Taliban's bombs came from US, not IranBy Gareth Porter
Sept 5, 2009 WASHINGTON - In support of the official United States assertion that Iran is arming its sworn enemy, the Taliban, the head of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Dennis Blair, has cited a statement by a Taliban commander last year attributing military success against North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces to Iranian military assistance.
But the Taliban commander's claim is contradicted by evidence from the US Defense Department, Canadian forces in Afghanistan and the Taliban themselves that the increased damage to NATO tanks by Taliban forces has come from anti-tank mines provided by the United States to the jihadi movement against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
The Taliban claim was cited by the ODNI in written responses to questions for the record from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence following testimony by Blair before the committee on February 12, 2009. The responses were released to the Federation of American Scientists under the Freedom of Information Act on July 30.
ODNI wrote that Iran was "covertly supplying arms to Afghan insurgents while publicly posing as supportive of the Afghan government". As evidence of such covert Iranian arms supply, the ODNI said, "Taliban commanders have publicly credited Iranian support for their successful operations against coalition forces."
That statement was taken almost word-for-word from the subtitle of an article published on the website of London's DailyTelegraph and Sunday Telegraph on September 14 last year. "A Taliban commander has credited Iranian-supplied weapons with successful operations against coalition forces in Afghanistan," read the sub-heading of the article "Taliban claim weapons supplied by Iran".
The single Taliban commander quoted became plural in the ODNI version.
In the article, British journalist Kate Clark quoted an unnamed Taliban commander as saying, "There's a kind of landmine called a Dragon. Iran's sending it. It's directional and it causes heavy casualties." The commander said the new mine would "destroy" large tanks "completely", whereas "ordinary" anti-tank mines had only caused "minor damage".
If true, the revelation that an improved Iranian anti-tank weapon had been killing US and NATO troops in larger numbers would have been a major development in the war in Afghanistan. Roadside bomb attacks are acknowledged by US and NATO officials to be the cause of most of the casualties and deaths of foreign troops in the country.
The rapid rise in casualties over the past two years is attributed in part to the increased lethality of the Taliban mines.
But according to the Pentagon agency responsible for combating roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan, the increased Taliban threat to US and NATO vehicles comes not from any new technology from Iran but from Italian-made mines left over from the US Central Intelligence Agency's military assistance to the anti-Soviet jihadists in the 1980s.
In response to an inquiry from Inter Press Service (IPS), the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), a unit of the US Department of Defense, said in an e-mail that Italian-manufactured TC-6 anti-tank mines are "very common" in the Taliban-dominated areas of the country and that they had been modified to increase their lethality in improvised explosive device attacks.
The JIEDDO response said TC-6 mines were being "arrayed in two or three in tandem to ensure the charge is large enough to inflict damage against coalition vehicles". The TC-6 mines "continue to pose a significant threat to coalition forces", JIEDDO said.
The combining of two or three anti-tank mines into a single, more destructive bomb would account for the increased lethality of the anti-tank mines being used by the Taliban.
The claim by the alleged Taliban commander of new, more effective weaponry supplied by Iran appears to have been deliberate misinformation for the Western press.
British writer Jason Elliot, who has traveled extensively in Afghanistan since 1979, reported in a 2001 book
Min(d)ing Afghanistan that the Italian-made TC-6 was the most commonly used anti-tank mine used in Afghanistan. The seven kilogram charge of TNT, wrote Elliot, could "flip a tank the way a seagull flips a baby turtle".
Millions of mines remained buried in the ground from the Soviet occupation period, Elliot observed. However, only about 20,000 anti-tank mines have been destroyed since 1989, according to the United Nations.
Further evidence that the Taliban are relying heavily on the TC-6 to damage NATO tanks is a picture published by al-Jazeera on May 1, 2007, of a Taliban storeroom of explosives in Helmand province. The photograph, taken by a cameraman accompanying correspondent James Bays, showed two insurgent bomb-makers working on what was clearly identifiable as an Italian TC-6 anti-tank mine.
The insurgents told the photographer that the explosives in the room were in the process of being converted into "anti-tank bombs".
Canadian forces in Kandahar province have encountered some of the heaviest Taliban use of anti-tank mines in Afghanistan. According to casualty data on the website of the Canadian Forces, since the beginning of 2007, 57 out of the 81 deaths of Canadian troops in Afghanistan had come from roadside bombs and anti-tank mines.
