Posts Tagged ‘al-qaeda’

Recipe for Disaster

September 19, 2012

By Jennifer Andrews
TACSTRAT

When black people are attacked, they call it Racism. When Jewish people are attacked, they call it anti-Semitism. When Women are attacked, they call it Gender Discrimination. When Homosexuals are attacked, they call it Intolerance. When they attack your Country, they call it Counter- Terrorism. When a Religious Sect is attacked, they call it Hate Speech. But when they attack the dignity of the Prophet of Islam, Prophet MUHAMMAD (P.B.U.H), they call it “Freedom of Expression”-.

Samuel Huntington’s “The clash of Civilizations” planted the thought that Christianity and Islam may be headed for a clash. His idea probably was that thinking minds would work to avert such a catastrophic confrontation but unfortunately there were those who considered such a clash desirable and began work to bring it about. These were the Evangelicals who claimed divine guidance-remember former President Bush flabbergasting the French President by talking of ‘Gog and Magog’? Now with hindsight the progression of events that has brought us to the present day violence can be traced without going back into the ancient history of religious rivalries.

911 was a landmark event but why did it happen? Its origin can be traced to the confrontation between the West and Communism. We have recent revelations (from Brezinski and others) that tell us that the West began arming and funding religiously motivated Muslims for insurgent operations in Afghanistan much before the Soviet invasion of that unfortunate country. In fact it was this covert activity that drew the Soviets into Afghanistan. Once the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan the fig leaf that covered the subversion was removed and armed fighters motivated by jihad were recruited, trained and funded to fight in Afghanistan. This was the seed that later germinated into the Taliban. Once the Russians withdrew and the Soviet Union collapsed the US left Afghanistan to its fate thereby planting another seed that was to grow in to Al Qaeda. These were the people who executed the 911 plan as a protest against the policies of the US in Muslim lands and the dictatorships that the US supported-dictatorships that the ‘Arab Spring’ is now uprooting with the US now switching sides by supporting rebels. If the fate of the US Ambassador in Libya is any indication the US will be the eventual target.

The US response to the criminal terrorist act of 911 was a declaration of war against terror and the use of the word ‘crusades’ by the US President left no doubt in anyone’s mind where and how this war would be fought. A war that need never have been if 911 had been identified as a criminal act and the response had been limited to the arrest and prosecution of those responsible. This would have led to an international strangulation of finances and a focused campaign to arrest and prosecute the actual people responsible. The attack into Afghanistan was ostensibly against ‘terror’ but actually to establish bases from where US tries to influence Central and South Asia. Then followed the attack into Iraq on the basis of manufactured intelligence about WMD and links to Al Qaeda-both premises now fully exposed as fabricated. The result is that both Iraqis and Afghans are killing Americans and both the countries are in chaos with the fallout going well beyond their borders.

The covert and overt attempts to create a sectarian divide within Islam has led to much violence but the result is an Iran that feels threatened and reaches out for a nuclear capability and a linkage with Syria, Hezbollah and kurds as well as the movements in Bahrain and elsewhere. The Arab Spring is being slowly taken over by Islamic forces with Egypt as the model. Sensing weakness and an opportunity China and Russia are coming closer and the regional countries are evolving pragmatic policies.

It is in this environment that a film made and shown in the US has stirred anger in the Islamic world and to exploit this anger there is Al Qaeda-in Afghanistan, in Iraq, In the Maghreb , in the Arabian Peninsula and many other places. To brush it off as ‘freedom of expression’ does not help nor do the crazy antics of the mad Koran burning US pastor-is that ‘freedom of action’?

OBL Resurfaces On 9/11 Anniversary

September 13, 2011

WASHINGTON – A private intelligence monitoring service says al-Qaida is marking the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks with an hour-long video, just released on Jihadist websites.

Site Monitoring Services says the video features an audio speech by the new leader, Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahri, as well as previously unreleased footage of former leader Osama bin Laden. The 62-minute video, titled “The Dawn of Imminent Victory,” was posted on jihadist forums on Monday. Zawahri is shown in a still photo.

U.S. intelligence officials say Zawahri tops their hit list after the killing of bin Laden by U.S. Navy SEALs in Pakistan in May.

The U.S. was on high alert during the weekend over what officials described as a credible but unconfirmed terror threat on Washington or New York.

OBL Resurfaces On 9/11 Anniversary

September 13, 2011

WASHINGTON – A private intelligence monitoring service says al-Qaida is marking the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks with an hour-long video, just released on Jihadist websites.

