Drone attacks are inspiring terrorism in United States

NEWS WEEK

Failed Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad says he was driven by anger over dozens of unmanned drone attacks that he witnessed during his most recent five-month visit to his home in Pakistan. That seems a plausible enough motive, particularly since he joins a growing list of homegrown U.S. terror suspects who have cited the escalation of U.S. military operations on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in general, or in the drone attacks in particular. They include U.S. resident Najibullah Zazi, the Afghan immigrant who pleaded guilty in a plot to bomb the New York subway system; Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the U.S.-born army psychiatrist, charged with fatally shooting 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, last year; and the five American Muslims from Virginia, accused of plotting attacks against targets in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

So why isn’t the Obama administration listening? It has so far been unable, or unwilling, to acknowledge the link between the drone attacks and the rising incidence of homegrown terror. Instead, the administration has accused the Pakistani Taliban of directing and probably financing the Times Square plot, even though Shahzad has said he went to the Taliban for help, not the other way around. Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, dismissed the reports that Shahzad was motivated by the drone strikes and, instead, said that the suspect was “captured by the murderous rhetoric of Al Qaeda and TTP that looks at the United States as an enemy.”

The Obama team has its rationale for drone attacks. It stresses that the drone attacks have degraded the capabilities of the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda, without putting U.S. troops in harm’s way on Pakistani soil. What this calculus ignores is the damage drone attacks inflict on America’s reputation in the Muslim world and the “possibilities of blowback,” about which the CIA, which leads the drone war, has rightly warned.

The war on the AfPak border has replaced Iraq as the main source of homegrown radicalization. Qaeda’s effort to find and recruit terrorists has been replaced by a bottom-up flow of volunteers, a flow that is currently very weak, and extremely difficult to track. What these individuals had in common was that they were radicalized online, typically by coverage of the AfPak battles.

The most controversial element of those battles is the use of CIA Predator drones on targets in Pakistan. The CIA currently wages a 24/7 Predator campaign against the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda. In Pakistan, drone attacks are Obama’s weapon of choice. He has expanded the use of drones to include low-level targets, such as foot soldiers. According to an analysis of U.S. government sources, the CIA has killed around 12 times more low-level fighters than mid-to-high-level Qaeda and Taliban leaders since the drone attacks intensified in the summer of 2008.

In the first four months this year, the Predators fired nearly 60 missiles in Pakistan, about the same number as in Afghanistan, the recognized war theater. In Pakistan, the pace of drone strikes has increased to two or three a week, up roughly fourfold from the Bush years. Although drone strikes have killed more than a dozen Qaeda and Taliban leaders, they have incinerated hundreds of civilians, including women and children.

Predator strikes have inflamed anti-American rage among Afghans and Pakistanis, including first or second generation immigrants in the west, as well as elite members of the security services. The Pakistani Taliban and other militants are moving to exploit this anger, vowing to carry out suicide bombings in major U.S. cities. Drone attacks have become a rallying cry for Taliban militants, feeding the flow of volunteers into a small, loose network that is harder to trace even than shadowy Al Qaeda. Jeffrey Addicott, former legal adviser to Army Special Operations, says the strategy is “creating more enemies than we’re killing or capturing.” The Obama administration needs to at least acknowledge the dangers of military escalation and to welcome a real debate about the costs of the drone war. Because clearly, its fallout is reaching home.

Israel to deploy nuclear submarines off Iran coast

Three German-built Israeli submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles are to be deployed in the Gulf near the Iranian coastline.

The first has been sent in response to Israeli fears that ballistic missiles developed by Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, a political and military organisation in Lebanon, could hit sites in Israel, including air bases and missile launchers.

The submarines of Flotilla 7 – Dolphin, Tekuma and Leviathan – have visited the Gulf before. But the decision has now been taken to ensure a permanent presence of at least one of the vessels.

The flotilla’s commander, identified only as “Colonel O”, told an Israeli newspaper: “We are an underwater assault force. We’re operating deep and far, very far, from our borders.”

Each of the submarines has a crew of 35 to 50, commanded by a colonel capable of launching a nuclear cruise missile.

