum of 40 people and didn't have much weaponry," Imam recalled. One of Imam's biggest backers was Congressman Charlie Wilson, the Texan who was instrumental in securing funding for Operation Cyclone, the CIA programme to supply arms with which the mujaheddin would fight the Soviet troops. "He used to dance with happiness at seeing our training camps," said Imam. Within 10 years the Russians had been forced out. "Total expenditure just $5 billion and not a single American life," said Imam. "Now the Americans are spending hundreds of billions and losing hundreds of lives."

The last time he saw Wilson was after the 1988 Geneva accords on the Soviet withdrawal. Imam told him: "You're abandoning the Afghans. They need financial support for rehabilitation." Wilson replied: "Dollars don't grow on trees." "Do Afghan youth grow on trees?" asked Imam. "Over 1.5m Afghans have died." Furious at the American betrayal and devastated by the resulting infighting in the Afghan resistance, he became close to Omar. "I love him," he said. "He brought peace to Afghanistan." Imam was Pakistan's consul-general in Herat when the Taliban captured the city in 1995 from Ismail Khan, the mujaheddin commander, who claims the ISI agent oversaw the whole Taliban operation. From there he guided the Taliban as they took over the cities of Mazar-e-Sharif and Jalalabad and eventually captured Kabul. Like many Pakistanis he refuses to believe the September 11 attacks were carried out by Osama Bin Laden. "An operation like that needs ground support," he said. "I have no doubt it was carried out by the Americans to give a bad name to the Taliban government as an excuse to topple it."

When General Pervez Musharraf, then president of Pakistan, agreed to American pressure to cut ties to the Taliban, the colonel was outraged. Recalled to Islamabad, he told Musharraf: "You cannot defeat these people, they are well trained, they have a lot of ammunition and the more you kill, the more supporters will come." Today he adds: "It was the blunder of his life and because of it we are all doomed." Imam left Afghanistan when the US bombing of the country ceased in 2001 and claims he has not returned. "I can go any time on my old routes, even the Americans cannot stop me, but there is no need," he said. "I have friends roaming all over there. At times they give me a call, they like to hear my voice. "I'm quite happy with the current situation because the Americans are trapped there. The Taliban will not win but in the end the enemy will tire, like the Russians."

He has offered to find the Americans a way out: "We can give them a face-saving solution but they must change their strategy." First, he says, they must spend billions on reconstruction. Then they must open talks with Mullah Omar rather than the so-called moderate Taliban with whom negotiations are under way. "When are you people going to understand there are no number two Taliban?" he asked. "Those who break away from mainstream Taliban have no place in society. You may make deals in Dubai or Saudi Arabia, but when they come back to Afghanistan and people know they have compromised with the Americans, they are finished. "In Afghanistan the only man who can make a decision and people listen is Mullah Omar. He's a very reasonable man. He would listen and work for the interests of his country." He insisted the Taliban leader was not in Pakistan: "He's in the hills of Uruzgan, his home province. If there's a requirement he will listen to me, but why should I get him involved in a risky situation?"

Imam said he had watched with horror as fighting spread into Pakistan and had been shocked to see his fellow officers having to fight against their own countrymen in the Swat district. "These are not Taliban, they are tribals," he said. "Mullah Omar told them time and time again not to fight against Pakistan. They are fighting against the government of Pakistan because it is supporting the enemies of Islam. Everybody knows our government is supporting the US drone attacks in our own area."This is an American plan to make us a subjugated country and have an excuse to get our nukes. Everybody, your prime minister, President Obama, all go, 'Oh, the nuclear weapons are unsafe'. I say you're making them unsafe. When you were not in the region there was no problem."The call for prayer brings our interview to an end. Before he goes he has one last warning: "I tell you when my nation rises up it is not Afghanistan, not Iraq. There will be tremendous killing. 

Battle with the bad guys

Claude Rakisits

FEW people seem to realise that the Pakistan army's military operation to dislodge the Pakistani Taliban militants from the Swat Valley has caused about 2.5 million people to flee and seek refuge elsewhere. This vast and sudden movement of people is the world's biggest since the 1994 Rwandan genocide. About 80 per cent of these internally displaced people have been accommodated with friends, families and even total strangers because the government of Pakistan was utterly unprepared for this humanitarian disaster.

The good news is that the Pakistan army has reportedly secured the Swat Valley by ousting the Pakistani Taliban fighters, killing more than 1000 of them and capturing the city of Mingora. It took almost two months and 40,000 troops to do the job, with more than 100 soldiers killed in the clashes. This was an important battle the Pakistani army had to win to demonstrate its resolve and capability.

But victory came at a heavy cost to the civilian population. Because the army is primarily trained and equipped to conduct conventional warfare, it used a very heavy-handed and inappropriate approach to fighting the insurgents. By using heavy artillery, helicopter gunships and fighter bombers, it wreaked havoc on towns and villages, killing many civilians and destroying a lot of private property and the little infrastructure that existed.

Although there has been a public mood change in support of the government's military campaign, this could quickly change if the government fails to help rebuild what it destroyed and resettle the millions of IDPs quickly. Analysts estimate that the reconstruction could cost up to $US3billion ($3.8billion).