Site Monitoring Services says the video features an audio speech by the new leader, Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahri, as well as previously unreleased footage of former leader Osama bin Laden. The 62-minute video, titled “The Dawn of Imminent Victory,” was posted on jihadist forums on Monday. Zawahri is shown in a still photo.

U.S. intelligence officials say Zawahri tops their hit list after the killing of bin Laden by U.S. Navy SEALs in Pakistan in May.

The U.S. was on high alert during the weekend over what officials described as a credible but unconfirmed terror threat on Washington or New York.

Redrawing the Map: the Balkanization of Pakistan

September 12, 2011

By Stuartbramhall

If Pakistan is an Ally, Why Are We Trying to Break Up Their Country?

After ten years of fighting unwinnable wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, many Americans recognize that the wars in the Middle East are really about oil and natural gas, rather than terrorism. Bush’s decision to invade Afghanistan (instead of Saudi Arabia – the 911 hijackers were Saudi) stemmed from the Taliban refusal to construct an Afghanistan pipeline transporting Turkmenistan oil to Pakistan and the Arabian sea (where it could be loaded onto US tankers). Likewise the decision to invade 17 months later (which had no connection whatsoever with 911 or Al Qaeda) seems linked to Saddam Hussein’s threat to crash the US dollar by trading Iraqi oil in Euros instead of dollars. Under Obama, the “war on terror” has shifted eastward to Pakistan. Yet there’s no reason to believe the strategic objectives for US military intervention in Pakistan are any different from the ones that led us to invade Afghanistan and Iraq – namely strategic control of energy resources.

Balkinization Defined

Although the subject receives little attention in the US media, various Pentagon analysts have been quite public about the strategic importance of energy and mineral rich Balochistan (a Pakistan province bordering Afghanistan and comprising 44% of the country’s geographic area) as an energy transit route. Several aggressively promote the “balkanization” of Pakistan. “Balkanization” is a term widely attributed to Carter’s national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1998 book The Grand Chessboard. It was one actively pursued by the Pentagon and CIA under Clinton in breaking up the former Yugoslavia, enabling US access to oil, natural gas and mineral resources in the former Soviet republics of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan.

At present the immediate Pentagon/CIA goal is to create a Free Balochistan, which would incorporate the Pakistan province of Balochistan, a sizable swath of Iran that was originally part of independent Balochistan and part of Afghanistan. In fact since 2006, the Pentagon has made no secrete of their desire to Pakistan Balochistan (which has a strong separatist movement) secede from Pakistan to become a US client state (like Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan). It has cropped up in speeches by Condi Rice, in articles published by military journals and Pentagon think tanks and in trainings of senior military officers at the National War Academy and NATO’s Defense College.

Redrawing the Middle East

Condi Rice’s 2006 speech about “redrawing the Middle East” received the most attention in the US: http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=3882. The international press has been more interested in a 2006 article by Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters of the Pentagon’s Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence Armed Forces Journal. They are most concerned about a map he has drawn, which he has copyrighted, showing the Baloch areas of Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan joined as Free Balochistan (and reducing the size of Pakistan by 50%). http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899

Robert Wirsing of the US Army think tank Strategic Studies Institute, has published a similar analysis:Baloch Nationalism and the Geopolitics of Energy Resources: Context of Separatism in Pakistan(http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub853.pdf). (other references regarding Pentagon strategy in Balochistan can be found in Alexander Achmatowicz’ guest post athttp://stuartbramhall.aegauthorblogs.com/2010/09/29/balochistan-the-place-to-watch/ )


Map of Free Balochistan © Ralph Peters 2006

Peters, Wirsing and other military strategists argue the primary benefits of establishing Free Balochistan as a US client state would be

securing Central Asian energy resources for the continental US.
blocking Chinese access to these resources (via the Chinese-built Gwadar Port in Gwadar, Pakistan – China’s chief conduit for Iranian oil).
destabilizing Iran (which also has a sizable Baloch population seeking independence).

Enter Our CIA Freedom Fighters

Ironically the CIA also seems to endorse this strategy, at least indirectly, in a report predicting that Pakistan will be a failed state by 2015 (http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2005/02/pak-will-be-failed-state-by-2015-cia.html). For obvious reasons, the report doesn’t spell out the critical role they intend to play in Pakistan’s demise, via their systematic efforts to destabilize the Pakistan government (e.g. using CIA agents like Raymond Davis to support Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists) and separating off 50% of its territory as Free Balochistan.

