Tag Archive | "USA"

Nik Gowing, Hamid Karzai - World Economic Foru...

Karzai’s bluff: ‘I will join the Taleban’

Nik Gowing, Hamid Karzai - World Economic Foru...
Image by World Economic Forum via Flickr

Mr. Karzai has once again tried to blackmail the Americans with his “I will join the Taliban” bluff. The bone of contention is the $5 billion in US Aid which Karzai wants to distribute to his family and his cronies. This time his cry is “if the foreigners don’t stop meddling in Afghanistan“. Mr. Karzai knows that the US needs Mr. Karzai’s unstinted support in this summers crucial adventure in Afghanistan.

Kazai may have gotten some confidence after meeting the Turks, Iranians, and Pakistanis in Istanbul. Mr. Karzai is also positioning himself in front of the Afghan population as a brave Afghan who is also resisting the occupation.

This new found belligerence creates colossal problems for the US which wants a viable partner in Kabul to fight the Taleban. A failing partnership puts the Obama’s plan into jeopardy. Karzai wants the US backoff. Is his chagrin real?

The US response has been described as “troubling”.

“Afghanistan is the home of Afghans and we own this place. And our partners are here to help in a cause that’s all of us. We run this country, the Afghans.” The rhetoric seems to blame the Americans for Mr. Karzai’s corrupt government and is in response to the US tongue-lashing against this government.

Mr. Karzai seems to have kept a grudge against the US for supporting his opponent in the Afghan runoff.

Karzai’s recent outbursts over the past week came after the parliament overturned decree which would have destroyed the anti-corruption body in Kabul. This move was seen by the president as a US strategy to remove  him.

While Turkey, and Pakistan have supported Karzai’s reconciliation with the Taleban the US has not warmed up to the moves. The Obama administration has its own plans to decapitate the leadership by offering incentives to rank-and-file Taleban fighters to switch sides. The Taleban are not taking the bait–they know that they are winning.

On Sunday, President Hamid Karzai flew to Kandahar with a delegation of top NATO figures for a meeting with about 2,000 officials and tribal leaders. To appease the local warlords and druglords he once again promised that there would be no offensive without community support.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in UncategorizedComments (2)

IMG_6025

F-111 Strike-Fighter to be Trashed

IMG_6025

Image by Lee Petersen via Flickr

‘Mr President, continental America has been attacked.’ The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff’s face is grim. ‘Land Attack Cruise Missiles have struck US Naval Base Kitsap. The target was Bangor, our nuclear submarine base. We are still gathering reports, but at this stage we assess that two docked submarines have been severely damaged, we believe nuclear fuel assembly buildings have been breached with a high probability of release of nuclear material, and several buildings have been hit.’

The year is 2018, but in an alternate universe where Australia drew 25 F-111s from the AMARC and using its F-111 development skills and experience, rebuilt its existing fleet to deliver 50 F-111s in a common configuration, thoroughly modernising these aircraft at a project cost of $1B and a cost of about $20M per aircraft. The upgrade included modern AESA-based radar, a comprehensive communications suite, signature reduction, a full self protection suite and fuel efficient F110-GE-132 engines, substantially increasing range, payload, speed and endurance. To increase the F-111’s offensive fighter capability, a weapons bay tank has been developed with four conformal AIM-120 launchers on the external surface.

Containerised Novator 3M54 Klub / SS-N-27 Sizzler

The 3M54 Klub or SS-N-27 Sizzler family of cruise missiles have been one of Russia’s most successful export products over the last decade. The system is available in ship launch, sub launch, ground launch and container launch variants, and an air launched variant is in development. The subsonic variants of the missile are analogues to the RGM-109 Tomahawk Block III cruise missiles. The supersonic 3M54E is different, and quite unique, with a Mach 3 class sea skimming solid rocket propelled terminal kill stage.

The containerised variant is a direct derivative of the ground launched system, carried on an 8 x 8 MZKT-7930 chassis, and includes the elevating launch tube system and Launch Control Centre (LCC). It is intended for covert deployment from container shipping, towed semi-trailers, railroad flatbed cars, or fixed sites.

Technical Analysis P-900 / 3M54E/AE/E1/AE1 / 3M14E/AE Klub/Kalibr / SS-N-27 Sizzler

But back to the scenario.

Time is 04:00 Pacific Standard Time. A rusty tramp steamer with four weathered 40 foot containers cruises 35 nmi off the west coat of the USA, some 100 nmi south-west of the USN Base Kitsap. Two nuclear submarines are tied-up, along with a third in dry-dock.

The top of the containers open, revealing a shiny-new interior with four Novator 3M54TE series Klub cruise missile launchers erecting to the vertical. In less than a minute, the missiles are sequentially boosted vertically from their launch tubes, turn over and extend their flying surfaces and descend to a low altitude guided by the recommissioned GLONASS, supplemented by GPS and Galileo Satnav signals. Of the 16 missiles, eight are 3M54TE1s with a 400 kg warhead and eight are rocket boosted 3M54TEs with a 200 kg warhead, this time launched as a supersonic dart, manoeuvring and arriving at Mach 2.9. Radar terminal guidance and target scene matching correlation assist each missile to find its target. After launch, the tramp steamer is scuttled in the deep waters off the west cost of the USA, leaving only an oil slick behind. The crew transfer to a waiting fishing boat and quietly disappear.

The President immediately calls a council-of-war. The findings are at best frustrating, and at worst, are of grave concern to the USA’s future security. These weapons, to misquote Mao Tse-Tung, are ‘like the guerrilla which moves amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea.’ Finding a Klub-K container amongst a world-wide sea of containers is close to impossible. The military advice is to mount barrier-caps (BARCAP) to intercept the incoming missiles after launch until a better solution can be found. However, this is an expensive option, and operations modelling reveals that all of the USA’s AWACS, the AESA equipped remaining F-22A, the handful of AESA equipped F-15 fighter aircraft and a large portion of USN Ships and AESA Block II Super Hornet fleet will be needed to protect the east and west coasts, but that there will still be large gaps, a shortfall in the number of airborne missiles required to destroy all incoming Klubs, and ‘leakages’ from swarm attacks. Even the southern border is vulnerable to Klub-K attacks from truck-borne weapons.

A LtCol USAF pilot and staff analyst remembers that the RAAF has upgraded 50 F-111s. His grandfather flew the F-111A models and regaled him with stories of the legendary capabilities of the aircraft. He suggests that the RAAF aircraft could also be used as barrier-cap, assets each carrying 16 AIM-120C6 missiles optimised to intercept low-flying cruise missiles. The endurance would be about eight hours on station, and they could position to a firing zone at speeds in excess of Mach 2. He advised that the track-while-scan radar could track 40 missiles and engage them in blocks of eight.

The President is impressed. ‘Get me the Prime Minister of Australia on the phone please’, he asks. Five minutes later, the Prime Minister and the President are in earnest conversation. ‘We can deploy the F-111s to the USA in about two days’, the Prime Minister advises, ‘they have the range and don’t need tanker support.’ The President asks for them to deploy to the Nellis AFB in Nevada, where they will receive full support from the USAF.