But there is worse news to come. Having ousted the Taliban from Swat, the army is under heavy pressure from Washington to turn its attention to South Waziristan, the home base of the Pakistani Taliban as well as probably one of the most important havens for the Afghan Taliban and al-Qa'ida.

Accordingly, on Sunday the government announced that a "comprehensive and decisive operation" would be launched to eliminate the Pakistani Taliban. But the forthcoming military clash in Waziristan will not be as easy as in Swat: it will be a long, difficult and nasty campaign, costly in men and materiel.

South Waziristan, about three times the size of the ACT, is mountainous and rugged, with deep gorges and steep slopes. There are no big settlements and towns as in Swat. This is ideal insurgency terrain. As this is the Pakistani Taliban's heartland, its militants will fight hard, and they will be doing so on home ground as opposed to Swat, where they were outsiders. They can expect a degree of support from the local population, which will not look kindly on the Punjabi-dominated Pakistani army - seen as foreigners - coming in uninvited and inevitably bombing innocent civilians.

Complicating the task of defeating the Pakistani Taliban is the presence of the Afghan Taliban and al-Qa'ida, which no doubt will give military support to their ideological brothers-in-arms. Moreover, having moved into the area about eight years ago after being ousted from Afghanistan, the Afghan Taliban and al-Qa'ida have had time to dig themselves in by building tunnels, hideouts and fortifications. They will be waiting for the Pakistani army.

They will all fight hard: the Afghan Taliban and al-Qa'ida to protect this vital launching area for attacks against coalition forces across the border in Afghanistan, and the Pakistani Taliban because losing Waziristan would be a fatal blow to their campaign to overthrow the government in Islamabad. We can expect many more suicide bombings - now an almost daily occurrence - against innocent civilians across Pakistan in retaliation against the military campaign.

The good news for the Pakistan government is that the Pakistani Taliban is divided. But even more important is the army's change of attitude. As a Pakistani brigadier recently told me, now that there is a national consensus on opposing the Taliban (which did not exist under Pervez Musharraf), the army is determined to do the job required of it.

The outcome of the battle for Waziristan will have an important effect on the war in Afghanistan, and this should be of considerable interest to Australia's 1500 military personnel in Afghanistan, who have to confront the Taliban and al-Qa'ida fighters coming down from Pakistan's mountains to kill them.

Australia's recent emergency support of $18 million will help Pakistan deal with the difficult task of managing the millions of IDPs. Pakistan needs all the international help it can get to deal with this difficult situation.

President Asif Zardari will have to show resolve and commitment to this all-important battle, which the Pakistani army must win. A military victory in Waziristan would be a body blow to the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban and al-Qa'ida; losing would extend the misery of all the people in the region.

Claude Rakisits heads an independent consultancy, Geopolitical Assessments, and has been working on issues related to Pakistan for more than 25 years.

