This article will be periodically updated. Most recent update on May 19th, 2008

“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.” (Plato)

The Hellfire missiles have tried to again sabotage the the peace deal in Swat. This is the 38th attack. Damadola, drones and divorce: The US attacks evince a reevaluation of relations–and extreme repugnance for American foreign policy.

Still chasing democratic shadows by Shireen Mazari

Shireen Mazari speaks on Afghanistan, Kashmir and Pakistan

Pakistani hawk Shireen Mazari takes stock of US threats

 According the latest reports, after losing Swat, and his three closest colligues, Mr. Baitul Mehsud is on on-again, off-again negotiations with the government of Pakistan. The government now has negotiated with all the major protagonists, and if successful the threat from Mr. Baitul Mehsud is about to be neutralized. In the meantime the Spring Offensive has begun with an attack on Kabul. Mr. Karzai escaped, but the attack in the forbidden city of the “Mayor of Kabul” has a huge impact on Afghanistan. The way the security ran from the scene shows that the Kabul regime is a house of cards ready to fall.

Pakistani Cheese for Western “whine”. Invoices for services rendered. An obsequous Ameican press is unable and or unwilling to report the facts in Afghansitan becuase truth  may tarnish the Plan for a New American Century (PNAC http://www.pnac.com/). It seems that the loud blowhorn trumpeting a version of the war drowns the voices of reality. “Truth”, as always is the first casualty of war. It seems there is an agenda of some news outlets.

“are playing Russian roulette with America’s future with their bigoted anti-Muslim rhetoric. Muslims may constitute as much as a third of humankind by 2050, forming a vast market and a crucial labor pool. They will be sitting on the lion’s share of the world’s energy resources. The United States will increasingly have to compete with emerging rivals such as China and India for access to those Muslim resources and markets, and if its elites go on denigrating Muslims, America will be at a profound disadvantage during the next century.“ Juan Cole

A majority of precocious Americans have clearly voiced disquisitions against the doltish and vindictive votary propagating a divisively daphenous demagogy. The world has presented copious monographs against a deleterious Neocon philosophy used as an excuse to wage The New Crusades Against Islam (TNCAI). An exegetical examination will show that the furtive condotierri supportive of Blackwater and other mercenaries has evinced shame to America.

These are the areas controlled by the Taliaban. The areas under nominal NATO control are the Non-Pashtun areas.

The shrinking ISAFistan

The increasing Talibanistan

The shrinking Karzaiistan restricted to North West Kabul 

Python swallows alligator and explodes: Lessons from the Peloponnesian War. It is sad the even those who know Pakistan have chosen to be employed by the Indian machinery and are presenting the other point of view. On deconstructing the wrong paradigm of the USA media

Failure and defeat in Afghanistan. Payback for Pakistan. Shireen Mazari clearly resents the “Do More” mantra. Pakistani Cheese for Western “whine”. Invoices for services rendered.Many Americans have threatened Pakistan. Kissinger and other Americans threatened Pakistan. The lessons from past defeats have not been passed on to the new generation of US and UK policy makers. The picture in Afghanistan is grim for NATO. NATO has made deals with some of the forces. That is why 3000 additional troops are being dispatched to Afghanstan. Mr. Baitullah Mesud was somehow recruited to wage war against Pakistan instead of Afghanistan.

What are the circumstances that the Afghans Taliban who are so concerned with the elimination of foreign forces in Afghanistan broke into two parts? The main thrust of the Taliban is in Afghanistan.

Taliban Statement issued on Jan. 30th, 2008. “We have been fighting for Afghanistan’s independence against foreign aggression since 2001 [when the Taliban were ousted] and the Afghan nation has a lot of hopes resting on us. That’s why they have stood with us against the foreign military might. They are not supporting us to fight with Pakistan, but to fight against the US-led NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] forces and liberate Afghanistan,” Zabihullah Mujahid said. He said the Taliban had already issued a statement disowning Baitullah on their website (http://www.alemarah.i67.org).  

However a small splinter group led by Mr. Mehsud has now turned its guns on Pakistan. Why is Mr. Baitullah Mehsud with his new organization “Tehrik e Taliban” now attacking Pakistan? These rhetorical questions were asked for effect.

Key Taliban leaders in Pakistan:

BAITULLAH MEHSUD: Head of the newly formed Taliban Movement of Pakistan. He has been named by the Pakistan government and the CIA as the man behind the Dec. 27 assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. He fought in Afghanistan against the Soviets in 1980s; alongside the Taliban in the 1990s and against U.S. and NATO troops after 2001. Now taking aim at the Pakistan military. From the Mehsud tribe of South Waziristan, near the Afghan border where Western intelligence suggests Al Qaida is regrouping. Many beleive that Mehsus has now joined RAW and is supported by India and Kabul to destabilize Pakistan.