Captain Dean Menard, a spokesman for Canadian forces in Kandahar, told IPS in a telephone interview that some of the ordnance used by the Taliban against Canadian tanks "are definitely attributable to the Soviet occupation era" - a reference to mines supplied by the US through Pakistan during the anti-Soviet war.
The insurgents have obtained anti-tank weapons from "legacy minefields" dating from the period of Soviet occupation, according to Menard. Canadian forces also have intelligence that the Taliban obtain such mines from a "vast black market", he said.
The Canadian spokesman confirmed that the Taliban were "making bigger mines" from the ordnance obtained from those sources.
In 2007 and 2008, Afghan military and police discovered two major caches of weapons in Herat province on the Iranian border that included anti-tank mines which some Afghan officials suggested had originated in Iran.
But one picture of mines discovered in Herat, published by the Revolutionary Women's Association of Afghanistan, clearly shows nine Italian TC-6 mines and one that resembles the top from a US M-19 landmine, which was among those found in Afghanistan over the past two decades. One mine cannot be clearly identified from the picture, but it does not resemble any known Iranian mine.
A picture of the 2007 cache in Herat published by Agence France-Presse shows more Italian C-6 mines, along with a number of what appear to be US M-19 anti-tank mines. The picture shows an Afghan policeman pointing to a mark on one of the latter, suggesting that it is of Iranian origin.
A copy of the US M-19 mine has been manufactured by Iran, according to Jane's Mines and Mine Clearance 2005-2006. However, long-buried Iranian-made M19s provided to the Jamiat-I Islami faction fighting more extremist Hezb-e Islami fighters in the 1992-96 period exploded accidentally in Kabul as recently as 2006.
Moreover, a 2009 study of arms deliveries to Afghanistan in the 1990s by the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies shows that Iran's large-scale arms aid to the Northern Alliance forces in 1999 included anti-tank mines.
The prominence of the Italian-made mines among weapons found in Herat indicate that the anti-tank mines discovered in Herat in 2007 and 2008 were not assistance from Iran to the Taliban but weapons provided either to the mujahideen during the Soviet occupation or to the Northern Alliance troops fighting the Taliban in the late 1990s.
Former Central Intelligence Agency officer Phil Giraldi, who monitors US intelligence analysis on Iran, told IPS he doubted the ODNI statement on Iranian policy in Afghanistan accurately reflected the analysis.
"If you were to read the original analytical report," said Giraldi, "you would probably find that it's caveated like mad."
Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam,
was published in 2006. (Inter Press Service)
The Saudi connectionFriday, September 04, 2009 Zafar Hilaly
Deposed and discredited Pakistani leaders can always bank on being rescued by the Saudis. First it was Nawaz Sharif, he was plucked from Musharaf's clutches, and now it is Musharaf himself. Hopefully, Mr Zardari will also be able to bank on the Saudis if things go wrong. However, the bar in his case may be higher, for obvious reasons, the kind in which Agha Shahi's candidature for the OIC Secretary General's post was vetoed by the Saudis.
It's a pity that an innocent, newly-married Pakistani couple, now in a Saudi prison facing decapitation if convicted, have not as yet benefited from a similar humanitarian concern. Strange are the ways of the Saudis. They abhor political assassinations but not judicial murder. Hence there was no royal plane when Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was being lynched by their favourite dictator. The British too insisted that they had a right to decide who should hang or go free in undivided India. Back then, we didn't have a choice because we were a colony. Today, we once again have no option though we claim we are free.
From a juncture when a former custodian was told politely to not come to Pakistan because of Mr Jinnah's preoccupations, we have reached a point where our leaders are summoned to make an appearance which they dare not refuse. The reason, of course, is their deplorable sense of self-worth, the dismal manner in which they have governed and the sorry pass to which they have reduced the economy. Grovelling for Saudi dole outs, be it discounted oil or F-16s, we dance to the tune of the piper in Riyadh or Washington. When asked to jump, we never ask why but only how high.
Ironically, it all started with Mr Bhutto. Keen to benefit his people from the petro-dollars boom in 1973, he began the courtship of Saudi Arabia in earnest. Later, he dragged in the Saudi Ambassador to referee his fight with the PNA in 1977. Earlier, he had badgered the Saudis to allow the Imam of the Prophet's (PBUH) mosque at Madina and the imam of the mosque at Ka'aba to visit Pakistan to preach to adoring audiences; which according to an ISI report submitted to Mr Bhutto helped Mr Bhutto steal the thunder from the PNA. The ISI, we late discovered, was wrong once again.