IN THIS CALL MESSAGE - THE FALSE FLAG OF THE SEPTEMBER 11 EVENTS IS INCLUDED

EUZU BILLAH-I-min-es-seytan-ir-raciym, BISIMILLAH-IR-RAHMAN-IR-RAHIM
Salam,
There is a fact that is to be known. America has made the september 11
events by itself. There is NO DOUBT OF IT.. People rather know it well
in truth.
So, this message contains a clear and enough proof for proving the
false flag of the events; and an invitation to the website w w w . y a
h y a y u n u s . n e t if it is goodness as I implore from Allah /
God.
So, let's remember / know some facts:
- In that day, in New York city, there has been 3 buildings collapsed,
not 2 ! (the twin towers and building number 7) The building number 7
[as called as it was the 7th building in the complex.], had just
collapsed in 6 seconds in the afternoon of 9 11 afternoon in the city.
.. Hours after the twins' collapse events.. That was a steely
structered, 47-stored building and that was not hit by anything nor
got any accountable damage. But, however, it (strangelly) had a very
small fire , which were barely visible.
This collapse (of the building 7) just proves the existence of the
explosions&explosives that causes the fall of the building with the
method ,called, as demolution.(it could mean for the way of callapsing
a building in a controlled manner by explosives.) -But the more
striking point comes with the twin towers' collapse where a filthy-
brutal-tale has been written and many people have been lied
lied  ///////// crime crime  /////////  filth filth
........
....The buildings had burned for almost an-hours' time.
And, there is no historical record of any building collapsed due to
fire, let alone the steely structured, over-disigned buildings. (the
towers were reknowned for their distinguished structures.) In Sa Allah
(if God Wills), You may catch this point with costom logic if you did
not considered it before. For instance, consider a dish bowl burning
under the oven. Than even the bowl be a zinc or an aliminium, and the
kind of burning is controlled; (supplied by fuel and air), it does not
melt under that fire, burning even lasting for hours., would you still
believe a broad-steel-coloums melt under an open air fire.
- There was no logical explanation for a high-degree burning of office
materials. This expectance and assumption of the existance of office
materials could be affirmed by the building beeing a class-A building,
protected by high-security- measures in normal circumtances where no
possible entrance of explosives would not be possible in normality,
let alone long working hours for establising the explosive so that
they could collapse the building.......
- And another very open and clean proof : in the case, there is NO
LOGICAL EXPLANATION POSSIBLY MADE FOR THE COLLAPSES OF THE BUILDINGS
IN TEN SECONDS OTHER THAN BY THE WAY OF CONTROLLED DEMOLUTION.(in
normal circumtances if Allah Wiils)
Because, the BUILDINGS (twin towers) HAD JUST COLLAPSED IN JUST 10
SECONDS!! TEN SECONDS ! TEN SECONDS IS THE TIME FOR THE ACCOUNT OF
FREELY FALLING BODY FROM THE TOP OF THE BUILDIND. [than, this proves
solely for the demolution by itself].
10 SECONDS MEANS THE FREE FALL. The FREE FALL MEANS '' ZERO
STRENGHT'' .
ZERO STRENGHT MEANS ''THE LOOSE OF THE COMPLETE STRENGHT OF ALL THE
LOAD-BEARING-PARTS(i.e.stell-coloumstoo) OF THE BUILDING INSTANTLY''
Just like a ''INSTANT-EVAPORATION OF ALL THE COLOUMS'', NO MORE THAN A
SECOND AND THERE IS NOTHING BEHIND YOU ! .. (and you begin to fall
freely)
Saying it in formulas by the basic physic : 1300 feet = 396,5 meters
(the approx. height of the building.)
from h = 1/2 g t2 and the g is about 9,8
396,5 = 1/2 . 9,8 . (t2)
t2 = 2.(396,5) / 9,8
t2 = 80,9183
t comes to 8,99 seconds .. that which is about the same time that the
building has collapsed]
[ the letters 't2' seen above are for the square (t) ] Additionally,
there were also a confirmation from an engineer very close to the
building of the constructions. He was Frank Dimartini, the Chief
Engineer of One of The Towers and he had said:
''.... the building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crashed
into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the
building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jet liners.
Because, this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen
door. This intense grid and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing
that screen netting. It really does nothing the screen netting ....''
Frank Dimartini, Chief Engineer of One of The Towers
(was lost or killed on that day)
Clearly proving the events were in false flag and inside job.
By goodness in Sa Allah.
A.Yahya Yunus (muslim)
- - So, you may share and archive this information.
*there has also happened some more events which were all again under
the false flag and which were proven by many many proofs. (like the
hit to the pentagon or the found crash in pensilvania, but again they
were all in the false flag with mountains of evidence and probing that
all these events were made by the hands inside america.
**The buildings were a A-Class building, secured from such
possibilities with the high security measures. (possibly was one of
the best in the world)

-

Indian strategy of blame game

ALLEGATIONS by the Indian leadership or their agencies against Pakistan for whatever happens in our immediate neighbourhood are not a source of surprise for the people in both the countries. They put the blame of their failures on Pakistan with dual purpose to keep Islamabad under continuous pressure and gain international support and sympathy.

According to a report published in The Times of India, Multi-Agency Centre (MAC) in the Indian Home Ministry has drawn an assessment that there are still 42 terror-training camps in Pakistan and Azad Kashmir directed against India. The assessment was prepared on the basis of inputs from RAW, Intelligence Bureau, Military Intelligence and other sources. Indian intelligence agencies are known for fabricating fictions and misguiding their Government by blaming Pakistan even for the heinous crimes committed by them. As and when an incident takes place, they immediately raise an accusing finger on Pakistan and when inquiries are held by the Indian officials, as was in the case of killing of Sikhs in occupied Kashmir or attack on trains, they prove otherwise. The assessment of the MAC is in total contradiction of the statements by the Indian leadership and even by the Army Chief in which they openly stated that there was no infiltration from the Pakistani side. The present demonstrations in Occupied Kashmir have local dimensions due to incidents of rape and killing of innocent Kashmiri women by occupation forces and opposition to farce elections. The fact is that Indian security forces are indulging in worst form of state terrorism in occupied Kashmir that has been acknowledged by international Human Rights organisations. The Indian Home Ministry must wake up and realize that a lot of water has passed under the bridges and allegations of this nature would no more gain recognition. The world acknowledges that Pakistan itself is the victim of terrorism and suffering the most due to bomb blasts and suicide acts being committed by a handful of anti-state elements who are receiving arms and finances from India in order to destabilize Pakistan. The MAC assessment prepared cleverly and shrewdly is nothing but an attempt to forestall any finger pointing from Pakistan or the Western countries. The Foreign Office and the Interior Ministry must therefore strongly counter the propaganda of terrorist camps in Azad Kashmir and expose the real face of India before the world of its backing to terrorist activities in Pakistan.