Three days later, RAAF Pilot Mark and WSO Angus are patrolling in their F-111 at 36,000 feet on a figure-of-eight around at CAP Alpha, 60 nmi North-West of San Diego. Their Wingman is stationed at CAP Charlie, South-West. These CAP stations give them the greatest chance of an intercept of the 120 nmi range 3M54TEs and the 160 nmi range of the 3M54TE1s. Their mission is to protect the target-rich San Diego area naval installations. Intelligence based on the previous attack is that the terrorists prefer naval installations as targets – probably because they are on the coast and within the sea-launched Klub-K range.

Over five hours of the Combat-Air-Patrol, they chat and comment that BARCAP is probably the most boring mission on earth. With the F-111s’ wings spread and operating at the optimum altitude and speed for endurance, the dash 132s sip fuel and so the aircraft don’t need frequent air-to-air refuelling.

The crew’s boredom is rudely interrupted with a klaxon alert. The large plasma screens in front the pilot and WSO light up a warning, and show a growing number of tracks emerging from a large ship 110 nmi from San Diego. A label shows it is a US Registered Offshore Supply Vessel, with its manifest listing containerised cargo to support the Alaskan Oil Fields. Four Containers are loaded, so the F-111 crew expect up to 16 Klubs to emerge.

Their wingman, another RAAF F-111, on patrol to the South, is sharing the tactical display, and can bring another 16 AIM-120C6s to the engagement. The WSOs’ exchange data over the tactical data link while the pilots engage full afterburner and break-turn to move the pair of F-111s onto a beam-intercept course. They know that they will have less than 12 minutes to destroy the incoming Klubs before they release supersonic, manoeuvring darts.

In a few minutes, the F-111 crews can see the sea-skimming Klubs on their AESA radar. Mission Captain Angus directs one AIM-120C6 for each incoming Klub, with each aircraft to ripple-fire eight missiles from the beam intercept. They expect the probability of kill to be in the order of 0.5 while the missiles are in sea-skimming mode, but virtually nil in the last 30 nmi if the Klubs release a supersonic dart. They start with the missiles closest to the coast, sort targets, and designate the firing sequence.

Within minutes, the supersonic F-111s are in range, and with the WSOs working like cut-snakes, begin ripple-firing. Soon, 16 AIM-120C6 missiles are in the air, eight from each F-111, streaking at Mach 4 to the Klubs cruising at Mach 0.7, 50 feet off the ocean. The blizzard of missiles close, then engage. The AESA radar blooms as the missiles hit, but some Klubs emerge as expected. The F-111s have 16 missiles left.

Of the 16 Klubs, nine survive, and the remainder are quickly sorted and reengaged, again with a single missile. The pilots keep up the Mach and closure, knowing that a stern intercept will need to be fired from at close at 10 nmi to be effective. The F-111 with its powerful F110-GE-132s and Mach 2.5 capability is easily up to the task and soon the two aircraft are line astern and closing on the surviving Klubs for a look-down shoot-down shot. WSO Angus takes the lead to engage the surviving lead Klubs, and orders his wingman to engage the trailers. Nine more AIM-120C6s streak out to the nine Klubs. Of these, five survive, two in the lead and three behind.

WSO Angus knows time is running out, but with seven of the 32 AIM-120C6s remaining, he can increase the Pk with dual missile shots. ‘Fire pairs at the two leaders, and singles at the trailers’ he orders. As the missiles hit, the five Klubs now become a single lone-ranger.

This survivor releases its dart which is engaged and destroyed close to San Diego by picket ships firing multiple ESSMs.

The US Coast Guard find, intercept and board the Offshore Supply Vessel, only to find the crew had been hijacked and immobilised. The Klub crew again escaped, but this time the used Klub containers are captured as proof of the attack. More worrying is that further investigation shows that the Klub containers had been imported into the USA, and using forged documents, exchanged on the Offshore Supply Vessel in place of the legitimate cargo.

In this scenario, the F-111s acquit themselves as being highly capable in comparison with existing fighters. Here is the table for a Barrier-Cap mission:

Aircraft Type AIM-120C6s Carried Ratio: Aircraft Required
F-111 16 1
F-22A* 18 0.88
F-15E 8 2
F/A-18E/F 8 2
F-35A 10 1.6
F-16C 4 4
Notes:

Aircraft are assumed to be configured for this mission with data-buses to the missile pylons and launchers. External tanks limiting acceleration and Mach number are not used.
a) F-22A can carry multiple external AIM-120 on pylons – 4 Pylons with Triple AIM-120 Launchers similar to the F-111 are shown.
b) USAF AESA F-16s are assumed to be available by 2018, noting they would be dependent on KC-135 support and would require substantial time off barrier-cap for refuelling.

But there is more. The F-111’s ‘swing-wing’ gives it by far the greatest endurance, so it does not require time-off-CAP for air-to-air refuelling. It also is the equal-fastest of the fighters, and has the capability to sweep its wings back and get to an engagement range post-haste. In some scenarios, the aircraft with inferior acceleration and Mach performance such as the F/A-18F and the F-35A, simply won’t catch the Klubs, or will catch some but leave most to the dart-release range. The presence of a second crew station greatly increases the probability of Klub kills, as the timing is ‘down to the wire’ with multiple engagements required to complete the destruction of the Klub swarm. The WSO will be fully occupied running the attacks and the pilot fully occupied running the intercept.

Back to reality and truth. In recent Red Flag appearances, the F-111 has received accolades for its combat performance. The Royal Australian Air Force has numerically displaced its F-111 fleet with the F/A-18F Super Hornet, but has not replaced key operational capabilities on which Australia relies – range, payload, endurance, speed and tanker independent operations being examples.

Australian F-111 engineers, with decades of experience on-type, advise that the aircraft is capable of another 4,000 to 6,000 hours of safe, unrestricted operation with standard maintenance and the already developed ageing aircraft practices applied, and this could be extended to 8,000 to 10,000 hours if some components are affordably remanufactured here in Australian, using known and well understood engineering practices.

The moral of this story is that you can teach a pedigree hunter-killer new tricks, and produce a very cost-effective weapon that can make substantial contributions to modern and future warfare. For less than $20 million each the F-111s can be refurbished and upgraded to do the jobs that a new production $150M aircraft cannot.

Survivable, lethal, supportable, maintainable, affordable. That has to be the bargain of the millennium.

APA Associate Editor’s Notes:

Current Defence planning will see the RAAF F-111 fleet ground up into scrap metal in coming months, or sold off as museum display pieces.

The F-22/Evolved F-111 Proposal would result in an air dominant air combat capability for Australia that would cost somewhat less than the Department’s current plans to buy 100 F-35A JSF aircraft and less than half what the Department’s overall plans for the Bridging Air Combat Capability (BACC) and New Air Combat Capability (NACC) projects will cost, if implemented.

