Posted on 11 February 2012 by Tea Server
On the one hand, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has declared 2012 the ‘Year of Balochistan’, while on the other, the US Congress Committee on Foreign Affairs has convened unprecedented hearing on February 8 this year, and discussed situation of Balochistan. The Committee’s hearing was attended by the supporters of Baloch separtism and American scholars including human rights
Posted on 30 January 2012 by Tea Server
Posted on 14 January 2012 by Tea Server
Mossad is openly operating in Pakistan in funding and supporting Jundallah in Balochistan, Pakistan. Jundallah has been involved in various terrorist activities and with israeli and US (intensified under Cheney) backing has been particularly targeting Iran.
Mossad ‘posed as CIA to recruit fighters’
Mossad and other israeli setups have shown that they have neither morals nor any respect for international law. Bombings, assassinations and all sorts of terrorist activities are normal. Whenever anyone talks of israeli and indian RAW involvement in terrorist activities across Pakistan, they are dismissed as conspiracy theorists. But, seriously does anyone expect that these murderers are only funding Jundallah and not other terrorist groups? Funds, weapons and all sort of support flow from israel, india & USA to all sorts of shady and terrorist groups. Ironically, it is mostly these 3 countries who claim to be the biggest victims of foreign terrorism. Maybe if they looked in the mirror, they would see the blood of innocents on their own hands.
Posted on 13 January 2012 by Tea Server
I remember when drone attacks first started. The right wing press and email forwards were filled with fantastical news about these American robot planes, unmanned, killing people from the sky in Pakistan’s border regions. Oh, how I laughed. Demented right wingers. American robot planes? Please stop.
They turned out to be right.
I remember when rumors about Blackwater agents in Pakistan first started. The right wing press and email forward were filled with breathless news about these 6’4″ American agents running around Pakistani cities, doing intelligence and security work for the CIA. Oh, how I laughed. Silly, silly right wingers. Blackwater in Pakistan? Please stop.
They turned out to be right.
And then there was the “terrorists in Pakistan are supported by the CIA and Mossad” conspiracy theory. Fools, I shouted. Why must we blame outsiders when the problem is staring us in the face?
Oops.
I now fully expect the following dominos to fall:
1. 9/11 was an inside job.
2. Asif Zardari really did ask Asifa to make that phone call to Benazir.
3. The floods were indeed caused by India.
4. NFP and Najam Sethi are CIA agents.
In all seriousness, stuff like this really does raise the question of how seemingly implausible and crazy scenarios actually come to fruition. It certainly gives me pause, that’s for sure.
Anyway, I urge you to go and read the story. It’s basically only tangentially relevant to Pakistan. But it’s very, very interesting for the following reasons:
1. You’re starting to see some real exasperation within the intelligence and security communities in the U.S. with its putative ally, Israel. I wonder if episodes like this, along with the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, portend a rupture within the U.S. establishment on the question of Israel, with the Congress and media on one side and the defence and intelligence communities on the other. If you think I am exaggerating, just go ahead and read the story. I haven’t seen U.S. intelligence officials express that much angst since the last time I read a story on Pakistan. You’ve got quotes like
“It’s amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with,” the intelligence officer said. “Their recruitment activities were nearly in the open. They apparently didn’t give a damn what we thought.”
and
“But while false-flag operations are hardly new, they’re extremely dangerous. You’re basically using your friendship with an ally for your own purposes. Israel is playing with fire. It gets us involved in their covert war, whether we want to be involved or not.”
and
This was stupid and dangerous,” the intelligence official who first told me about the operation said. “Israel is supposed to be working with us, not against us. If they want to shed blood, it would help a lot if it was their blood and not ours. You know, they’re supposed to be a strategic asset. Well, guess what? There are a lot of people now, important people, who just don’t think that’s true.”
2. I think it’s very, very plausible that Israel is trying to bait Iran into doing something stupid, such that the outbreak of hostilities can be blamed on them. It’s a bit like Thomas Schelling’s “last clear chance to avoid war” model, except in this case, Israel doesn’t want to avoid war. It just doesn’t want to “officially” start it.
3. Even if Israel is successful in drawing Iran (and the U.S.) into a war that purportedly compromises Iran’s nuclear program, what exactly happens afterward? As Elbridge Colby and Austin Long argue:
But perhaps the most important argument against attacking Iran has received less attention. That is that none of the attack proponents can give a sensible answer to the question General David Petraeus posed at the beginning of the Iraq war: “How does this end?” Kroenig and other advocates for war note, correctly, that a strike against Iran could do substantial damage to Iran’s program. But they fail to explain how the United States will prevent Iran from simply restarting its program, this time in deadly earnest. Moreover, they don’t explain why such strikes won’t contribute to the immediate rallying of the Iranian people around the otherwise reviled regime.