Nevertheless, according to an explosive 2006 expose by investigative journalists at the London Institute of South Asia (http://www.lisauk.com/baluchistan.asp), this is exactly what the CIA has been doing since 2002, when it set up the first training camp to revive the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA). The London Institute indicates the CIA is collaborating in this effort with RAW (Indian intelligence), who have extensive spy networks throughout Pakistan and Afghanistan, and RAD (Russian intelligence), who started the BLA in 1980 during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and provide most of the weapons.

To be continued, with a discussion of the history of Balochistan and the KGB role in the formation of the BLA.

Monsters called Muslims

September 5, 2011

By Wajahat Ali

On July 22, a man planted a bomb in an Oslo government building that killed eight people. A few hours after the explosion, he shot and killed 68 people, mostly teenagers, at a Labor Party youth camp on Norway’s Utoya Island.

By midday, pundits were speculating as to who had perpetrated the greatest massacre in Norwegian history since World War II. Numerous mainstream media outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Atlantic, speculated about an Al Qaeda connection and a “jihadist” motivation behind the attacks. But by the next morning it was clear that the attacker was a 32-year-old, white, blond-haired and blue-eyed Norwegian named Anders Breivik. He was not a Muslim, but rather a self-described Christian conservative.

According to his attorney, Breivik claimed responsibility for his self-described “gruesome but necessary” actions. On July 26, Breivik told the court that violence was “necessary” to save Europe from Marxism and “Muslimization.” In his 1,500-page manifesto, which meticulously details his attack methods and aims to inspire others to extremist violence, Breivik vows “brutal and breathtaking operations which will result in casualties” to fight the alleged “ongoing Islamic Colonization of Europe.”

Breivik’s manifesto contains numerous footnotes and in-text citations to American bloggers and pundits, quoting them as experts on Islam’s “war against the West.” This small group of anti-Muslim organizations and individuals in our nation is obscure to most Americans but wields great influence in shaping the national and international political debate. Their names are heralded within communities that are actively organizing against Islam and targeting Muslims in the United States.

Breivik, for example, cited Robert Spencer, one of the anti-Muslim misinformation scholars we profile in this report, and his blog, Jihad Watch, 162 times in his manifesto. Spencer’s website, which “tracks the attempts of radical Islam to subvert Western culture,” boasts another member of this Islamophobia network in America, David Horowitz, on his Freedom Center website. Pamela Geller, Spencer’s frequent collaborator, and her blog, Atlas Shrugs, was mentioned 12 times.

Geller and Spencer co-founded the organization Stop Islamization of America, a group whose actions and rhetoric the Anti-Defamation League concluded “promotes a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the guise of fighting radical Islam. The group seeks to rouse public fears by consistently vilifying the Islamic faith and asserting the existence of an Islamic conspiracy to destroy “American values.” Based on Breivik’s sheer number of citations and references to the writings of these individuals, it is clear that he read and relied on the hateful, anti-Muslim ideology of a number of men and women detailed in this report&a select handful of scholars and activists who work together to create and promote misinformation about Muslims.

While these bloggers and pundits were not responsible for Breivik’s deadly attacks, their writings on Islam and multiculturalism appear to have helped create a world view, held by this lone Norwegian gunman, that sees Islam as at war with the West and the West needing to be defended. According to former CIA officer and terrorism consultant Marc Sageman, just as religious extremism “is the infrastructure from which Al Qaeda emerged,” the writings of these anti-Muslim misinformation experts are “the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged.” Sageman adds that their rhetoric “is not cost-free.”

These pundits and bloggers, however, are not the only members of the Islamophobia infrastructure. Breivik’s manifesto also cites think tanks, such as the Center for Security Policy, the Middle East Forum, and the Investigative Project on Terrorism-three other organizations we profile in this report. Together, this core group of deeply intertwined individuals and organizations manufacture and exaggerate threats of “creeping Sharia,” Islamic domination of the West, and purported obligatory calls to violence against all non-Muslims by the Quran.

This network of hate is not a new presence in the United States. Indeed, its ability to organize, coordinate, and disseminate its ideology through grassroots organizations increased dramatically over the past 10 years. Furthermore, its ability to influence politicians’ talking points and wedge issues for the upcoming 2012 elections has mainstreamed what was once considered fringe, extremist rhetoric.

And it all starts with the money flowing from a select group of foundations. A small group of foundations and wealthy donors are the lifeblood of the Islamophobia network in America, providing critical funding to a clutch of right-wing think tanks that peddle hate and fear of Muslims and Islam-in the form of books, reports, websites, blogs, and carefully crafted talking points that anti-Islam grassroots organizations and some right-wing religious groups use as propaganda for their constituency.