Recent cost estimates by experts in Australian Industry and Academia show that the RAAF F/RF-111C and F-111G aircraft, along with associated spares, support equipment and Type Data (the information required for the operation, maintenance and support of the aircraft type) could be placed in effective preservation storage for over 5 years, in purpose built facilities, for around 10 percent of the current price of one (Qty 1) F-35A JSF CTOL aircraft.

That’s around 0.1 percent of the currently estimated budget of the Department’s plans to purchase JSF aircraft.

Given the extreme levels of risk associated with the current air combat capability plans of the Australia Department of Defence, many of which have or are in the process of materialising, placing the F-111 fleet into recoverable storage would be prudent risk planning and provide an appropriate risk hedge against what many experts in the Defence community and Industry now regard to be the bureaucratically driven aerospace industry equivalent of the Ponzi Schemes that led to the Global Financial Crisis.

Posted in USAComments (0)

Ending Collaboration with the US on the war on Pakistan

It is time we formulated a cohesive policy to deal with the threats that are now becoming all too apparent. Of course, since internal and external policies are always interlinked, cohesive action on one front will have its positive fallout on the other. Since we have become practically a vassal state of the US post-9/11, unless we deal with this issue first, there can be little meaningful change on any front – within the country or in our external relations.
After all, we are unable to deal with our terrorism threat internally because we are following US diktat and using a military-centric policy which is simply creating more space for militants within the country.

The drone attacks, killing more civilians than militants, are one glaring case in point. The free-wheeling access to US covert military and intelligence operatives, both officials and private contractors, is another destab-ilising factor that we seem to be unable or unwilling to check. And now there are the NATO incursions into our territory and targeting of even our military personnel, which shows how servile a state we are living in at present.

It is not comforting to know that our military, with its vast capabilities has been frozen into a state of inaction and cannot defend our borders or our citizens. Our elected representatives have been made ineffectual and Parliament totally sidelined when it comes to the US. That is why parliamentary resolutions demanding the end of drone strikes or bringing down of NATO helicopters when they intrude into Pakistan have been ignored by the supposedly democratic government. Instead, it has, along with the military leadership, continued to condone the killing of Pakistanis by US drones. Perhaps, that is why our politicians all seek to curry favour with US diplomats and other functionaries in the hope that another NRO-like dispensation may give them their moment of political glory. Even those who sense the public mood turning ugly against the US seem to feel that without US backing they are destined to remain outside the corridors of power.
Even on the economic front, because of IMF diktat and an erroneous policy of getting trapped in their loan trap, we are reducing the bulk of our population into living in darkness, without proper food and diminishing access to state-funded higher education. In the long run, we know where that will leave our future generations.

As for our external policy, it is simply not there. We are in a reactive mode: we are reacting to events around us, including the Indian shenanigans and the brave new upsurge of the Kashmiri Intifada – which has once again left our policy makers nonplussed. All this because we have been overwhelmed by an aggressive US agenda for this region which directly undermines our national security interests. For instance, it has compelled us to make all manner of compromises with India on a unilateral basis, including trade access – although that is still being done surreptitiously. But we have also been dragged into giving the US access to Balochistan from where it has been attempting to destabilise the Iranian regime through support for the terrorist group Jundullah. So, one does not have to look too far to see that unless we correct our US policy, we will not be able to bring about the desired change internally or in our external relations.

Even more threatening, unless we change course now, we will have lost the battle to retain our nuclear assets because that is where the NATO-US trail is eventually leading to. Only recently, a conservative historian Arthur Herman wrote that if the government was destabilised in Pakistan then US troops would have to move in to “save” Pakistan’s nukes! It is this mindset that we are battling against and the only way out is to restructure our policies vis-à-vis the US – which incidentally has increased its military targeting of Pakistanis with 22 drone attacks in September this year alone and increasing CIA-led covert ground operations inside Pakistan.

A three-pronged start to redefining our policies is required, plus three immediate actions that would convey a clear message to the nation and the world.

First, within the strategy formulation, we need an extensive review of our external policy but one that does not see only the inside of a rubbish bin, as has happened in the past when extensive exercises have been conducted. We need to review our relations with the US and put them on a more even keel with evenly balanced quid pro quos based on issue specific cooperation. We need to realise that US strategic goals differ sharply from our interests. For instance, for Pakistan closer ties with our neighbour Iran and China should be cornerstones of any external policy – but for the US destabilising Iran is a stated policy goal, as is containment of China in this region. Again, while the US sees India as its regional surrogate and the predominant power in this region, Pakistan has serious conflicts with India and needs to balance not bandwagon with this threatening eastern neighbour. In terms of West Asia also (the Middle East for the US and Europe), Pakistan is committed to the rights of the Palestinians.

These are just some examples. A policy review is bound to come up with more viable long-term alternatives to allying with the US – including the possibility of communities of power in the neighbourhood with states where commonality of social and cultural links exist and where economic and military potentials are combined to create integrative communities with an underlying economic and military base of power. A first step for a meaningful review of external policy and formulation of viable alternatives is to begin on the assumption that the US is becoming more of a threat and liability for Pakistan than an ally in any sense of the word.

Second, in terms of economic policy, we need to rid ourselves of the IMF excess baggage from personnel to policies and formulate indigenously sensitive policies ranging from a rational tax structure to subsidies for education and utilities to taxing agriculture on produce, rather than land holding while declaring it an industry, and so on. If corruption and nepotism is dealt with, the same nation that gives generously in charity will also give its dues in taxes.

Third, a strong political accountability system should be brought in place with no immunity for anyone. Here there is already hope that the new judicial independence will move forward in this direction. After all, only when all our leaders are subject to accountability and no one is above the law, rule of law will prevail in the country.

As for the three immediate actions: One, an immediate replacement of all key personnel in sensitive posts that have been placed there on US-IMF (in economic matters) command. This would include some politically-appointed diplomats, our Finance Minister and his buddy in the Planning Commission and so on. The names and faces are well known.

Two, curtailment of visas granted to US citizens. Under pressure from the US and supposedly “our” man in Washington, visas are being given with no proper scrutiny and with all normal procedures being abandoned. Nor is this reciprocal since Pakistanis are not being granted any such favours by the US! Alongside this, there should be an immediate thinning of US personnel already present on the ground in Pakistan; and, perhaps most critical, an immediate ban on private US security firms and military contractors with those already present given a week to leave the country.

Three, putting the Pakistan military on alert in terms of immediately responding to any incursions into Pakistan by any military force – including drones. The time has come to reverse this bizarre cooperative mode, we have put our military into with the US. The Pakistan military needs to defend Pakistanis and Pakistan’s borders not flirt with US politics that kill our people.
The destructive US-dictated path should be abundantly clear to all Pakistanis. The time has come to move on to our indigenously-guided path decisively and without fear. Pakistan and Pakistanis cannot be sacrificed any more before US diktat and at the hands of its minions in this land of ours. Ridding ourselves of the US
By Shireen M Mazari | Published: October 6, 2010

Posted in Current AffairsComments (0)

Pakistan reminds US that supply routes vulnerable

  • In border row, Pakistan shows US vulnerability
  • Former US state dept official says Pakistan played its ‘trump card’
  • US think tank director fears political repercussions from ‘border violence’

WASHINGTON: The United States and Pakistan have never had an easy partnership, but despite heated feuds on everything from drone attacks to terror plots, the two governments have found a way to work together.