Sidetracking Kashmir

ONE cannot help appreciate the nice sentiments President Barack Obama expressed about Pakistan when he gave an interview to a private TV channel at the White House on Saturday. However, at the same time, one feels utterly dismayed at the sharp turn he has taken from the stand on Kashmir that he so clearly articulated during the election campaign. He had rightly termed the dispute's resolution as essential to normal, good Indo-Pakistan relations, which in turn he regarded as an important contributory factor to eliminating the menace of terrorism. For the leader of the solitary superpower with strategic stakes in the region to succumb to New Delhi's pressure on this core issue and say that the US would not like to mediate and tamely fall back on the faltering process of composite dialogue is nothing short of a humiliating compromise. The shift in policy puts Washington's own interests in jeopardy, Mr Obama loses the high moral ground he had attained by giving expression to his true feelings that struck the right chord with Kashmiris' aspirations, and the peace-loving people in the region who had at last seen some hope of better times ahead find themselves betrayed at the hands of someone who sounded so genuinely committed to a new and just world order.

The ground realities here have not changed, though. Kashmir remains at the root of enmity between India and Pakistan, the forcible foreign occupation continues to breed anger and resentment among the people of Kashmir and creates the urge to throw off the oppressive yoke, and if peaceful means fail to work through an armed struggle. New Delhi, with its rising economic strength and greater international recognition, seems to be in no mood to give up its imperialist hold on the state. Its strategic importance to the US vis-à-vis China and lure of burgeoning market provide it the leverage to go back, scot free, on its international commitment and democratic obligations to let the people of the occupied state decide their own future through a UN-sponsored free and fair plebiscite.

But where in the history book does the scenario place President Obama who some political observers had thought would prove to be the torchbearer of change? If he gives up on persuading the Indians to give the promised deal to Kashmiris, how would he accost the Israelis, with their strong lobby and entrenched promoters in his administration, to come forward and recognise the rights of the Palestinian people? The US President needs to do serious introspection about the reasons for this shift if he were to revive the hope that his much-applauded words had raised. Unless he recaptures the courage Candidate Barack Obama had displayed his wonderful speeches would be dumped into the unenviable category of mere rhetoric.

Pakistan & nuclear ballgame

PAKISTAN is presently confronted with a challenge of nuclear blackmail. Lobbyists seem to have been hired in important world capitals by anti-Pakistan governments to run down its nuclear option as insecure and in the present scenario likely to fall in the hands of the Taliban.

If for some reason the lobbyists relent in their propaganda campaign, dubious remarks about the security of our nuclear arsenal by US generals brings the issue back to the centre stage. With reports coming to light that the Conference on Disarmament has decided to revive the stalled arms control talks, the campaign has taken on an added mission: to propagate that Pakistan has stepped up its nuclear programme to enlarge its nuclear arsenal. Not surprisingly, India's army chief General Deepak Kapoor believes that the 'expanded' nuclear programme of Pakistan is a 'matter of concern for the entire world that only global pressure could halt'.

Pakistan's nuclear programme is India-centric. In 1974 when India conducted its first nuclear explosion - ironically it was code-named 'Buddha is smiling' - Pakistan offered her a nuclear weapons-free South Asia. India rejected the offer forcing Pakistan to join the nuclear race. From the very beginning India had no intention to abdicate its nuclear option and, therefore, agreed to a number of Pakistani proposals to fix parameters to avert accidental use of nuclear weapons.

But having secured the United States' acquiescence in keeping her nuclear option even as a non-signatory of the NPT, the Indian administration is now hell-bent to break out of that South Asian equation. India would like, ideally, Pakistan to be dispossessed of its nuclear option. If that is not happening it would like the Pakistani nuclear programme to be frozen to death. Tongue-in-cheek, General Kapoor says, "Even if Pakistan is looking at deterrence, they (Pakistan) require a minimum amount".

As the anti-Pakistan campaign unfolds during the run-up to the Conference on Disarmament at Geneva, Islamabad has to come on the front foot to fight back. It would like to redefine its position on some of the understandings with India, like 'no-first-use' and unilateral moratorium on testing. Having acquired a clear-cut preponderance in conventional warfare equipment, India has forfeited its right to expect Pakistan to abide by the no-first-use offer.

Rightly then, Prime Minister Gilani has asserted that nuclear weapons are the "cornerstone of Pakistan's deterrence strategy" and despite the "orchestrated campaign" his government is "determined to retain the nuclear deterrence at all costs and not to compromise on this core security interest". And if anybody thinks Pakistan is or will succumb under pressure, the press statement issued by the Strategic Plans Division on the occasion of prime minister's visit urges correction: the prime minister was briefed on "qualitative upgrades", it said.

We expect the forthcoming Conference on Disarmament meeting to go much beyond its heretofore activity of fixing benchmarks and parameters for nuclear powers to follow. Instead, we believe it should take the quantum leap and outlaw all weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in one go. Full nuclear disarmament is only one part of it, and the only item on the agenda of CoD's first meeting in the Twenty-first Century. The dilly dallying and tinkering has been going on for far too long, always adding legitimacy to nuclear powers' so-called right to retain nuclear arsenal.

No doubt some important treaties and protocols in the name of arms reduction and secure testing sites did materialise from this forum, but the fact remains that the threat of a nuclear holocaust still hangs low over the head. Then there is also this nuclear apartheid that has no moral high ground to stand on. It is unacceptable to any thinking man that there should be some who should have the 'divine right' to equip themselves with unlimited destructive power. A nuclear-free world would be definitely a safer place to live than the one we inhabit today.