If I’m Iran, I go full-speed ahead on trying to develop full blown nuclear weapons capability (none of this latent capability stuff they’ve been toying with) at the same time as staying the hell away from any other provocative gestures that would give the Israelis (and Americans to an extent) the excuse they’re looking for.
Posted on 12 January 2012 by Tea Server
By Harry Pasha:
With pressure mounting on the PPP government and President Zardari at the center of every new crisis, it appears that the house he built by patching together some deals is crumbling faster than a thatched cabin pulverized by a fierce typhoon. The formidable alliance he cobbled together with major political parties is shaken up by the establishment assault and appears to be near collapse.
Pakistan’s history is replete with similar stories. Contrary to the common belief, the Army started interfering in country’s politics when it first helped Gov. Ghulam Mohammed remove the second PM Nazimuddin from power in 1953. US ambassador in his confidential Memo to the State Dept stated: “<b>Nazimuddin dismissal was planned and accomplished through combined efforts of Army leadership (specifically Def Secy Iskander Mirza and C-in-C Gen Ayub) and Gov Gen himself</b>”. “the Governor-General, Mr. Ghulam Mohammed could never have dared to dismiss a Ministry which had appointed him, had he not have had the support of the Army. The Army would take its cue from the Defense Secretariat. Therefore this is in fact a coup d’etat by Mr. Iskander Mirza and the Army, which has nominated Mr. Mohammed Ali as its agent.” In 1952 Gen. Ayub Khan told the US Consul General in Lahore, “<b>that the Pakistan Army will not allow the political leaders to get out of hand and the same is true regarding the people of Pakistan. He stated that he realized that the Army was taking on a large responsibility, but that the Army’s duty was to protect the country.</b>”
Gen. Ayub was planning to take over the government since 1953 and had informed the US embassy in no uncertain terms that the Pakistan Army would immediately declare martial law and take charge of the situation… and “<b>the Pakistan Army would not allow either politicians or the public to ruin the country</b>”. Ayub had arbitrarily decided that he would not allow even the people of Pakistan to decide the fate of country and he or the Army would make that decision. Pakistan had and still is paying a huge price for the haughty worldview of the Army Generals. References Below.
The Army cultivated US from the early 1950s to become its important ally in the region. The various defense agreements that Pakistan signed with the US enhanced the image of the Army in the general public and allowed the Army to become the most powerful political faction in Pakistan. Initially, the US would go along with the Pakistan Army’s coup but after the Soviet Union withdrawal from Afghanistan in the late 1980s, the US developed a policy in the area that called for some form of partnership between the Army and the civilians and the first Benazir government in 1989 was the first beneficiary of the change in US policy after Gen. Zia died in mysterious circumstances.
<b>Jon Alterman, a very typical member of the National Security priesthood in the US recently re-emphasis the policy in Egypt’s context and he wrote, “American interests,however, call for a different outcome, one that finds a balance — however uneasy — between the military authorities and … politicians.” </B> NYT see below.
The policy was again implemented in Pakistan when an uneasy alliance between the Musharraf government and the PPP was presented to the people of Pakistan in 2007-08; the partnership with the PPP was agreed upon and mediated by Condoleezza Rice, former US Sec of State.
The Kerry Lugar Bill in 2009, in the Army’s view, broke the agreement the Army had with the US and the Zardari government as the K-L Bill called for stopping all US Aid to Pakistan in case of the Army interference. The Army believed that the Army agreed to a partnership with the civilians but the K-L bill clearly put the Civilian government on top and that was not acceptable to the Army.
The narrative of often uneasy relationship is not confined to Pakistan only and many countries including the US share many forms of often contentions and sometime mutually acceptable partnership between the Military and the civilian governments.