Some of these foundations and wealthy donors also provide direct funding to anti-Islam grassroots groups. According to our extensive analysis, here are the top seven contributors to promoting Islamophobia in our country:

Donors Capital Fund
Richard Mellon Scaife foundations
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Newton D. & Rochelle F. Becker foundations and charitable trust
Russell Berrie Foundation
Anchorage Charitable Fund and William Rosenwald Family Fund
Fairbrook Foundation
Altogether, these seven charitable groups provided $42.6 million to Islamophobia think tanks between 2001 and 2009-funding that supports the scholars and experts that are the subject of our next chapter as well as some of the grassroots groups that are the subject of Chapter 3 of our report.

And what does this money fund? Well, here’s one of many cases in point: Last July, former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich warned a conservative audience at the American Enterprise Institute that the Islamic practice of Sharia was “a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it.” Gingrich went on to claim that “Sharia in its natural form has principles and punishments totally abhorrent to the Western world.”

Sharia, or Muslim religious code, includes practices such as charitable giving, prayer, and honoring one’s parents-precepts virtually identical to those of Christianity and Judaism. But Gingrich and other conservatives promote alarmist notions about a nearly 1,500-year-old religion for a variety of sinister political, financial, and ideological motives. In his remarks that day, Gingrich mimicked the language of conservative analyst Andrew McCarthy, who co-wrote a report calling Sharia “the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time.” Such similarities in language are no accident. Look no further than the organization that released McCarthy’s anti-Sharia report: the aforementioned Center for Security Policy, which is a central hub of the anti-Muslim network and an active promoter of anti- Sharia messaging and anti-Muslim rhetoric.

In fact, CSP is a key source for right-wing politicians, pundits, and grassroots organizations, providing them with a steady stream of reports mischaracterizing Islam and warnings about the dangers of Islam and American Muslims. Operating under the leadership of Frank Gaffney, the organization is funded by a small number of foundations and donors with a deep understanding of how to influence U.S. politics by promoting highly alarming threats to our national security. CSP is joined by other anti-Muslim organizations in this lucrative business, such as Stop Islamization of America and the Society of Americans for National Existence. Many of the leaders of these organizations are well-schooled in the art of getting attention in the press, particularly Fox News, The Wall Street Journal editorial pages, The Washington Times, and a variety of right-wing websites and radio outlets.

Misinformation experts such as Gaffney consult and work with such right-wing grassroots organizations as ACT! for America and the Eagle Forum, as well as religious right groups such as the Faith and Freedom Coalition and American Family Association, to spread their message. Speaking at their conferences, writing on their websites, and appearing on their radio shows, these experts rail against Islam and cast suspicion on American Muslims. Much of their propaganda gets churned into fundraising appeals by grassroots and religious right groups. The money they raise then enters the political process and helps fund ads supporting politicians who echo alarmist warnings and sponsor anti-Muslim attacks.

These efforts recall some of the darkest episodes in American history, in which religious, ethnic, and racial minorities were discriminated against and persecuted. From Catholics, Mormons, Japanese Americans, European immigrants, Jews, and African Americans, the story of America is one of struggle to achieve in practice our founding ideals. Unfortunately, American Muslims and Islam are the latest chapter in a long American struggle against scapegoating based on religion, race, or creed.

Due in part to the relentless efforts of this small group of individuals and organizations, Islam is now the most negatively viewed religion in America. Only 37 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Islam: the lowest favorability rating since 2001, according to a 2010 ABC News/Washington Post poll. According to a 2010 Time magazine poll, 28 percent of voters do not believe Muslims should be eligible to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, and nearly one-third of the country thinks followers of Islam should be barred from running for president.

The terrorist attacks on 9/11 alone did not drive Americans’ perceptions of Muslims and Islam. President George W. Bush reflected the general opinion of the American public at the time when he went to great lengths to make clear that Islam and Muslims are not the enemy. Speaking to a roundtable of Arab and Muslim American leaders at the Afghanistan embassy in 2002, for example, President Bush said, “All Americans must recognize that the face of terror is not the true faith-face of Islam. Islam is a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. It’s a faith that has made brothers and sisters of every race. It’s a faith based upon love, not hate.”

Unfortunately, President Bush’s words were soon eclipsed by an organized escalation of hateful statements about Muslims and Islam from the members of the Islamophobia network profiled in this report. This is as sad as it is dangerous. It is enormously important to understand that alienating the Muslim American community not only threatens our fundamental promise of religious freedom, it also hurts our efforts to combat terrorism. Since 9/11, the Muslim American community has helped security and law enforcement officials prevent more than 40 percent of Al Qaeda terrorist plots threatening America. The largest single source of initial information to authorities about the few Muslim American plots has come from the Muslim American community.