Now, Pakistan has played what some experts consider the ultimate trump card – closing its main border crossing with Afghanistan to US-led forces who depend on the route for oil, ammunition and other war supplies.

Islamabad took action after accusing NATO helicopters of killing three Pakistani soldiers on their own territory, a stark reminder of Pakistan’s sovereignty concerns as it cooperates with the US. Gunmen torched more than two dozen NATO supply trucks Friday in southern Pakistan.

Former US State Department official Marvin Weinbaum said Pakistan felt obliged to act tough at a time when the civilian government is under growing pressure, including from the powerful military, after its response to major floods.

“They have to show their trump card because it’s for domestic political reasons, especially with a weak government. But it is serious and it points out our vulnerability,” said Weinbaum, a scholar-in-residence at the Middle East Institute.

A prolonged closure of the border would mark “a fundamental change in our relationship with Pakistan. For the US, Pakistan can be reluctant to do this or reluctant to do that, and that is all ultimately tolerable as long as the supply routes remain largely open and protected,” he added.

Repercussions: But Shuja Nawaz, director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council think-tank, feared political repercussions from the border violence. He faulted NATO for initially saying it acted in self-defense.

Such incidents “feed the paranoia inside Pakistan’s military and civil establishments that perhaps there is some sort of master plan to take advantage and cross the border at will,” Nawaz said.

“There is a very strong possibility that it could get out of hand,” he added.

Richard Holbrooke, the veteran diplomat who serves as US pointman on Pakistan and Afghanistan, said ties with Pakistan were “more complicated than any strategic relationship I’ve ever been involved in.”

“But at the end of the day, success in Afghanistan – however you define success – is not achievable unless Pakistan is part of the solution, not part of the problem,” he told a forum in Washington.

Fundamentally, Pakistan’s chief objective is to limit the influence of rival India in Afghanistan, US National War College associate professor Bernard Finel said.

But without Pakistani cooperation, the US would have to scale back any goals of nation-building in Afghanistan and adopt a lighter footprint, Finel said. afp

Posted in Current Affairs, Pak CA, Politics, US CA, US Int Rel., US PoliComments (0)

Anti-NATO movement in Pakistan will hamper US war in Afghanistan

There were no Anti-NATO feelings in Pakistan. This week has begun to change all that. Two cross-border attacks have brought out a vociferous response to the cross-border terror by NATO. It is not in the interests of either NATO or the US to continue these raids. They are counter-productive and do not solve the Gordian knot of Afghanistan.

“The government of Pakistan strongly disapproves any incident of violation of its sovereignty,” Zardari told the CIA chief, according to a st

http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/pmt/exhibits/5/Serb_antiNato_leaflet.jpg

America is either escalating the war or the cross-border aids are a coincidence. To some it is apparent that that the US is panicking. After all General Petareus’ presidential aspirations depend on a peace in the Hindu Kush.

Pakistan has blocked a vital supply route for NATO forces in Afghanistan, after a cross-border NATO air strike that Pakistan says killed three of its soldiers.

Supply trucks and fuel tankers for international troops were lined up at the Torkham border post in Pakistan’s Khyber tribal region Thursday, hours after the NATO raid – the fourth reported by Pakistani officials in recent days. The bulk of supplies for NATO forces in Afghanistan move through Pakistan.

If the Anti-NATO feelings take hold, NATO supplies will have a hard time getting through a thousand miles of hostile territory. The government will be helpless to prevent the attacks. If the US thinks that this is bad–it could get a lot worse.

The Georgian girl is singing an Anti-NATO song in Tajik. This song is played a lot in Turkey and Bulgaria. Its called Chor Javon. Some say she is Abkhazian girl, born? in Caucasus, Abkhazia, not Russia, but she lived in Russia, in Chelyabinsk-city. She works for Ivan Shapovalov’s music project, in Moscow. He also has a project, named TATOO, in Moscow.

The four youth go on the road to hunt. “Gereftand Kaman” means they sat in wait for their hunting quary. The four youth? go hunting to provide for their family and end up dead.

This? song was written by Muborakshoh when he was fourteen years old. Isn’t he talanted? He is a proud of Both sides of Badakhshan, the Badakhshan of Afghanistan and Badakhshan of Tajikistan and he was from Rushan

There is intense disapproval for the NATO strikes. The goodwill of the Kerry Lugar Bill is being dissipated

If Mr. Woodward is to be believed then the US and Afghanistan are providing safe havens to the “CIA Army” in Afghanistan and then sending them across the border to Pakistan. Obviously the CIA Death Squads are not in Pakistan to enjoy the benefits of the warm weather or roll around on the beaches of Somiani and Gidiani drinking Margarettas with little colored umbrellas in them. The Death Squads are in Pakistan to do what they are trained to do murder at will.

Pakistani Nationalists are up on arms and want to end the NATO supplies altogether.

Pakistan has been used to threats. They can discern what is a threat and what is a bluff. The state was threatened by Nehru on the day of her independence. Many think that Liaqat Ali Khan was murdered for working on a plan for a confederation with Afghanistan.. Kruschev threatened Islamabad of dire consequences if the US near Peshawar was not closed. It was threatened by President Johnson when Ayub Khan closed down the US base. Nixon and Kissinger threatened Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto for pursuing a Nuclear Program. Pervez Musharraf was threatened with being “bombed to the stone age” if he Pakistani government did not accept the seven points. Hillary Clinton threatened Pakistan with dire consequences without clarifying what that threat meant. Now there are revelations (from no very reliable Bharati sources) that the US wanted to bomb 150 sites in Pakistan.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Anti-NATO_sign.svg/500px-Anti-NATO_sign.svg.png

Then they wonder why there is Anti-Americanism in Pakistan.

The basic implication of Mr. Obama’s escalating War on Pakistan is that it will have an adverse affect on America’s wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Senator Kerry has called Prime Minister Gilani to calm things down. While NATO’s bluster says that the halting of supplies will not impact the war–there is little truth to that chest thumping. 80% of the NATO supplies go through Pakistan. The dozens of trucked stopped at the border are a testament of what is needed by the troops. We had written a week ago that Pakistan should halt NATO supplies for a week as retaliation for the violation of the border. That has now happened.

NATO seems to have overreacted to the European Conspiracy Theories about Pakistani about youth being trained in Pakistan. The aggressive stance taken by the Atlantic Treaty in establishing “Hot Pursuit” seems to have landed it a bit of a pickle. Today all NATO supplies are in suspension. NATO cannot survive for more than a few days without food, water and arms, most of them shipped through the arteries of Pakistan. Islamabad was forced into halting NATO supplies in self-defense. Of course the spigot of supplies will be opened up again–but not before some guarantees have been agreed upon on not crossing the “Red Lines” established by the Pakistani military and diplomatic corp.