Afghan War, the US Media, and the UN: the New Metric of Civilian Casualties

During 2009, seven out of ten civilians killed by the Obama and NATO military machines have been women and children. Clearly, the Obama regime has failed on the metric of civilian casualties.

By Prof. Marc W. Herold

A tacit agreement operates between the Obama administration, the U.S corporate media, most progressive U.S. liberals, and the United Nations Assistance Mission for Afghanistan (UNAMA). All dream to a lesser or greater degree of a future social democratic paradise in Afghanistan where girls' schools would be flourishing and small farmers exporting pomegranates. ⁽¹⁾ Some debate exists over the means to achieve this end. Much ado has been made during the past five months as to whether the Obama approach to Afghanistan differs or not with that of its predecessor.

What is certain is that Afghanistan has become Obama's war. ⁽²⁾ Words matter: this is Obama's war and it is a military surge. Obama has put in motion a surge of U.S occupation troops raising them by 50% to a level of 55,000 by mid-summer 2009 (including a 1,000-strong contingent of Special Forces). He is continuing and expanding Bush's use of mercenaries. Pentagon data indicates that private security contractors working for the Pentagon have risen by 29% during the first quarter of 2009. ⁽³⁾

A debate centers upon to what degree the Obama approach is one of counter-terrorism (CT) or counter-insurgency (COIN). Central to the latter is the metric of civilian casualties and this is where the U.S media by commission and the UNAMA by omission enter the evolving Afghan tragedy. Much of the U.S left by having earlier proclaimed that the Afghanistan was the "good war" and being inebriated by the nation-building of humanitarian imperialism is now suffering from a bi-polar disorder, rendering it irrelevant.

With the sacking of General McKiernan and the entry of General McChrystal (along with the continuing prominence of counter-insurgency aficionado Kilcullen), Obama appears to tilt towards the COIN approach in Afghanistan. Put in other terms, the approach is population-centric rather than military-centric. General McChrystal stated in congressional testimony that "the measure of American and allied effectiveness would the 'number of Afghans shielded from violence,' not the number of enemies killed." ⁽⁴⁾ He also said, "This is a critical point. It may be the critical point. This is a struggle for the support of the Afghan people. Our willingness to operate in ways that minimize casualties or damage, even when doing so makes our task more difficult, is essential to our credibility. I cannot overstate my commitment to the importance of this concept…Sir, I believe the perception caused by civilian casualties is one of the most dangerous things we face in Afghanistan, particularly with the Afghan people, the Pashtun most likely." ⁽⁵⁾

His approach hence is classic COIN, rather than focusing forcefully upon taking the fight to the Taliban and their associates (military-centric). Naturally, the COIN strategy if successful by providing better actionable intelligence enables better carrying out the military fight against "insurgents." This strategy finds favor both in Karzai's Kabul (to which yet more monies will flow) and in European capitals where the military-centric approach is unacceptable. The "new" U.S strategy which it turns out is not new at all, involves building up the Afghan military-police apparatus, pressuring NATO to take a greater role, employing "precision strikes" to avoid civilian casualties, etc. All this was tried under Bush and failed. Why should we expect anything different under Obama? But what is new is the metric of Afghan civilian casualties. This was well expressed in an editorial of the Boston Globe,

McChrystal and the new number two commander in Afghanistan, Lieutenant General David Rodriguez, must make one tenet in their guerrilla warfare playbook an absolute priority: protection of the civilian population. The Taliban are reaping benefits from a dynamic that should be familiar from other guerrilla wars. When Taliban fighters stage an ambush, US forces frequently feel compelled to call in air strikes or artillery fire. And all too often, as happened last week, innocent Afghan villagers are hurt or killed. The inevitable outcome is widespread anger against the foreign army. This is what Afghan President Hamid Karzai lamented again and again last week during a visit to Washington. He begged Americans to stop killing Afghan civilians. What Karzai knows, and what McChrystal must take to heart, is that nearly all Afghans despise and fear the Taliban. Yet no US strategy can defeat the Taliban unless the foreigners become protectors - not destroyers - of Afghan families. ⁽⁶⁾

An editorial in the New York Times of June 8th added

Protecting Afghan civilians and expanding the secure space in which they can go about their lives and livelihoods must now become the central purpose of American military operations in Afghanistan. ⁽⁷⁾

As pointed out by Jeff Huber, the McChrystal metric of winning - the number of Afghans shielded from violence - is nonsense. How many shielded Afghans will equate to victory? Who is going to shield them? ⁽⁸⁾ General McChrystal who was head of secretive Joint Special Operations Command, involved in widespread murder and carnage across Afghanistan? In other words, under the McChrystal metric, it will be impossible to know when we have won. This is an invitation to war without end.