The vessels can remain at sea for about 50 days and stay submerged up to 1,150ft below the surface for at least a week. Some of the cruise missiles are equipped with the most advanced nuclear warheads in the Israeli arsenal.

The deployment is designed to act as a deterrent, gather intelligence and potentially to land Mossad agents. “We’re a solid base for collecting sensitive information, as we can stay for a long time in one place,” said a flotilla officer.

The submarines could be used if Iran continues its programme to produce a nuclear bomb. “The 1,500km range of the submarines’ cruise missiles can reach any target in Iran,” said a navy officer.

Apparently responding to the Israeli activity, an Iranian admiral said: “Anyone who wishes to do an evil act in the Persian Gulf will receive a forceful response from us.”

Israel’s urgent need to deter the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance was demonstrated last month. Ehud Barak, the defence minister, was said to have shown President Barack Obama classified satellite images of a convoy of ballistic missiles leaving Syria on the way to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, will emphasise the danger to Obama in Washington this week.

Tel Aviv, Israel’s business and defence centre, remains the most threatened city in the world, said one expert. “There are more missiles per square foot targeting Tel Aviv than any other city,” he said.

New British govt rocked by minister’s resignation

By Guy Jackson

LONDON – Britain’s new coalition government was dealing Sunday with its first blow after David Laws, a high-profile finance minister, resigned over expenses revelations that also exposed his homosexuality.

Britain’s new coalition government was dealing Sunday with its first blow after David Laws, pictured …

Laws stepped down as Chief Secretary to the Treasury after The Daily Telegraph newspaper reported he had channelled more than 40,000 pounds (57,800 dollars, 47,100 euros) of taxpayers’ money in rent to his long-term boyfriend.

“I do not see how I can carry out my crucial work on the budget and spending review while I have to deal with the private and public implications of recent revelations,” Laws said in a brief statement Saturday.

The wealthy former banker, a member of the Liberal Democrat junior coalition partners, said he had not disclosed the financial arrangement because of “my desire to keep my sexuality secret”.

“I cannot now escape the conclusion that what I have done was in some way wrong even though I did not gain any financial benefit from keeping my relationship secret,” he said.

In a letter accepting the resignation, Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron described Laws as a “good and honourable man” and said he believed he had been motivated “by wanting to protect your privacy rather than anything else”.

Cameron said he hoped Laws could return to the government one day as he had “a huge amount to offer our country”.

Laws was deputy to Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, of the Conservative Party, at the Treasury.

It is one of the highest-profile roles in a government that has made reducing Britain’s record 2009-2010 deficit of 156.1 billion pounds a priority.

Osborne and Laws on Monday unveiled spending cuts worth 6.25 billion pounds.

His successor will be another Lib Dem, Danny Alexander, who was formerly the minister responsible for Scotland, Cameron’s Downing Street office said.

Osborne expressed regret at Laws’ departure, saying: “It was as if he had been put on Earth to do the job that was asked of him.”

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, said he hoped Laws could return to government.

“This has come about because of David’s intense desire to keep his own private life private. His privacy has now been cruelly shattered,” he added.

The Daily Telegraph said 44-year-old Laws claimed up to 950 pounds a month for five years to rent a room in two properties owned by his partner James Lundie, a lobbyist.

In a statement Friday immediately following the revelations, Laws claimed he did not consider himself to be in breach of the rules on expenses as he and Lundie had separate bank accounts and separate social lives.

Although Laws had apologised for claiming the money and referred himself to the parliamentary expenses watchdog, he decided that his role in a department charged with slashing public spending had been fatally compromised.

Cameron has pledged to clean up politics after last year’s expenses scandal, in which lawmakers were shown to have filed expenses claims for everything from porn films to ornamental duck houses.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, a former Conservative Party leader, told BBC television: “I think on balance he (Laws) is right. If you have got the toughest job in government to try and find the savings, you cannot be beset by personal problems.”

International Development minister Alan Duncan, the first openly gay Conservative lawmaker, said: “I’m upset by the hurt this must have caused him and I hope he’ll soon be back.”

Britain’s first coalition government since World War II emerged from the inconclusive May 6 general election.

The Conservative-Liberal Democrat government ousted Gordon Brown’s Labour administration.