Congressman Rohrabaker in an address to the US Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee clearly enunciated “Let me repeat the Taliban was created and supported by the CIA”. Mr. Naijibullah rode into Moscow on the tanks of the USSR and was kept in the “forbidden palace” by the Bharati forces. His ignominious demise–he was found hanging at the end of a rope on a lamppost in Kabul–is a warning to future Afghan puppets. It is amazing that Mr. Naijibullah a Stalinist brutal dictator has now become a favorite of the “Secular Humanists” led by the acolytes of The Daily Times (a mouth piece of Bharat).

A few years ago it was the same Washington Post and Bob Woodward who were singing the tune of the Iraqi WMDs. The WMDs turned out to be pure bunk, manufactured to justify the all out invasion of Iraq and the total destruction of the Mesopotamian society. It is pedagogical to note that Saddam Husein was the most secular ruler of the Middle East belonging to the Baathist party created by Christians.

The US has the following mentality.

“It was a dishonest partner of the US in the Afghan War. ‘They are living a lie,’ McConnell had said. In exchange for reimbursements of about $ 2 billion a year from the US, Pakistan’s powerful military and its spy agency, ISI, helped the US while giving clandestine aid, weapons and money to the Afghan Taliban. They had an office of ‘hedging your bets’…It was as if there were six or seven different personalities within the ISI. The CIA exploited and bought some, but at least one section — known as Directorate S — financed and nurtured the Taliban and other terrorist groups…the Pakistani spy agency could not or would not control its own people.”

Most Pakistanis note that the US duplicity in imposing an Anti-Pakistan regime in Kabul and then allowing Bharat free reign to send terror bands into Pakistan.

Some have tried to justify the 3000 strong “CIA Death Squads” which have caused havoc in Pakistan. Rupee News has repeatedly reported that the TTP is but one manifestation of the Death Squads. The BLA is another one.

Most citizens of any country would be appalled at the prospect of an alien army in its midst. How many journalists in the US would condone “Venezuelan Death Squads” which eliminate targets which are a security threat to President Chavez. How many analysts could condone “Iranian Intelligence Armies” which go after the trust deficit between Tehran and Washington. How would columnists feel if the Iranian squads targeted Americans at will. Of course analysts would be appalled at the prospect of Death Squads roaming in America.

The alarmists threatens Pakistan with the Obama’s Retribution Plan which calls for bombing 150 sites in Pakistan.

President Obama has gone through multiple policy reviews on Afghanistan. Now the endgame is near. Any further policy reviews cannot change Obama’s face saving Exit Strategy. Any bluster about bombing 150 sites should be weighed against the consequences of ‘the day after’.

Some alarmist essays are in tune with what is published daily on the Washington Post and the New York Times. One would expect the columnists of The Daily Times to come up with solutions. All one sees is propagation of an alien philosophy which has been rejected by the people of Pakistan on three occasion. In three constitutions, the federating units of Pakistan signed a contract with the people of Pakistan–a contract with clearly decided that Pakistan would be Democratic, Federal and Republican. The contracts every time said “No Laws shall be be made in Pakistan which are repugnant to Islam”. The likes of Mr. Taqi are great patrons of democracy but they cannot accept the clarion call of the 180 million Pakistanis.

Some quote the UN Security Council Resolution 1373 in defense of America. One would ask columnists–aren’t the same resolutions valid for Pakistan also. Can a Foreign power arm, train,support and send an army of 3000 people across the border into Pakistan? If the answer is no, then what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If the answer is yes–then why do some analysts oppose the Mumbai attacks or Shezad’s terror or the Taliban–all of which according to the Secularists were part and parcel of the Pakistani machinery.

Mr. Taqi in an article on published in the Daily Times says “We are likely to see an increasing reference to the UN Security Council Resolution 1373, which states that the state’s sovereignty means that a state is duty-bound to control its territory and obligated to not allow its land to be used by non-state actors or terrorist groups to carry out attacks against its neighbours. This resolution, adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and thus binding on member states, obligates them to “deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens”.

The threats will be denied by the White House. However in the light of NATO attacks this week where NATO went into “hot pursuit” –the threats have taken a new meaning.

Posted in Current Affairs, Pak CAComments (2)

Why is the world surprised at Martin Peretz's latest racist bigotry

Martin H. Peretz is a known bigot. What is worse, is that he is a bigot with a blow horn–bought with the finances available to him through his wife. The New Republic has been spewing venom for years. It 40,000 readers are sick and tired of his fear mongering and are leaving by the drove. The current controversy confuses most. Marty is being himself. He hates Muslims in general and Arabs in particular. Nothing new about that. His liberal roots are in direct contradiction with his animosity to the Muslims.

Martin “Marty” Peretz, born December 6, 1938, is an US publisher. He is a descendant of the Yiddish writer I. L. Peretz. Formerly an assistant professor at Harvard University, he purchased The New Republic in 1974 (using money from his wife who is the heiress to the Singer wealth) and took editorial control soon afterwards. Under the leadership of Peretz, The New Republic magazine generally maintained liberal and neoliberal positions on economic and social issues, and assumed hawkish and strong pro-Israel stances in foreign affairs.

Long hovering around 100,000 subscribers, The New Republic’s circulation dropped in the aftermath of September 11 and the run-up to the Iraq War. Its average paid circulation for 2007 was 59,779 copies per issue, a decline of 41 percent since 2000, with circulation remaining flat or falling each year

Peretz has said “Support for Israel is deep down, an expression of America’s best view of itself. Peretz retained majority ownership of the magazine until 2002, when he sold a two-thirds stake in the magazine to a couple of financiers. Peretz sold the remainder of his ownership rights in 2007 to CanWest Global Communications, though he retained his position as editor-in-chief. In March 2009, Peretz repurchased the magazine with a group of investors led by ex-Lazard executive Laurence Grafstein.He is a member of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s Board of Advisors.

Peretz strongly criticized President Obama in his column of July 14, 2009:

Frankly, I am sick and tired of President Obama’s eldering–more accurately, hectoring–Israel’s leaders. It is, after all, they whose country is the target of an armed and ideological cyclone that Obama has done precious little to ease. He brought nothing back from Riyadh and Cairo, absolutely nothing except the conviction of the Arab leaders that they need do nothing but sit and wait until the president squeezes one concession after another out of Jerusalem.

On March 6, 2010, Peretz admitted in a blog post to prejudice against Arabs, writing:

Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture requiring trust with Arabs turning out especially well. This is, you will say, my prejudice. But some prejudices are built on real facts, and history generally proves me right. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

A blog post on Islam on the website of the liberal political magazine The New Republic has prompted a torrent of criticism that is roiling the hallowed halls of Harvard University.

Writing about Muslims in America, New Republic editor and former Harvard professor Martin Peretz posted the following on the magazine’s site:

“….Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. And among those Muslims led by the Imam Rauf there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood. So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.”

The reaction to Peretz’s comments was swift and blistering. New York Times Columnist Nicholas Kristof called the post an example of how “debased and venomous the discourse about Islam has become” and The Atlantic’s James Fallows characterized Peretz’s words as “an incredible instance of public bigotry in the American intelligentsia.”