The government in the US itself has developed in to a partnership between the civilians and the Pentagon. With strong democratic currents and tradition of regular elections, the civilian organs such as the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House wield more power in the internal affairs but the Pentagon input is vital in running the foreign and defense policy of the US. One sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote extensively on the military-civilian Partnership in the US in the mid fifties and presented the idea of the Power Elite. Later it was publicly acknowledged by President Eisenhower when he talked about the rising Military-Industrial complex in the US in 1961. There were many conflicts between the White House and the Pentagon within the Kennedy Administration over Cuba. Preside Johnson was pressured in to sending more troops to Vietnam by the Pentagon. He ended up ceding the control of the Vietnam War and his foreign policy to the Pentagon. During the Clinton Admin, the Pentagon refused to send ground forces to Serbia and Kosovo in 1998 and the whole operation was conducted from the Air. Recently, President George W. Bush and his political cronies also known as the Neo-cons took the lead in starting the Iraq war but soon after the start, the Bush admin lost control of its defense and foreign policy and was merely a spectator when decisions were made in Pentagon for the war on terror or the Iraq and Afghan war issues. He was so much under the Pentagon thumb that he frequently sent the Army Generals to the Congress to defend the Iraq war. The US Army Generals were repeatedly found to be parading the Congress and promoting their war policies. The famous Surge in Iraq was publicly advocated by the US Army. The Bush admin and its civilian spokesperson always deferred to Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of the Surge, on policy matters. There was a battle in DC between the Pentagon and the Obama White House over more troops in Afghanistan in 2009 and both parties had been talking to each in public by way of multiple leaks.
Then we have Israel where the Israeli Defense Forces popularly known as the IDF shares power with the civilians and the elected Prime Minister. In Israel usually the Defense Minister is either a former General or a representative of the IDF. The IDF enjoys a veto power over Israel’s foreign policy. Recently both the present and the former Mossad chiefs publicly disagreed with the civilian Government of PM Netanyahu over Iran’s nukes.
Turkey’s history after the First World War is also replete with battles between the civilians and the Army Generals. One Turkish Prime Minister lost his life, like ZAB did in Pakistan, over the control of the country. However, over the years and after a long struggle, the civilians appear to have an upper hand but to say that they are completely independent would not be accurate. The Turkish Army still has tremendous clout over the state affairs.
Historically, the Pakistani politicians enter the government knowing full well that they have to share powers with the Army but slowly the Army interference in even the minor issues of governance frustrates the civilian leaders. Former PM Nawaz Sharif twice ousted the COAS after he was frustrated with the undue Army interference and now Zardari government finds itself in an irretrievable situation.
Ref:
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
http://www.amazon.com/House-
http://www.amazon.com/gp/
NOTE: The article is based on research and the references are provided at the end. I would appreciate it if the editors please not change the subject substantially as all parts ofthe article are linked with the issues involved.I have placed bold tags on some sections. Thanks.
Harry Pasha is management consultant based in the USA. He has a keen interest in Pakistani politics and US –Pakistan relations. He occasionally writes for the Sindhi daily, Kawish.
Posted on 12 January 2012 by Tea Server
In an Arms Control Association issue brief published on January 4, Greg Thielmann ably makes the case for trying to resolve the Iranian nuclear dilemma by means of old-fashioned diplomacy. The ACA’s introduction to the piece forcefully gets across just how drastically and dangerously U.S.-Iranian relations have deteriorated in the last months:
“At the end of 2011, the U.S. Congress passed new legislation to sanction transactions with the Central Bank of Iran. In response, Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz…. Republican presidential candidates meanwhile charged Iran with everything from building nuclear facilities under mosques to declaring its intent to attack the United States with nuclear weapons. And the Obama administration stated repeatedly that “the military option remains on the table.”
In the meantime, on a slightly more positive note, Defense Secretary Panetta has specified that (only) Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons would represent a red line for the United States. And whatever Republican contenders may have been saying, it’s clear the American public wants out of the old wars the country is in and does not want to get into new ones. But today comes news of another assassination in Iran, a sharp reminder that this particular war is not merely a cold one.
Thielmann argues for opening U.S.-Iranian diplomatic channels if only to avoid possibly fatal misunderstandings. Why, if we found it possible to deal with tyrants like Stalin and Mao, he wonders, cannot we deal with the unattractive crowd currently running the show in Tehran?
I have no quarrel with anything Thielmann says here. But let me introduce just two cautionary notes as to the limits of his analysis. First, though his issue brief find many pertinent cautionary tales in the cold war between the Soviet Union and the United States, we should bear in mind that the “real war” (to borrow a phrase from Richard Nixon and Walt Whitman) is not between the United States and Iran but between Iran and Israel. It is not the United States that is assassinating Iranian scientists, condoning such acts, or sabotaging nuclear facilities. Everybody knows it’s Mossad.
So if some real talking is going to take place, Israel needs to be made part of that conversation.