Thousands protest killings in Kashmir

AIJAZ HUSSAIN

SRINAGAR, India – Police fired warning shots into the air and used tear gas Saturday to disperse thousands of villagers in Indian-controlled Kashmir protesting the killing of three men allegedly by the Indian army.

The army said it killed three rebels in a gunbattle April 30 after the insurgents had crossed into Indian Kashmir from the Pakistani side in Machil, an area near the highly militarized cease-fire line between the rival nations.

However, villagers and relatives of three Kashmiri men who had gone missing from Nadihal village three days before the purported gunbattle demanded a probe, fearing the bodies could be those of the missing men.

Police on Friday exhumed the bodies and handed them over to their relatives after identification.

“They were innocent citizens killed in a fake gunbattle,” said Farooq Ahmed, a top police officer. Ahmed said three people including an army solider have been arrested so far. “Law will takes its own course.”

On Saturday, shortly before the burial of the three men, thousands of angry villagers chanting “We want freedom” and “Prosecute the killers,” tried to march to the main highway in Nadihal village.

Police fired warning shots and used tear gas to stop the protesters, said a local police officer on condition of anonymity in keeping with department policy. At least eight protesters were injured, he said.

Anti-Indian sentiment runs deep in Kashmir, where government forces are often accused of killing and torturing people they suspect to be tied to militants as well as for winning rewards and promotions. Authorities routinely investigate such allegations, but rarely prosecute those involved.

Rights groups in the past have often dismissed government probes as a public relations tool aimed at pacifying public anger.

Separatists have been fighting since 1989 for Kashmir’s independence from India or its merger with neighboring Pakistan. More than 68,000 people, most of them civilians, have been killed in the uprising and subsequent Indian crackdown.

The Coming China-India Conflict: Is War Inevitable?

By Ishaan Tharoor

By sheer demographics, it’s the world’s most important relationship. China and India comprise 40% of humanity and boast economies that are expected to loom large over the 21st century. They also represent two of the world’s fastest-growing militaries, armed with nuclear weapons, and are expanding their spheres of influence across oceans. Jonathan Holslag, a Brussels-based scholar of Chinese foreign policy and author of the recent book China and India: Prospects for Peace, is among a growing number of observers who have dismissed the idea of “Chindia” – a term once often invoked, expressing optimism over the joint geopolitical rise of the two Asian giants. He spoke to TIME about the fault lines between the two neighbors, Washington’s place in the region and how tensions could escalate into war.

A Chinese soldier stands with an Indian soldier at the ancient Nathu La border between India and China

The subtitle of your book suggests that conflict is already under way. Is greater confrontation and perhaps even war inevitable in the coming years?
It’s not inevitable, but peace cannot be taken for granted. The scope for these two countries to develop peacefully and fulfill their national interests without entering into competition is getting smaller due to internal social pressures and rising nationalism. I am not arguing that they don’t want to develop peacefully, but that the options for doing so are not that great. They’ll be competing at all levels, not only for economic opportunities, but for regional influence. This will lead to an uncomfortable and risky situation.

The last war fought between India and China was almost 50 years ago. How much of a strain is its legacy?
Ever since the 1962 war, both sides have been extremely cautious and suspicious of each other. There has been no resolution to the border issue [over remote, heavily militarized territories in the Himalayas] in spite of numerous rounds of negotiations and tensions that have flared recently. It’s a kind of historic scar that impedes progress.

And this traditional sticking point is now compounded by a newer contest.
Yes, we see now that both sides’ economic aspirations are leading to more competition, especially in Asia, and this is slowly spilling over in a negative way into the realm of high politics of security and diplomacy.

India still has to start the industrialization of its society – a process that China began well before. Inevitably, there will be a fierce contest for raw materials, mainly in Asia. We see this already happening in Burma, in parts of Central Asia, Africa and elsewhere. This is only going to become fiercer. It’s also a myth that somehow the two economies, with their different strengths, will be able to complement each other in the long term. India has to turn to manufacturing and China is not going to give up suddenly its own industries. They’re too important for the country’s stability.