While it is not my purpose here to critique the feasibility of "protecting civilians" and whether such ever was U.S policy - indeed I argued exactly the contrary in December 2001 ⁽⁹⁾ - a few words are imperative. Protecting the civilian population requires a massive and prolonged U.S/NATO presence in the countryside, but as I have argued elsewhere, such requires around 400,000 foreign troops. ⁽¹⁰⁾ The Obama surge is obvious: to give Afghans enough space to rebuild their lives ⁽¹¹⁾; but it is far too little, too late. ⁽¹²⁾ Establishing such a presence necessitates clearing areas of the Taliban and their associates, but if many of the Taliban are residents of these regions then such clearing must take the form of population removal to fortified strategic villages (as in Vietnam). ⁽¹³⁾ Moreover, such clearing carried out with admittedly very poor on-the-ground actionable intelligence, will per force kill many innocents (as I demonstrate below has "precisely" occurred under the Obama clock). In other words, the U.S and NATO are caught in an unwinnable Catch-22.

The metric of civilian casualties has two dimensions: the one on-the-ground in Afghanistan and the other how Obama's war gets reported outside Afghanistan. In Afghanistan today, word spreads very quickly about civilians killed by U.S and/or NATO actions. The foreign forces constantly lament the effectiveness of so-called Taliban propaganda. The presence of cell-phone technology has greatly facilitated such diffusion. No way exists to contain the spread of such information within Afghanistan. ⁽¹⁴⁾

Things look very differently as regards how Obama's Afghan war gets reported outside Afghanistan. Given the new metric of civilian casualties, the U.S government is going to greater lengths to manage the news coming out of Afghanistan. As is widely acknowledged, the U.S corporate (non right wing) media is having a "love affair" with the Obama administration. ⁽¹⁵⁾ This is obvious as regards matters of foreign policy, the Pentagon and all the more so for Central Asia.

It is no secret that Obama has taken over the U.S peace movement. ⁽¹⁶⁾ For example, John Podesta's 'liberal think tank the Center for American Progress (CAP) strongly supports Obama's escalation or surge in Afghanistan and Pakistan. MoveOn.org today serves as a full-time cheerleader of Obama's policy agenda and is at best silent on Obama's Afghan surge. More importantly, the established corporate media is largely silent about the continuing devastation perpetrated upon Afghan civilians by the Obama Afghan war. Only when a thoroughly egregious attack takes place as in Farah in early May 2009 when 97-147 civilians perished under U.S. "precision" bombs, is mention made. A British newspaper (not the Washington Post or equivalents) published a photo of what happens on the ground when a 2,000 pound bomb explodes (see below). ⁽¹⁷⁾ A B-1B bomber dropped two such bombs on a string of villages in Farah province on May 5th with devastating results. ⁽¹⁸⁾ This is precision? The effective casualty radius for such a bomb (meaning 50% of exposed persons within this range will die) is at least 400 meters from impact point.

A B1-B bomber delivers a 2,000 lb bomb upon alleged Taliban positions in the village of Yatimchay, Helmand, in support of an assault by British Royal Fusillers during Operation Mar Lew.

Facts-on-the-ground reveal that under Obama since January, more bombs are being dropped contra the administration's public relations. Rolfsen reports in The Navy Times that

Air Force, Navy and other coalition warplanes dropped a record number of bombs in Afghanistan during April, Air Forces Central figures show. In the past month, warplanes released 438 bombs, the most ever. April also marked the fourth consecutive month that the number of bombs dropped rose, after a decline starting last July. The munitions were released during 2,110 close-air support sorties. The actual number of airstrikes was higher because the AFCent numbers don't include attacks by helicopters and special operations gunships. The numbers also don't include strafing runs or launches of small missiles. ⁽¹⁹⁾

One searches in vain in the U.S mainstream press for reporting upon all those bombs being dropped upon Afghanistan. Vietnam-era enemy body counts are now officially back as part of the U.S propaganda war. ⁽²⁰⁾ Even less is written on the concrete results - other than the prolific references to "eliminated militants" - of such bombing. Such is to be expected from a corporate media largely in tow to the Pentagon and the Obama regime. Naturally exceptions exist as for example the independent reporting by the freelance journalist, Chris Sands of Britain who has been working independently in Afghanistan since 2005. ⁽²¹⁾ Sadly for every Chris Sands, there are dozens like Jason Straziuoso (Associated Press), Lara Logan (CBS 60 Minutes) or Laura King (Los Angeles Times) who serve as megaphones for the Pentagon's version of events.

The U.S. military's "Jan. 31, 2009 Airpower Summary" stated "in the Musa Qala area, a coalition aircraft bombed an anti-Afghan force compound with a precision-guided munitions. A coalition ground commander had ordered the strike after enemy forces began shooting at his unit with small-arms fire and RPGs." How did this look from the ground? Four months after the U.S air strike, the

independent reporter, Chris Sands, reported what had happened on that fateful day. He interviewed a 13-year-old girl, Ghrana, in a Kabul rehabilitation center. Walking on crutches, Ghrana told Sands what had really taken place in Musa Qala when U.S war planes "bombed an anti-Afghan compound" killing and wounding many. Sands wrote

She sounded neither angry nor particularly sad describing what happened during a journey to her sister's house in the south-western province of Helmand, one morning. "I didn't hear any shooting or anything. Then I saw red coloured bombs falling from the aeroplane," she said. Nine of her relatives were killed, including her mother. Ghrana lost her right leg and much of her left arm. In military parlance she and her family were all collateral damage, an unfortunate, but inevitable, consequence of war. Each day that goes by they are joined by other men, women and children caught in a struggle that many Afghans say is more brutal than anything in their country's history…Exactly why Ghrana and her family were bombed in Musa Qala district three-and-a-half months ago may never become clear. She insists there were no Taliban in the area at the time and there is no obvious reason why her family was confused for insurgents.