Second, let’s be clear that this is not just a cold war between Israel and Iran. Even during the worst years of the cold war the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union did not openly threaten to literally annihilate each other as living entities. And nor did the two superpowers assassinate each other’s scientists or blow up each other’s factories. What’s going on between Israel and Iran is virtually war, and it’s serious.
Posted on 11 January 2012 by Tea Server
Nuclear scientist killed in Tehran car blast
So, mossad and USA has full leeway to kill people by blowing up their cars. This terrorist cabal can launch stuxnet, but if some obscure hacker hacks israeli credit cards, oh that is “terrorism”. US & israel can kill with impunity, but USA foams at its mouth over THAT plot by the iranian cars dealer. OH wait, that turned out to be false and fell spectacularly on USA’s own face. Iran has no right to nuclear technology and yet on the other hand, you have USA which has actually killed people by the use of its nuclear weapons; whereas israel also possesses nukes, but not a word by its slave USA and their cronies about how the possession of such weapons by an illegal terrorist entity (aka the glorious israel) is a threat to humanity. The same zionist entity which is committing a genocide of Palestinians. So, USA & israel have a RIGHT to commit cyber-terrorism, assassinations and all sorts of foul deeds all over the world (all in the name of national security), but any other country, individual or group which might take a stand against them – oh that is an absolute NO-NO. A threat to world peace.
Posted on 03 January 2012 by Tea Server
By Zaheerul Hassan
Role of intelligentsia has never been negated in any type of war. During World Wars (WW) I & II, the allies remained successful in number of operations because of timely receipts of information and clandestine operations. However, after WW-II U.S launched agency CIA against KGB. During Cold War period both the agencies remained dagger drawn against each other. Anyhow, Pakistan felt a threat on it western frontiers once in 1979, Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. At that time U.S and Pakistan came closer to each other despite differences over the development of our nuclear programme. The coincidence of interests also forced ISI and CIA to operate jointly against Soviet Union. Thus, CIA in collaboration with ISI have activated against KGB and finally able to defeat and disintegrate Great Soviet Union.
But just after the disintegration of Great Russian Empire, CIA has shaken hands with a new ally agency i.e. RAW. Change of ally was obvious since Pakistan can never be party to U.S. against China. CIA in collaboration with RAW and MI-6 again accelerated her campaign against nuclear programme and started overtly and covertly. At this occasion ISI unfolded the foreign conspiracy and security of the country.
The role of major intelligence agencies in international relations, threats are often addressed within the context of security studies — especially those focusing on nuclear deterrence, alliance formation and interstate conflict. In general, a threat perception is “understood as anticipation on the part of an observer (the decision maker) of impending harm – usually of a military, strategic or economic kind – to the state”. Thus, in international relations we talk about threats aimed at the territorial integrity, political sovereignty, major national interests and core ideology of the state and its regime. The truth of this quoted statement has been proved once Al-Qaida launched attack in U.S. on 9/11.
Pakistan was forced to become ally after 9/11 in Mushraf’s regime. Since then Pakistan has faced in fact two types of threat, e.g. external and internal. Foreign sponsored ethnicity, sectarianism and economic instability emerged as fundamental variables of internal security threats which gave birth to local Taliban and exploited by external forces. Religious extremism has created an unenviable image of Pakistan in the eyes of rest of the world and has affected the country adversely. CIA penetrated foreign agents along with sophisticated weaponry, suicide attacks and target killings have become everyday occurrence in the country. Indian intelligence agency RAW of under the garb of development programmes has established 13 consulates’ along the western border. It was ISI and country’s security agencies which came out to fight back the foreign sponsored covert and overt agenda against sole Islamic nuclear power.
It may be mentioned here that Pakistan security forces and ISI defeated foreign sponsored war on terror in FATA and Swat which was appreciated by the nation too. RAW, CIA, RAAM (of Afghanistan) and Mossad from 2005 onwards tried their best to destabilize Pakistan. Weapons like Kalashnikovs, MI-4 American rifles, Israeli sniper rifles, 12.7mm, 14.5mm and 107mm guns, mortars, pistols, RPG-7s, grenades, explosives, equipment like, remote control sets, jamming devices, sophisticated telephone and wireless sets, bullet proof and suicide jackets, kits, and currency of different countries have been provided to the militants. Terrorist have been sent to Pakistan through Indian training camps located at Afghanistan.
Almost four divisions of force have been involved in elimination of militancy in FATA and Swat area. Pakistan Army also managed to take care of her eastern border too. The forces came all out to undertake Operation Rah-e-Rast and her soldiers set the gallant examples while clearing Swat, Dir, Buner, Kanjoo, Shangla and other areas.
