WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is considering widening missile strikes on al-Qaida and the Taliban inside Pakistan and is planning to bolster the training of Pakistan's forces in a key border battleground where militants fuel the escalating Afghan insurgency, according to U.S. officials.
The officials said the stepped-up moves against the militant networks could extend the air strikes further south, beyond the current target areas in Waziristan and into the western province of Baluchistan. U.S. special operations forces are also developing plans to expand their training of Pakistan's paramilitary Frontier Corps into that province.
President Barack Obama cited the war against al-Qaida as his main goal in a major address this week on his Afghan strategy but divulged no new details about how the U.S. would carry it out.
Nonetheless, there have been growing discussions in recent weeks about the need to expand the use of airborne missile-equipped drones into other volatile regions of Pakistan, broadening a covert CIA operation that has fueled anti-American sentiment in that country.
Rep. Adam Smith, chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on terrorism, acknowledged that there have been "discussions, in Congress and a lot of different places, to expand the area" where the drone attacks are being conducted.
"We have limited operations now, and there are threats from other places in the region," Smith said.
He would not provide details, but a U.S. government official said Friday that discussions are under way to expand those attacks into Baluchistan. That official and others spoke on condition of anonymity because the drone program is classified, and decisions on the training program are not yet final.
The CIA had already accelerated the pace of its drone attacks in Pakistan's federally administered tribal areas this year, but U.S. officials are also concerned about Baluchistan because of its central role in stoking the Afghan insurgency.
Since Jan. 28, 2008, there have been 67 suspected U.S. missile strikes into Pakistan, killing 721 people, 556 of whom intelligence officials believe were militants, according to Pakistani intelligence officials and witnesses interviewed by The Associated Press after each strike.
Officials believe that much of the direction, funding and weapons fueling the Taliban in Afghanistan comes from its fugitive leader, Mullah Omar, who is thought to be based close to the city of Quetta in Baluchistan province. More militants and resources come from a separate network commanded by Siraj Haqqani in the Waziristan tribal areas.
U.S. officials now estimate that there are about 500 al-Qaida members in Pakistan and Afghanistan, often moving back and forth across the border. And they say there are roughly 50,000 Taliban insurgents, dispersed among the Afghan and Pakistani tribes.
The Pentagon's plans to widen training for Pakistani government forces include the possible creation of a second training center in the rugged border region. That would add to an outpost already operating in the North West Frontier Province, according to a senior defense official.
There are 80 to 100 U.S. special operations forces and support staff now in Pakistan, including roughly 35 trainers. Officials are not sure whether additional trainers will be needed for the expanded effort.
According to the defense official, U.S. special operations forces have so far trained about 1,000 members of the Frontier Corps. U.S. funding for the additional training is already in place, but details are still being worked out with Pakistan, the official said.
Earlier this year, U.S. officials said their goal was to train more than 9,000 members of Pakistan's paramilitary Frontier Corps, and to slash the four-year training time by as much as half.
Training the paramilitary troops – budgeted at about $200 million in this fiscal year – is included in the administration's five-year, $3.5 billion funding package for military aid to Pakistan.
The U.S. sees the Frontier Corps as a critical ally in rooting out al-Qaida's hidden sanctuaries. The paramilitary corps members, said the senior defense official, have access to hard-to-reach border regions where the Pakistani Army has little presence.
"Giving extremists breathing room in Pakistan led to the resurgence of the Taliban and more coordinated, sophisticated attacks in Afghanistan," Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Congress this week.
Over the past year, U.S. leaders have pushed Islamabad to beef up its operations against militants on the border. But those efforts have been hindered by the strained relationship between Washington and Islamabad.
The loudest complaint from Pakistani leaders has been that the U.S. has been a fickle ally.
"It is important for the Pakistani government and its military leaders to know that we have a commitment to the region," said Smith, D-Wash. "Right now our relationship with the Pakistani population is not good. They don't like us. They don't trust us, and they have a hard time believing us ... I think the president is going is going to work very, very hard to build a relationship that is much more mutual."
Showing posts with label pakistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pakistan. Show all posts
Obama Got Afghanistan/Pakistan Right
Labels:
afghanistan,
pakistan
0
comments
For those of us who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was extremely important that the new president get the situation in Afghanistan right. Not just for America's security, but for those troops still in Afghanistan, and those heading to Afghanistan to put their lives on the line in the war. With today's announcement, President Obama has shown that he "gets it." That's why we at VoteVets.org are supporting the plan with a petition, which you can sign on to, right here.
There's a lot to like about the plan. But, there are three key things I'm particularly focused on, that represent a stark departure from the previous administration. They show that this president not only has reasonable goals in the region, but a good idea of what it will take to get there.
Point One: The Military Can't Do It All
The president recognizes that the war against terrorists requires much more than just throwing troops at the problem. That alone will go a long way towards setting policies that make America safer, and taking the burden off our military.
The president said today, "To advance security, opportunity, and justice - not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces - we need agricultural specialists and educators; engineers and lawyers.... These investments relieve the burden on our troops. They contribute directly to security. They make the American people safer. And they save us an enormous amount of money in the long run - because it is far cheaper to train a policeman to secure their village or to help a farmer seed a crop, than it is to send our troops to fight tour after tour of duty with no transition to Afghan responsibility."
This is key, and something that was lacking in the region for a long time. Those hardline radicals who want to take control thrive on poverty and misery of the people. The single best thing we can do to ensure that the Afghan people aren't so destitute and broken that they're tempted to join these radicals, is to send civilian training and humanitarian aid.
Point Two: Though it's the "War in Afghanistan," we need to treat it like a region
That the president made a point of including Pakistan in this strategy, offering greater aid to them if the Pakistani government makes more of an effort to work and coordinate with us, is as smart as it is practical.
Everyone - myself included - has not helped when we bind the efforts in the region under the name "The War in Afghanistan." This is a regional problem, that requires a regional solution.
President Obama understands to get the support of the Pakistani people, which will make it easier to get the help we need from the Pakistani government, it takes carrots. And his plan focuses squarely on that. His support for legislation sponsored by Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar that authorizes $1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years, along with another bill that creates opportunity zones in the border region will go a long way towards getting the cooperation we need to really focus in on al Qaeda, and close in on them from the Pakistani and Afghan sides of the border region.
Point Three: There is a tighter focus, open to reaching out to some of the enemy
Maybe most importantly, this president has given up the pipe dream of setting up a European-style democracy in Afghanistan, and instead has refocused our goals on a more urgent mission - protecting America and the world from terrorism.
We've finally left fantasy-land, where America can simply go somewhere, topple a government, and western-style democracies will pop up and thrive. Afghanistan is a very different beast. And, while the president committed to helping build out infrastructure for the Afghan people, and improve the lives of the Pakistani people, he's not letting dreams of a grand new western democracy get in the way of more practical and tighter goals - namely, fighting al Qaeda and taking the region away as a home base for the terror network, forever.
To do so, the president recognized something that I wrote about last week - there are elements throughout the region that are fighting us now, but could become our partners. This might have been the most striking parts of the President's speech:
I couldn't have put it better myself.
Now, will everything go exactly according to plan? Of course not. Nor is this going to be quick. But with the points above, and the rest that the President laid out, those of us who served finally have confidence that this President gets it, and will keep us on the right course - the reasonable and practical course. That's something we veterans have been waiting for.
Crossposted at VetVoice.com
There's a lot to like about the plan. But, there are three key things I'm particularly focused on, that represent a stark departure from the previous administration. They show that this president not only has reasonable goals in the region, but a good idea of what it will take to get there.
Point One: The Military Can't Do It All
The president recognizes that the war against terrorists requires much more than just throwing troops at the problem. That alone will go a long way towards setting policies that make America safer, and taking the burden off our military.
The president said today, "To advance security, opportunity, and justice - not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces - we need agricultural specialists and educators; engineers and lawyers.... These investments relieve the burden on our troops. They contribute directly to security. They make the American people safer. And they save us an enormous amount of money in the long run - because it is far cheaper to train a policeman to secure their village or to help a farmer seed a crop, than it is to send our troops to fight tour after tour of duty with no transition to Afghan responsibility."
This is key, and something that was lacking in the region for a long time. Those hardline radicals who want to take control thrive on poverty and misery of the people. The single best thing we can do to ensure that the Afghan people aren't so destitute and broken that they're tempted to join these radicals, is to send civilian training and humanitarian aid.