In India, there is already a widespread wariness in the media and in the public domain of China’s designs for the region. Is there a similar nationalist feeling in China, which in many ways is far more developed and capable than India?
Yes, you can clearly see that Beijing officials are increasingly worried about India’s ambitions. If you look at the writings of Chinese experts, they refer to Indian military posturing in the Indian Ocean and also to military partnerships India is developing with several countries in Southeast Asia and East Africa. In the public realm, Chinese Netizens’ views of India are very negative. You get the sense the Chinese never seemed to expect India to climb up to the ranks of the great powers. Now, as India attempts to make that leap, the Chinese are very worried of its impact on China’s primacy in Asia.

Hypothetically, how could some sort of military clash come about?
It wouldn’t first be open war. China and India are building up their interests in conflict-prone and unstable states on their borders like Nepal and Burma – important sources of natural resources. If something goes wrong in these countries – if the politics implode – you could see the emergence of proxy wars in Asia. Distrust between India and China will grow and so too security concerns in a number of arenas. It’s an important scenario that strategic planners in both Beijing and Delhi are looking at.

What role is there for the U.S. to play in this context?
Since the U.S. has prioritized stabilizing Afghanistan over everything else in Asia, it has lost a lot of credit in both Delhi and Beijing. It is increasingly reliant on China, but has also undertaken security exercises [under the Bush Administration] that tried to work together with democratic countries like Japan, India and Australia at the exclusion of China. This fed into the traditional political claustrophobia many in China have – a sense that, in the end, Asia will be a very hostile environment for their development and geopolitical rise.

At the same time, India won’t let itself be drowned in America’s orbit. It’s important for India to have its strategic independence. It has a very long and historically close relationship with Russia, which in turn is close to China. So it’s a little more complicated. I don’t think the Americans have thought very strategically about all of this.

How much of the trouble between India and China stems from the accident of geography – that they exist side by side in a very volatile part of the world?
The tragedy of continental states is that they have ever shifting spheres of influence that constantly create friction. Geographic proximity has always been one of the main factors in conflicts between great powers on the Eurasian landmass. Neither country can hide away from the other: a kind of increase of influence of one country in a border state is automatically perceived by the other as a loss in its own leverage. It creates a sense of a zero-sum game, which will be a hugely important and defining element in this relationship going forward.

Farmers rally against Indian water aggression

The Muttahida Kissan Mahaz and the Pakistan Water Movement staged a peaceful protest rally on the Pak-India border against Indian “water aggression” on Sunday.

The rally started from the BRB Canal on Bedian Road and marched to Kucheri Chowk. They chanted slogans against India and vowed to wage war on it if it deprived the people of Pakistan of their due share in water.

The protesters wanted to go the Ganda Singh border in Kasur but police stopped them by setting up barricades on their way.

A large number of people from all walks of life participated in the rally on motorcycles, vehicles, tractors and trolleys.

The protesters were holding banners and placards inscribed with their demands. They chanted slogans against the Indian government for stealing Pakistani water and vowed that they would continue the struggle till the release of their due share of water.

Muttahida Kissan Mahaz President Muhammad Ayub Khan Mayo led the rally. Addressing the gathering, speakers urged the government to approach the World Bank for nomination of a neutral expert for taking notice of stealing of Pakistani rivers water by India in violation of the Indus Water Treaty. They also called for forming a commission comprising leaders of political parties to pursue the matter.

They said that India could only build run-of-river hydropower projects and utilise 2.85MAF water of the Chenab, Jhelum and Indus rivers under the Indus Waters Treaty.

They said that India was trying to destroy the agriculture of Pakistan by launching projects for stealing water of the three rivers in violation of the treaty.

They added that India had not provided technical information about the new dams to Pakistan as required under the Indus Water Treaty. They charged that India was trying to turn Pakistan into a Somalia by stopping and stealing water but warned the people of Pakistan would not allow India to materialise its nefarious intentions.

They urged the Pakistan government to stop India from river water diversion which was in violation of the treaty between the two countries.

The participants said that India should not only provide complete information about water projects on the Jhelum and Chenab rivers but also allow representatives of Pakistan to inspect all projects. They said the Mahaz would continue to inform and educate the people of Pakistan about Indian water aggression through rallies and protest demonstrations.