General Kayani and his team has displayed excellent professional capabilities, ISI unveiled the foreign agenda and fully supported security forces in eradication of terrorists. In this regards over 5000 civilians and 3000 troops including officers and men have laid down their lives. It also includes the martyring of over 78 intelligence officials while fighting in global war against terrorism. While addressing in-camera session General Pasha very loudly mentioned that 112 check posts of the allied forces as opposed to the 812 of the Pakistani forces. 2.8 million Individuals of Swat and surrounding area became IDPs. Pasha while addressing also maintained parliament that the actions of the United States were not expected from an ally in war against terrorism. He said that there is difference between India and the United States.
From 2007 till today, American and western media is alleging ISI for supporting Haqqani group against American forces in Afghanistan. In this connection, American, Western and Indian media has criticized ISI, instead of suggesting Afghan government to fence the border and carrying out negotiations with the true representatives of Afghan nation.
Notably, American military and civilian leadership has started irrational demand of restructuring ISI when Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha took over the agency as Director General in September, 2008. ISI chief instead of acting upon Assistant Secretary of State, Richard Boucher demand of forming and restructuring.The agency has took interest to improve upon the efficiency of the organization in the light of national interest. On rejecting the false and baseless allegations, US top officials intensified blame game again aftermath Osama’s death in a unilateral action of 2nd May 2011. Thus, relations between two capitals and their agencies went to its lowest level Pakistan. CIA intentionally did not involve Pakistan and her supreme intelligence agency in killing Osama, despite receiving information regarding a call made by someone from Osma’s Compound located in Abbottabad. It was ISI that first time interrupted and passed on information to the CIA for evaluation anyhow CIA mistrust over ISI, created vast distance between two agencies.
However, during a meeting with the CIA Director Michael Morell in July, 2011, it was Lt. Gen. Shuja Pasha who categorically told that we will continue anti-terror and intelligence sharing cooperation between the two agencies but would never tolerate a private ‘network’ the CIA is secretly maintaining in Pakistan. ISI under the leadership of Gen Pasha very successfully exposed the American and Indian intelligence agencies activities in Kashmir,FATA and Balochistan. The local CIA Chief Jonathan Banks has been forced to leave his station after Pakistani Intelligence services exposed his identity. It was U.S embassy that where CIA started recruiting Pakistani nationals who were vulnerable and could work on their payroll. In this context, with the pre-information of ISI, Pakistan’s police and other security agencies arrested a number of agents. For instance, on September 19, 2009, police raided the Inter-Risk, a private security company in Islamabad, and arrested its two employees, namely Tauqeer and Muhammad Khan, possessing unlicensed shotguns, handguns and ammunition. On the other side, US embassy spokesperson Richard Snelsire pretended, “The US contract with the Inter-Risk is to provide security at the embassy and consulates. Moreover, U.S ambassador address to Balochistan Jerga in 2011 Quetta has also a great concern for responsible circle of Pakistan. In memo gate issue ISI again played very vital role to expose another CIA plan against Pakistan sovereignty which is under investigation at the right forum Judicial Commission structured by Supreme Court of Pakistan .
Concluding, I say that invisible warriors of ISI under the leadership of Lt General Ahmed Shuja Pasha with very meager resources have successfully proved their superiority while defeating CIA and her sister agencies RAW and Mossad. U.S. has been forced to resolve Afghan issue as suggested by Pakistan and its intelligence Agency. In short, Intelligence organizations are not a fighting machines in its conventional sense but no army can fight without the support of an efficient Intelligence Organizations, collect, collate and disseminate information in a most efficient and reliable manner that is the key to the success of any war or battle. The job of a good organization is not only to collect information but through its mechanism, it denies or feeds false information to the enemy to achieve its goals.
The writer can be approached through zameer36@gmail.com
Posted on 28 December 2011 by Tea Server
“How dare you question the benefits of Army officers? You no appreciation of the sacrifices they make, the love for Pakistan that they have in their hearts!”
Originally posted on Tribune Blogs: http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/606/i-confess-i-am-a-traitor/
Posted on 19 December 2011 by Tea Server
Topping the Top Ten? “ISI for sure,’ says Gren, “No double agents, no agent ever caught on camera, the lowest budget but still affective. In war with 6 big intelligence agencies of the world. ISI has even countered MOSSAD in the 1980s and late ‘90s when there was a plan of a possible strike on Pakistan’s nukes.”“It has to be the ISI” says John Smith on the Web site. “It broke down the