Point Two: Though it's the "War in Afghanistan," we need to treat it like a region
That the president made a point of including Pakistan in this strategy, offering greater aid to them if the Pakistani government makes more of an effort to work and coordinate with us, is as smart as it is practical.
Everyone - myself included - has not helped when we bind the efforts in the region under the name "The War in Afghanistan." This is a regional problem, that requires a regional solution.
President Obama understands to get the support of the Pakistani people, which will make it easier to get the help we need from the Pakistani government, it takes carrots. And his plan focuses squarely on that. His support for legislation sponsored by Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar that authorizes $1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years, along with another bill that creates opportunity zones in the border region will go a long way towards getting the cooperation we need to really focus in on al Qaeda, and close in on them from the Pakistani and Afghan sides of the border region.
Point Three: There is a tighter focus, open to reaching out to some of the enemy
Maybe most importantly, this president has given up the pipe dream of setting up a European-style democracy in Afghanistan, and instead has refocused our goals on a more urgent mission - protecting America and the world from terrorism.
We've finally left fantasy-land, where America can simply go somewhere, topple a government, and western-style democracies will pop up and thrive. Afghanistan is a very different beast. And, while the president committed to helping build out infrastructure for the Afghan people, and improve the lives of the Pakistani people, he's not letting dreams of a grand new western democracy get in the way of more practical and tighter goals - namely, fighting al Qaeda and taking the region away as a home base for the terror network, forever.
To do so, the president recognized something that I wrote about last week - there are elements throughout the region that are fighting us now, but could become our partners. This might have been the most striking parts of the President's speech:
"There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated. But there are also those who have taken up arms because of coercion, or simply for a price. These Afghans must have the option to choose a different course. That is why we will work with local leaders, the Afghan government, and international partners to have a reconciliation process in every province. As their ranks dwindle, an enemy that has nothing to offer the Afghan people but terror and repression must be further isolated. And we will continue to support the basic human rights of all Afghans - including women and girls."
I couldn't have put it better myself.
Now, will everything go exactly according to plan? Of course not. Nor is this going to be quick. But with the points above, and the rest that the President laid out, those of us who served finally have confidence that this President gets it, and will keep us on the right course - the reasonable and practical course. That's something we veterans have been waiting for.
Crossposted at VetVoice.com
Gilani’s foreign trips cost Pak exchequer a whopping 139.06 million rupees
Labels:
pakistan
0
comments
Islamabad, Mar 7 : The Pakistan Government has spent a whopping 139.06 million rupees on Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s foreign visits.
According to a report tabled in the National Assembly, Gilani’s foreign tours to10 countries from May 2008 to January 2009 has made Pakistan Government’s wallet lighter by 139.06 million rupees.
Gilani’s trip to the United States, Britain and Sri Lanka from July 26 to August 3 last year itself cost a staggering 43.55 million rupees.
Similarly, his visit to Cairo from May 17 to 22 last year cost 29.56 million rupees , Saudi Arabia from June 6 to 8, 11.88 million rupees, Malaysia and Dubai from July 7 to 9, 9.26 million rupees and two visits to China from August 7 to 9 and October 23 to 26 , 37.85 million rupees.
Gilani’s tour to Turkey in January this year was billed at 6.95 million rupees.
According to The Daily Times, the National Assembly was also informed that 366.77 million dollars were provided by the United States to Pakistan for educational reforms during the last five years.
According to a report tabled in the National Assembly, Gilani’s foreign tours to10 countries from May 2008 to January 2009 has made Pakistan Government’s wallet lighter by 139.06 million rupees.
Gilani’s trip to the United States, Britain and Sri Lanka from July 26 to August 3 last year itself cost a staggering 43.55 million rupees.
Similarly, his visit to Cairo from May 17 to 22 last year cost 29.56 million rupees , Saudi Arabia from June 6 to 8, 11.88 million rupees, Malaysia and Dubai from July 7 to 9, 9.26 million rupees and two visits to China from August 7 to 9 and October 23 to 26 , 37.85 million rupees.
Gilani’s tour to Turkey in January this year was billed at 6.95 million rupees.
According to The Daily Times, the National Assembly was also informed that 366.77 million dollars were provided by the United States to Pakistan for educational reforms during the last five years.
Obama & Pakistan: Reluctance To Call A Spade A Spade
Labels:
Barack Obama,
pakistan
0
comments
By B.Raman
A book titled "The Inheritance" written by David Sanger, a correspondent of the "New York Times, and published recently has received much attention because of its disclosures about how the previous administration of George Bush realised that Gen. (now retired) Pervez Musharraf was playing a double game with the US---- pretending to act against the Taliban and covertly using it as strategic asset. It also refers to a reported intercept of a telephone conversation of Gen.Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, the present chief of the Army Staff, in which he referred to jJallaluddin Haqqani, a Taliban commander, as a strategic asset.
2. Commenting on the book, the "Times" of London wrote as follows on February 17,2009: " Washington sent Special Forces into Pakistan last summer after intercepting a call by the Pakistani army chief referring to a notorious Taleban leader as a “strategic asset,” a new book has claimed.The intercept was ordered to confirm suspicions that the Pakistani military were still actively supporting the Taleban whilst taking millions of dollars in US military aid to fight them, according to the “The Inheritance,” by the New York Times correspondent David Sanger. In a transcript passed to Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence in May 2008, General Ashfaq Kayani, the military chief who replaced Pervez Musharraf, was overheard referring to Maulavi Jalaluddin Haqqani as “a strategic asset”. The remark was the first real evidence of the double game that Washington had long suspected President Musharraf was playing as he continued receiving US military aid while aiding the Taleban. Mr Haqqani, a veteran of the anti-Soviet mujahidin wars of the nineties, commands a hardline Taleban group based in Waziristan and is credited with introducing suicide bombing into the militants' arsenal. Washington later intercepted calls from Pakistani military units to Mr Haqqani, warning him of an impending military operation designed to prove to the US that Islamabad was tackling the militant threat."
3.Evidence of the links of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) with Al Qaeda and the Taliban and of the double game being played by Musharraf, the Pakistan Army and the ISI was available with the US intelligence since 2001, if not earlier. There were references to it in some documents of the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), which were declassified by the US Administration in September,2003. In an article of September 17,2003, titled " ISI-BIN LADEN LINKS: As Seen by the DIA ", I had analysed these documents. The text of my analysis is annexed below.
4. The US agencies were aware of Musharraf's double-dealing right from the beginning, but the US policy-makers prefered to close their eyes to it. It is this US policy of closing its eyes to negative evidence against Pakistan, which is responsible for the continuing activities of Al Qaeda and the Taliban from Pakistani territory.
5. I wrote in my analysis of September 17,2003: " From these documents, it is clear that the DIA knew of the role of the ISI in the sponsorship of not only the Taliban, but also Al Qaeda. And yet, the Bush administration has for over two years chosen to close its eyes to the complicity of Pakistan and to project Musharraf to its own public opinion as well as to the international community as a frontline ally in the war against terrorism. Why? A question to which there has been no convincing answer. "
6. Why the US is not prepared to fully open its eyes even today after President Barack Obama assumed office? President Obama's formulations regarding the sanctuaries of Al Qaeda in Pakistani territory are becoming more and more guarded and less and less categorical. During the Presidential campaign, he categorically spoke of the sanctuaries being located in Pakistani territory. In a TV interview after taking over, he gave the impression as if the sanctuaries could be in Afghan territory. In his latest statement authorising the induction of 17,000 more US troops into Afghanistan coming spring and summer, he has been quoted by news agencies as saying : "The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe-haven along the Pakistani border." Along the border means what? In Pakistani or Afghan territory. The reluctance to call a spade a spade with reference to Pakistan's complicity with Al Qaeda and the Taliban continues even under Obama. This is going to further harm the US campaign against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.(18-2-09)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
ANNEXURE
ISI-BIN LADEN LINKS: As Seen by the DIA ( southasiaanalysis )
by B.Raman
On the eve of the second anniversary of Al Qaeda's terrorist strikes in the USA on September 11, 2001, the US Government has declassified 32 documents relating to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Twenty-six of these documents are of the US State Department and the remaining are of the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) of the Pentagon. This article analyses the contents of three DIA documents only.
