AI
US: Pakistan: the Ambivalent Ally Makes Good?
“…disgruntled former ISI chief Hamid Gul revealed that the FBI has 16 offices throughout Pakistan. As a result, claimed one newspaper, ‘the US will increase its interference in the northern areas of Pakistan, which will lead to (the) complete slavery of the region.’ More recently, Gul told CNN in September that the [Afghan] bombing campaign was ‘a total failure in strategy’:
The U.S. intrusion culminating in slavery of the region lends credence to the complaint of tribal leader Haji Muhammad Omar.
In addition to the 16 FBI offices in order to better increase influence hundreds of U.S. troops are secretly engaged in operations against tribesmen.
Tribal leader Haji Muhammad Omar has blamed that hundreds of US troops were engage in operation against tribesmen under the guess of operation against Al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects.
#msg-3728161
In the U.S. strategy for the invasion of Iran, Pakistan would be the base for mounting massive air reconnaissance and surveillance of Iran. Apparently one of the reasons for the military quest for the ‘high value target’ in Pakistan is the occupation of Pakistan, the country rather than the ‘terrorist’ being the real ‘high value target’. An occupied Pakistan would be used as a base from which to attack Iran.
#msg-3483139
-Am
US: Pakistan: the Ambivalent Ally Makes Good?
Posted on Friday, August 06 @ 20:50:00 EDT by CDeliso
Calling Pakistan the “ground zero of terrorism,” the Times of India (admittedly, there’s a partisan interest here) today reports:
“…Pakistan is coming sharply into Washington’s crosshairs with the United States finally focusing on a country widely seen as the ground zero of terrorism.
Authorities in Britain and the United States have made a flurry of arrests over the last 48 hours of suspected al-Qaeda elements, all of whose trail leads back to Pakistan.”
Of course, as for the ones caught in Pakistan, letting them be questioned by other governments is for now strictly prohibited.
However, connections are emerging between separate investigations (notably in Britain and Pakistan) that have involved data-sharing and led to security victories, recent reports claim.
The Pakistan-terrorism connection has never been a secret, of course, but for various reasons the US has put on the kid gloves with its indispensable South Asian ally.
And throughout, the US has handled this vital relationship incorrectly, both in terms of continuing to endanger popular support for Musharraf and in making a major strategic blunder, with the Bush Administration’s sledgehammer approach. As we relayed almost a year ago,
“…disgruntled former ISI chief Hamid Gul revealed that the FBI has 16 offices throughout Pakistan. As a result, claimed one newspaper, ‘the US will increase its interference in the northern areas of Pakistan, which will lead to (the) complete slavery of the region.’ More recently, Gul told CNN in September that the [Afghan] bombing campaign was ‘a total failure in strategy’:
‘…they (Americans) should have asked Pakistan to continue our contacts with the Taliban…we would have found OBL (Osama bin Laden). But now it is very difficult. It is like searching for a needle in a haystack.’”
Gul thereafter turned to Pakistani nuclear mastermind A.Q. Khan to plot the future of Pakistan. In March, I reported on Sy Hersh’s controversial ‘The Deal’:
“…he claims that the following went down: Washington told Musharraf it would look the other way while he pardoned the world’s single biggest nuclear deviant, in exchange for allowing US troops to enter Pakistani territory in their election-year quest for bin Laden.”
Now, in denying that any terrorist training camps might exist on Pakistani soil, US State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher says that not only has Pakistan taken steps to “Eradicate” Taliban strongholds, but in a revealing slip-up adds:
“…there's no question that Pakistan has changed its policy and is determined to root out the elements of training or support or any other sort of safe haven that terrorists might be getting in Pakistan.”
When did Pakistan ever have a policy of support for terrorism, according to the US? Considering that Pakistan’s allegiance in the war on terror has been universally praised by the Bush Administration since 2001, this statement seems like a slip-up somewhat more meaningful than the president’s promise to “harm” American citizens. But could Boucher have been echoing Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, when last October the latter qualified this praise by stating, “…I do not think that affection for working with us extends up and down the rank-and file of the Pakistani security community.”
However, it would seem more meaningful of an admission than simply blaming the Pakistani grunts. It’s a real, if inadvertent revelation that points to an ambivalent relationship devoid of trust at the higher levels. And, while it’s nice of Mr. Boucher to put some historical perspective on this, it may be premature of him – or just wishful thinking – to assume that the “policy” has changed.
Indeed, referring to the dramatic capture of Tanzanian al Qaeda mastermind Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, the Economist noted, “…it will take more than this spectacular coup for Pakistan to shake off al-Qaeda's tentacles.” The magazine ponders whether pro-American politicians (in addition to Musharraf) are being targeted:
“…on July 30th, Shaukat Aziz, the finance minister nominated to be the next prime minister, narrowly escaped an assassination attempt while electioneering in the north. Nine people, including his driver and a guard, died in the blast. Mr Aziz is a former Citibank official with close connections to senior American finance and administration officials.”