Since then, the Saudis have become increasingly embroiled in our domestic affairs, but not, one suspects, out of choice. Who, after all, would want to acquire the headache of fashioning one's wit out of so many half wits?
The Saudis have counselled successive regimes on how to run the country although judging by the results, all were poor listeners. Private Saudi citizens too have shown a propensity for dabbling in Pakistani politics, the most notable being Osama bin Laden who agreed to fund an assassination attempt against Benazir Bhutto and then connived to support a no-confidence motion against the PPP in 1989.
Prior to that, the Saudis had generously supported the Mujahaideen in their brave fight against the Soviets. No doubt, they would have done so regardless of whether or not their mentor and ours, the United States, had wanted it. It is quite another matter that stemming from that decision, Pakistan now finds herself in the grip of an onslaught of terror that no country has ever confronted; and much of it at the hands of the son, younger brothers and, on occasions, of the same mujahideen who the Saudis funded through their favourite Pakistani dictator.
Luckily, the official Saudi interest in Pakistan has mostly been a benevolent one. The custodian's family at least oozes good will for Pakistan. They regard our strength as their own. The Islamic bomb gives them as much joy as it does us. But how can it guarantee Saudi security because it is inconceivable that our weapons will be used for the defence of anyone but ourselves?
About the only malevolence the Saudis have ever displayed towards anything belonging to Pakistan has been towards our Houbara Bustards which they massacre at will every winter during hunting season.
There are legion instances when successive custodians have come to our assistance by putting in a word here and there on our behalf with countries where their oil gives them leverage or where Islamic bonds exist. Much of the munificence that has come our way from the Gulf States also came initially as a result of Saudi prodding. The OIC, basically a Saudi show, also extends loans for projects at the behest of Riyadh.
Pakistan has tried to reciprocate by sending our army to guard the Saudis but here again, apart from the psychological comfort the custodians may have gained from such a deployment, one is hard pushed to discern the threat. Of course, in Jordan one of our officers, none other than Ziaul Haq, enthusiastically participated in a war against the Palestinians, people for whom we profess as much love as we do for the Jordanian monarchy. It is small wonder then that many countries of the ummah take our Islamic brotherhood peens with a pinch of salt. A similarly dramatic display of a mismatch between word and action happened at the time of Suez (1956). On that occasion, we sided with the infidels against Muslims.
But what has outweighed all benefits the Saudi equation has brought has been the export to Pakistan of their creed, that is, Wahabism. This has proved deadly. As interpreted and practised in some madrassas in Pakistan, Wahabism has wrought havoc on Pakistan's social structure, producing an army of bigots who believe that the ultimate simplification of life is murder. They revel in killing and make no distinction between friend and foe when it comes to achieving their purpose.
In the several thousand nurseries of hate which have sprung up in Pakistan, thanks to generous private Saudi funding which the government is no longer capable of shutting off or controlling, lies a deadly weapon far more dangerous than a bomb. This lethal weapon has a weak delivery system at present, hence the greatest danger that it poses is at the point of manufacture, namely, Saudi Arabia, but more so Pakistan, where their numbers are greatest. However, in due course, as their endeavours become more effective and gather strength, they will loom more threateningly. It is to this threat, rather than the fate of a discredited and desperate trigger happy commando, that both countries should pay attention.
The writer is a former ambassador. Email:
charles123it@hotmail.com Scandalous Images from Kabul
Guards at US Embassy Organized Humiliating Sex Games
By Britta Sandberg
Photos of embassy guards holding sex parties in Kabul have caused a stir in Washington. Some of the men involved claim they were forced to participate by their supervisors at the ArmorGroup security firm. The scandal could yet again call into question the role of private contractors in US military missions.
There are 12 photographs in all and what they depict amounts to the worst kind of déja-vu. Images that once again document how a civilized society can go off the rails in times of war, just like it did at Abu Ghraib. Photographs that make one think that this cannot still be possible. Not in Afghanistan, not in Iraq.
The images come from Camp Sullivan, the quarters of the security personnel for the US Embassy in Kabul, only a few kilometers from the embassy complex in the Afghan capital. They show naked men, employees of the security firm, whose genitals are only barely covered with a kind of black beer mat. The men are drinking, dancing naked around a fire, licking each others nipples and grabbing each others testicles. They perform sex acts, pour vodka down each others' naked backs and drink it from the buttocks.
