Threats To Pakistan’s Strategic Nuclear Assets

Shahid R. Siddiqi

Indian explosion of its nuclear device in 1974 drew only a customary “show of concern” from the Western powers. But Pakistan’s nuclear program, initiated in response to the Indian acquisition of nuclear weapons, evoked immediate and “serious concern” from the same quarters. Ever since, Pakistan has been under immense pressure to scrap its program while the Indians remain uncensored.

That Western discriminatory attitude can also be seen by the religious color it gave to Pakistan’s bomb by calling it an ‘Islamic bomb’. One has never heard of the Israeli bomb being called a ‘Jewish Bomb’, or the Indian bomb a ‘Hindu Bomb’, or the American and British bomb a ‘Christian Bomb’ or the Soviet bomb a ‘Communist’ (or an ‘Atheist) Bomb’. The West simply used Pakistan’s bomb to make Islam synonymous with aggression and make its nuclear program a legitimate target, knowing full well that it merely served a defensive purpose and was not even remotely associated with Islam.

With India going nuclear soon after playing a crucial role in dismembering Pakistan in 1971 and enjoying an overwhelming conventional military superiority over Pakistan in the ratio of 4:1, a resource strapped Pakistan was pushed to the wall. Left with no other choice but to develop a nuclear deterrent to ward off future Indian threats, Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto declared: “Pakistanis will eat grass but make a nuclear bomb”. And sure enough, they did it. Soon, however, both he and the nuclear program were to become non-grata. Amid intense pressure, sanctions and vilification campaign, Henry Kissinger personally delivered to a defiant Bhutto the American threat: “give up your nuclear program or else we will make a horrible example of you’.

And a horrible example was made of Bhutto for his defiance. But he had enabled Pakistan to become the 7th nuclear power in the world. This served Pakistan well. India was kept at bay despite temptations for military adventurism. Although there has never been real peace in South Asia, at least there has been no war since 1971.

Ignoring its security perspective, Pakistan’s Western ‘friends’ refused to admit it to their exclusive nuclear club, though expediency made them ignore its ‘crime’ when it suited their purpose. But driven by identical geo-strategic interests in their respective regions and seeing Pakistan as an obstacle to their designs, Israel and India missed no opportunity to malign or subvert Pakistan’s program.

Due to its defiance of Indian diktat, Pakistan is for India an obstruction in its quest for domination of South Asia and the Indian Ocean region. Israel’s apprehension of Pakistan’s military prowess is rooted in the strength Pakistan indirectly provides to Arab states with whom Israel has remained in a state of conflict. Conscious that several Arab states look up to Pakistan for military support in the event of threat to their security from Israel, it is unsettling for Israel to see a nuclear armed Pakistan.

Israel can also not overlook the fact that Pakistan’s military is a match to its own. The PAF pilots surprised Israeli Air Force, when flying mostly Russian aircraft they shot down several relatively superior Israeli aircraft in air combat in the 1973 Arab Israel war, shattering the invincibility myth of Israeli pilots who believed themselves to be too superior in skill and technology. The Pakistanis happened to be assigned to Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi air forces on training missions when the war broke out and, unknown to the Israelis then, they incognito undertook combat missions.

After successfully destroying Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, Israelis planned a similar attack on Pakistan’s nuclear facilities at Kahuta in collusion with India in the 1980s. Using satellite pictures and intelligence information, Israel reportedly built a full-scale mock-up of Kahuta facility in the Negev Desert where pilots of F-16 and F-15 squadrons practiced mock attacks.

According to ‘The Asian Age’, London, journalists Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark stated in their book ‘Deception: Pakistan, the US and the Global Weapons Conspiracy’, that Israeli Air Force was to launch air attack on Kahuta in mid 1980s from Jamnagar airfield in Gujarat (India). The book claims that “in March 1984, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi signed off (on) the Israeli-led operation bringing India, Pakistan and Israel to within a hairs breadth of a nuclear conflagration”.

Another report claims that Israel also planned an air strike directly out of Israel. After midway and midair refueling, Israeli warplanes planned to shoot down a commercial airline’s flight over Indian Ocean that flew into Islamabad early morning, fly in a tight formation to appear as one large aircraft on radar screens preventing detection, use the drowned airliner’s call sign to enter Islamabad’s air space, knock out Kahuta and fly out to Jammu to refuel and exit.

According to reliable reports in mid 1980s this mission was actually launched one night. But the Israelis were in for a big surprise. They discovered that Pakistan Air Force had already sounded an alert and had taken to the skies in anticipation of this attack. The mission had to be hurriedly aborted.

Pakistan reminded the Israelis that Pakistan was no Iraq and that PAF was no Iraqi Air Force. Pakistan is reported to have conveyed that an attack on Kahuta would force Pakistan to lay waste to Dimona, Israel’s nuclear reactor in the Negev Desert. India was also warned that Islamabad would attack Trombay if Kahuta facilities were hit.

The above quoted book claims that “Prime Minister Indira Gandhi eventually aborted the operation despite protests from military planners in New Delhi and Jerusalem.”

McNair’s paper #41 published by USAF Air University (India Thwarts Israeli Destruction of Pakistan’s “Islamic Bomb”) also confirmed this plan. It said, “Israeli interest in destroying Pakistan’s Kahuta reactor to scuttle the “Islamic bomb” was blocked by India’s refusal to grant landing and refueling rights to Israeli warplanes in 1982.” Clearly India wanted to see Kahuta gone but did not want to face retaliation at the hands of the PAF. Israel, on its part wanted this to be a joint Indo-Israeli strike to avoid being solely held responsible.

The Reagan administration also hesitated to support the plan because Pakistan’s distraction at that juncture would have hurt American interests in Afghanistan, when Pakistan was steering the Afghan resistance against the Soviets.

Although plans to hit Kahuta were shelved, the diatribe against Pakistan’s nuclear program continued unabated. Israel used its control over the American political establishment and western media to create hysteria. India worked extensively to promote paranoia, branding Pakistan’s program as unsafe, insecure and a threat to peace. The fact is otherwise. It is technically sounder, safer and more secure than that of India and has ensured absence of war in the region.

The US invasion of Afghanistan provided another opening for Indo-Israeli nexus to target Pakistan’s strategic assets. This time the strategy was to present Pakistan as an unstable state, incapable of defending itself against religious extremist insurgents, creating the specter of Islamabad and its nuclear assets falling in their hands. Suggestions are being floated that Pakistan being at risk of succumbing to extremists, its nuclear assets should be disabled, seized or forcibly taken out by the US. Alternatively, an international agency should take them over for safe keeping.

Pakistan has determinedly thwarted the terrorist threat and foiled this grand conspiracy. The terrorists have either been eliminated or are on the run. Pakistan has made it clear that it would act decisively against any attempt by any quarter to harm its nuclear assets. But if the game is taken to the next level, the consequences would be disastrous for the region.

The Indo-Israeli nexus is losing initiative. But as long as the American umbrella is available Afghanistan will remain a playground for mischief mongers. It is now up to the US to walk its talk and prove its claim that it wants to see a secure and stable Pakistan. It must pull the plug on conspiracies to destabilize Pakistan.

CIA Threats To Pakistan: Episode 10

0

Peace enjoyed by Pakistan is peace of Turkey and unease of Pakistan is unease of Turkey: Turkish PM Erdogan

ISTANBUL (Turkey): President Asif Ali Zardari urged the international community on Sunday to help Pakistan and Afghanistan overcome problems of the region, observing that Turkish-inspired Trilateral Summit could serve as useful model in this behalf.

The President stated this during a meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan who promised that his country would soon deliver spare parts of Cobra helicopters to Pakistan free of cost, underlining the growing cooperation between the two countries in different fields.

Pakistan today is facing different challenges arising from the conflict in the region and it is incumbent upon the international community to step forward and help both the countries in tackling these challenges, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Malik Ammad Khan, quoted the President as saying in a briefing to reporters after the meeting.

The challenges we face in Pakistan today are of international, albeit world, magnitude and we need regional as well as international support to tackle these challenges, Minister of State, who was part of the delegation, quoted the President as saying.

Zardari said the conflict in Afghanistan had spreaded the menaces of terrorism, drugs etc. across its borders and countries of the region required active cooperation from all the friendly nations and states of the Western world to root out these problems.

In this behalf, he emphasized that Pakistan at this stage needed trade, and not aid, from the concerned countries to come out of its present difficulties. “For this purpose, we introduced the concept of Friends Of Democratic Pakistan (FODP) so that more access could be obtained for Pakistan to international markets.”

He said he was visiting Turkey for the fourth time in the last 18 months because the two countries enjoyed close relations and he wanted to further consolidate these ties as the head of a democratic state.

Welcoming the Trilateral Summit, being held on Monday among Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkey, President Zardari remarked that it gave the opportunity to his country to draw attention of the world to our case and to send a strong message to the people of the world that we want to curb terrorism but to do that we need to empower ourselves by getting access to global markets.

He said the proposed Islamabad-Istanbul-Tehran rail project would also greatly facilitate expansion in trade volume not only between the two countries but also among other countries of the region. He sought public-private partnership for this project.

He lauded support of Turkey to Pakistan on Kashmir issue, contribution in providing succour to the effectees of 2005 earthquake.and its offer to build a football stadium in Muzaffarabad.