2.The first document (15 pages), prepared in September,1999, is based on an analysis of all information received by the DIA till July 1,1999. It is titled "Defence Intelligence Assessment". The subject of the assessment is "Osama bin Laden/Al Qaeda Information Operations". Nearly 90 per cent of the document has been excised before its declassification. Hence, it does not contain anything of value. From a perusal of the unexcised portions, one could guess that the assessment must have been about Al Qaeda's information assets such as its modern communications capability, its use of the internet,. its capability for attacking the information networks of others etc and the defensive and offensive options available to the US. The defensive aspect relates to protecting the networks of the USA against Al Qaeda attacks and the offensive to neutralising or penetrating Al Qaeda's assets.
3. The second document, dated September 24, 2001, is titled "Veteran Afghan Traveller's Analysis of Al Qaeda and Taliban's Exploitable Weaknesses" and carries the following caution: "This is an information report. Not finally evaluated intelligence."
4. It would appear that this document is not the traveller's report, but an analysis prepared by an official of the DIA, either in the US Embassy in Islamabad or in the DIA headquarters in Washington DC, on the basis of the traveller's report. The language used in the portion declassified and released is that of a professional intelligence analyst and not that of an Afghan traveller.
5. The analysis carries the following summary: "Eventually, the Taliban and Al Qaeda will war with each other. The weakness of both is in the minds of the individuals that belong to the groups and in the power that is given to them by their names. Al Qaeda have not integrated with Afghans or the Taliban, leaving them susceptible to exploitation." By this, the analyst means exploitation by the US to play the Taliban/Afghans and Al Qaeda against each other. What wishful-thinking this has proved to be in retrospect!
6.The analysis carries the most damning account of Pakistan's role as the real host of bin Laden and his Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. It says: "Bin Laden's Al Qaeda network was able to expand under the safe santuary extended by Taliban following Pakistan directives. If there is any doubt on that issue, consider the location of bin Laden's camp targeted by US Cruise missiles, Zahawa. Positioned on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, it was built by Pakistani contractors, funded by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate and protected under the patronage of a local and influential Jadran tribal leader, Jalaluddin Haqqani. However, the real host in that facility was the Pakistani ISI. If this was later to become bin Laden's base, then serious questions are raised by the early relationship between bin Laden and Pakistan's ISI."
7. It describes Jalaluddin Haqqani as "the Jadran tribal leader most exploited by ISI during the Soviet-Afghan war to facilitate the introduction of Arab mercenaries " and the Taliban as "the handy cloak woven by Pakistan to shroud their progress?" Whose progress---Al Qaeda's or Pakistan's? Most probably, Pakistan's, but this is not clear.
8. The analysis describes the US objective as "the establishment of a more stable coalition Afghan Government free of the Taliban and Pakistani interference" and advocates a cost effective military engagement, with appropriate air support, than the mass deployment of ground forces. It says: "The enemy does not have mass, which makes them harder to engage."
9. The analysis' predictions of differences one day emerging between the Afghans and the Taliban on the one side and Al Qaeda on the other because of Al Qaeda's superiority complex and its perception of itself as an elite force destined to command have not proved correct so far.
10. The analysis projects the then coming war against terrorism in Afghanistan as likely to be fought on two fronts--- a war to destroy the material strength of Al Qaeda---its cadres, training camps, infrastructure etc--- and another for the minds of the people. In the context of the war for the minds of the people, it underlines the importance of right names and right images to influence the minds of the targeted people.
11. It points out the impact on the minds of the Muslims made by the characterisation of the US as "the Great Satan". The constant reference to the US as the "Great Satan" and not as the US serves the double purpose of highlighting the immense power of the US which could be countered only with determination and projecting that power in negative colours to create an aversion for that power. It stresses the importance of a similar characterisation of Al Qaeda by an appropriate name and not by its real name of Al Qaeda. Apparently, US policy-makers and psy-warriors have not been able to determine what that characterisation could be.
12. The third document, also dated September 24,2001, is titled: "Veteran Afghanistan traveller's analysis of Al Qaeda and Taliban, military, political and cultural landscape and its weaknesses. " It also carries the same caution as the second. It goes into great detail regarding the Pakistani game in Afghanistan in the following words:
13. "During the Soviet-Afghan war, the West preferred to maintain a policy of deniability and allowed Pakistan to handle the daily administration of the war, cash and arms distribution. It was a task Pakistan carried out with great enthusiasm and they helped themselves to generous portion of cash and arms. The Pakistan Government also had a hidden agenda.
14. "Unlike the West, they (Pakistan) were concerned with what would happen after the war to ensure influence over any Government that came to power in Afghanistan after a Soviet withdrawal. Pakistan decided to directly influence the outcome. Rather than allow the most gifted Afghan commanders and parties to flourish, who would be difficult to control later, Pakistan preferred to groom the incompetent ones for the role of future leaders of Afghanistan. Being incompetent, they would be wholly reliant on Pakistan for support. The principal beneficiary of this policy was Gulbuddin Heckmatyar. His credentials were that of an anti-Western Islamic fundamentalist.
15." In tandem with favouring the incompetent Heckmatyar over more enterprising and gifted commanders such as Ahmed Shah Massoud, the Tadjik commander from Northern Afghanistan, Pakistan also encouraged, facilitated and often escorted Arabs from the Middle East into Afghanistan...... Visitors from the Middle East had been in evidence since the very early part of the Soviet-Afghan war. However, they lacked numbers, confidence, experience or bonding ties sufficient to give them a separate identity from their hosts.
16." This was allowed to evolve over a period of time, which was effectively the incubation of Al Qaeda. For the first time, large numbers of Arabs were observed in Afghanistan during the Soviet withdrawal. One of the key features of the Paktia border province, in which they were first established, was that it had no Russians.....At that point, the Arab visitors were largely linked and reliant on Haqqani's mujahideen in Paktia.
17. "When Kabul finally fell, it was Ahmed Shah Massoud who captured it, not Heckmatyar. Pakistan could not accept this result and the fragile Afghan coalition Government began another civil war, with the Pakistani stooge Heckmatyar being backed to seize total power. He was never able to wrest Kabul from Massoud, despite massive logistical and material ( including manpower) support from Pakistan. Against this failure, it should be noted that Pakistan has lost every war it has ever fought.
18. "After years of futile effort, which effectively saw the Lebanonisation of Afghanistan, Pakistan finally abandoned Heckmatyar. However, not in favour of a more rational policy. Instead, they set about doing the same thing all over again. They created another force they hoped to have better control over than Heckmatyar's rabble. It was called Taliban,the Arabic name "Talib" being literally translated as "Asker" or "Seeker".
19." Taliban means "the Seekers", signifying a student of divinity. This inspired title helped cloak Pakistan's hidden agenda in a new Islamic coat. To lead the Taliban Pakistan chose Mullah Mohammad Omar, who was willing to do as he was told. According to Taliban propaganda, the Mullah was divinely inspired to rid Afghanistan of the troublesome war and warlords. Afghanistan was blighted with both, largely due to years of civil war sponsored by Pakistan and reliant on the stockpile of arms plundered from a covert Western arms pipeline. From the old Soviet-Afghan war days, the Mullah emerged with a fully functioning, fully-armed, conventionally-equipped, fully-trained military force prone to large-scale conventional actions. Omar's emergence is credited to Pakistan ISI's actions.
20."The repeated, pronounced pattern under ISI direction has been to ignore the poorly-trained guerilla nature of the Afghan Mujahideen and press them to conduct conventional-style engagement, the same style Taliban are credited with learning from the Koran. As a result of these actions, the fully-supported by Pakistan Taliban prevailed over the unsupported legitimate government of Afghanistan.
21." The Taliban is not synonymous with Afghanistan. It was created, imposed and recognised by Pakistan in pursuit of its own interests. Playing the Islamic fundamentalist card as a means of securing control over a compliant proxy regime in neighbouring Afghanistan has seriously backfired. Pakistan has also lost control of the Taliban, who are proving to be both unpredictable and ungrateful. Under the shade of the Taliban umbrella, the bin Laden brand of extremism has been able to grow unmolested inside Afghanistan.
22." The Al Qaeda agenda in Afghanistan differs significantly from that of the Taliban. They are not about creating an independent Islamic State. Long term, there can be no room for Taliban in their ambitions. Having been artificially introduced to the region and encouraged in their ambitions so far, they have grown in confidence and stature. Taliban acceptance and approval of fundamentalist non-Afghans as part of their fighting force were merely an extension of the Pakistani policy during the Soviet-Afghan war. It is very important to realise that members of 055 Brigade (Al Qaeda) might serve with Taliban forces, but they are not in any Western sense integrated. They remain rather like an international brigade, different in language, habit and in the interpretation of Islam. Additionally, their vision of the future of Afghanistan differs.