Around the world, there are people killing people in the name of Islam, with which most Muslims disagree. Indeed, in most cases of radicalized neighbors, family members, or friends, the Muslim American community is as baffled, disturbed, and surprised by their appearance as the general public. Treating Muslim American citizens and neighbors as part of the problem, rather than part of the solution, is not only offensive to America’s core values, it is utterly ineffective in combating terrorism and violent extremism.

The White House recently released the national strategy for combating violent extremism, “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States.” One of the top focal points of the effort is to “counter al-Qa’ida’s propaganda that the United States is somehow at war with Islam.” Yet orchestrated efforts by the individuals and organizations detailed in this report make it easy for al-Qa’ida to assert that America hates Muslims and that Muslims around the world are persecuted for the simple crime of being Muslims and practicing their religion.

Sadly, the current isolation of American Muslims echoes past witch hunts in our history-from the divisive McCarthyite purges of the 1950s to the sometimes violent anti-immigrant campaigns in the 19th and 20th centuries. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has compared the fear-mongering of Muslims with anti-Catholic sentiment of the past. In response to the fabricated “Ground Zero mosque” controversy in New York last summer, Mayor Bloomberg said:

In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion, and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780s, St. Peter’s on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site, and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center. … We would betray our values and play into our enemies’ hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else.

This report shines a light on the Islamophobia network of so-called experts, academics, institutions, grassroots organizations, media outlets, and donors who manufacture, produce, distribute, and mainstream an irrational fear of Islam and Muslims. Let us learn the proper lesson from the past, and rise above fear-mongering to public awareness, acceptance, and respect for our fellow Americans. In doing so, let us prevent hatred from infecting and endangering our country again.

In the pages that follow, we profile the small number of funders, organizations, and individuals who have contributed to the discourse on Islamophobia in this country. We begin with the money trail in Chapter 1-our analysis of the funding streams that support anti-Muslim activities. Chapter 2 identifies the intellectual nexus of the Islamophobia network. Chapter 3 highlights the key grassroots players and organizations that help spread the messages of hate. Chapter 4 aggregates the key media amplifiers of Islamophobia. And Chapter 5 brings attention to the elected officials who frequently support the causes of anti- Muslim organizing.

Before we begin, a word about the term “Islamophobia.” We don’t use this term lightly. We define it as an exaggerated fear, hatred, and hostility toward Islam and Muslims that is perpetuated by negative stereotypes resulting in bias, discrimination, and the marginalization and exclusion of Muslims from America’s social, political, and civic life.

It is our view that in order to safeguard our national security and uphold America’s core values, we must return to a fact-based civil discourse regarding the challenges we face as a nation and world. This discourse must be frank and honest, but also consistent with American values of religious liberty, equal justice under the law, and respect for pluralism. A first step toward the goal of honest, civil discourse is to expose-and marginalize-the influence of the individuals and groups who make up the Islamophobia network in America by actively working to divide Americans against one another through misinformation.

Former US Intelligence Chief Trashes the Rationale of War on Terror

August 1, 2011

Former US Intelligence Chief Dennis Blair makes the same points that the critics of the so-called war on terror have made for nearly a decade:

1. “We’re alienating the countries concerned because we are treating the countries just as places where we go attack groups that threaten us. We are threatening the prospects of long-term reform.”
2. “In the past decade terrorists have killed fewer than 20 Americans inside U.S. borders, most of them in a single attack at Fort Hood Texas in late 2009.”
3. ” Unmanned CIA drone program, in which terrorists are targeted by missiles in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, was counterproductive.”
4. “I don’t think that we can kill al Qaeda members and end this threat from Jihadist terrorism.”
Former intelligence chief Dennis Blair said in an interview last Thursday that the terror threat from al Qaeda is a “narrow problem” and questioned the amount of money spent to capture or kill a small number of people.

Blair’s critical comments on Obama administration policy were the harshest yet from the former Director of National Intelligence, who was pushed out of his post by President Obama in May 2010 after just 16 months on the job.

Blair, speaking at the Aspen Security Forum, estimated there were 4,000 al Qaeda members around the globe, with much of a yearly intelligence budget of $80 billion devoted to catching them. That’s $20 million for every one of these 4,000 people,” said Blair. “The objective is to disrupt and destroy al Qaeda. … You think, wow, $20 million is a lot, is that proportionate?”