MAULVI FAZLULLAH: Uses an illegal FM radio station in Pakistan’s picturesque Swat Valley in the northwest to rally supporters to his rigid brand of Islamic rule. Followers have burned down CD shops, girls’ schools and launched dozens of suicide attacks against Pakistani police and military. Commander in the Taliban Movement of Pakistan.

FAQIR MOHAMMAED: Based in northwestern Pakistan’s Bajour Agency, he is considered a close ally of al-Qaida’s Ayman Al-Zawahri. Part of the Taliban Movement of Pakistan but also a key member of the Movement for the Implementation of Mohammad’s Sharia Law. He has sent hundreds of young men to fight in Afghanistan and has been implicated in dozens of suicide attacks.

SADIQ NOOR: Powerful leader in North Waziristan, where followers have battled Pakistan’s military and provided assistance to the Afghan Taliban across the border. He is closely aligned to Afghanistan’s Jalaluddin Haqqani, a key eastern Afghan commander who coordinates activities between al Qaida and the Taliban.

MAULVI GUL BAHADAR: The leader behind the deeply flawed September 2006 agreement with the Pakistan military that gave breathing space for the burgeoning Pakistani Taliban. Based in North Waziristan. Source: Associated Press

The Pakistani Taliban in North Waziristan have already agreed on a ceasefire with Pakistan, and are expected to make an announcement to this effect within a few days.

In an interview with this correspondent on satellite phone from an unknown location, Afghan Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said that when the Pakistani Taliban began fighting against the United States and other allied forces who had occupied Afghanistan, they were united. But subsequently, he said, Baitullah and other Pakistani militants had started fighting the Pakistani military and “we have cut all ties with them and openly disown them”.

He said the Taliban have a clear-cut policy of not fighting with any other Muslim country, especially with Pakistan, in any manner, and that they are strictly against fighting the Pakistani military. Syed Saleem Shahzad. Asia Times Jan 30th, 2008.

As stated in detail on other posts on this site, there are various external factors which has allowed this situation to develop. That expose and article on the connections is the most popular article on this site.

Maps tell a good story.

America’s on-going war on terror Saturday, January 26, 2008, Rahimullah Yusufzai

Almost every winter for the last few years, there is talk of a spring or summer offensive by the Taliban in Afghanistan but somehow it has never materialized. Usually the US and Nato military commanders and the Western media highlight the threat of new and bigger attacks on their forces in the southern, southwestern and central Afghan provinces. And it so happens that the US-led coalition during this period launches its own anti-Taliban military operations or sends additional troops to the war-ravaged country.

Last year just before spring, US and NATO forces launched a major anti-Taliban offensive in Kajaki district in Helmand to secure the site of an irrigation and hydel-generation dam. Military action also took place in Garmser district in Helmand to push Taliban fighters back into the desert and disrupt one of their important supply lines. Earlier, NATO forces spearheaded by Canadian troops had conducted military operations in Panjwai district, which had become a staging-post for Taliban attacks dangerously close to Kandahar city. One could describe these operations as an attempt to pre-empt the Taliban spring offensive. On their part, Taliban have learnt a bitter lesson not to launch big frontal attacks as it makes them vulnerable to retaliatory air strikes by the US-led coalition forces and increases the risk of casualties. That is the reason for Taliban commanders not to plan and undertake big attacks at the time of spring or any other season. Instead, they seem to be concentrating on an increase in guerilla attacks when the warming of weather on the eve of summer allows their fighters better opportunities to operate.

This winter the US has decided to send 3,200 more troops to Afghanistan for the specific purpose of tackling any new Taliban spring or summer offensive and meeting the shortfall that NATO forces face in dangerous places such as Helmand province. Some 2,200 American soldiers from the Marine Expeditionary Force would operate for seven months in Helmand to reinforce British troops deployed there under NATO command. The remaining 1,000 marines would deploy in the eastern Afghan provinces bordering Pakistan and become part of the 12,000 American troops engaged in the “Operation Enduring Freedom” independently of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

The fresh deployment of US troops in Afghanistan has been described as President George W Bush’s “mini-surge” as it is a small-scale version of the Iraq “surge” that he ordered in early 2007. Though the number of troops being sent to Afghanistan is small, it looks significant if viewed in context of the buildup of American and NATO forces since October 2001 when the US military invaded and occupied the country and toppled the Taliban regime. With the arrival of the additional 3,200 American soldiers, the US troops’ level would rise to more than 27,000. This is more than six times higher than the number of American soldiers who were in Afghanistan at the time of the battle for Tora Bora in December 2001. The need to deploy more troops was obviously due to the resurgence of the Taliban and the worsening security situation. It also proved wrong the US military authorities led by the then defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld who resisted calls for expanding American or allied forces at the time.