23."Pakistan's goals are simple, the continuance of the policy they have always demonstrated regarding Afghanistan. It is failing with the Taliban and it cannot succeed under any Afghan Giovernment controlled by Al Qaeda. The repercussions from Pakistan's attempt to manipulate the Islamic card are just surfacing.
24." In Islamabad, they have tried to ignore or bury the evidence for some time. It must be a deeply troubling period for General (Musharraf) in Pakistan, who is asked to help hunt down the culprits that he helped to establish and supported. Not to support the US invites trouble and to assist the US to their aims also presents problems to Pakistan. The quandary leaves the Pakistanis confused as to how they might be absolved without permanently shattering their regional aspirations or their Government." (Citation of document ends)
25. The second and third documents are both dated September 24, 2001. The language in the second document is apparently that of a professional intelligence analyst, but the language of the third is not. It appears to be that of a source and not of the DIA. It would seem that the third document is the report of the source and the second is the note of a DIA analyst or analysts who had forwarded it to their superiors giving their assessment and making their recommendations regarding the future course of action.
26. From these documents, it is clear that the DIA knew of the role of the ISI in the sponsorship of not only the Taliban, but also Al Qaeda. And yet, the Bush administration has for over two years chosen to close its eyes to the complicity of Pakistan and to project Musharraf to its own public opinion as well as to the international community as a frontline ally in the war against terrorism. Why? A question to which there has been no convincing answer.
A book titled "The Inheritance" written by David Sanger, a correspondent of the "New York Times, and published recently has received much attention because of its disclosures about how the previous administration of George Bush realised that Gen. (now retired) Pervez Musharraf was playing a double game with the US---- pretending to act against the Taliban and covertly using it as strategic asset. It also refers to a reported intercept of a telephone conversation of Gen.Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, the present chief of the Army Staff, in which he referred to jJallaluddin Haqqani, a Taliban commander, as a strategic asset.
2. Commenting on the book, the "Times" of London wrote as follows on February 17,2009: " Washington sent Special Forces into Pakistan last summer after intercepting a call by the Pakistani army chief referring to a notorious Taleban leader as a “strategic asset,” a new book has claimed.The intercept was ordered to confirm suspicions that the Pakistani military were still actively supporting the Taleban whilst taking millions of dollars in US military aid to fight them, according to the “The Inheritance,” by the New York Times correspondent David Sanger. In a transcript passed to Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence in May 2008, General Ashfaq Kayani, the military chief who replaced Pervez Musharraf, was overheard referring to Maulavi Jalaluddin Haqqani as “a strategic asset”. The remark was the first real evidence of the double game that Washington had long suspected President Musharraf was playing as he continued receiving US military aid while aiding the Taleban. Mr Haqqani, a veteran of the anti-Soviet mujahidin wars of the nineties, commands a hardline Taleban group based in Waziristan and is credited with introducing suicide bombing into the militants' arsenal. Washington later intercepted calls from Pakistani military units to Mr Haqqani, warning him of an impending military operation designed to prove to the US that Islamabad was tackling the militant threat."
3.Evidence of the links of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) with Al Qaeda and the Taliban and of the double game being played by Musharraf, the Pakistan Army and the ISI was available with the US intelligence since 2001, if not earlier. There were references to it in some documents of the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), which were declassified by the US Administration in September,2003. In an article of September 17,2003, titled " ISI-BIN LADEN LINKS: As Seen by the DIA ", I had analysed these documents. The text of my analysis is annexed below.
4. The US agencies were aware of Musharraf's double-dealing right from the beginning, but the US policy-makers prefered to close their eyes to it. It is this US policy of closing its eyes to negative evidence against Pakistan, which is responsible for the continuing activities of Al Qaeda and the Taliban from Pakistani territory.
5. I wrote in my analysis of September 17,2003: " From these documents, it is clear that the DIA knew of the role of the ISI in the sponsorship of not only the Taliban, but also Al Qaeda. And yet, the Bush administration has for over two years chosen to close its eyes to the complicity of Pakistan and to project Musharraf to its own public opinion as well as to the international community as a frontline ally in the war against terrorism. Why? A question to which there has been no convincing answer. "
6. Why the US is not prepared to fully open its eyes even today after President Barack Obama assumed office? President Obama's formulations regarding the sanctuaries of Al Qaeda in Pakistani territory are becoming more and more guarded and less and less categorical. During the Presidential campaign, he categorically spoke of the sanctuaries being located in Pakistani territory. In a TV interview after taking over, he gave the impression as if the sanctuaries could be in Afghan territory. In his latest statement authorising the induction of 17,000 more US troops into Afghanistan coming spring and summer, he has been quoted by news agencies as saying : "The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe-haven along the Pakistani border." Along the border means what? In Pakistani or Afghan territory. The reluctance to call a spade a spade with reference to Pakistan's complicity with Al Qaeda and the Taliban continues even under Obama. This is going to further harm the US campaign against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.(18-2-09)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
ANNEXURE
ISI-BIN LADEN LINKS: As Seen by the DIA ( southasiaanalysis )
by B.Raman
On the eve of the second anniversary of Al Qaeda's terrorist strikes in the USA on September 11, 2001, the US Government has declassified 32 documents relating to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Twenty-six of these documents are of the US State Department and the remaining are of the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) of the Pentagon. This article analyses the contents of three DIA documents only.
2.The first document (15 pages), prepared in September,1999, is based on an analysis of all information received by the DIA till July 1,1999. It is titled "Defence Intelligence Assessment". The subject of the assessment is "Osama bin Laden/Al Qaeda Information Operations". Nearly 90 per cent of the document has been excised before its declassification. Hence, it does not contain anything of value. From a perusal of the unexcised portions, one could guess that the assessment must have been about Al Qaeda's information assets such as its modern communications capability, its use of the internet,. its capability for attacking the information networks of others etc and the defensive and offensive options available to the US. The defensive aspect relates to protecting the networks of the USA against Al Qaeda attacks and the offensive to neutralising or penetrating Al Qaeda's assets.
3. The second document, dated September 24, 2001, is titled "Veteran Afghan Traveller's Analysis of Al Qaeda and Taliban's Exploitable Weaknesses" and carries the following caution: "This is an information report. Not finally evaluated intelligence."
4. It would appear that this document is not the traveller's report, but an analysis prepared by an official of the DIA, either in the US Embassy in Islamabad or in the DIA headquarters in Washington DC, on the basis of the traveller's report. The language used in the portion declassified and released is that of a professional intelligence analyst and not that of an Afghan traveller.
5. The analysis carries the following summary: "Eventually, the Taliban and Al Qaeda will war with each other. The weakness of both is in the minds of the individuals that belong to the groups and in the power that is given to them by their names. Al Qaeda have not integrated with Afghans or the Taliban, leaving them susceptible to exploitation." By this, the analyst means exploitation by the US to play the Taliban/Afghans and Al Qaeda against each other. What wishful-thinking this has proved to be in retrospect!
6.The analysis carries the most damning account of Pakistan's role as the real host of bin Laden and his Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. It says: "Bin Laden's Al Qaeda network was able to expand under the safe santuary extended by Taliban following Pakistan directives. If there is any doubt on that issue, consider the location of bin Laden's camp targeted by US Cruise missiles, Zahawa. Positioned on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, it was built by Pakistani contractors, funded by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate and protected under the patronage of a local and influential Jadran tribal leader, Jalaluddin Haqqani. However, the real host in that facility was the Pakistani ISI. If this was later to become bin Laden's base, then serious questions are raised by the early relationship between bin Laden and Pakistan's ISI."
7. It describes Jalaluddin Haqqani as "the Jadran tribal leader most exploited by ISI during the Soviet-Afghan war to facilitate the introduction of Arab mercenaries " and the Taliban as "the handy cloak woven by Pakistan to shroud their progress?" Whose progress---Al Qaeda's or Pakistan's? Most probably, Pakistan's, but this is not clear.
8. The analysis describes the US objective as "the establishment of a more stable coalition Afghan Government free of the Taliban and Pakistani interference" and advocates a cost effective military engagement, with appropriate air support, than the mass deployment of ground forces. It says: "The enemy does not have mass, which makes them harder to engage."