Whatever the events were that led to the bombing, the results have been devastating. In a remote and violent part of one of the world's poorest countries, she must now try to find decent medical treatment and piece her life back together. Meanwhile, her remaining relatives pray for the day when the foreign troops finally withdraw from their country. "It will be like Eid for us," said her uncle, Ahmed Abed, a polite 32-year-old who brought his niece to Kabul. "The Americans know who is a Talib and who is innocent, but they don't care. If it is a Talib or a girl, they don't care. They are crazy. It's like they are blinded by love. If anyone comes in front of their face, they shoot them. They never care who it is. I can accept that airplanes make mistakes, but I have seen with my own eyes them fire from a vehicle at a woman in the street." Mr Abed's anger is common among Pashtuns, Afghanistan's largest ethnic group. Predominant in the south and east, many of them were naturally suspicious of the occupation. Now, with their homes in ruins and their futures more uncertain than ever, they are downright hostile. ⁽²²⁾

This atrocity went unreported until Mr. Sands wrote his article in the UAE's daily, The National, providing evidence that the figures cited in The Afghan Victim Memorial Project are a significant under-estimate of the true toll taken upon innocent Afghan civilians by the U.S. and NATO foreign forces.

Another exception is Dexter Filkins of the New York Times, who in February past penned an article titled "Afghan Civilian Casualties Rose 40 Percent in 2008." ⁽²³⁾ Mr. Filkins relied upon overall figures provided by the UNAMA in a report released in February, but complemented those with valuable case detail. The UNAMA report was certainly a healthy anti-dote to NATO propaganda which blithely asserted in January 2009 that only 973 civilians were killed and only 97 by international forces during 2008.

But can we confidently rely upon such UNAMA figures? The UNAMA will apparently be releasing new figures for 2009 this month. ⁽²⁴⁾ The UNAMA itself concedes that it is not engaged in "body-counting" in Afghanistan. The reasons cited include inaccessibility to many areas of conflict and a lack of adequate human resources to carry out such work. ⁽²⁵⁾ urther skepticism is warranted as the UNAMA refuses to publish disaggregated data which would allow fact-checking. In effect, we are asked to believe in the UNAMA figures. But, such amounts to faith-based counting.

The Table and graph below present the evolving matrix of death for Afghan civilians, 2005-2009. The rows represent different counts: Herold; the United Nations' UNAMA; Human Rights Watch (HRW); the Afghanistan Rights Monitor (ARM); and the Afghan Ambassador to Australia (only 2008 figure ⁽²⁶⁾. The UN data is for deaths caused by all pro-government forces. In order to make it comparable, I have assumed that 15% of civilian deaths were caused by Afghan forces, giving the revised ( ) figures. The graph below converts the annual totals into monthly averages for each year.

	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009 (Jan-May)
Herold Midpoint	408-478 443	653-769 711	1,010-1,297 1,154	864-1,017 941	401-494 443
U.N Adjusted			477 (405)	829 (705)
HRW		230	434
ARM				1,100
Afghan amb.				1,000

In order to better discern the evolution over time, the graph below presents annualized monthly averages of Afghans who perished at the hands of the U.S and its NATO allies. What emerges clearly is that for Afghan civilians, 2009 has been as deadly as the high point of 2007. The average monthly figure for 2009 is 90 innocent civilians killed; if we take just the Obama weeks (Jan 21 - May 31st) the figure rises to 96 (identical to the worst monthly average for 2007). In other words, historical standards, the Obama regime fails on the metric of protecting innocent civilians from death at the hands of U.S and NATO occupation forces.

Figures for the year 2008 are now available from the UNAMA, NATO and Herold. Whereas the UNAMA provides overall civilian casualty figures, my own work focuses only upon innocent Afghans killed by U.S/NATO actions. The NATO figure is sheer propaganda. The following Table contrasts the compilations for civilians killed by US/NATO:

	UNAMA figures for pro-government caused deaths	Herold figures for US/NATO-caused deaths	NATO figures for deaths caused US/NATO action
All of 2008	828 (705)	864-1,017	97
Jan-May 2009 (inclusive)	n.a.	401-489	n.a.

Source: data for Herold can be reconstructed from the Afghan Victim Memorial Project data base

The compilations are not strictly comparable. The UNAMA also includes civilians who perished at the hands of Afghan forces. In other words, one can safely assume that the UNAMA captures only about 70% of those counted by Herold. ⁽²⁷⁾ This serves to lessen U.S/NATO culpability and improve U.S/NATO "performance" on the metric of Afghans protected from violence.