Blair noted that in the past decade terrorists have killed fewer than 20 Americans inside U.S. borders, most of them in a single attack at Fort Hood Texas in late 2009. He contrasted the terror body count with deaths from car accidents and street crime, which killed more than one million Americans in the same time frame.

“What is it that justifies this amount of money on this narrow problem versus the other ways we have to protect American lives?” asked Blair. “I think that’s sort of the question we have to think ourselves through here at the 10th year anniversary.”

Said Blair, “I think we need to reexamine what our fundamental goals are. I think by concentrating only on al Qaeda itself we get ourselves in this numbers game … and I don’t think that we can kill al Qaeda members and end this threat from Jihadist terrorism.”

Blair also said he felt the unmanned CIA drone program, in which terrorists are targeted by missiles in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, was counterproductive. The former Navy admiral said that the drone strikes are more of a nuisance to al Qaeda than a threat, and that they harm the relationship between Pakistan and the United States.

“We’re alienating the countries concerned because we are treating the countries just as places where we go attack groups that threaten us,” said Blair. “We are threatening the prospects of long-term reform.”

He suggested giving Pakistan more say in picking targets. “We should offer the Pakistanis to put two hands on the trigger,” said Blair. “That would make our job in Afghanistan more difficult for a while but it would make it a lot easier over the long term.”

Pakistan has come under serious criticism since the successful Navy SEAL raid on Osama bin Laden for allegedly sheltering terrorists and tipping off militants to upcoming U.S. attacks. Bin Laden was able to live in Abbottabad, Pakistan for years without interference by Pakistani officials, and when the U.S. forces raided his compound and killed him, the raid was conducted without Pakistani cooperation.

After the raid, CIA director Leon Panetta confronted Pakistani officials with photographic evidence that they had allegedly tipped off Islamic militants in advance of other U.S. raids.

The Director of National Intelligence is designated as the principal intelligence to the White House and the chief of 16 different federal intelligence agencies, including the CIA and the National Security Agency.

Blair, who was forced to resign from his post and was replaced by James Clapper, said in Aspen that the White House had chosen to side with the CIA over him in an internal power struggle.

“They sided with the CIA in ways that were public enough that it undercut my position,” said Blair.

On Friday, when asked about Blair’s contention that drone attacks may do more harm than good, White House press secretary Jay Carney told Jake Tapper of ABC News, “Without addressing specific methods, I would say simply that we believe our relationship with Pakistan is essential to fighting terrorism and terrorists, fighting al Qaeda, and that’s why we work hard on that relationship, even though it is complicated and difficult at times.”

“We also make no apologies for the need to go after terrorists, members of al Qaeda, wherever they are,” added Carney, “and that is certainly true about the mission to eliminate Osama bin Laden.”

The 2014 endgame

July 12, 2011

By Sabina Khan

US President George W Bush had said right after 9/11 that God had told him to invade Afghanistan. Ironically, this righteous claim sounds similar to the ones made by terrorists under the pretence of jihad. After ten years of war to install a democratic government and free the men and women in the conflict ridden country, what has actually been accomplished in Afghanistan? Is the world a safer place now that the US is preparing to withdraw their forces? Has terrorism been eradicated? As the 2014 troop withdrawal deadline nears, these questions deserve consideration.

In response to the 9/11 attacks, Bush called for an invasion of Afghanistan to destroy al Qaeda’s sanctuary. Long-term objectives of the effort comprised establishing a democracy and eliminating circumstances which led to terrorism. Being unable to convince the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden, the US strategy evolved to include killing and capturing their leaders, Mullah Omar being high on that list. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the Taliban insurgency picked up and the death toll began to increase. Opium production flourished during this period as there were few other sources of income.

When US President Barack Obama took power in 2008, he shifted the focus back to Afghanistan and redefined the objectives. In 2009, he deployed an additional 30,000 troops and stated that his goal in Afghanistan was to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda”. In 2009, Defence Secretary Robert Gates stated that “at a minimum, the mission is to prevent the Taliban from retaking power… and turning Afghanistan potentially again into a haven for al Qaeda and other extremists”.

In his recent speech, Obama announced that 33,000 troops are being withdrawn by the summer of 2012 and that transition of power to Afghan security forces will be complete by 2014. Currently, Afghanistan’s newly-formed military consists of 150,000 soldiers but their ranks are scheduled to swell up to 260,000 in time for the 2014 deadline. Despite Nato’s efforts to train Afghan soldiers to read and write at the third grade level, almost 90 per cent of the recruits in the Afghan military are illiterate. High levels of desertion and infiltration also plague the Afghan security forces, which adds another aspect of uncertainty with the transition of power. Moreover, several insurgent groups remain firmly established in Kunar and Nuristan provinces, which border Pakistan’s tribal areas. Consequently, cross-border incidents have risen between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Several hundred militants crossed into Pakistan and conducted attacks in Upper Dir, Bajaur and Mohmand. In retaliation, Pakistan fired rockets on the border to target militants crossing over. Needless to say, relations between the two neighbours are troublesome.