The NATO-commanded ISAF has also registered an increase in the number of troops it has deployed in Afghanistan over the years. They now total more than 40,000 and are drawn from 38 countries, including 13 non-NATO and 25 members of NATO. The ISAF was originally required to provide security in Kabul and its surroundings but has now taken responsibility for the whole country, particularly in the volatile southern, central and western provinces.

One major reason for the US to send additional troops to Afghanistan is the refusal of NATO members to meet the shortage of about 8,000 soldiers to secure some of the more dangerous areas in the Taliban strongholds of Kandahar, Helmand and Urozgan. NATO military commanders have been making requests for the additional troops for months now without getting a positive response. The deployment of the 3,200 soldiers, that too for seven months, would partially meet the NATO demand.

In fact, the Brussels-based think-tank, Senlis Council, and other organizations and experts have estimated the need for increasing the foreign troops’ deployment in Afghanistan to at least 80,000 to tackle the growing Taliban-led resistance. There is no chance that NATO members would be willing to contribute that many troops due to fear of political fallout of deployment of their soldiers in such a volatile place as Afghanistan and owing to commitments elsewhere in other trouble-spots in the world. Some of these countries including France, Germany, Italy and Spain are even not ready to lift the strict restrictions they have placed on deploying troops in dangerous parts of Afghanistan or carrying out combat missions. Most of their soldiers are operating in the relatively safer northern provinces.

With deployment of the fresh American marines, the strength of the foreign forces in Afghanistan would reach 55,000-plus. But it isn’t enough to secure a vast country that has been at war for three decades and is now experiencing a renewed phase of fighting that is different from the past due to the use of new and more destructive weapons by the US and its allies and unheard of tactics such as suicide bombings and improvised explosive devices by Taliban. The Afghan National Army is now 60,000-strong and growing but inadequate training, less attractive salaries and heightened risks have been causing demoralization and desertions in its ranks. Due to the shortage of ground forces, the US and NATO forces rely heavily on long-range artillery shelling and bombing by jet-fighters and gunship helicopters on Taliban positions. This invariably results in civilian casualties and displacement and makes it even tougher for the coalition forces to try and win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. The “collateral damage” resulting from such arbitrary military operations has political fallout that is contributing to the unpopularity of embattled Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his government. Karzai’s appeals to the US to curb airstrikes against Taliban militants have mostly fallen on deaf ears.

Organizations and individuals who previously were strong supporters of President Karzai are now publicly expressing dissatisfaction over his government’s performance. The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, in a recent report submitted to the Security Council noted that there was public dissatisfaction with the Karzai government’s effectiveness, deteriorating security situation and slow pace of reforms. Former US ambassador to the UN, Richard Holbrooke, told a conference in Brussels a few months ago that NATO risked losing the war in Afghanistan because of a “tremendous deterioration” in the popularity of President Karzai due to corruption by government functionaries, particularly those involved in drug-trafficking. Canadian foreign minister Peter MacKay was quoted as saying at the same conference that the fate of NATO’s operations in Afghanistan could reach a “tipping point.” He should know because more than 70 Canadian soldiers and a diplomat have been killed in Kandahar and deployment of his country’s troops in such a dangerous, Taliban-infested place is deeply unpopular with the Canadians. And the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) delegation head in Afghanistan, Reto Stocker, pointed out that delivering humanitarian aid and monitoring the situation of civilians in the country had become increasingly difficult due to the growing violence in the hitherto peaceful western and northern provinces.

It is fairly obvious that the US government’s “mini-surge” in Afghanistan with the deployment of 3,200 troops at the advent of spring would largely be a stop-gap measure aimed at reducing the impact of a possible increase in Taliban attacks. It isn’t meant and it cannot achieve military defeat of Taliban. In fact, eliminating the Taliban now appears difficult. A better option, which some Western government officials and analysts are gradually advocating, would be to co-opt the Taliban and bring them into the political mainstream. This would have to be a long-term project but it cannot be launched until the military option is discarded.The writer is an executive editor of The News International based in Peshawar. Email: bbc@pes.comsats.net.pk

Osama bin Laden has repeatedly stated his hope that the U.S. will get sucked into a ruinous, debilitating conflict in Pakistan. Pakistani cheese for Western whine: Countering do more mantra selling Pakistan too cheap. Selling Pakistan too cheap. Tit for Tat diplomacy. Charging market prices for sevices rendered. Refusing the paltry aid offered. The paltry aid has not solved anyting. Wish list of Pakistani people.

Pakistanis want to present the losses to Pakistan.Invoice for Defeating terror, Securing Pakistani Nukes $150 Billion per annum. Pakistan has lived with US threats for the past 60 years. Kissinger and other Americans threatened Pakistan. Why does the US media forget that The Taliban was a construct of the CIA. Rohrbarker

This graphics below show the best solution.