9. The analysis' predictions of differences one day emerging between the Afghans and the Taliban on the one side and Al Qaeda on the other because of Al Qaeda's superiority complex and its perception of itself as an elite force destined to command have not proved correct so far.
10. The analysis projects the then coming war against terrorism in Afghanistan as likely to be fought on two fronts--- a war to destroy the material strength of Al Qaeda---its cadres, training camps, infrastructure etc--- and another for the minds of the people. In the context of the war for the minds of the people, it underlines the importance of right names and right images to influence the minds of the targeted people.
11. It points out the impact on the minds of the Muslims made by the characterisation of the US as "the Great Satan". The constant reference to the US as the "Great Satan" and not as the US serves the double purpose of highlighting the immense power of the US which could be countered only with determination and projecting that power in negative colours to create an aversion for that power. It stresses the importance of a similar characterisation of Al Qaeda by an appropriate name and not by its real name of Al Qaeda. Apparently, US policy-makers and psy-warriors have not been able to determine what that characterisation could be.
12. The third document, also dated September 24,2001, is titled: "Veteran Afghanistan traveller's analysis of Al Qaeda and Taliban, military, political and cultural landscape and its weaknesses. " It also carries the same caution as the second. It goes into great detail regarding the Pakistani game in Afghanistan in the following words:
13. "During the Soviet-Afghan war, the West preferred to maintain a policy of deniability and allowed Pakistan to handle the daily administration of the war, cash and arms distribution. It was a task Pakistan carried out with great enthusiasm and they helped themselves to generous portion of cash and arms. The Pakistan Government also had a hidden agenda.
14. "Unlike the West, they (Pakistan) were concerned with what would happen after the war to ensure influence over any Government that came to power in Afghanistan after a Soviet withdrawal. Pakistan decided to directly influence the outcome. Rather than allow the most gifted Afghan commanders and parties to flourish, who would be difficult to control later, Pakistan preferred to groom the incompetent ones for the role of future leaders of Afghanistan. Being incompetent, they would be wholly reliant on Pakistan for support. The principal beneficiary of this policy was Gulbuddin Heckmatyar. His credentials were that of an anti-Western Islamic fundamentalist.
15." In tandem with favouring the incompetent Heckmatyar over more enterprising and gifted commanders such as Ahmed Shah Massoud, the Tadjik commander from Northern Afghanistan, Pakistan also encouraged, facilitated and often escorted Arabs from the Middle East into Afghanistan...... Visitors from the Middle East had been in evidence since the very early part of the Soviet-Afghan war. However, they lacked numbers, confidence, experience or bonding ties sufficient to give them a separate identity from their hosts.
16." This was allowed to evolve over a period of time, which was effectively the incubation of Al Qaeda. For the first time, large numbers of Arabs were observed in Afghanistan during the Soviet withdrawal. One of the key features of the Paktia border province, in which they were first established, was that it had no Russians.....At that point, the Arab visitors were largely linked and reliant on Haqqani's mujahideen in Paktia.
17. "When Kabul finally fell, it was Ahmed Shah Massoud who captured it, not Heckmatyar. Pakistan could not accept this result and the fragile Afghan coalition Government began another civil war, with the Pakistani stooge Heckmatyar being backed to seize total power. He was never able to wrest Kabul from Massoud, despite massive logistical and material ( including manpower) support from Pakistan. Against this failure, it should be noted that Pakistan has lost every war it has ever fought.
18. "After years of futile effort, which effectively saw the Lebanonisation of Afghanistan, Pakistan finally abandoned Heckmatyar. However, not in favour of a more rational policy. Instead, they set about doing the same thing all over again. They created another force they hoped to have better control over than Heckmatyar's rabble. It was called Taliban,the Arabic name "Talib" being literally translated as "Asker" or "Seeker".
19." Taliban means "the Seekers", signifying a student of divinity. This inspired title helped cloak Pakistan's hidden agenda in a new Islamic coat. To lead the Taliban Pakistan chose Mullah Mohammad Omar, who was willing to do as he was told. According to Taliban propaganda, the Mullah was divinely inspired to rid Afghanistan of the troublesome war and warlords. Afghanistan was blighted with both, largely due to years of civil war sponsored by Pakistan and reliant on the stockpile of arms plundered from a covert Western arms pipeline. From the old Soviet-Afghan war days, the Mullah emerged with a fully functioning, fully-armed, conventionally-equipped, fully-trained military force prone to large-scale conventional actions. Omar's emergence is credited to Pakistan ISI's actions.
20."The repeated, pronounced pattern under ISI direction has been to ignore the poorly-trained guerilla nature of the Afghan Mujahideen and press them to conduct conventional-style engagement, the same style Taliban are credited with learning from the Koran. As a result of these actions, the fully-supported by Pakistan Taliban prevailed over the unsupported legitimate government of Afghanistan.
21." The Taliban is not synonymous with Afghanistan. It was created, imposed and recognised by Pakistan in pursuit of its own interests. Playing the Islamic fundamentalist card as a means of securing control over a compliant proxy regime in neighbouring Afghanistan has seriously backfired. Pakistan has also lost control of the Taliban, who are proving to be both unpredictable and ungrateful. Under the shade of the Taliban umbrella, the bin Laden brand of extremism has been able to grow unmolested inside Afghanistan.
22." The Al Qaeda agenda in Afghanistan differs significantly from that of the Taliban. They are not about creating an independent Islamic State. Long term, there can be no room for Taliban in their ambitions. Having been artificially introduced to the region and encouraged in their ambitions so far, they have grown in confidence and stature. Taliban acceptance and approval of fundamentalist non-Afghans as part of their fighting force were merely an extension of the Pakistani policy during the Soviet-Afghan war. It is very important to realise that members of 055 Brigade (Al Qaeda) might serve with Taliban forces, but they are not in any Western sense integrated. They remain rather like an international brigade, different in language, habit and in the interpretation of Islam. Additionally, their vision of the future of Afghanistan differs.
23."Pakistan's goals are simple, the continuance of the policy they have always demonstrated regarding Afghanistan. It is failing with the Taliban and it cannot succeed under any Afghan Giovernment controlled by Al Qaeda. The repercussions from Pakistan's attempt to manipulate the Islamic card are just surfacing.
24." In Islamabad, they have tried to ignore or bury the evidence for some time. It must be a deeply troubling period for General (Musharraf) in Pakistan, who is asked to help hunt down the culprits that he helped to establish and supported. Not to support the US invites trouble and to assist the US to their aims also presents problems to Pakistan. The quandary leaves the Pakistanis confused as to how they might be absolved without permanently shattering their regional aspirations or their Government." (Citation of document ends)
25. The second and third documents are both dated September 24, 2001. The language in the second document is apparently that of a professional intelligence analyst, but the language of the third is not. It appears to be that of a source and not of the DIA. It would seem that the third document is the report of the source and the second is the note of a DIA analyst or analysts who had forwarded it to their superiors giving their assessment and making their recommendations regarding the future course of action.
26. From these documents, it is clear that the DIA knew of the role of the ISI in the sponsorship of not only the Taliban, but also Al Qaeda. And yet, the Bush administration has for over two years chosen to close its eyes to the complicity of Pakistan and to project Musharraf to its own public opinion as well as to the international community as a frontline ally in the war against terrorism. Why? A question to which there has been no convincing answer.
Democracy has failed to take root in Pak for 60 years: Chaudhry
Labels:
democracy,
pakistan
0
comments
Peshawar (Pakistan), Feb 18 : Deposed Pakistan Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry on Wednesday told a lawyers convention here that democracy has not been allowed to thrive in the country since it attained indepedence more than six decades ago.Claiming that dictators had usurped civilian government powers, Chaudhry said that a year ago, the citizens of Pakistan had used their right of self-determination to vote in a democratically elected government.
The lawyers are very well aware of the fact that Allah Almighty is the only supreme power over the Constitution under which the countrys affairs are being run, The News quoted him, as saying.
What must be a point of concern at this point in time is no one ever tried to determine the underlying reasons for the problems that the country continued to face, he added.
The existence of our country and ourselves is possible only through establishment of true democracy in the country, he said.
Earlier, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry administered oath to the newly elected office bearers of various bar associations.