After ten days of heavy and sustained criticism from various quarters of academia and media Peretz issued a quasi-apology for his comments, saying he was wrong and embarrassed to have suggested that any group of Americans is not deserving of First Amendment rights. But he defended his description of Muslim attitudes toward the lives of other Muslims, arguing that the comment was “a statement of fact, not value.”

Apologies aside, it would appear the controversy has yet to run its course. Today the Boston Globe reported on growing opposition within Harvard University over plans for a daylong celebration of Peretz by some members of the alumni and faculty who have helped raise money for a research fund in his name.

Harvard has released a statement acknowledging that Peretz’s web post was ” “distressing to many members of our community, and understandably so.’’ The university said it will not move to cancel the celebration and defended Peretz’s right of free speech.

Contacted by the Globe, Peretz said, “I was a faithful Harvard teacher, the notion that I have to defend myself when students who I’ve taught over 40 years are honoring me is really a little stupid.’’

Posted in Current AffairsComments (1)

Kyrgyzstan plays US and Russia for increased airbase rental fee

Kyrgyzstan has deftly played the US and Russia to get advantageous deals for Kyrgyzstan. Both the US and Russia wanted the other evicted from Kyrgyz lands. The leaders of Kyrgyzstan played one on the other and gave bases to both charging them what was then considered exorbitant fees. Now they want to jack up the fees for Russia. Moscow doesn’t have much of a choice but to comply.

  • Kyrgyzstan ponders rent hike for Russian base
  • Defence minister hints at fourfold increase annually

Russia is working with the Central Asian Republics to build rial and road lines through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the warm waters of the Arabian Sea.

BISHKEK: Kyrgyzstan plans to dramatically hike the amount of rent Russia pays to use key military facilities in the Central Asian nation.

Defence Minister Abdilla Kudaiberdiyev said the government may seek a fourfold increase on the $4.5 million in annual rent Russia pays for an air base and three other military facilities. He mentioned a possible figure of $18 million.

Impoverished Kyrgyzstan’s location in the southern reaches of the former Soviet Union and on China’s mountainous western border has made it an object of a lively strategic rivalry. As well as leasing military facilities to Russia, Kyrgyzstan also hosts the Manas US air base at the airport in Bishkek, a vital hub for troops and supplies destined for nearby Afghanistan.

“The previous agreement was signed in 1993, and at that time $4.5 million was a very substantial sum,” Kudaiberdiyev said on Thursday. Kudaiberdiyev also said Moscow owed Kyrgyzstan $6 million in unpaid rent and that the debt could be settled with the delivery of some weapons. The Kyrgyz army is woefully equipped and the guarantee of new supplies would be eagerly welcomed.

No definitive agreement on the Russian military is likely ahead of the Oct 10 parliamentary elections – the first such vote since former President Kurmanbek Bakiyev was ousted in a bloody revolt in April. The influence of the legislature was boosted and the president’s powers watered down after voters overwhelmingly backed a June referendum on constitutional reform.

Russia’s air base in Kant is seen as an important outpost for the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, a Russia-dominated alliance of ex-Soviet nations designed as a counterweight to NATO. Around 500 Russian troops and more than 20 aircraft are stationed at the base. Russia has a long interest in further expanding its military footprint in Kyrgyzstan.

Kyrgyz Foreign Minister Ruslan Kazakbayev said last month that the government was in principle open to the idea of creating a new Russian military base in the south, which was ravaged earlier this year by ethnic riots that killed hundreds of ethnic Uzbeks. Kyrgyzstan vainly sought support from the CSTO in quelling the disturbances, but none was provided, prompting some observers to question the effectiveness of the military alliance.

The lease for the U.S. Manas base was extended for a year last month, despite worries that the facility could be compromised by political uncertainty in Kyrgyzstan. The US was granted an air base in the country to aid in its military campaign in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But Russia, which views Kyrgyzstan as its own strategic backyard, has grown increasingly uncomfortable with US presence in the region. ap

Posted in Current AffairsComments (1)

Hurdles to US image, interests in Pakistan: Drones, Media Vitriol, Politician Threats

Hurdles to US image, interests in Pakistan: Drones, Media Vitriol, Politician Threats.

The US media, and the politicians are pushing the American agenda and trying to convince everyone that the US is Pakistan’s best friend and that America helped Pakistan during the earthquake and during the floods. Both facts are true and valid.

It is a fact that the Chinook’s were seen as birds of mercy and became very popular for Pakistanis in distress. It is equally true that the US was one of the biggest donors during the earthquake second only to Turkey which provided the largest assistance package.

This time around the US has given more Chinooks and they are flying the missions of mercy.

  • U.S. Offers Aid to Rescue Pakistanis and Reclaim Image
  • American officials say they also hope to build greater trust with the Pakistani military
  • Many of the same American and Pakistani leaders who worked together during that crisis have reunited in this calamity, including Nadeem Ahmad, a retired Pakistani lieutenant general, and Vice Adm. Michael A.
  • LeFever, the senior American officer in Pakistan. But American officials warn that the glow from the earthquake assistance faded quickly without more enduring development programs.
  • “LeFever clearly understands the P.R. value of flood assistance, but he also knows that absent other high-profile public diplomacy efforts, the half-life of any improvement to Pakistani impressions of the U.S. will be short,”

The problem is that while the Chinooks are flying missions of mercy, the drones are also raining death on Pakistani civilians. This anaomoly defines the paradox for the Pakistanis and is a colossal impediment to the growth of Pro-American feelings in Pakistan.

While many love Americana, and there is universal liking for American, many dislike American foreign policy. The Pew polls quoted by the creepy Pakistanphobes that want to show Pakistan is in a bad light.

The New York Times quotes Pew numbers.

According to a survey conducted last month by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, 68 percent of Pakistanis have an unfavorable view of the United States. So American officials hope that images of Navy and Marine Corps helicopters ferrying supplies and plucking people from rain-swollen rivers will at least begin to counteract the bad will generated by American drone strikes against militants in Pakistan. Many Pakistanis blame the strikes for a devastating series of insurgent attacks in Pakistan.

“If we do the right thing, it will be good not only for the people whose lives we save but for the U.S. image in Pakistan,” Richard C. Holbrooke, the administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said Thursday on the PBS program “The Charlie Rose Show.” NYT.

What the Pew poll doesn’t show is the vibrant Pakistanis in jeans and tennis shows sporting US symbols of fashion. Various polls have also shown admiration for American values and

WASHINGTON — As the Obama administration continues to add to the aid package for flood-stricken Pakistan — already the largest humanitarian response from any single country — officials acknowledge that they are seeking to use the efforts to burnish the United States’ dismal image there.

  • The American aid drawn from giant warehouses in Dubai and in Pisa, Italy, includes 500,000 halal meals, 12 pre-fabricated bridges to help replace the hundreds that have washed away, 14 rescue boats, and six large-scale water-filtration systems. Last week Pakistan submitted a several-page request for additional supplies, including more boats and bridges, a senior Defense Department official said.