In his remarks, Prime Minister Erdogan promised that Turkey would soon deliver – free of cost – spare parts to Pakistan under the agreement already signed.

Defence Minister Ch. Ahmed Mukhtar, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Malik Ammad Khan, Railways Minister Ghulam Ahmed Bilour, Secretary Foreign Affairs and Secretary Railways were members of President delegation.

The Turkish PM said business communities of the two countries should also get together in commerce and trade activities.

During the meeting, the two sides pledged to soon introduce visa-free travel between the two countries while Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar informed the Turkish PM that Pakistan was looking into possibility of more Turkish Airlines flights to Islamabad and other cities.

Erdogan said the Turkish Deputy PM would attend the coming FODP conference in Dubai.

Peace enjoyed by Pakistan is peace of Turkey and unease of Pakistan is unease of Turkey, he said. We need joint international struggle against terrorism and hence fourth trilateral summit is being hosted here to take positive steps against the threat of terrorism and the entire Turkish will do anything to curb terrorism.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul hosted a dinner in honour of President Zardari and Afghan President Karzai at the historic Sait Halim Pasa Palace. Turkey to provide Cobra spares to Pakistan.

Pak overture to Turkey for attack drones worries India

NEW DELHI: Finding the US not overly helpful on arming it with drones and drone technology, Pakistan has now made overtures to the Turkish army

During his recent visit to Islamabad, US defence secretary Robert Gates promised the gift of 12 drones for surveillance. But the 12 RQ-7 Shadow drones cannot send in Reaper or Hellfire missiles which would make them truly lethal and would have provoked an immediate outcry from India. However, experts believe this is dangerous stuff anyway, and it will not take much for Pakistan to reverse engineer them or tailor them for needs other than spying on the Taliban, in other words, to target India.

Needless to add, Pakistan was less than overwhelmed by the offer. Therefore, Indian sources said, Pakistan is now approaching their its friends in the Turkish army for this technology. The Turks were given drones, both attack and surveillance ones, by the Israelis as they battle the Kurds. Whether they are persuaded to part with these for the Pakistanis is another matter, and likely to involve a lot of pre-emptive Indian diplomacy.

India is finding less and less to be positive about in the Pakistan-Afghanistan theatre.

Apart from gifting surveillance drones to Pakistan, the US may be winking at a more robust reconciliation policy with the Taliban in Afghanistan. This will include a greater Pakistani role in the mediation process, which means the ISI will be able to give them greater say in what kind of Taliban gets to be in power in Kabul. This, Indian officials argue, will happen despite US and British “oversight” on Pakistani efforts.

“Their knowledge is pretty flawed, and they remain beholden to the ISI. This is likely to influence their decisions,” said sources. The Pakistani presence in the negotiations comes despite Afghan evidence that attacks like the one in Kabul last week was done by the ISI-friendly Haqqani network.

The reconciliation programme has acquired urgency in the backdrop of President Barack Obama’s withdrawal strategy for 2011. This is of greater concern to India, because it could put a huge question on India’s own participation and future in Afghanistan. Ahead of the London conference on Afghanistan starting on Thursday, foreign minister S M Krishna will try and get a sense from other leaders about the US-led western presence in Afghanistan.

A glimpse of how things may turn out was given by US general David Petraeus when he said, “The concept of reconciliation, of talks between senior Afghan officials and senior Taliban or other insurgent leaders, perhaps involving some Pakistani officials as well, is another possibility.”

Gen Stanley McCrystal, in an interview to Financial Times, said he hoped increased troop levels would weaken the Taliban enough for its leaders to accept a peace deal.

India is increasingly coming round to accepting the reality that some sort of a peace deal could be made. In recent statements, Indian officials have admitted the possibility that people who renounce violence and the Taliban as well as disarm, could be accommodated into Afghanistan’s establishment.

US supports Pakistan’s Taliban plan–India livid

WASHINGTON — The White House on Monday was noncommittal but did not rule out Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s plan to ask for Taliban names to be removed from a UN blacklist to spur reconciliation.

Karzai said before heading for a major international conference on Afghanistan in London this week that he would also seek Western support for a plan to offer money and jobs to cajole Taliban fighters into laying down arms.

“I will be making a statement at the conference in London to the effect of removing Taliban names from the UN sanctions list,” Karzai told reporters in Istanbul.

The idea had previously met resistance but “as we are talking today, there is more willingness that this can be reconsidered,” he said.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs noted that top US generals David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal had drawn parallels between Afghanistan and reconciliation schemes that had worked with factions in Iraq.

Gibbs did not comment in detail on Karzai’s plan.

But he said Washington was open to “a similar path to what happened in Iraq… provided that whoever this is accepts the Afghan constitution, renounces violence, and publicly breaks with groups that advocate violence.”

“That’s, I think, what people expect under the notion of reconciliation.”

Karzai wants to bring low- and mid-level fighters into mainstream society to end the gruelling insurgency, but the leadership of Islamist insurgent groups active in the battered country is hostile to negotiations.

McChrystal, the NATO military commander in Afghanistan, has voiced support for negotiated peace.

“As a soldier, my personal feeling is that there’s been enough fighting,” US General Stanley McChrystal said in an interview with Britain’s Financial Times published Monday.

“I believe that a political solution to all conflicts is the inevitable outcome. And it’s the right outcome.”

The White House has several times brought up the tactics of then US-Iraq commander Petraeus, who worked with local Sunni leaders fed up with Al-Qaeda after the Iraq war troop surge.

Karzai was in Istanbul for talks with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari on Monday, to be following by a meeting with leaders of his country’s neighbors on Tuesday.

Under a plan announced by US President Barack Obama in December, 30,000 extra US troops will be in Afghanistan this year — on top of more than 70,000 already there — before they begin withdrawing in July 2011.

Karzai will fly on to Berlin and then London, where the conference will focus on corruption, security, good governance and reconciliation with the Taliban. US does not rule out Karzai’s Taliban plan

What Robert Gates Didn’t Say – And US Media Hides – About Blackwater In Pakistan

Two Pakistani employees of an American defense contractor engaged by the US Embassy in Islamabad have been linked to two attacks on Pakistani military and the assassination of a Brigadier. If this is not alarming, then consider that US Ambassador Anne Patterson’s name has come up in an investigation where thousands of dollars were paid in bribes to Interior Ministry to smuggle illegal weapons into Pakistan. Not to mention how Washington is empowering India in Afghanistan at Pakistan’s cost. When Pakistan takes countermeasures, US officials like Mr. Gates and Mr. Holbrooke accuse Pakistan of ‘anti-Americanism’ and harassing US diplomats. Time for some straight talk.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—US Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted during an interview with a Pakistani TV station that Blackwater [now ‘Xe International’] and DynCorp are operating in Pakistan. Immediately after the statement, Pentagon tried to put a spin on his words.

But US meddling inside Pakistan –by posting private US defense contractors under diplomatic cover of the US embassy – is a reality for most Pakistanis. Some of these Americans have been caught disguised as Taliban right in the heart of Islamabad. Some Pakistanis were manhandled by some of these American militiamen on the streets of at least two Pakistani cities in recent months. Since Pakistan is not Iraq or Afghanistan despite all the US direct and indirect misinformation, these US covert operators were arrested on several occasions.

The mainstream US media continues to keep the good American people and the world opinion in the dark about this. But this is probably one of the biggest untold stories in America’s war on terror. This is about United States trying to put boots on the ground inside Pakistan through the help of a pro-US government in Islamabad that shares [or at least key figures in it] the US objective of containing and limiting the ability of Pakistan’s military to influence the country’s foreign policy. This is about Pakistan wanting to keep an independent foreign policy versus Pakistan blindly serving US policy on Afghanistan, India and China.

Mr. Gates tried to put a gloss on this US covert meddling when he said, ‘Well, they’re [Blackwater and DynCorp] operating as individual companies here in Pakistan, in Afghanistan and in Iraq.’

Not true. The truth is that the issue is so serious that, according to Pakistani investigators, US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W. Patterson is a suspect in a case of bribes amounting to little over US $ 270,000 paid by DynCorp in 2009 to senior officials at the federal Interior Ministry in Pakistan. The money went in exchange for allowing illegal weapons into Pakistan to be used by private US defense contractors without informing the country’s security departments and intelligence agencies. Ms. Patterson personally lobbied Pakistani officials for this concession to DynCorp. She even wrote a letter to Pakistani officials, followed by a letter by her Deputy Head of Mission Mr. Gerald Feierstein, asking Pakistani Interior Ministry officials to issue permits for weapons to be used by DynCorp in the ‘entire territory of Pakistan.’ The US ambassador is directly linked to the probe, which has resulted in the arrest of a key aide to Pakistan’s Minister of State for the Interior. But the government of President Zardari will not dare allow Pakistani investigators to pursue US Ambassador’s role in the scandal.

A key question in the probe is how the US Embassy and DynCorp allowed the cargo of illegal weapons into Pakistan. According to one lead, a huge cache of weapons reached a Pakistani tribal leader on Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan, who in turn wrote to the Interior Ministry announcing he was ‘gifting’ the weapons to a Pakistani subcontractor of DynCorp.