It now appears that some of the men in the photographs were forced by their supervisors to take part in the demeaning sex games. They found it amusing to watch them be subjected to the "hazing," the ritualistic humiliation used to initiate someone into a group. The guards have now spoken out about what happened, telling the independent watchdog group the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) about the bullying and their treatment at the hands of their superiors. The men have remained anonymous for fear of reprisals. They say that anyone who refused to take part in the games was ridiculed, humiliated, demoted or even fired. Those who took part were rewarded with better shifts and postings.
'A Security Threat to the Embassy'
The US State Department has handed over security at the US embassy in Kabul to a private company, ArmorGroup North America. The company has been protecting the almost 1,000 US diplomats, embassy personnel and Afghan employees for years. The contract is worth $180 million (€126 million) a year; and despite complaints about ArmorGroup's unreliability, the US government renewed the contract in July of this year. The company, which is owned by Wackenhut Services, has so far declined to comment on the complaints.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received a 10-page letter from POGO, which it also published on its Web site on Tuesday, that outlines the events at Camp Sullivan and the embassy. The organization also released the 12 photographs.
"After extensive interviews with eyewitnesses, and examination of documents, photographs, videos and emails," the organization wrote to Clinton, "POGO believes that the management of the contract to protect the US Embassy Kabul is grossly deficient, posing a significant threat to the security of the embassy and its personnel -- and thereby to the diplomatic mission in Afghanistan."
Around 450 security personnel are assigned to the embassy and all of them live at Camp Sullivan, where the sex parties took place. More than a dozen guards have made complaints about their supervisors to POGO and one of them gave an anonymous telephone interview with American broadcaster ABC.
This was not an isolated incident, the letter to Clinton emphasized. "These are events (that) took place over the past year and a half and were ignored by the leadership at the cost of the well-being of countless guard force members." The "deviant hazing" occurred on a near-weekly basis. One e-mail from a current guard described situations in which guards and supervisors were "peeing on people, eating potato chips out of (buttock) cracks," scenes that were also recorded on video.
An Afghan national who works in the dining hall at Camp Sullivan submitted a signed statement to POGO in which he described how a guard had grabbed him and said: "You are very good for fucking." The man was accompanied by four other men and all were only wearing short underwear and carrying bottles of alcohol. The man said he was too afraid of them to say anything.
'Climate of Fear'
The eyewitnesses said that the ArmorGroup management had long known about what was going on and that nothing was done to stop it. In all around 30 supervisors and guards are alleged to have been the instigators of the sex parties. According to POGO, this had resulted in "complete distrust of leadership and a breakdown of the chain of command, compromising security." Multiple guards said that it had created a "climate of fear and coercion."
Prostitutes were also brought into the camp, which may have compromised security. Some of the guards expressed concern about a kind of cowboy mission that took place in May 2009 when 18 guards dressed as Afghans took weapons and night vision goggles and hid in abandoned buildings in Kabul. "They were living out some sort of delusion," one of the whistleblower guards told The Washington Post, in comments published on Wednesday.
The US State Department has now said it is taking the claims very seriously. "The secretary and the department have made it clear that we will have zero tolerance for the type of conduct that is alleged in these documents," State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters.
"The General Inspector of the State Department has now made contact with us," POGO spokesperson Marthena Cowart told SPIEGEL ONLINE on Thursday. "We look forward to working with him and continuing our investigations." This could be the second major problem the US government has had with a private company used to fight the war on terror. In September 2007, members of Blackwater, the private security company operating in Iraq, killed 17 civilians and injured another 24 in Baghdad.
In its letter, POGO advised the US government to consider requiring military supervision of private security contractors. A recent Congressional Research Service report found that, as of March, there were 52,300 US military personnel and 68,200 private contractors in Afghanistan. This "apparently represented the highest recorded percentage of contractors used by the DOD (Department of Defense) in any conflict in the history of the United States," the report said.
It looks, however, as if there may soon be fewer contractors working for the US in Afghanistan -- at least at Camp Sullivan.
The Pakistan American Congress (Washington, DC.) is an umbrella entity of Pakistani-Americans & Pakistani organizations in America since 1990. It is incorporated as a non-profit, non-religious, and non- partisan premier community organization. It serves as a catalyst of social, educational, and political activities which promotes the interests and protects the civil rights & liberties of the Pakistani-Americans in the U.S. It is also vigorously involved in promoting good will, understanding, and friendship between the two countries & two people.
KARACHI: There is valid apprehension that sugar may go scarce in the market, if the sugar mill owners do not sell sugar to wholesale traders at the government-appointed tariffs, Geo News reported Saturday.