Administration officials say their top priority is providing much-needed help to a pivotal regional ally in the fight against Al Qaeda.

But when senior officials from the White House, State Department, Pentagon and Agency for International Development hold their daily conference calls to coordinate American assistance, they are also strategizing about how that aid could help improve long-term relations with Pakistan.

Mr. Holbrooke tautned the Pakistanis about its Chinese and Iranina friends and their contributions to the flood effort. He is right with a couple caveat. Neither the Iranians, nor the Pakistan armies roam Pakistan on land or in the air. Also neither Tehran, nor Biejing is responsible for the deaths of Pakistanis on a daily basis. The media of neither country spews vitriol on a daily basis against the basis, and genesis of Pakistan.

The people of Pakistan will see that when the crisis hits,” Mr. Holbrooke continued, “it’s not the Chinese. It’s not the Iranians. It’s not other countries. It’s not the E.U. It’s the U.S. that always leads.

The following report in the New York Times written by Neil MacFarquhar and Thom Shanke sheds light on US works being undertaken by the USA.

American officials say they also hope to build greater trust with the Pakistani military, which has become increasingly wary that President Obama plans to withdraw American troops quickly from neighboring Afghanistan, leaving the Pakistanis to deal with the consequences.

The flooding, which has killed at least 1,384 people, according to Pakistani government figures, disrupted the lives of about 20 million people and swamped a fifth of the country, has commanded a sizable and high-level American response, including $76 million in donations.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates dispatched 19 more helicopters last week to replace six aircraft on loan from the military campaign in Afghanistan, and he invoked Mr. Obama’s personal directive to “lean forward” in providing assistance. American aircraft have rescued more than 4,000 people since Aug. 5.

The Pentagon announced Friday that ships carrying more relief supplies and helicopters had left the East Coast and would arrive in the waters off Pakistan in late September.

The American response is putting to a practical test Mr. Obama’s strategy to engage Pakistan as a strategic partner on multiple levels, including economic development, counterinsurgency, law enforcement and judicial reforms, and intelligence sharing.

It comes as the American ally in that effort, President Asif Ali Zardari, is facing withering criticism at home for paying a state visit to France and Britain during the flooding, the worst in Pakistan’s history.

“This is a country where we have an enormous interest in their going after the Taliban and other extremist jihadi groups,” said Mark L. Schneider, a senior vice president at the International Crisis Group, a nonprofit organization that focuses on conflict resolution. “If this kind of activity supports the Pakistani government and people supporting the Pakistani government, it’s all to the good.”

Some experts on the region had recently warned that public resentment of the government generated by the floods could wear away public support for the military campaign against militants, integral to American goals in the region. Those worries only deepened as hard-line Islamist charities rushed to fill the void in humanitarian aid left by the government’s slow and chaotic response. Similar efforts by Islamists after an earthquake in Kashmir in 2005 helped them lure new recruits through the charities that act as fronts for the militants.

The groups ministering to Pakistanis’ needs last week included Falah-e-Insaniyat, the charity wing and latest front for Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group behind the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India.

Senator John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who leads the Foreign Relations Committee, said Friday that he would visit Pakistan this week to assess the damage and whether the United States needed to rethink how $7.5 billion in long-term, nonmilitary aid to Pakistan would be spent as a result of the flooding.

American officials say they are trying to rekindle the same good will generated five years ago when the United States military played a major role in responding to an earthquake in Kashmir in 2005 that killed 75,000 people.

Many of the same American and Pakistani leaders who worked together during that crisis have reunited in this calamity, including Nadeem Ahmad, a retired Pakistani lieutenant general, and Vice Adm. Michael A. LeFever, the senior American officer in Pakistan. But American officials warn that the glow from the earthquake assistance faded quickly without more enduring development programs.

“LeFever clearly understands the P.R. value of flood assistance, but he also knows that absent other high-profile public diplomacy efforts, the half-life of any improvement to Pakistani impressions of the U.S. will be short,” said John K. Wood, a retired Army colonel who was senior director for Afghanistan on the National Security Council in the Bush and Obama administrations.

The American aid drawn from giant warehouses in Dubai and in Pisa, Italy, includes 500,000 halal meals, 12 pre-fabricated bridges to help replace the hundreds that have washed away, 14 rescue boats, and six large-scale water-filtration systems. Last week Pakistan submitted a several-page request for additional supplies, including more boats and bridges, a senior Defense Department official said.

“The U.S. has been forthcoming on providing what we need,” said Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States.

Still, the United States is aware that the relief effort could backfire, or at least include some negatives. Mr. Gates said relief would be paced according to Pakistan’s request, in part to avoid any perception that the United States is running the relief effort.

The United States will also have to be mindful of how the Pakistani public perceives what will be a growing American military presence in country, though largely restricted to an isolated military base. By the end of this week, when the last of the 19 helicopters begin rescue and aid missions in the Swat Valley, about 250 American troops will be operating with Pakistani troops.

It remains difficult to calculate the long-term effects of the floods on America’s goals in the country, which include focusing the Pakistani government on fighting the militants that threaten it and use Pakistan as a base to attack NATO forces in Afghanistan.

It has been difficult to assess, for instance, how far the flooding has set back reconstruction efforts in the Swat Valley. The rebuilding is considered crucial to keeping the area from falling back under the influence of militants the government drove out in an offensive last year.

The magnitude of the flooding is also demanding a greater role from the Pakistani military, which in turn leaves some American military officials concerned that the army’s counterinsurgency campaign could falter in the northwest border regions.

Mr. Gates told reporters last week that the Pakistani military had not been expected to launch any new offensives against militants in the short term, and he said it remained to be seen whether the flood would have a significant impact on the Pakistani government’s campaign against extremists.

“Clearly, they’re going to have to divert some troops, and already have, in trying to deal with the flooding,” Mr. Gates said. NYT. Reporting was contributed by Salmon Masood from Islamabad, Pakistan, Neil MacFarquhar from the United Nations and Thom Shanker from Washington.

Foreign Policy, a right wing thinktank reports:

Amidst all of the (mostly pessimistic) reporting on Afghanistan, one squib caught my eye: Congressman Frank Wolf has sent a letter to President Obama calling for the establishment of an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group. The proposal is self-consciously modeled on the Iraq Study Group (ISG, aka the Baker-Hamilton Commission), which Congressman Wolf also helped launch.

Wolf’s new letter has not generated a lot of DC buzz yet, but I would not be surprised if it gathered steam this fall when Congress returns from recess. Whether it makes sense to launch such an independent group is a separate matter, and in assessing that question it would be helpful to clear up some myths about the Iraq Study Group.

Posted in Current Affairs, Pak CA, Politics, US CA, US Int Rel., US PoliComments (0)

Pakistan's tragedy: Hope, Opportunity for better relations with US

  • Rapid U.S. action to support Pakistan’s relief efforts may help improve America’s image among a population.
  • The U.S. and Pakistani narratives of each other’s actions have diverged since Pakistan became a nation 63 years ago.
  • To reconstruct damaged homes and infrastructure and help its people recover, Pakistan will require enormous aid — not just from the United States and Europe but also from Muslim nations and its neighbors.