Incidents like this and others raised alarm bells inside Pakistani security departments and the intelligence community. In effect, key figures in President Zardari’s government were found to have given approval for the entry of a large number of US citizens into Pakistan for ‘official US government business’ without explaining what that is. When Pakistani authorities tried to get to the bottom of how private US defense contractors ended up inside Pakistan in large numbers and what they were exactly doing here, US officials and media launched what appears to be a media trial of Pakistan, accusing the country of ‘harassing’ US diplomats and denying visas to them because of alleged anti-Americanism.

The unwillingness of the Zardari government to confront Washington and Pakistan’s generally weak media outreach skills allowed Washington to pain this as a case of anti-Americanism fueled by war on terror.

‘Conspiracy theories’ is another label that US officials and media have increasingly used recently as a cover to hide serious violations of diplomatic norms and sovereignty involving undercover private US operatives inside Pakistan. This is how the Wall Street Journal tried to delegitimize serious Pakistani concerns raised during Mr. Gates’ visit in a report filed from Islamabad whose opening line read as follows, “U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is overseeing wars with Sunni militants in Iraq and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. In Pakistan, he’s facing a different foe: the pervasive conspiracy theories that fuel widespread anti-American feelings here.”

The truth is that there are no conspiracy theories but real events, reported and documented, that raise questions over US political, diplomtic, and covert meddling inside Pakistan. Here is a list:

1. NUCLEAR ESPIONAGE: In July 2009, four US ‘diplomats’ were arrested inside the maximum security perimeter around Pakistan’s premier nuclear facility at Kahuta. They failed to tell Pakistani investigators what they were doing there and how they managed to slip through the security checkpoints in the area. US Embassy intervened to rescue the four ‘diplomats’ after almost three hours in detention, citing diplomatic immunity. President Zardari’s government refused to let Pakistani security authorities press charges.

2. SUSPICIOUS CONDUCT: On Oct. 6, 2009, Pakistani police arrested two Dutch diplomats roaming the streets of Islamabad without a number plate carrying advanced weapons. Pakistani police were surprised when security personnel from the US Embassy reached the scene to rescue the Dutch. The Americans used their contacts within the Zardari government to get everyone released. Later, Pakistan Foreign Office summoned US and Dutch diplomats for a private meeting over the incident. But the Pakistani government refused to demand a public explanation from US and Dutch diplomats despite recommendations from police and security officials.

3. FACILITATING INDIAN ACTIVITIES: In this high profile case in May 2009, a US diplomat arranged a small meeting between an Indian diplomat and several senior Pakistani federal government officials at a private house. The invited Pakistanis worked in civilian positions, including one with access to Prime Minister’s Office. It appeared that the US diplomat was basically facilitating the Indian to meet senior officials who otherwise would be inaccessible for him. Pakistan Foreign Office took serious exception to the meeting, publicly reprimanded the Pakistani officials who attended the meeting but stopped short of seeking explanation from the US embassy. According to Pakistani investigators, for a US diplomat to indulge in facilitating possible espionage linked to an Indian diplomat was a matter of grave concern. It also fitted with the US policy of exercising tremendous pressure on the pro-US government in Islamabad to give concessions to India at the expense of Pakistani strategic interests.

4. COVERT US MILITIAS IN THE HEART OF PAKISTAN: In September 2009, undercover US agents were found to have recruited a total of 100 former elite Pakistani military commandos to create rapid-intervention teams for unknown purposes. A 100 more were under training at a secret facility camouflaged as a workshop on the outskirts of the Pakistani capital when it was raided by Pakistani police. It turned out that DynCorp was training the men. US Ambassador Anne W. Patterson brought DynCorp to Pakistan by telling Pakistani officials that the private defense contractor would provide security to embassy buildings. But she never explained why DynCorp was secretly raising private militias on Pakistani soil without informing the Pakistani government or military or the intelligence agencies. Some of those who were under training at the time of the raid said that DynCorp focused on recruiting retired officers who had links and contacts within the Pakistani military and could glean information from their sources. [See video and pictures]

5. PUSHY US DIPLOMATS: The US Embassy in Islamabad has made it its business to mount pressure on owners of Pakistani newspapers to curtail or expel columnists and commentators critical of US policy. Of special target are those who expose how US Embassy is meddling in Pakistani affairs and expanding the US footprint inside Pakistan. Last year, Ambassador Patterson sent a letter to one of the largest Pakistani media groups accusing a columnist of endangering American lives and succeeded in pushing her out. The US Embassy is also recruiting opinion makers within the Pakistani media, academia and military in order to promote the US agenda even at the cost of Pakistani interests, dismissing critics as ‘conspiracy theorists’ and accusing them of anti-Americanism. A senior Pakistani journalist Syed Talat Hussain exposed US activities in the following words, “Pro-American lobby in Pakistan is growing in direct proportion to the scaling up of suspicions about the US. The main task of this lobby is to reduce the complexity of the US’s objectives towards Pakistan to romantic levels of trust (…) A motley crew of former diplomats, retired generals, socialites, slick civil society begums, self-styled analysts, businessmen, journalists, and now also lawyers — they are the darlings of the US embassy staff. They are the instruments of positive outreach and public diplomacy that US diplomats are so keen to expand in Pakistan.”

6. HARASSING PAKISTANIS: Private US security contractors, or militiamen, have been involved in at least three incidents registered by the Pakistani police where armed Americans physically assaulted unarmed ordinary Pakistanis in public places. In one case, the nephew of a senior member of President Zardari’s own government was manhandled and locked up in the toilet of a gas station by men described as armed military-looking civilian Americans.

7. RESISTING POLICE CHECKS: In at least five incidents, US ‘diplomats’ disguised as Taliban, complete with beards and Pashto language skills, were stopped at several police checkpoints in Islamabad and Peshawar. In some cases, these American ‘diplomats’ tried to speed through police barriers. In one recent case, this resulted in a brief police chase, where a Pakistani officer dragged the US ‘diplomats’ back to the police picket and forced the Americans to apologize to Pakistani police officers. Again, no charges were pressed because these private US agents carried diplomatic passports.

8. ENGINEEING DOMESTIC POLITICS: As recently as December 2009, US ambassador in Islamabad was found meeting senior Pakistani politicians at private homes of mutual friends in unannounced meetings restricted to 3 to 4 persons. The ambassador asked her guests to publicly support the embattled pro-US President Zardari. US diplomats in Islamabad and officials in Washington have been blatantly interfering in Pakistani politics. In addition to helping form the incumbent coalition government in Islamabad, made up of pro-US parties, US officials have been busy trying to save both Mr. Zardari and his key political adviser and ambassador to Washington Husain Haqqani. US officials in Washington have been briefing sympathetic US journalists about this. In one case, columnist Trudy Rubin had this to say while discussing Pakistan in an article published last month: “Here is the first piece of good news: Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari seems to have weathered a campaign by opponents, including the military, to force him out of office. Zardari has deep flaws, but his ouster would have hampered efforts to fight the jihadis. So would the removal, now averted, of Pakistan’s effective ambassador to Washington, Husain Haqqani, whom the Pakistani military had unfairly blamed for conditions that Congress imposed on aid to Pakistan.”

9. BRIBES AND ILLEGAL WEAPONS: This case is stunning because of the direct involvement of US Ambassador Anne W. Patterson in lobbying for DynCorp. The company ended up bribing Interior Ministry officials to smuggle banned weapons into Pakistan and then went on to raise private militias and hire retired Pakistani military officers to run rapid deployment teams and possibly even spy on the Pakistani military.

10. DEMONIZATION OF PAKISTAN: Since 2007, US officials and US media has systematically demonized Pakistan worldwide, creating false alarm over Pakistan’s strategic arsenal. US officials and media have also pushed to bracket Pakistan along with Iraq and Afghanistan in order to justify a possible military intervention. When Pakistan resisted US meddling recently, US media again went on rampage, accusing Pakistan of ‘anti-Americanism’ and harassment of US diplomats. Additionally, there has been a marked increase of lectures and studies by US think-tanks inviting unknown separatist individuals and groups to speak and fan ethnic separatism inside Pakistan and theorize on the breakup of the country.

11. ABETTING TERROR INSIDE PAKISTAN: The suspicions about why DynCorp was secretly raising private militias inside the federal Pakistani capital almost turned real when a suspect in the attack on the Pakistani military headquarters in October 2009 was allegedly found to have been recruited by DynCorp. In a second case, another suspected DynCorp recruit was found involved in assassinating a senior Pakistani military officer as he drove to work. In other words, two Pakistani employees of a US defense contractor engaged by the US embassy have been linked to two terrorist attacks on the Pakistani military. Add to this that Pakistan’s military and intelligence are a favorite punching bag for the United States and its allies, like India and Britain, and the picture of what the US is doing in Pakistan becomes even more disturbing.

These points explain how ill-motivated the US complaints about delaying visas and alleged anti-Americanism in Pakistan are. This is what US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Mr. Holbrooke and Mr. Gates are loath to share with the American people and the world public opinion.

302 Pak students not paid stipend in China since April

PAKISTANI students, studying in China under the Cultural Exchange Scholarship Programme of the federal government, are finding themselves stranded as they have not been receiving their monthly stipend for almost nine months.

At present, over 300 Pakistani students are enrolled in various Chinese universities and institutes of higher education for masters and doctoral degrees in various fields, including engineering, sciences, medicine and social sciences.