How should one assess Obama's Afghan war based upon the metric of civilian casualties? The U.S media and the U.S left are largely silent (the latter choosing to ignore data I have provided ⁽²⁸⁾ choosing instead to rely upon questionable accounts by Human Rights Watch and the UNAMA). The previously mentioned rise in U.S air strikes augers poorly. The following Table presents data on civilians killed by US/NATO actions compiled from the Afghan Victim Memorial Project for 2009:

	Low count	High count
January 2009: Bush 20 days Obama 11 days	63 35	71 35
February	50	50
March	36	38
April	70	75
May	147	220
Sub-total…. Obama sub-total….	401 338	489 418

It should be noted that the figures for the six months Jan-June 2008 (inclusive) were 278-343. Comparing this with the data for five months in the last row in the Table above clearly demonstrates that even by the standards of the Bush administration, the Obama regime cares less about the well-being of Afghan civilians at least insofar as waging a "clean war," that is on the metric of civilian casualties Obama fails.

What about the demographics of the Afghan dead? As I have long argued, well over one half of Afghan civilians killed by U.S and NATO forces have been women and children. Of the civilians killed about whom demographics are known (70% of the universe deaths), some 70% were women and children under the Obama clock (Jan 21 - May 31st) ⁽²⁹⁾:

	Low count	High count
Men	65 + 11 = 76	67 + 11 = 78
Women	13 = 21 = 34	13 = 21 = 34
Children	71 + 65 = 136	71 + 65 = 136
Undetermined	92	170
Total	338	418

Note: For the massacre in Farah on May 5th, I have used the figures provided by the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC): 11 males, 21 women and 65 children (31 girls and 34 boys).

By disproportionately killing civilian women and children, the Obama regime has clearly failed on the metric of civilian casualties.

Frequently one reads commentary (no evidence provided) that air strikes are more deadly for civilians than ground raids. My data base allows testing this hypothesis. The Table below summarizes the evidence for U.S and NATO actions during 2009 which led to the killing of Afghan civilians.

Type of attack	(1) Number of attacks	(2) Civilians killed	Ratio of (2)/(1)
Air	23	213 - 270	9.3 - 11.7
Ground	41	90	2.2
Air & ground	6	27 - 51	4.5 - 8.5
Other (e.g. traffic)	4	7	1.7

The data clearly reveals that U.S/NATO air strikes in Afghanistan today are 4-5 times more deadly than ground raids.

Conclusion

Having inherited a war in Afghanistan, the Obama administration nonetheless had choices. Some for instance like Gilles Dorronsoro argued that the very presence of foreign forces was inflaming the conflict and that what was called-for was a scaling-down of military action, focusing and exiting. ⁽³⁰⁾ Instead, the Obama team which includes many members of the former Bush regime, decided to fight the "good war" in Afghanistan. During the past five months, the conflict has further escalated and promises to do more of the same.

By the announced metric of protecting Afghan civilians, the Obama team has failed miserably even more so than its predecessor. What is different is the public relations which began with in the words of Michael Stewart "Operation Redefinition." One can redefine as much as one wants, the reality for Afghans pursuing their daily lives has deteriorated as documented herein. Since taking office and assuming the position of Commander-in-Chief, Obama and his NATO allies have killed at the very least some 338-419 Afghan civilians (compared to 278-343 under the Bush clock during the first six months of 2008). In addition, deadly CIA drone attacks within Pakistan have continued since Obama took command. Of the sixty cross-border U.S drone attacks upon Pakistan between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009,

Only 10 were able to hit their actual targets, killing 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders, besides perishing 687 innocent Pakistani civilians. The success percentage of the US predator strikes thus comes to not more than six per cent. ⁽³¹⁾

Simple arithmetic shows that in some eighty days in office, Obama has managed to raise the monthly average kill rate in drone attacks achieved by Bush from 32 during 2008 to 45 per month (for February-March 2009).

The Obama team might well head the words of the Pakistani intelligence agent, 'Colonel Iman,' who after training at Fort Bragg's Special Forces base, oversaw the training camps for jihadis (including Mullah Omar) during the late 1970's and 1980's. Iman told Christina Lamb (another fine independent British journalist), that he left Afghanistan in late 2001 and claims he has not returned, but

"I can go any time on my old routes, even the Americans cannot stop me, but there is no need," he said. "I have friends roaming all over there. At times they give me a call, they like to hear my voice. I'm quite happy with the current situation because the Americans are trapped there. The Taliban will not win but in the end the enemy will tire, like the Russians." ⁽³²⁾

The ex-CIA station chief in Kabul, Graham Fuller is emphatic that Obama's policies are aggravating the situation in Afghanistan (and Pakistan),

Only the withdrawal of American and NATO boots on the ground will begin to allow the process of near-frantic emotions to subside within Pakistan, and for the region to start to cool down. Pakistan is experienced in governance and is well able to deal with its own Islamists and tribalists under normal circumstances; until recently, Pakistani Islamists had one of the lowest rates of electoral success in the Muslim world. But U.S. policies have now driven local nationalism, xenophobia and Islamism to combined fever pitch. As Washington demands that Pakistan redeem failed American policies in Afghanistan, Islamabad can no longer manage its domestic crisis. ⁽³³⁾

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~