This is made worse by the possibility that an election-hungry Bush Administration may upset the carefully-maintained balancing act that passes for a diplomatic relationship with Pakistan:
“…official sources say that with the presidential campaign moving into high gear in America, the Bush administration has begun to lean on the Pakistani government to capture top al-Qaeda men.”
http://www.balkanalysis.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=393
“…disgruntled former ISI chief Hamid Gul revealed that the FBI has 16 offices throughout Pakistan. As a result, claimed one newspaper, ‘the US will increase its interference in the northern areas of Pakistan, which will lead to (the) complete slavery of the region.’ More recently, Gul told CNN in September that the [Afghan] bombing campaign was ‘a total failure in strategy’:
The U.S. intrusion culminating in slavery of the region lends credence to the complaint of tribal leader Haji Muhammad Omar.
In addition to the 16 FBI offices in order to better increase influence hundreds of U.S. troops are secretly engaged in operations against tribesmen.
Tribal leader Haji Muhammad Omar has blamed that hundreds of US troops were engage in operation against tribesmen under the guess of operation against Al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects.
#msg-3728161
In the U.S. strategy for the invasion of Iran, Pakistan would be the base for mounting massive air reconnaissance and surveillance of Iran. Apparently one of the reasons for the military quest for the ‘high value target’ in Pakistan is the occupation of Pakistan, the country rather than the ‘terrorist’ being the real ‘high value target’. An occupied Pakistan would be used as a base from which to attack Iran.
#msg-3483139
-Am
US: Pakistan: the Ambivalent Ally Makes Good?
Posted on Friday, August 06 @ 20:50:00 EDT by CDeliso
Calling Pakistan the “ground zero of terrorism,” the Times of India (admittedly, there’s a partisan interest here) today reports:
“…Pakistan is coming sharply into Washington’s crosshairs with the United States finally focusing on a country widely seen as the ground zero of terrorism.
Authorities in Britain and the United States have made a flurry of arrests over the last 48 hours of suspected al-Qaeda elements, all of whose trail leads back to Pakistan.”
Of course, as for the ones caught in Pakistan, letting them be questioned by other governments is for now strictly prohibited.
However, connections are emerging between separate investigations (notably in Britain and Pakistan) that have involved data-sharing and led to security victories, recent reports claim.
The Pakistan-terrorism connection has never been a secret, of course, but for various reasons the US has put on the kid gloves with its indispensable South Asian ally.
And throughout, the US has handled this vital relationship incorrectly, both in terms of continuing to endanger popular support for Musharraf and in making a major strategic blunder, with the Bush Administration’s sledgehammer approach. As we relayed almost a year ago,
“…disgruntled former ISI chief Hamid Gul revealed that the FBI has 16 offices throughout Pakistan. As a result, claimed one newspaper, ‘the US will increase its interference in the northern areas of Pakistan, which will lead to (the) complete slavery of the region.’ More recently, Gul told CNN in September that the [Afghan] bombing campaign was ‘a total failure in strategy’:
‘…they (Americans) should have asked Pakistan to continue our contacts with the Taliban…we would have found OBL (Osama bin Laden). But now it is very difficult. It is like searching for a needle in a haystack.’”
Gul thereafter turned to Pakistani nuclear mastermind A.Q. Khan to plot the future of Pakistan. In March, I reported on Sy Hersh’s controversial ‘The Deal’:
“…he claims that the following went down: Washington told Musharraf it would look the other way while he pardoned the world’s single biggest nuclear deviant, in exchange for allowing US troops to enter Pakistani territory in their election-year quest for bin Laden.”
Now, in denying that any terrorist training camps might exist on Pakistani soil, US State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher says that not only has Pakistan taken steps to “Eradicate” Taliban strongholds, but in a revealing slip-up adds:
“…there's no question that Pakistan has changed its policy and is determined to root out the elements of training or support or any other sort of safe haven that terrorists might be getting in Pakistan.”
When did Pakistan ever have a policy of support for terrorism, according to the US? Considering that Pakistan’s allegiance in the war on terror has been universally praised by the Bush Administration since 2001, this statement seems like a slip-up somewhat more meaningful than the president’s promise to “harm” American citizens. But could Boucher have been echoing Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, when last October the latter qualified this praise by stating, “…I do not think that affection for working with us extends up and down the rank-and file of the Pakistani security community.”
However, it would seem more meaningful of an admission than simply blaming the Pakistani grunts. It’s a real, if inadvertent revelation that points to an ambivalent relationship devoid of trust at the higher levels. And, while it’s nice of Mr. Boucher to put some historical perspective on this, it may be premature of him – or just wishful thinking – to assume that the “policy” has changed.
Indeed, referring to the dramatic capture of Tanzanian al Qaeda mastermind Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, the Economist noted, “…it will take more than this spectacular coup for Pakistan to shake off al-Qaeda's tentacles.” The magazine ponders whether pro-American politicians (in addition to Musharraf) are being targeted:
“…on July 30th, Shaukat Aziz, the finance minister nominated to be the next prime minister, narrowly escaped an assassination attempt while electioneering in the north. Nine people, including his driver and a guard, died in the blast. Mr Aziz is a former Citibank official with close connections to senior American finance and administration officials.”
This is made worse by the possibility that an election-hungry Bush Administration may upset the carefully-maintained balancing act that passes for a diplomatic relationship with Pakistan:
“…official sources say that with the presidential campaign moving into high gear in America, the Bush administration has begun to lean on the Pakistani government to capture top al-Qaeda men.”
http://www.balkanalysis.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=393
Discover What Traders Are Watching
Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.