In an email to this correspondent, some students mentioned plight of the Pakistani students, saying the delay in monthly stipend was creating problems for them. The students said they were scrutinised from across the country through a testing process to get the cultural Exchange Scholarship?for higher studies and they were also entitled to get the per month stipend of US $200 for masters and US $300 for doctoral programmes. They said the monthly stipend was stopped without any intimation from April 2009 and despite repeated attempts, they were unable to have a clear picture of the whole situation.

But for the last intake, September 2009 onwards, it was announced that we were entitled to get US $ 300 and US $ 400 per month according the revised project,?they said, adding: However, the announcement has been materialized.? The students said that despite repeated attempts, they never received a satisfactory answer from the Ministry of Education, adding people at Pakistani Embassy in China were so cooperative?that they never bothered to receive the phone calls and by chance when they receive they utter the same words which we anticipate before calling them.?

The, Pakistani students envy other students of different countries who get the stipends from their respective countries smoothly and on time,?commented Mudassar Shah, a student of Journalism and Information Communication at Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. Khalid Khan, a PhD candidate at the Chemistry Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, and Zahoor Ahmed from the Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, said most of the students belonged to middle class families and many of them were even married. He cannot ask for our monthly spending from our families back in our country,?they said, adding: Although our prime duty is research but most of the time we have to cope with financial matters that deal with our daily food and clothing.?

It may be astonishing for you to know that few of us even take one time meal in a day to survive the life,?they added.

Particularly during winter, China experiences the worst cold and temperature goes -10, so we think hundreds of times before buying warm clothes to protect ourselves,?commented Mudassar Shah.

He said it was compulsory for doctoral degree candidates to publish or present their scientific research work in esteemed and scholarly conferences and journals but unfortunately, the financial constraints did not allow him and his fellows to fulfill the basic requirements of the doctoral degree.

The Pakistani students have also appealed to President Asif Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry to take notice of the situation and provide them relief.

Talking to The News, Muzaffar Aman Zia, Deputy Education Advisor from the Ministry of Education, said the delay was partly because of approval process of the revised project under which the amount of stipend had been increased. He said the ministry was trying hard to get the required funds released, adding that the ministry had to receive funds for this particular project from the Higher Education Commission (HEC). He said the last batch, sent to China, was informed that they might face delay in connection with the stipend. He, however, said the stipend problem had started from July 2009, adding that a total of 302 Pakistani students were enrolled in institutes of China at present.

When contacted, HEC Executive Director Dr Sohail H Naqvi said the revision of the project took time owing to which the students had to face the delay. He said so far the HEC had received only 30 percent of the development funds, adding as soon as the funds were released the students studying on scholarships abroad would be the priority.

By Khalid Khattak
Received via email

Blackwater in Pakistan: Gates Confirms

JEREMY SCAHILL

On Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates confirmed that Blackwater is operating in Pakistan. In an interview on Express TV, Gates, who was visiting Islamabad, said, “They [Blackwater and another private security firm, DynCorp] are operating as individual companies here in Pakistan,” according to a DoD transcript of the interview. “There are rules concerning the contracting companies. If they’re contracting with us or with the State Department here in Pakistan, then there are very clear rules set forth by the State Department and by ourselves.”

Today, the country’s senior minister for the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), Bashir Bilour, also acknowledged that the company is operating in Pakistan’s frontier areas. Bilour told Pakistan’s Express News TV that Blackwater’s activities were taking place with the “consent and permission” of the Pakistani government, saying he had discussed the issue with officials at the US Consulate in Peshawar, who told him that Blackwater was training Pakistani forces.

When Gates was asked what the US response would be if the Pakistani parliament passed a law banning private security companies, Gates said, “If it’s Pakistani law, we will absolutely comply.”

As Gates’s comments began to make huge news in Pakistan, US defense officials tried to retract his statement. As the Wall Street Journal reported, “Defense officials tried to clarify the comment Thursday night, telling reporters that Mr. Gates had been speaking about contractor oversight more generally and that the Pentagon didn’t employ Xe in Pakistan.”

Bilour’s statements are consistent with what a former Blackwater executive and a US military intelligence source told me in December–that Blackwater is working on a subcontract for Kestral, a Pakistani security and logistics firm. That contract, say my sources, is technically with the Pakistani government, which helps cloak Blackwater’s presence. From my article in The Nation:

Blackwater owner Erik Prince is close with Kestral CEO Liaquat Ali Baig, according to the former Blackwater executive. “Ali and Erik have a pretty close relationship,” he said. “They’ve met many times and struck a deal, and they [offer] mutual support for one another.” Working with Kestral, he said, Blackwater has provided convoy security for Defense Department shipments destined for Afghanistan that would arrive in the port at Karachi. Blackwater, according to the former executive, would guard the supplies as they were transported overland from Karachi to Peshawar and then west through the Torkham border crossing, the most important supply route for the US military in Afghanistan.

According to the former executive, Blackwater operatives also integrate with Kestral’s forces in sensitive counterterrorism operations in the North-West Frontier Province, where they work in conjunction with the Pakistani Interior Ministry’s paramilitary force, known as the Frontier Corps (alternately referred to as “frontier scouts”). The Blackwater personnel are technically advisers, but the former executive said that the line often gets blurred in the field. Blackwater “is providing the actual guidance on how to do [counterterrorism operations] and Kestral’s folks are carrying a lot of them out, but they’re having the guidance and the overwatch from some BW guys that will actually go out with the teams when they’re executing the job,” he said. “You can see how that can lead to other things in the border areas.” He said that when Blackwater personnel are out with the Pakistani teams, sometimes its men engage in operations against suspected terrorists. “You’ve got BW guys that are assisting…and they’re all going to want to go on the jobs–so they’re going to go with them,” he said. “So, the things that you’re seeing in the news about how this Pakistani military group came in and raided this house or did this or did that–in some of those cases, you’re going to have Western folks that are right there at the house, if not in the house.” Blackwater, he said, is paid by the Pakistani government through Kestral for consulting services. “That gives the Pakistani government the cover to say, ‘Hey, no, we don’t have any Westerners doing this. It’s all local and our people are doing it.’ But it gets them the expertise that Westerners provide for [counterterrorism]-related work.”

When I tried to get confirmation of Blackwater’s work with Kestral, I was bounced around from agency to agency. Eventually, a spokesman for the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), which is responsible for issuing licenses to US corporations to provide defense-related services to foreign governments or entities, would neither confirm nor deny that Blackwater has a license to work in Pakistan or to work with Kestral. “We cannot help you,” said department spokesman David McKeeby after checking with the relevant DDTC officials. “You’ll have to contact the companies directly.” Blackwater’s spokesman Mark Corallo said the company has “no operations of any kind” in Pakistan other than one employee working for the DoD. Kestral did not respond to my inquiries.

Kestral’s lobbyist, former assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roger Noriega, who served in that post from 2003 to 2005, would not provide comment on the contract either. Noriega, according to federal lobby records, was recently hired by Kestral to lobby the US government, including the State Department, USAID and Congress, on foreign affairs issues “regarding [Kestral's] capabilities to carry out activities of interest to the United States.”

All of this appears to be a contradiction of previous statements made by the Defense Department, by Blackwater, by the Pakistani government and by the US Embassy in Islamabad, all of whom claimed Blackwater was not in the country. In September the US ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, denied Blackwater’s presence in the country, stating bluntly, “Blackwater is not operating in Pakistan.” In December in The Nation, after I reported on Blackwater’s work for JSOC and Ketral in Pakistan, the Pentagon did not issue any clear public denials, and instead tried to pass the buck to the State Department, which in turn passed it to the US Embassy, which in turn issued an unsigned statement saying the story was false. Shortly after my story came out in The Nation, ABC News reported that in 2006, “12 Blackwater “tactical action operatives” were recruited for a secret raid into Pakistan by the U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations Command, according to a military intelligence planner. The target of the planned raid, code-named Vibrant Fury, was a suspected al Qaeda training camp, according to the planner.”

In Pakistan, there appears to be egg on the face of the country’s Interior Minister Rehman Malik, who has said on numerous occasions that he would resign if it is proven that Blackwater is operating inside Pakistan. Today, Express TV rebroadcast Malik saying in November, “There is no Blackwater.”

What’s that old saying? “Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.”

Pakistan Army ‘Not Impressed’ With US Offered Drones

“Too Little, Too Late, We Already Have Superior UAVs”

Mariana Baabar

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan military sources say they are not impressed by the offer of the United States to supply RQ-7 Shadow Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), as they already have superior quality UAVs, which they have upgraded, and which are in use.

The disappointment is understandable since unlike the drones that fly and take out targets inside Pakistan’s Fata region, the ones being offered to Pakistan are unarmed and commonly used for intelligence gathering.

Later, when DG ISPR Major General Athar Abbas was asked about the overall weapons being provided to Pakistan for counterinsurgency and other military supplies, he remarked, “Too little, too late”.

It was US Defence Secretary Robert Gates who, in a meeting with the media at the residence of the US ambassador, said the US was enhancing Pakistan’s intelligence capabilities. He said the offer comes because Islamabad had requested for them. “We have a lot of information on the Afghan side that we share … we also help Pakistan build its own capacity. We will be providing them with UAVs (Shadow) together with equipment and training,” he said.