This September marks ten years since the atrocious events of 9/11. Bin Laden is dead but al Qaeda remains very much alive. Conflict has spilled into Pakistan with death and destruction becoming a daily part of life. Meanwhile, the US has come full-circle and is now negotiating with the Taliban and preparing to allow them back into the official government. A recent and well-timed UN resolution draws distinction between al Qaeda and the Taliban. The pretext being that the Taliban only focus on conducting attacks in their own country unlike al Qaeda who carries out attacks worldwide. Thus, the Taliban have been removed from the UN sanctions list in order to help the US with their reconciliation efforts. These games do little to conceal the fact that the Afghan government is corrupt and poor. On top of that, their security forces can switch sides at any moment if enticed with money or threats. Despite the US government’s desire to keep Pakistan separate from their negotiations with the Taliban, it is time to face reality, the situation along the porous border remains and will continue to be a challenge for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Hence, a comprehensive regional solution is required for long-term peace instead of a rushed secret backdoor deal which will certainly be short-lived. Our neighbour has been in a state of continuous conflict since the late 1970s. The ultimate resolution involves education and economic development, which entails long-term dedication and commitment from interested parties that are directly affected by the war in Afghanistan.

US drone wounds top Islamists in Somalia

June 30, 2011

WASHINGTON: A US drone fired on two senior commanders of Somalia’s Shebab Islamist insurgency after they were found to have ties to Al-Qaeda, the Washington Post reported late Wednesday, citing US officials.

The strike last week is believed to have wounded the two leading militants and came amid increasing concern among US officials about growing ties between Shebab and the global terror network, the Post said.

“They (Shebab fighters) have become somewhat emboldened of late and, as a result, we have become more focused on inhibiting their activities,” it quoted an official as saying. “They were planning operations outside of Somalia.”

The Post said Somalia is now the sixth country in which the United States is reportedly using drone attacks to kill suspected militants, after Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq and Yemen.

The US military could not immediately be reached for comment.

The official quoted by the Post said the two commanders had “direct ties” to Anwar al-Awlaqi, a charismatic American-born preacher believed to be hiding in his family’s native Yemen.

US aircraft and special forces have carried out covert attacks in the past in Somalia, but last week’s incident appeared to be the first drone strike, the Post said.

Last Thursday residents reported huge explosions near Kismayo, a southern port town controlled by Shebab, followed by the sound of aircraft.

A Shebab official in the area said his men had reported an aerial bombing raid on a Shebab base.

“The military aircraft of the enemy carried out an aerial bombardment on a base where some mujahedeen fighters were staying. Initial reports indicate several mujahedeen fighters including muhajirs (foreigners) died,” the official said, refusing to be named.

“We believe the aircraft belonged to the US,” he added.

Pendulum of war

June 17, 2011

IN the past couple of weeks, Al Qaeda and its franchises have come back with a vengeance, attacking Pakistan, its security forces and the public. This also appears to be a prelude to an increase in violence in Afghanistan in the near future.

An important aspect of these new series of attacks is their concentration on Islamabad, Peshawar and locations along the Durand Line. In their latest onslaughts on urban centres, militants have used both improvised explosive devices and suicide bombers. Clearly, the militants are in good health and pose a serious existential threat to Pakistan.

The new attacks are significant in that they convey a message to Pakistan and the combined forces of more than 43 nations deployed in Afghanistan, that the recent loss of Osama bin Laden and one of Al Qaeda`s foremost commanders, Ilyas Kashmiri, have not stripped it of its fighting abilities. The attacks also reflect the resilience and institutional capacity of the second tier of the insurgent team which is proving itself adept at meeting new challenges.Another factor that has added significance to the recent militant activity is the capacity of Al Qaeda and its various branches in Pakistan and Afghanistan to carry out multiple border incursions, as seen in Dir, Kurram and South Waziristan, within a short span of time.

Add these capacities to the assumed presence of militant cells within the Pakistani security services and serious questions are raised about whether the strategy followed so far in dealing with the militants is actually effective. The militants` ability to field insurgent groups of up to 300 men, as seen in the two recent attacks on Dir in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, is worrying.