Eight Indian spies arrested in Pakistan
Labels:
pakistan,
RAW
0
comments
Lahore, Feb 11 Pakistan Tuesday arrested eight people for allegedly spying for Indian intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), Geo TV reported.
The suspects were arrested from the cities of Abbotabad, Mirpur and Rahimyar Khan Tuesday and were traced through mobile phone, it reported.
The suspects were arrested from the cities of Abbotabad, Mirpur and Rahimyar Khan Tuesday and were traced through mobile phone, it reported.
U.S. seeks achievable goals in Afghanistan - Biden
Labels:
Biden,
pakistan
0
comments
MUNICH, Germany : The United States is seeking to set "clear and achievable" goals for Afghanistan in a comprehensive strategy for which both Washington and its allies must take responsibility, Vice President Joe Biden said on Saturday.This strategy should bring together U.S. civilian and military resources in order to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for Islamist militants and help Afghans develop the capacity to secure their own future.
Speaking to a security conference, he also said that, "no strategy for Afghanistan can succeed without Pakistan.
"We must all strengthen our cooperation with the people and government of Pakistan, help them stabilise the Tribal Areas and promote economic development and opportunity throughout the country."
U.S. straddles fractured line between India, Pakistan
Labels:
India,
pakistan,
US
0
comments
Six decades, three wars and multiple nuclear weapons tests after partition, India-Pakistan relations are once more under stress. As long as India and Pakistan remain at loggerheads, our interests in the region will suffer.
An escalation of existing tensions could jeopardize U.S. war efforts in Afghanistan, especially if Islamabad were to withdraw even more forces from its western frontier.
November's terrorist attacks in Mumbai, which killed 163 people, squelched recent progress toward a healing process, including: a push for more economic exchanges, a potential no-first-use nuclear-weapons agreement, and increased cross-border travel.
India has stated publicly that the 10 terrorists were Pakistanis trained by Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistani extremist organization -- with historic ties to Islamabad's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency -- that has waged an insurgency in India-controlled Kashmir since the early 1990s.
This accusation has riled Pakistan's leadership. Prime minister Yusuf Raza Gilani fired his national security adviser after he confirmed media reports that the operation's lone surviving attacker was Pakistani.
Feeling threatened in the attack's aftermath, Pakistan has reportedly moved one of six regular army divisions from the northwest, where they were helping the U.S. and NATO combat the Taliban and al-Qaida, to its border with India.
It is beyond the power of the United States to transform Indian-Pakistani relations. Both societies are rightfully proud, and perceptions of U.S. meddling in internal affairs will undermine our interests. Still, President Barack Obama will have to convince Pakistan's leadership that the single most dangerous threat to the country is not India, but radicals on both sides of its border with Afghanistan who seek to destabilize, or overthrow, the government. Sustainable peace and security in the region will remain elusive as long as India and Pakistan view national security issues through the prism of their rivalry and fail to resolve their dispute over Kashmir.
The U.S. relationship with both countries has changed dramatically since Sept. 11.
In 2001, then-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf supported the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, but high levels of distrust permeate bilateral relations. Unsatisfied with Pakistani counter-terrorism measures, the U.S. has increased pilotless drone missile strikes in the tribal areas of Pakistan over the last year, drawing Islamabad's protestations and ire. U.S. and Pakistani troops even have exchanged fire.
A key question for the U.S. is whether Pakistan wants to -- or even can -- control these areas.
Meanwhile, ties between Washington and New Delhi have improved greatly. In 2005, the countries agreed to a 10-year defense cooperation program. Last October, both countries approved a civilian-nuclear-technology sharing agreement that de facto legitimizes India's nuclear-weapons status, despite it not being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The U.S. should aim to shift Indian and Pakistani perceptions from a view of the U.S.-India-Pakistan triangle as a zero-sum game.
Pragmatically, the U.S. can strengthen both countries' commitments to a peaceful solution in Kashmir, support Pakistan's crackdown on extremist groups undermining Kashmir's stability, support greater freedom of movement and goods across the border, and promote tangible civil and economic gains for Kashmiris in India-controlled Jammu and Kashmir.
The Obama administration should increase non-military aid to Pakistan, especially in education and health services, to build trust, demonstrate America's commitment and provide young Pakistanis alternatives to extremism.
Such measures would benefit both Islamabad and New Delhi, allowing each to devote greater resources to the serious challenges they face in the 21st century.
An escalation of existing tensions could jeopardize U.S. war efforts in Afghanistan, especially if Islamabad were to withdraw even more forces from its western frontier.
November's terrorist attacks in Mumbai, which killed 163 people, squelched recent progress toward a healing process, including: a push for more economic exchanges, a potential no-first-use nuclear-weapons agreement, and increased cross-border travel.
India has stated publicly that the 10 terrorists were Pakistanis trained by Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistani extremist organization -- with historic ties to Islamabad's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency -- that has waged an insurgency in India-controlled Kashmir since the early 1990s.
This accusation has riled Pakistan's leadership. Prime minister Yusuf Raza Gilani fired his national security adviser after he confirmed media reports that the operation's lone surviving attacker was Pakistani.
Feeling threatened in the attack's aftermath, Pakistan has reportedly moved one of six regular army divisions from the northwest, where they were helping the U.S. and NATO combat the Taliban and al-Qaida, to its border with India.
It is beyond the power of the United States to transform Indian-Pakistani relations. Both societies are rightfully proud, and perceptions of U.S. meddling in internal affairs will undermine our interests. Still, President Barack Obama will have to convince Pakistan's leadership that the single most dangerous threat to the country is not India, but radicals on both sides of its border with Afghanistan who seek to destabilize, or overthrow, the government. Sustainable peace and security in the region will remain elusive as long as India and Pakistan view national security issues through the prism of their rivalry and fail to resolve their dispute over Kashmir.
The U.S. relationship with both countries has changed dramatically since Sept. 11.
In 2001, then-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf supported the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, but high levels of distrust permeate bilateral relations. Unsatisfied with Pakistani counter-terrorism measures, the U.S. has increased pilotless drone missile strikes in the tribal areas of Pakistan over the last year, drawing Islamabad's protestations and ire. U.S. and Pakistani troops even have exchanged fire.
A key question for the U.S. is whether Pakistan wants to -- or even can -- control these areas.
Meanwhile, ties between Washington and New Delhi have improved greatly. In 2005, the countries agreed to a 10-year defense cooperation program. Last October, both countries approved a civilian-nuclear-technology sharing agreement that de facto legitimizes India's nuclear-weapons status, despite it not being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The U.S. should aim to shift Indian and Pakistani perceptions from a view of the U.S.-India-Pakistan triangle as a zero-sum game.
Pragmatically, the U.S. can strengthen both countries' commitments to a peaceful solution in Kashmir, support Pakistan's crackdown on extremist groups undermining Kashmir's stability, support greater freedom of movement and goods across the border, and promote tangible civil and economic gains for Kashmiris in India-controlled Jammu and Kashmir.
The Obama administration should increase non-military aid to Pakistan, especially in education and health services, to build trust, demonstrate America's commitment and provide young Pakistanis alternatives to extremism.
Such measures would benefit both Islamabad and New Delhi, allowing each to devote greater resources to the serious challenges they face in the 21st century.
No agreement with US for drone attacks in Pak tribal areas: Gilani
Labels:
drone,
pakistan,
tribals
0
comments
Karachi, Jan 13 (ANI): Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani has said that the US drone attacks contribute towards nullifying Pakistani efforts to create a wedge between the loyal tribes and militants besides casting a negative impact on plans to bring peace in the border region.
“Pakistan during last year had succeeded in isolating militants because of result-oriented policies of the government but all such measures could not bring the cherished results in the wake of drone attacks that came from across the borders. This situation prompted sympathies for the militants which otherwise were rapidly waning,” Gilani said.He said the government did not permit the drone attacks on the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), and hoped that with the change in leadership in the US the policy might change.
He refused to comment on the statement of former president Pervez Musharraf on the issue, saying, “We have been condemning these attacks in question.”
“There is no agreement with the US in this regard. Pakistan is a sovereign country and permission for US drone attacks could not be given and we are also seeking support of other countries against these attacks, as the miscreants are coming closer.”
“We are a strong nation and know how to defend our country,” The Nation quoted Gilani, as saying.
Responding to a query on awarding Hilal-i-Qauid-i-Azam to US Vice President-elect Joe Biden, Gilani justified the honouring of a person who, he said, was not only pro-Pakistan but had also played a key role in the restoration of democracy in this country.