To a question whether the US was attaching any conditions to these UAVs, he replied, “I do not know”. In the past, the US was wary of passing on the drone technology to Pakistan as Islamabad could use it in areas other than it had specifically been given for.

One American journalist accompanying him asked about the possibility of stopping arms sale to India and Pakistan altogether. “We have to judge each country’s requirement on its own. We sell Pakistan F-16s and we sell India transport aircraft. We make a decision judiciously,” Gates replied.

Gates appeared relaxed with the questions being thrown at him by the local and US media but it was the ‘D’ word that he refused to entertain. Though several questions relating to US drones were asked, he shrugged them off and would not even give an answer as to whom in the US this question could be put.

When he said that there were no US bases inside Pakistan. he refused a reply when asked from where these US drones flew. Amongst the defence secretary’s aides in uniform that greeted the media before he arrived were those who offered their greetings in chaste Urdu and one of them also spoke excellent Pashto!

As if on cue, the Pakistan military’s announcement that it could not overstretch itself in fresh areas of operation also saw Gates admitting to a query that a ‘trust deficit’ existed. “There is responsibility on both sides. From the US side, we turned away from Afghanistan in 1989. We could have remained engaged but we did not even try. Then the Pressler Amendment brought an end to military-to-military conversation for 12 years when we had no contacts. We cannot rebuild trust through rhetoric,” he said.

Turning to the present moment, Gates said that the US was deeply impressed with Pakistan’s military operations and the level of activity and clearing of areas. “Very impressive. Pakistan is a sovereign state and makes its own decisions on future operations. The past year has been extraordinary. Let me put it this way. If we are in a car together, it is Pakistan in the driving seat with its foot on the accelerator. We are prepared to help and also express our condolences to the 3,000 Pakistani soldiers killed. General Kayani gave me a detailed briefing,” explained the defence secretary.

To a query about the Coalition Support Fund that has been held up and which Pakistan needs on an emergency basis, Gates replied, “It will come and we are also reviving $500 million deferred payment.”

He explained instances in the past where Pakistan’s procedures lacked proper documentation. “We are working with Pakistan on the documentation and will give it to Congress. We are working on it now and some people we are seeking to add to the US Embassy will help,” he said.

When a question of opening up dialogue with the Taliban inside Afghanistan was put to him, he replied, “Afghanistan has its own reconciliation and reintegration plan. It is how low-level Taliban can work in their own community. These are Taliban foot soldiers who work for money. As economic development proceeds and there is greater security, more and more foot soldiers will come back,” he pointed out. But he did not agree that there were any chances of the Taliban forming the next government in Kabul. However, he did say that there were conditions if they wanted a future political role.

“If the adversaries are willing to become part of the political fabric of Afghanistan and they are prepared to play a legitimate role, abide by the Constitution and recognise the Kabul government. What do the Taliban make of Afghanistan? It was a desert (during their last government). “Are they ready to rebuild?”

To several queries regarding the role of India in the region, Gates said that the last thing he wanted to avoid was another Mumbai-like attack. “We all have common enemies and in the past year they tried to destabilise Pakistan itself. We have regional problems that need regional cooperation,” he said.

He said the US was ready to play a constructive role between India and Pakistan and was well prepared. “In 1990 then President Bush sent me to the region and we made suggestions. Both parties do not want intervention and we are comfortable with that,” he said.

When told that with Kashmir unresolved, now more issues, like India’s role in Afghanistan, were leading to confrontation, Gates replied, “Al-Qaeda does not care about Kashmir. Kashmir is an issue for both sides.”

He said he was unaware that at the forthcoming London conference, a formal role would be offered to India. But he acknowledged that India had significant development programmes. Calling al-Qaeda a cancer, Gates did not mince his words when he said: “They are all bad”. Refusing to distinguish between the Pakistani Taliban, Afghan Taliban, al-Qaeda, Haqqani network and the various Lashkars, he said it would be a mistake to look at them individually.

Pakistan to US: Are You With Us Or Against Us?

The tide has shifted dramatically in recent years. Resurgent Afghan Taliban, better armed, trained, and deadly effective, now have control over 80% of Afghan territory. There has been a significant increase in offensive targetting of US and NATO bases and Afghan government officials and buildings in the last couple of years, with even Kabul coming under increasing pressure.

On the other side of the border, the CIA and Indian supported TTP has been getting a hiding at the hands of Pakistan’s armed forces with even the US and NATO stunned at the efficiency and success of the army operations against TTP militants in Swat and South Waziristan. For the first time in 8 years, Pakistan now has the upper hand and has started to dictate terms to the US, starting last week with the rejection of US request to extend the operation to North Waziristan where Jalaluddin Haqqani’s faction allegedly operates from. Anticipating an imminent turnaround in Pakistan’s Afghan policy and fearing the US supply lines into Afghanistan may come under pressure, the US immediately sought to pacify the Pakistan Armed Forces with promises to deliver 12 ‘unarmed’ shadow drones – which hasn’t worked.

The White House and Pentagon are in shock, as this turnaround by the Pakistan Army couldn’t have come at a worse time for them – with the recent attacks on CIA’s Chapman outpost in Khost, a failed civilian government incharge, an incompetent Afghan army, and with 30,000 US troops on their way to what many now realise is a lost cause.

And now the New York Times reveals an interesting conversation between Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and an unnamed senior Pakistan Army official that took place last week. The biggest sign yet of the reversal of fortunes comes with a simple but symbolic ‘Are you with us or against us?’ from the Pakistan Army to the United States. The NYT article follows:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – Nobody else in the Obama administration has been mired in Pakistan for as long as Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. So on a trip here this past week to try to soothe the country’s growing rancor toward the United States, he served as a punching bag tested over a quarter-century.

“Are you with us or against us?” a senior military officer demanded of Mr. Gates at Pakistan’s National Defense University, according to a Pentagon official who recounted the remark made during a closed-door session after Mr. Gates gave a speech at the school on Friday. Mr. Gates, who could hardly miss that the officer was mimicking former President George W. Bush’s warning to nations harboring militants, simply replied, “Of course we’re with you.”

That was the essence of Mr. Gates’s message over two days to the Pakistanis, who are angry about the Central Intelligence Agency’s surge in missile strikes from drone aircraft on militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas, among other grievances, and showed no signs of feeling any love.

The trip, Mr. Gates’s first to Pakistan in three years, proved that dysfunctional relationships span multiple administrations and that the history of American foreign policy is full of unintended consequences.

As the No. 2 official at the C.I.A. in the 1980s, Mr. Gates helped channel Reagan-era covert aid and weapons through Pakistan’s spy agency to the American allies at the time: Islamic fundamentalists fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. Many of those fundamentalists regrouped as the Taliban, who gave sanctuary to Al Qaeda before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and now threaten Pakistan.

In meetings on Thursday, Pakistani leaders repeatedly asked Mr. Gates to give them their own armed drones to go after the militants, not just a dozen smaller, unarmed ones that Mr. Gates announced as gifts meant to placate Pakistan and induce its cooperation.

Pakistani journalists asked Mr. Gates if the United States had plans to take over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons (Mr. Gates said no) and whether the United States would expand the drone strikes farther south into Baluchistan, as is under discussion. Mr. Gates did not answer.

At the same time, the Pakistani Army’s chief spokesman told American reporters at the army headquarters in Rawalpindi on Thursday that the military had no immediate plans to launch an offensive against extremists in the tribal region of North Waziristan, as American officials have repeatedly urged.

And the spokesman, Maj. Gen Athar Abbas, rejected Mr. Gates’s assertion that Al Qaeda had links to militant groups on Pakistan’s border. Asked why the United States would have such a view, the spokesman, General Abbas, curtly replied, “Ask the United States.”

General Abbas’s comments, made only hours after Mr. Gates arrived in Islamabad, were an affront to an American ally that gave Pakistan $3 billion in military aid last year. But American officials, trying to put a positive face on the general’s remarks and laying out what they described as military reality, said that the Pakistani Army was stretched thin from offensives against militants in the Swat Valley and South Waziristan and probably did not have the troops.

“They don’t have the ability to go into North Waziristan at the moment,” an American military official in Pakistan told reporters. “Now, they may be able to generate the ability. They could certainly accept risk in certain places and relocate some of their forces, but obviously that then creates a potential hole elsewhere that could suffer from Taliban re-encroachment.”

Mr. Gates’s advisers cast him as a good cop on a mission to encourage the Pakistanis rather than berate them. And he was characteristically low-key during most his visit here, including during a session with Pakistani journalists on Friday morning at the home of the American ambassador to Pakistan, Anne W. Patterson.

But Mr. Gates perked up when he was brought some coffee, and he soon began to push back against General Abbas. American officials say that the real reason Pakistanis distinguish between the groups is that they are reluctant to go after those that they see as a future proxy against Indian interests in Afghanistan when the Americans leave. India is Pakistan’s archrival in the region.

“Dividing these individual extremist groups into individual pockets if you will is in my view a mistaken way to look at the challenge we all face,” Mr. Gates said, then ticked off the collection on the border.