According to local officials, a Taliban force of more than 200 fighters who were armed with light and heavy weapons and some of whom wore military uniforms attacked a police station in Shaldalo village of Upper Dir on June 1. The incursion was resisted by the Pakistani police and paramilitary forces and the engagement lasted several hours. Pakistani helicopter gunships took part in forcing back the militants – 23 security personnel were killed and the Taliban are said to have suffered casualties, but no dead bodies were recovered.

The Taliban had earlier launched a similar attack on April 22, when more than 400 fighters attacked a police post in Kharakhai in Lower Dir district. They overran the outpost while killing 16 Pakistani police personnel. Both attacks originated from across the border in the Afghan province of Kunar, where the Taliban and Al Qaeda have established safe havens after the US forces made a questionable withdrawal from Kunar and Nuristan in March 2010, creating a security hazard for Pakistani forces.

The Taliban have learnt that if they are relentless in their resistance, the US does withdraw. In leaving Kunar and more specifically the strategic Korengal valley, the US followed the path taken by the erstwhile USSR when it too withdrew from this part after the Mujahideen attacks became deadly. This was heralded as the beginning of the end of Soviet presence in Afghanistan. Does the loss of control over Kunar and Nuristan also herald a similar retreat by the US from Afghanistan?

“The withdrawal is a great victory for us,” said Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid in April 2010, when the Taliban forces occupied US posts in Korengal and Pech valleys. “The area is very, very important for us. Its mountains provide a good hideout, it can be used as training ground and lead our operations from the region there.” The severity of attacks on Pakistani territory in 2011 has proved him right.

It is not understood why Isaf commander Gen Petraeus told the US Senate Armed Services Committee on March 15 that the Taliban`s momentum had been reversed in most areas of Afghanistan. At best, the situation is fragile and easily reversible. The situation on the ground seems to contradict the general`s hopeful projection.

Gen Petraeus added that America`s “core objective” was to “ensure that Afghanistan does not once again become a sanctuary for Al Qaeda”. Yet the two attacks on Dir clearly show that Al Qaeda has become a formidable presence in this part of the Hindu Kush and that the US has not been able to deny it this sanctuary.

For Pakistan, the policy options are either to conduct hot pursuit into Afghanistan, or to fence the Durand Line to protect itself against attacks. To do nothing is dangerous.

Due to this security threat from Afghanistan, the recent Pakistani gains in Swat, Buner, Dir, Bajaur and Mohmand appear to be tenuous. It is also clear that the insurgents are now deeply embedded within the region.

So, what next?

The following predictions can be safely made: the gains made by the Pakistan military in Swat, Dir and Bajaur will be tested; it is also clear that while the Pakistani military holds sway in the valleys, the mountains mostly belong to the militants. Yet while the Hindu Kush range provides them with advantages, it also limits the type of war that they can wage: they cannot field large groups. However, the mountains give them the ability to easily change their axis of attack more quickly than the military, which is dependent on a long supply chain.

Furthermore, public opinion in Pakistan that is favourable to the militants allows them to receive a steady supply of volunteers. These factors provide them the ability to conduct a war of attrition against Pakistan for a long time to come. They also have the ability to extend insecurity to other parts of the country to lessen the pressure against them.

A Paranoid Nuclear Nation

May 26, 2011

By Fatima Rizvi
ZoneAsia-Pk

Pakistan should be one, not both; and its people should choose between paranoia and power before it’s too late

For Pakistan, the writing on the wall is clear: Since 2001, we sided with the US in its War on Terror, which was actually a War OF Terror. After 2004, Pakistan became a frontline state in this war, instead of being the passive participant it had been in the three years before. It was not long before Pakistan became embroiled in a multi-front war: one with the US because of divergent goals in the region and mutual mistrust, one with regional adversaries like India and Karzai-led Afghanistan, one with terror proxies like Al-Qaeda, the TTP, Jundullah, HuJI, JeM, SSP, LeT, BLA, BLUF, BRA, IMU and other groups. This last battlespace is an unconventional war where non-state actors are being trained, financed, motivated and deployed by powerful external powers to undermine the military and intelligence organizations from within for the final external assault; this has become possible after softening up civil targets and demoralizing as well as scaring the Pakistani public over the last few years. But our civil and military leadership continues to be oblivious to these increasingly overt signals. Such insensitivity only contributes to the paranoia of the Pakistani people, who are wondering which of their assets are going to be used against them now.

Read Complete Article: http://www.zoneasia-pk.com/ZoneAsia-Pk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4706:a-paranoid-nuclear-nation&catid=70:free-talk&Itemid=84


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.