No political party succeeded in forcing Musharraf to shed uniform, but it was pressure of the US and Vice President-elect Biden that compelled the General to take off his uniform, Gilani maintained.
Talking to reporters, Gilani said if the US authorities had any proofs regarding presence of terrorists in tribal areas, then it must provide such proofs to Pakistan. ” Our forces will act against them”, he added.
Is Patriotic Journalism different from Real Journalism?
By Prem Prakash
Hamid Mir, Editor of Islamabad based Geo TV Channel of Pakistan who had confirmed the fact that Ajmal Amir Kasab, the lone terrorist captured in Mumbai during the terrorists attacks on November 26, was indeed from Pakistan, was asked a question by the students of journalism in Lahore to explain the difference between patriotic journalism and real journalism?
This is one question that is being raised in India as well following the manner in which reporting of Mumbai mayhem was handled by the Indian Media.
India Media allegedly went overboard in reporting the happenings in Mumbai live and round the clock for three days continuously. To keep the viewers glued to the screens the reporting had to have a good mix of emotion. The terrorists and their country - Pakistan -- had to be bashed.
After the coverage was almost over, question was asked as to whether live reporting helped the terrorists to achieve their objectives? Did the security forces suffer because of the live telecast?
To many it seemed that whatever way one called it, "patriotic journalism" or "real journalism", the coverage during the crucial three days helped the terrorists. Did plain and simple journalism become a casualty?
One has to accept that the proliferation of Media globally has led to severe cut throat competition, particularly among the 24 hour TV News Channels. Everyone wants to be first to break the news. And to stay first they need to remain live
The events in Mumbai put a severe strain on the news channels. Each channel had to deploy all its reporters irrespective of the fact whether they were trained for such assignments. The seniors in the newsrooms had to depend on young reporters and cameramen. For many of them the Mumbai mayhem was too overwhelming.
My mind went back to the manner in which the American Channels had reported 9/11 events and the British channels the 7/7 attacks in London. I was in London when the events 7/7 attacks occurred. Both in the United States and London, the TV Channels reported the events live, but they were restrained. In London no one came in the way of the police and waited for a proper briefing by the Metropolitan Police Chief in the late afternoon after he had gathered the facts.
In Mumbai it seemed every one was on his own. You could get any person on the street to comment and push a mike in the face of any policeman or the nearest officer. Media was not to blame for all this. The police had failed to place a forensic cordon and even when it was put, the reason given out was that the authorities wanted to keep the Media away from the harm's way!
The spokesman of the Government, both Central and State, were nowhere is the scene to guide the media during the events in Mumbai. Where was the Spokesman of the Mumbai Police? The Commanders of the Naval commandoes, the area commander of the Army, told their side of the story as the operations were continuing. The head of the National Security Guard briefed the press when the whole operations were over. . Over the years these press departments of the state government have learnt to work more for their Ministers than the government of the state. No wonder they were absent and not liasing with the Media at all.
It was evident to one and all in the very first hour of Mumbai terror attack that it was going to be a long haul. Why did the Press Information Bureau of the Government of India fail to get there first thing in the morning to help the media to report events that had impact worldwide? What was the Defence Press Relations doing both in Mumbai and Delhi when they were aware that army and Navy had moved into the area?
We saw the " parachute journalists" arrive in Mumbai from all over the world overnight to cover the events. Very rightly so; after all many nationalities were targets of the terrorist commandos. One expected some body from the Foreign Office to be present in Mumbai. One heard in dismay the BBC reporting the mayhem by terrorists being called the "militant attack" on Mumbai!
The Chief Minister and his Home Minister of Maharashtra sat in their offices to pronounce that "such incidents do happen in big cities".
Thus, in the absence of any authoritative briefing what we had from Mumbai was neither "patriotic journalism" nor "real journalism", but a lot of breast beating by emotionally charged individuals and reporters.
Pakistan is being monitored by world powers, and the information gathered has indicated the involvement of Pakistani forces - what President Zardari called 'non-state actors' in the Mumbai mayhem. The military - jehadi nexus in Pakistan has been in existence for nearly two decades now. The Mumbai attacks took over a year for planning and execution, which was not in the knowledge of the civilian government there. A repetition of Kargil.
Truth about who carried out the terrorist attacks in Mumbai would not have been known had it not been for the capture of Ajmal Amir Kasab. Pakistan's military -jehadi nexus is a threat not just to nascent civilian rule in Pakistan but to the whole world.
The question of "patriotic journalism" has been raised in Pakistan because the army and jehadi elements in that country want to equate the attack on Mumbai as a war like issue between India and Pakistan. . Therefore Pakistani patriots must stand against India and the media toe the national line in defence of the country.
If any journalist attempts to bring out the truth as was done by Hamid Mir, then according to the protagonists of "patriotic journalism" in Pakistan he should be ready for 'retribution' - and treated as a traitor in a nation at war
There is no place for "real journalism" in Pakistan as propounded by Hamid Mir. The real rulers in Pakistan forget that journalism simply requires honest presentation of the facts as known to a reporter or as captured by a cameraman.
Here in India we need to watch that the very high reputation of Indian journalism is not sullied by enthusiastic youngsters or high-pitched emotional commentators. Get your facts and present them in a sober manner so that the people of India are helped in understanding an issue and making up their mind.
As a fellow commentator wrote recently whether India and Pakistan go to war or not, the Media of the two countries are perhaps already at war. Is this the situation that the Media of the two countries should be in? It is time that serious practitioners of the profession move in and take charge.
(The author of this article is Chairman of ANI, was active field journalist, member of the Central Press Accreditation Committee for several years, among the founders of National Union of Journalists and President of the TV Programme Producers Guild of India)
ANI
Hamid Mir, Editor of Islamabad based Geo TV Channel of Pakistan who had confirmed the fact that Ajmal Amir Kasab, the lone terrorist captured in Mumbai during the terrorists attacks on November 26, was indeed from Pakistan, was asked a question by the students of journalism in Lahore to explain the difference between patriotic journalism and real journalism?
This is one question that is being raised in India as well following the manner in which reporting of Mumbai mayhem was handled by the Indian Media.
India Media allegedly went overboard in reporting the happenings in Mumbai live and round the clock for three days continuously. To keep the viewers glued to the screens the reporting had to have a good mix of emotion. The terrorists and their country - Pakistan -- had to be bashed.
After the coverage was almost over, question was asked as to whether live reporting helped the terrorists to achieve their objectives? Did the security forces suffer because of the live telecast?
To many it seemed that whatever way one called it, "patriotic journalism" or "real journalism", the coverage during the crucial three days helped the terrorists. Did plain and simple journalism become a casualty?
One has to accept that the proliferation of Media globally has led to severe cut throat competition, particularly among the 24 hour TV News Channels. Everyone wants to be first to break the news. And to stay first they need to remain live
The events in Mumbai put a severe strain on the news channels. Each channel had to deploy all its reporters irrespective of the fact whether they were trained for such assignments. The seniors in the newsrooms had to depend on young reporters and cameramen. For many of them the Mumbai mayhem was too overwhelming.
My mind went back to the manner in which the American Channels had reported 9/11 events and the British channels the 7/7 attacks in London. I was in London when the events 7/7 attacks occurred. Both in the United States and London, the TV Channels reported the events live, but they were restrained. In London no one came in the way of the police and waited for a proper briefing by the Metropolitan Police Chief in the late afternoon after he had gathered the facts.
In Mumbai it seemed every one was on his own. You could get any person on the street to comment and push a mike in the face of any policeman or the nearest officer. Media was not to blame for all this. The police had failed to place a forensic cordon and even when it was put, the reason given out was that the authorities wanted to keep the Media away from the harm's way!
The spokesman of the Government, both Central and State, were nowhere is the scene to guide the media during the events in Mumbai. Where was the Spokesman of the Mumbai Police? The Commanders of the Naval commandoes, the area commander of the Army, told their side of the story as the operations were continuing. The head of the National Security Guard briefed the press when the whole operations were over. . Over the years these press departments of the state government have learnt to work more for their Ministers than the government of the state. No wonder they were absent and not liasing with the Media at all.
It was evident to one and all in the very first hour of Mumbai terror attack that it was going to be a long haul. Why did the Press Information Bureau of the Government of India fail to get there first thing in the morning to help the media to report events that had impact worldwide? What was the Defence Press Relations doing both in Mumbai and Delhi when they were aware that army and Navy had moved into the area?