“Al Qaeda, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Tariki Taliban in Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Haqqani network – this is a syndicate of terrorists that work together,” he said. “And when one succeeds they all benefit, and they share ideas, they share planning. They don’t operationally coordinate their activities, as best I can tell. But they are in very close contact. They take inspiration from one another, they take ideas from one another.”

Mr. Gates, who repeatedly told the Pakistanis that he regretted their country’s “trust deficit” with the United States and that Americans had made a grave mistake in abandoning Pakistan after the Russians left Afghanistan, promised the military officers that the United States would do better.

His final message delivered, he relaxed on the 14-hour trip home by watching “Seven Days in May,” the cold war-era film about an attempted military coup in the United States.

Why Pakistan will not mount new attacks on militants

With its announcement that it will launch no new offensives against the Taliban in 2010, Pakistan’s army appears to have opened a new innings in its favourite game with the West, says the BBC’s Syed Shoaib Hasan in Islamabad.

Pakistan’s military thinks it has strong reasons not to attack the militants

For the United States, the statement by the Pakistan army could not have come at a worse time.
Its main intelligence agency, the CIA, is still coming to terms with the death of seven personnel in a suicide attack in Afghanistan by an al-Qaeda “double agent”.

That attack, the worst suffered by the agency in four decades, was apparently planned and carried out by Taliban militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas. Under pressure from the US, the Pakistan army launched an operation there in the main Taliban stronghold of South Waziristan in November 2009.

The army has since been able to secure that territory and push out the militants. Hillary Clinton wants Pakistan to target militants in Baluchistan. While some have been captured, most senior Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders have fled the region. Intelligence officials say they have now taken refuge either in other nearby tribal regions or the neighbouring Balochistan province.

Mission impossible

Top US officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have been calling for the military to go after the militants in these regions.

All this comes at a time when Pakistan’s government is already under a great deal of domestic criticism. This is mainly due to increased missile strikes by the US targeting Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders in the tribal areas. These have turned a sometimes ambivalent tribal population against the Pakistan military. Analysts say the tribesmen see the strikes, which have claimed more lives of civilians than of militants, as contiguous with the military operation.

But US officials have continued to press for more action, painting doomsday scenarios for Pakistan. The latest such warning comes from US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who said in India that al-Qaeda was planning to carry out attacks to provoke war with Pakistan. But the Pakistan military appears to have its own views on the subject, and their say is likely to count the most.
Pakistani troops hold their positions at a hilltop post in Shingwari, an area in the troubled Pakistani tribal region of South Waziristan (Oct 2009)

Pakistani troops hold their positions on a hill top in South Waziristan. Their latest decision is likely to sends shivers through all Western capitals which have a stake in Afghanistan. For Washington, in particular, the military’s U-turn will have far-reaching consequences. Without Pakistani soldiers pressurising the Taliban in the tribal areas, it will be mission impossible for US forces in Afghanistan.

Diplomatic wrangling

Even with the additional 40,000 troops, it will not be possible to contain the insurgents. With 2010 already being called a defining moment in the current conflict, the military has risked the all-out ire of the US with its decision. But it appears to have thought out the move, given that it has gone public at a time when the US defence secretary is in Pakistan. The military believes it has strong reasons not to move against the militants.

Many senior military officials have been angered by what they see are recent moves by the US and the UK to expand India’s involvement in Afghanistan. They see this as being specifically targeted against Pakistani interests. There is also the matter of promised US aid to Pakistan, most of which has been delayed due to diplomatic wrangling.

US officials say much of the aid has been held up because of delays in processing visas for officials attached to the projects.
US army officer during exit a helicopter during an air assault operation on the town of Oshaky in Afghanistan
Without Pakistani offensives, will it be mission impossible for US forces?

But Pakistani intelligence officials say that many of these officials actually end up involved in activities “beyond their charter of duties”. In common parlance, its means the officials are seen as spies.

Extremely unhappy

The military’s decision has also put the Pakistan government, with which it has been at odds of late, in an embarrassing position.
The military’s unhappiness at the government stems from what it sees as its pandering to US demands at every turn. One example which intelligence officials quote at liberty, is the manner in which US special forces personnel are allowed to enter and move around Pakistan without being documented by immigration.

Officials say the military is extremely unhappy with the interior ministry on this count.
The shaky PPP-led government, for its part, is too busy rolling from one political crisis to another to really take this matter in hand.
On a more direct note, Pakistan’s military has also been demanding that the US give it more advanced helicopters and transfer its drone technology.

They say as the frontline state against the Taliban, such equipment is needed for greater success.
The US has, however, rejected these demands so far.

BBC NEWS

Pakistan Army Rejects US Demands For New Offensive In North Waziristan

Pakistan’s army has said it will launch no new offensives on militants in 2010, as the US defence secretary arrived for talks on combating Taliban fighters. Army spokesman Athar Abbas told the BBC the “overstretched” military had no plans for any fresh anti-militant operations over the next 12 months. Our correspondent says the comments are a clear snub to Washington.

The US would like Pakistan to expand an offensive against militants launching cross-border attacks in Afghanistan. Defence Secretary Robert Gates arrived in Pakistan on Thursday for his first visit since US President Barack Obama took office last year.

The one-day trip comes at a crucial time in the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, with the US planning to commit 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

Mr Gates was expected to tell Pakistan that it could do more against top Taliban leaders operating in its territory, some of whom are alleged to have close links to Pakistan’s ISI intelligence service.

The Pakistani army launched major ground offensives in 2009 in the north-west against Pakistani Taliban strongholds in the Swat region, last April, and in South Waziristan, last October.

The militants have hit back with a wave of suicide bombings and attacks that have killed hundreds of people across Pakistan.
In the capital, Islamabad, on Thursday, Maj Gen Abbas, head of public relations for the Pakistan army, told the BBC: “We are not going to conduct any major new operations against the militants over the next 12 months.

“The Pakistan army is overstretched and it is not in a position to open any new fronts. Obviously, we will continue our present operations in Waziristan and Swat.”

‘Trust deficit’

The BBC’s Syed Shoaib Hasan in Islamabad says the comments are a clear brush-off to top US officials.

Our correspondent adds they are embarrassing for Pakistan’s shaky coalition government, and likely to further destabilise already-low ties with its US ally.

He says it also threatens to render ineffective an expanded coalition troop deployment in Afghanistan, as the Taliban over the border would be relieved of any pressure from the Pakistan army.

Before arriving in Islamabad, Mr Gates told reporters travelling with him from India: “You can’t ignore one part of this cancer and pretend that it won’t have some impact closer to home.”

His visit comes amidst a slight cooling in relations between the two allies. In an article published in a Pakistani newspaper on Thursday, Mr Gates referred to a “trust deficit”.

As well as talking with his counterpart, Ahmed Mukhtar, the US defence secretary is expected to meet Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and President Asif Zardari.

Talks were also expected to focus on US drone strikes against militants near the Afghan border.

Hundreds of people have died in the attacks, which have stoked deep resentment of the US among many Pakistanis.

But he adds that Mr Gates will argue that drone strikes are the only effective measure against the Taliban.

Pakistan has been an important US partner in South Asia since the 11 September 2001 attacks in the US.

Pakistan Blocks Agenda At UN Disarmament Conference

GENEVA: Arms negotiators failed to start talks on Tuesday on cutting nuclear weapons when Pakistan blocked the adoption of the 2010 agenda for the UN-sponsored Conference on Disarmament.The conference, the world’s sole multinational negotiating forum for disarmament, spent much of 2009 stuck on procedural wrangles raised by Pakistan after breaking a 12-year deadlock to agree a programme of work.

The impasse on Tuesday suggested 2010 would be another year of halting progress.Pakistan, which tested a nuclear weapon in 1998, is wary of the proposed focus in the programme on limiting the production of fissile material, which would put it at a disadvantage against longer-standing nuclear powers such as India.

It therefore has an interest in delaying the start of substantive talks, diplomats say, “Even in the darkest days the agenda was adopted, because everything can be discussed under the agenda,” said one veteran official, unable to recall a similar delay in the past. Adoption of the agenda at the start of the annual session is normally a formality, but Pakistan Ambassador Zamir Akram took the floor to call for the agenda to be broadened to cover two other issues.

Akram said the 65-member forum should consider conventional arms control at the regional and sub-regional level, in line with a United Nations General Assembly resolution sponsored by Pakistan and passed last year.The conference should also negotiate a global regime on all aspects of missiles, he said.
“It is not our intention to create an obstacle but it’s also not our intention to create a situation which is oblivious to what is happening around us,” Akram said.
The move forced the conference president, Bangladesh ambassador Abdul Hannan, to adjourn the meeting for consultations to find a consensus. He said he hoped to resume on Jan. 21 with a renewed discussion of the agenda.

Sergei Ordzhonikidze, the former Russian diplomat who heads the UN in Geneva and is secretary of the conference, said failure to adopt the agenda would be a move backwards, arguing that it was flexible enough to include all topics of concern.But Akram said Pakistan did not want to work with a programme that was “frozen in time”.
Reaching a consensus is likely to prove difficult, as India rejected a discussion of regional conventional arms control, arguing that the conference should focus on global issues.Diplomats said Pakistan’s attempt to include regional arms control appeared directed at its bigger and better-armed neighbour.
The UN General Assembly also called on the conference last December to agree a 2010 work programme including immediate negotiations to ban the production of fissile material, in a resolution sponsored by Canada.

Elite US Troops Ready To Combat Pakistani Nuclear Hijacks

A propaganda cartoon that appeared in Western media

The propaganda against Pakistan’s nukes continues. Now that the US/Indian backed terrorists have recieved a kicking by the Pakistan Army, the attention is turning to the so called ‘Extremist elements within the Pakistani security establishment, Army/ISI’.

The US army is training a crack unit to seal off and snatch back Pakistani nuclear weapons in the event that militants, possibly from inside the country’s security apparatus, get their hands on a nuclear device or materials that could make one.

The specialised unit would be charged with recovering the nuclear materials and securing them.

The move follows growing anti-Americanism in Pakistan’s military, a series of attacks on sensitive installations over the past two years, several of which housed nuclear facilities, and rising tension that has seen a series of official complaints by US authorities to Islamabad in the past fortnight.

“What you have in Pakistan is nuclear weapons mixed with the highest density of extremists in the world, so we have a right to be concerned,” said Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, a former CIA officer who used to run the US energy department’s intelligence unit. “There have been attacks on army bases which stored nuclear weapons and there have been breaches and infiltrations by terrorists into military facilities.”

Professor Shaun Gregory, director of the Pakistan security research unit at Bradford University, has tracked a number of attempted security breaches since 2007. “The terrorists are at the gates,” he warned.

In a counterterrorism journal, published by America’s West Point military academy, he documented three incidents. The first was an attack in November 2007 at Sargodha in Punjab, where nuclearcapable F-16 jet aircraft are thought to be stationed. The following month a suicide bomber struck at Pakistan’s nuclear airbase at Kamra in Attock district. In August 2008 a group of suicide bombers blew up the gates to a weapons complex at the Wah cantonment in Punjab, believed to be one of Pakistan’s nuclear warhead assembly plants. The attack left 63 people dead.

A further attack followed at Kamra last October. Pakistan denies that the base still has a nuclear role, but Gregory believes it does. A six-man suicide team was arrested in Sargodha last August.

Fears that militants could penetrate a nuclear facility intensified after a brazen attack on army headquarters in Rawalpindi in October when 10 gunmen wearing army uniforms got inside and laid siege for 22 hours. Last month there was an attack on the naval command centre in Islamabad.

Pakistani police said five Americans from Washington who were arrested in Pakistan last month after trying to join the Taliban were carrying a map of Chashma Barrage, a complex in Punjab that includes a nuclear power facility.

The Al-Qaeda leadership has made no secret of its desire to get its hands on weapons for a “nuclear 9/11”.

“I have no doubt they are hell-bent on acquiring this,” said Mowatt-Larssen. “These guys are thinking of nuclear at the highest level and are approaching it in increasingly professional ways.”

Nuclear experts and US officials say the biggest fear is of an inside job amid growing anti-American feeling in Pakistan. Last year 3,021 Pakistanis were killed in terrorist attacks, more than in Afghanistan, yet polls suggest Pakistanis consider the United States to be a greater threat than the Taliban.

“You have 8,000-12,000 [people] in Pakistan with some type of role in nuclear missiles — whether as part of an assembly team or security,” said Gregory. “It’s a very large number and there is a real possibility that among those people are sympathisers of terrorist or jihadist groups who may facilitate some kind of attack.”

Pakistan is thought to possess about 80 nuclear warheads. Although the weapons are well guarded, the fear is that materials or processes to enrich uranium could fall into the wrong hands.

“All it needs is someone in Pakistan within the nuclear establishment and in a position of key access to become radicalised,” said MowattLarssen. “This is not just theoretical. It did happen — Pakistan has had inside problems before.”

Bashir Mahmood, the former head of Pakistan’s plutonium reactor, formed the Islamic charity Ummah Tameer-e-Nau in March 2000 after resigning from the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission. He was arrested in Islamabad on October 23, 2001, with his associate Abdul Majeed for alleged links to Osama Bin Laden.

Pakistan’s military leadership, which controls the nuclear programme, has always bristled at the suggestion that its nuclear facilities are at risk. The generals insist that storing components in different sites keeps them secure.

US officials refused to speak on the record about American safety plans, well aware of how this would be seen in Islamabad. However, one official admitted that the United States does not know where all of Pakistan’s storage sites are located. “Don’t assume the US knows everything,” he said.

Although Washington has provided $100m worth of technical assistance to Islamabad under its nuclear protection programme, US personnel have been denied access to most Pakistani nuclear sites.

In the past fortnight the US has made unprecedented formal protests to Pakistan’s national security apparatus, warning it about fanning virulent anti-American sentiment in the media.

Concerns about hostility towards America within elements of the Pakistani armed forces first surfaced in 2007. At a meeting of military commanders staged at Kurram, on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, a Pakistani major drew his pistol and shot an American. The incident was hushed up as a gunfight.

Pakistan Military Makes A Stand

ISLAMABAD – After several months of backroom wheeling and dealing between the United States and the top brass in the Pakistani garrison city of Rawalpindi, Washington has expressed its full trust in Pakistan’s military leadership and its apparatus, including the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which in turn is preparing to fight the next phase in the South Asia war theater.

This will focus on the hunt for high-profile al-Qaeda targets in the Shawal and Datta Khel areas of Pakistan’s North Waziristan tribal area, where it is believed Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Dr Ayman Al-Zawahiri, and the shura (council) of al-Qaeda are hiding. Over the past few weeks, the US has stepped up drone attacks in the region.

United States Senator Joe Lieberman, who recently visited Pakistan, confirmed on Sun! day that the Pakistani army “is on the move” and that there is the “possibility the US will see activity in that volatile northern region [North Waziristan]“. Lieberman met with Pakistan’s military chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani.

In the latest drone attack early on Thursday morning, two missile strikes were reported to have killed 10 suspected militants in a compound in the Pasalkot area of North Waziristan. Several days ago, the US said it had killed 12 people at a suspected Talibantraining center about 30 kilometers west of Miranshah, the main town in North Waziristan.

In the latter stages of last year, the Pakistan military waged a months-long offensive in South Waziristan against the PakistaniTaliban, with some success. The operation in N! orth Waziristan, however, will concentrate solely on al-Qaeda and its affiliates.

This understanding was reached after some tricky negotiations. The US initially wanted a broader Pakistani campaign, even suggesting that if Pakistan did not cooperate, it would send in its own special forces for ground assaults and mount daily drone strikes inside North Waziristan.

Pakistan argued that its military was stretched as its forces were already committed in Swat, South Waziristan and the agencies of Mohmand, Bajaur and Khyber.

A senior Pakistani security official told Asia Times Online on the condition of anonymity that Pakistan was also reluctant to undertake a full operation in North Waziristan because that region was not a main sanctuary for the Taliban, as is South Waziristan. The official said that the Americans were therefore told that Pakistan’s participation would be limited to the elimination of al-Qaeda and its affiliate groups. At the same time, he hinted at a possible role for Pakistan in facilitating negotiations with the Afghan Taliban.

The recent deadly suicide attack on a US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) base in Khost province in Afghanistan was plotted by al-Qaeda in North Waziristan. (See US spies walked into al-Qaeda’s trap Asia Times Online, January 5, 2009.)

The dispute over the level of Pakistan’s involvement caused bad blood on both sides. At one point, the Pakistani militaryestablishment clamped down on the many American defense contractors in the country, and even American diplomats were forced to tangle with red tape, so much so that the US ambassador, Anne W Patterson, made a public protest.

Nonetheless, this proved to be just another episode in the love-hate relationship between the two allies who both desperately need one another. As a result, ! communication began at new levels. Sources privy to the military establishment say that a major turnaround was the visit late last year of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Islamabad.

Washington conceded that the government of President Asif Ali Zardari had a “credibility deficit” and the only option was to rely on the Pakistan army. The visit of Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, in the second week of December was also a milestone. He returned to Washington and lobbied in favor of the US dealing directly with Kiani.

There followed a string of visits by American military officials and senators, including that of Lieberman, who confirmed that the Pakistan army was the only hope in tackling the troubles in South Asia.

One of the consequences of this is that Washington has informed Islamabad that the term of the director general of the ISI, Lieutenant General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, should be extended. He is due to retire in March. A few months later, Kiani is due to step down, and if Pasha is not reappointed, Pasha will be the next chief of army staff by virtue of his seniority.

Understandably, Zardari’s government initially reacted badly to being snubbed – and dictated to – by the US. A senior member of the ruling Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), barrister Kamal Azfar, said in a statement that both the CIA and the Pakistani militaryheadquarters aimed to derail democracy in the country. Then throughout the month of December, Zardari and cabinet members spoke out against the military establishment.

The military hit back, and under its pressure Zardari surprised everybody by giving up the chairmanship of the National Command Authority, which controls the country’s nuclear weapons. It is now firmly under the military’s wing.

On December 29, on the second anniversary of the assassination of his wife, Benazir Bhutto, Zardari delivered an inflammatory speech against the military, taking aback even members of his PPP.

Frantic meetings followed between Zardari and go-betweens for the military, resulting eventually in an understanding that the president would take briefs from the army chief on all issues and then speak accordingly.

The military has effectively put Zardari in his place, just as it has got its way with the US over North Waziristan: Washington andthe Pakistani civilian government have no option but to follow the game accordingly.