We saw the " parachute journalists" arrive in Mumbai from all over the world overnight to cover the events. Very rightly so; after all many nationalities were targets of the terrorist commandos. One expected some body from the Foreign Office to be present in Mumbai. One heard in dismay the BBC reporting the mayhem by terrorists being called the "militant attack" on Mumbai!
The Chief Minister and his Home Minister of Maharashtra sat in their offices to pronounce that "such incidents do happen in big cities".
Thus, in the absence of any authoritative briefing what we had from Mumbai was neither "patriotic journalism" nor "real journalism", but a lot of breast beating by emotionally charged individuals and reporters.
Pakistan is being monitored by world powers, and the information gathered has indicated the involvement of Pakistani forces - what President Zardari called 'non-state actors' in the Mumbai mayhem. The military - jehadi nexus in Pakistan has been in existence for nearly two decades now. The Mumbai attacks took over a year for planning and execution, which was not in the knowledge of the civilian government there. A repetition of Kargil.
Truth about who carried out the terrorist attacks in Mumbai would not have been known had it not been for the capture of Ajmal Amir Kasab. Pakistan's military -jehadi nexus is a threat not just to nascent civilian rule in Pakistan but to the whole world.
The question of "patriotic journalism" has been raised in Pakistan because the army and jehadi elements in that country want to equate the attack on Mumbai as a war like issue between India and Pakistan. . Therefore Pakistani patriots must stand against India and the media toe the national line in defence of the country.
If any journalist attempts to bring out the truth as was done by Hamid Mir, then according to the protagonists of "patriotic journalism" in Pakistan he should be ready for 'retribution' - and treated as a traitor in a nation at war
There is no place for "real journalism" in Pakistan as propounded by Hamid Mir. The real rulers in Pakistan forget that journalism simply requires honest presentation of the facts as known to a reporter or as captured by a cameraman.
Here in India we need to watch that the very high reputation of Indian journalism is not sullied by enthusiastic youngsters or high-pitched emotional commentators. Get your facts and present them in a sober manner so that the people of India are helped in understanding an issue and making up their mind.
As a fellow commentator wrote recently whether India and Pakistan go to war or not, the Media of the two countries are perhaps already at war. Is this the situation that the Media of the two countries should be in? It is time that serious practitioners of the profession move in and take charge.
(The author of this article is Chairman of ANI, was active field journalist, member of the Central Press Accreditation Committee for several years, among the founders of National Union of Journalists and President of the TV Programme Producers Guild of India)
ANI
Mullen persuades Pak to address India's concerns on terror
Labels:
India,
mullen,
pakistan,
war
0
comments
Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen ISLAMABAD: America's top military official, on a second visit to Islamabad since the Mumbai terror attacks, has persuaded the country to do more to address India's concerns on terrorists operating from its soil in order to defuse tensions between the two nations.
Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, is believed to have stressed the need for Pakistan to do more to address India's concerns, including action against elements linked to the Mumbai attacks, during his meetings with the country's top military leadership yesterday.
Diplomatic sources said the tensions between India and Pakistan and ensuring Islamabad's cooperation to nab the terrorists involved in the Mumbai attacks was the focus of Mullen's two day visit.
Mullen met army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the head of the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency yesterday. US embassy spokesman Lou Fintor said Mullen is visiting for “scheduled meetings with senior Pakistani officials on regional issues”.
Mullen is expected to meet President Asif Ali Zardari today. However, the influential Dawn newspaper reported Mullen was “on a mission to urge Pakistan to arrest elements accused by India of being involved in last month's Mumbai attacks for cooling down the mounting tension between the two countries”.
The newspaper quoted unnamed sources as saying that Mullen “might have sought commitments from the Pakistani leadership on the Indian demands which are also a pre-condition for resuming the peace process” between the two countries.
The role of the ISI was also discussed by Mullen, who is believed to have reiterated the US's demand for bringing the spy agency under civilian control.
During their meetings with Mullen, Pakistani officials said they had taken sufficient action even without evidence being provided by India about the involvement of Pakistani elements in the attacks.
Mullen was also apprised by officials of Pakistan's possible reaction in the event of an attack by India, the Dawn reported. Mullen also reviewed peace deals with the Taliban and discussed the payment of USD 900 million in arrears for logistical support provided to the US by Pakistan, the report said.
India has blamed Pakistan-based elements, including the banned Lashker-e-Taiba, for planning and carrying out the Mumbai attacks that killed over 180 people. It has asked Pakistan to crack down on these elements.
Pakistan, which carried out a limited crackdown on LeT and its front organisation Jamaat-ud-Dawah, has been insisting that India has not shared any evidence on the attacks.
The US, on the other hand, is concerned that a further escalation in regional tension could result in Pakistan diverting troops from its border with Afghanistan to the Indian frontier. This would adversely impact the US-led campaign in Afghanistan and make it easier for Taliban elements based in Pakistan's tribal belt to conduct cross-border raids.
Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, is believed to have stressed the need for Pakistan to do more to address India's concerns, including action against elements linked to the Mumbai attacks, during his meetings with the country's top military leadership yesterday.
Diplomatic sources said the tensions between India and Pakistan and ensuring Islamabad's cooperation to nab the terrorists involved in the Mumbai attacks was the focus of Mullen's two day visit.
Mullen met army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the head of the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency yesterday. US embassy spokesman Lou Fintor said Mullen is visiting for “scheduled meetings with senior Pakistani officials on regional issues”.
Mullen is expected to meet President Asif Ali Zardari today. However, the influential Dawn newspaper reported Mullen was “on a mission to urge Pakistan to arrest elements accused by India of being involved in last month's Mumbai attacks for cooling down the mounting tension between the two countries”.
The newspaper quoted unnamed sources as saying that Mullen “might have sought commitments from the Pakistani leadership on the Indian demands which are also a pre-condition for resuming the peace process” between the two countries.
The role of the ISI was also discussed by Mullen, who is believed to have reiterated the US's demand for bringing the spy agency under civilian control.
During their meetings with Mullen, Pakistani officials said they had taken sufficient action even without evidence being provided by India about the involvement of Pakistani elements in the attacks.
Mullen was also apprised by officials of Pakistan's possible reaction in the event of an attack by India, the Dawn reported. Mullen also reviewed peace deals with the Taliban and discussed the payment of USD 900 million in arrears for logistical support provided to the US by Pakistan, the report said.
India has blamed Pakistan-based elements, including the banned Lashker-e-Taiba, for planning and carrying out the Mumbai attacks that killed over 180 people. It has asked Pakistan to crack down on these elements.
Pakistan, which carried out a limited crackdown on LeT and its front organisation Jamaat-ud-Dawah, has been insisting that India has not shared any evidence on the attacks.
The US, on the other hand, is concerned that a further escalation in regional tension could result in Pakistan diverting troops from its border with Afghanistan to the Indian frontier. This would adversely impact the US-led campaign in Afghanistan and make it easier for Taliban elements based in Pakistan's tribal belt to conduct cross-border raids.
Pakistan capable of thwarting 'aggression' from the east: Zardari
Labels:
India,
missiles,
pakistan,
war
0
comments
ISLAMABAD: Amid a war of words with India over the Mumbai terror attacks, Pakistan has said its armed forces were fully capable of “thwarting any aggression from the east” and New Delhi should not underestimate its military might.
India should not underestimate Pakistan's military power because it is “capable of thwarting any aggression from the east”, President Asif Ali Zardari said at a meeting with Gen Tariq Majid, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, here last night.
Majid told the President that the armed forces were fully capable of meeting any eventuality on the eastern front, Dawn News channel said. Separately, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said while the operational preparedness of the armed forces was at an “optimal level,” both Pakistan and India cannot afford tension along their border.
“Nobody wants tensions on the borders and we are moving responsibly and with caution,” Gilani told reporters on the sidelines of an official ceremony here.
The military is fully capable of defending Pakistan's territorial integrity, he said, adding that the operational preparedness of the armed forces is at an “optimal level”.
The nation and the army are united to defend the country and its territorial integrity, he added. “The government is aware of the situation in the region and will act as things move,” Gilani said.
During a meeting with Shahid Malik, Pakistan's High Commissioner to India, Zardari said Islamabad wants good relations with New Delhi but “on the basis of sovereign equality”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