CIA Spy Assassin – An Inside Job?

Seven CIA agents were killed by another CIA agent who had conveniently met with and recorded a video with yet another CIA agent. To untangle this web, we need to ask the age-old question – ‘who benefits?’

The recent assassination of seven CIA spies in Afghanistan at the hands of another CIA spy has raised a host of questions about the operations of the infamous agency. Since its creation, the CIA’s history is replete with murder, drug running, false flag attacks and God only knows what else evil for the sake of the ever-expanding American empire. Could it be that the incident at the Afghan spy base is yet another black feather in the agencies cap?

A Jordanian double agent was able to pass through multiple security checks and blow up the spies in Khost with relative ease in what is the most successful attack on the agency in years. Yet questions were immediately raised when the world was told that the Jordanian was due to meet seven high-ranking CIA officers allegedly in order to exchange critical intelligence on the whereabouts of Ayman al Zawahiri – al Qaeda’s number two.

The CIA’s bread and butter business is murder, theft and extortion, and runs counter to all law, natural or man-made. Yet the agency has for the sake of its operational expediency, a few rules which are inviolable. The meeting itself was a violation of CIA protocol, which dictates that agents meet only with their handlers and no one else. The idea that an astonishing SEVEN agents rushed especially to meet the Jordanian goes totally against the agency rule-book. That this meeting could even take place only makes sense if we surmise that it was authorized from the highest echelons of the agency.

In addition, the video that conveniently surfaced afterwards of the Jordanian bomber holding hands with TTP arch-terrorist Hakimullah Mehsud only further muddies the waters. What did the TTP have to do with targeting the CIA, or anything American, when their primary (only) target has always been Pakistani Muslims? Why would the TTP waste time on making MTV videos when they are desperately on the run from the Pakistan Army? After all, the TTP is itself a CIA sponsored and funded outfit. Why are they physically biting the hand that feeds them?

The fact is, the TTP is on the ropes having been eliminated first from Swat, and then South Waziristan. Its rampage of terror against innocent Pakistani civilians has shocked and appalled the population at large who are now convinced that the group must be destroyed at any cost. Having totally much of its public support, operational capability and ability to destabilize the Pakistani state, the TTP has dramatically faded in value as an asset for the CIA. Meanwhile, with the American war in Afghanistan getting worse and worse in terms of tangible results, the CIA is being targeted by a cross-section of the American media for its continual intelligence failures.

Put simply, seven CIA agents were killed by another CIA agent who had conveniently met with and recorded a video with yet another CIA agent. By having the Jordanian kill its own, the CIA bigwigs may have sought to kill the proverbial two birds with one assassin. First, with its agents dead, the CIA was able to mobilize American public support for the American Afghan surge and respect for its ‘sacrifices’. Second, with the bombers TTP connection, the CIA may have hoped that the terrorist group might regain some of its lost credibility amongst the Pakistani people by being affiliated with a successful attack on the ‘hated’ CIA.

The CIA would kill its own agents without any hesitation at all. It has done so often in its sordid history. The sheer ruthlessness with which this terrorist agency conducts its operations is well documented. But this time its scheme flopped. Pakistani opinion was unmoved regarding the TTP and the American media only asked yet more cutting questions of the agency. Yet when the attempt to resurrect the TTP in Pakistan failed, the CIA desperately diverted the issue by planting stories in the US and Indian media of the possibility of the ISI’s involvement in the attack on its spies. Many stories falsely alleged that traces from ISI origin military grade explosives had been found at the scene. Lies upon lies!

Whereas in some places the CIA inspires fear and awe, in Pakistan, it only inspires anger and contempt. The Pakistani people are wise to the chicanery of this devious organization. Through its sponsorship of the TTP and its buy-out of the corrupt political classes, the CIA has openly declared its malicious intent to balkanize, denuclearize and destroy the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

They plot and they plan, but Allah is the best of Planners!

CIA: BUNGLERS OR CON MEN?

The Blackwater operations run from Camp Chapman close to the Pakistani border could have been for anyone, Iran, Israel, India or one of their dozens of clients. Here are some startling revelations.

Were the seven CIA employees killed in the recent terror attack at Camp Chapman in Afghanistan really CIA? Sources now tell us that some were Blackwater operatives, not CIA at all.
Is the CIA and Blackwater one in the same? Are either one or both working for the United States or has the disease of privatization created a culture of greed and incompetence that has left the United States vulnerable and defenseless? Are we simply “out of our depth” in Afghanistan?

WHO IS PULLING THE STRINGS?

Blackwater/Xe is a multinational corporation with endless divisions who, not only work for the CIA but governments and intelligence agencies around the world. No one has ever successfully penetrated their cover organizations to find who they really are or who they really represent. The Blackwater operations run from Camp Chapman could have been for anyone, Iran, Israel, India or one of their dozens of clients.
We don’t know, the CIA certainly doesn’t know, nobody knows. Was the attack that killed Americans an attack on the CIA, an attack on Blackwater or a carryover from a local drug war? All we do know is that everything we have been told is subterfuge and not necessarily meant to serve the intelligence and security interests of the United States of America.
The secret base in eastern Khost province in Afghanistan is in an area convenient to move personnel and “other things” in and out of Pakistan. The base itself is supposed to be designated for the use of USAID, a division of the State Department meant to aid foreign governments but which has been a front for covert operations for decades, one of the worst kept secrets in the world.
The camp itself is guarded by Afghani tribesmen, not US personnel. No information about their ethnic affiliations, training or qualifications is available. However, the idea of a highly secure CIA compound being guarded under such circumstances is an absurdity beyond human comprehension.
American military and civilian operations inside Afghanistan have proven to be utterly incapable of finding any group within Afghanistan to work with that is free of penetration by Taliban elements. Many lives have been lost already from numerous incidents of Afghani military, police and security personnel turning on American allies.

THE REAL FACE OF TERRORISM

The region of Camp Chapman is a staging area for terrorist operations, not only against Americans in Afghanistan but against Pakistan as well. Some of the terrorist groups are working for India and Israel, some for the Taliban and, frankly, most are working for both.
America and the CIA are totally out of their depth, ill informed, uninformed and being played, not only by our supposed Kabul allies, but by India, Israel and our private contractors who are playing both sides against the middle.

BLACKWATER AND PAKISTAN

Camp Chapman, now identified as a Blackwater command post near the Pakistan border has an unclear mission. Continual reports coming out of Pakistan indicate that Blackwater and/or other US contracting firms have become involved in criminal activities and terrorism.
Top Pakistani military analyst, Brigadier General Asif Haroon Raja has tied Blackwater and other US contractors to the assassination of Pakistani army officers, attacks on government installations and ties to terrorist groups who have killed hundreds of civilians.
Raja has indicated that, rather than being employed as CIA contractors in search of high profile terrorists, these contractors are working with, among others Israel and India coordinating terrorist operations meant to destabilize the government of Pakistan, America’s only military ally in the region.
If US contractors are working inside Pakistan, under cover of the CIA but actually serving the intelligence services of India or Israel, primary enemies of Pakistan, but also countries who are doing nothing to aid the US in Afghanistan, this would represent a serious threat to US security.
It has been reported that US personnel have been arrested carrying explosives and weapons near Pakistani nuclear facilities. Are they working for Israel or are they working for Iran? How would we know?

WHAT DRUGS?

Is there a danger in having unsupervised privateer mercenary operators working in the midst of the world’s largest narcotics production area? What if such a company also owned private airlines that can fly from country to country without any supervision by customs or drug enforcement organizations?
With the press filled with reports of organized crime activities tied to mercenary contractors working for the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, reports of murder, drug running, money laundering and arms smuggling, is there some possibility that tying groups involved in these acts to CIA intelligence gathering capabilities a poor strategy for success?
Why are the papers filled with accusations of every imaginable crime from mowing down civilians with automatic weapons to blowing up mosques and yet no mention of the remote possibility of participation in the regions $50 billion plus per year drug industry?
In fact, is participation in drug production, smuggling and related money laundering the only real secret we seem to be keeping?

THE BUSINESS OF FAILURE

America mourns 7 dead citizens, victims of an attack, maybe terrorism, maybe “business,” now uncertain as to who were loyal Americans and who were private contractors working for the highest bidder. CIA secrecy keeps us from knowing our heroic dead. Criminal absurdity keeps us from knowing the truth.
Decades ago, the CIA got involved with the Mafia in an attempt to assassinate Fidel Castro, someone who has outlived everyone sent to kill him.
We are told that we never hear of the successes, only the failures. However, the failures are of such a devastating and catastrophic nature, the communist takeover of Cuba, the fall of Iran and the Iran/Contra scandal, the Chile coup, bungled buddies: Noriega and bin Laden, the Russian coup against Gorbachev, Vietnam, 9/11, the Ames spy case, the Iraq War, Afghanistan and so many others, that the “secret successes” are unlikely to measure up.
What could possibly be done to take a failed organization and make it worse? We only need to sit and watch, you can be assured that everything possible, humanly and otherwise, will be done as it always has.
Is it possible that decades of claimed incompetence and bungling is simply a cover for serving masters other than the United States of America? Can 70 years of consorting with dictators, swindlers, gangsters, war criminals, drug lords and politicians have blurred the CIA’s vision?