The rains that have for the past two weeks caused the worst flooding in northwest Pakistan in eight decades have shifted attention from the country’s battle against insurgency and militancy and the fragility of its relationship with the United States. As the monsoon rains move south, numerous roads, bridges and dams have been damaged. Crops have been destroyed. It is likely that next year’s crops will not be planted. Yet amid all this destruction are reasons for optimism.

Rapid U.S. action to support Pakistan’s relief efforts may help improve America’s image among a population that generally resents the United States. Washington’s $55 million aid pledge makes it the largest donor among the international community. U.S. Chinooks — seen as angels of mercy after the 2005 earthquake — are helping Pakistanis over flood-ravaged mountains and plains, and represent both U.S. ability to help Pakistanis and the Pakistani military’s willingness to work with its U.S. counterparts. This collaboration will go a long way toward building relationships among rank-and-file service members. The head of Pakistan’s air force is visiting the United States this week to see joint air exercises in Nevada. Such encounters will educate people and help both countries dispel false notions about each other.

Although much has been made of the negative findings in the July 29 Pew Global Attitudes Project poll, there are underlying signs of hope. Pew found that 68 percent of Pakistanis view the United States unfavorably and that 59 percent of respondents classify it as an enemy. But little has been said about the 64 percent of Pakistanis who consider it important to improve relations with the United States. This is an opportunity for both countries to increase public understanding. A Gallup poll of U.S. perceptions about 20 nations released in February showed that only 23 percent of Americans viewed Pakistan favorably. But while Americans 55 and older accounted for just 17 percent of the favorable ratings, it was heartening that Americans ages 18 to 34 accounted for 34 percent. There may be an opportunity to connect American and Pakistani youth and help them move past the entrenched narratives that have long driven policy decisions in both countries.

The U.S. and Pakistani narratives of each other’s actions have diverged since Pakistan became a nation 63 years ago. By these tellings, Pakistan has shifted from the “most allied of allies” to a pariah state that was the target of U.S. sanctions. Much has been made of Pakistan’s havens for terrorists; the country has been called a terrorist state in danger of being a failed state. Many in the United States see Pakistanis as duplicitous; they point to President Mohammed Zia ul-Haq lying in the 1980s, when he denied that Pakistan was enriching uranium to build a bomb to keep up with historic rival India. Yet in the Pakistani view, the United States is a fickle ally, in contrast to China, which has been an “all-weather” friend. Pakistanis’ assessment is that Washington believed Zia’s untruth because it needed Pakistan’s support to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan — further proof of Americans favoring transactional, fair-weather relationships.

The Obama administration and Congress have outlined a longer-term aid program under legislation sponsored by Sens. John F. Kerry and Richard Lugar and Rep. Howard Berman. The State Department map of the aid program shows projects all over Pakistan, which will help underscore that the aid is not only for the Afghan border region but is spread throughout the country and is for projects that meet the urgent needs of the people. Indeed, some of the disaster relief is now likely to be funded by the Kerry-Lugar-Berman legislation. But urgent and concentrated U.S. efforts must be made to reassess and restructure that project in light of the floods. The flow of funds must be speeded up. The true test of these plans ultimately will be in Pakistan — in their implementation and in the political actions by its government and opposition parties to come together to help the millions of displaced and homeless flood victims.

To reconstruct damaged homes and infrastructure and help its people recover, Pakistan will require enormous aid — not just from the United States and Europe but also from Muslim nations and its neighbors. Meanwhile, the battle against the homegrown insurgency and militancy that threaten Pakistan’s polity rages on. Even as Washington focuses on leaving Afghanistan, it must not lose sight of Pakistan’s long-term civil and military needs — not just for short-term gain but in an effort to build a lasting relationship. To help change the long-entrenched story, Washington and Islamabad need to display consistent behavior. Trust must be built on mutual understanding and equally beneficial actions. By Shuja Nawaz, Hope amid Pakistan’s tragedy.Thursday, August 12, 2010

Shuja Nawaz is director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council and author of the center’s recent report “Pakistan in the Danger Zone: A Tenuous US-Pakistan Relationship.”

Posted in Current Affairs, Pak CAComments (6)

Karzai's hissy fit on Pakistan rejected by America

WASHINGTON – Rejecting an Afghan demand that the US strike at the militant safe havens in Pakistan, a State Department spokesman has said that the US has no plans of sending its combat troops across the Pak-Afghan border and that Washington and Islamabad were cooperating to accomplish the objective.

“We are working with Pakistan to eliminate the safe havens which are a threat to Pakistan, Afghanistan and the United States,” State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told the reporters on Thursday, at a news briefing. He was replying to a question regarding President Hamid Karzai’s statement that called on the international community, particularly the US, to hit the sanctuaries inside Pakistan.

“We have no plans to send US combat forces to Pakistan,” he added.
Stating that the elimination of safe havens was central to President Barack Obama’s strategy unveiled last December, Crowley said, “You have the United States and the international community working with Afghanistan on one side of the border, and you do have Pakistan taking aggressive action on the other side of the border. And our message to Pakistan is that, that their offensive needs to continue.”

The Obama Administration expressed satisfaction over the “aggressive action” taken by the Pakistan Army against the militants in the tribal regions of the country. About the poor image of the United States in Pakistan as reflected in a recent American poll, Crowley said that the Obama administration had worked hard in the recent months to try to improve its relationship with Pakistan.

“I think we recognize that this was not going to occur overnight. We have tried to communicate forcefully to not only the government, but also to the people directly, that the United States is committed to the future of Pakistan. We are, in fact, their partners.” The spokesman further added, “I think we’re not surprised that the people will want to see fruits of this partnership; that’s exactly what we’re trying to do. It goes back to what the Secretary (of State Hillary Clinton) announced in Islamabad last week – concrete projects – on energy, on health and on education that will create tangible results so the people of Pakistan can see it. And when they see it, then we would expect to see those poll numbers prospectively improve.”

As a result of those efforts, Crowley said that after Mrs. Clinton’s recent trip to Pakistan there has been a change in tone. “But we understand that this is a long-term proposition which we take seriously and feel, is vitally important to demonstrate to the people of Pakistan that the United States is genuinely interested in a different long-term relationship with the country,” he added.
The United States, he added, was working hard to remove the trust deficit.
“This is a two-way street. The people of Pakistan have questions and concerns about the nature of our relationship, and likewise, as we’ve seen in recent days, there have been questions raised, and we are involved in a respectful dialogue with the government and the people of Pakistan. So we’ve seen already a change in tone coming out of the strategic dialogue, high-level meetings that we have had in Washington, earlier this year, and the meetings that we had in Islamabad last week, he said.

“We do think that over time, people will begin to understand and see that there’s a genuine and mutual respect and benefit for this relationship. And as people are able to see those benefits firsthand, then we would expect to see an improvement in not only the tone, but also the substance of our relationship. But we didn’t expect this to change overnight. And we are going to continue to work hard to help the people understand that there has been a fundamental shift by the United States and a fundamental shift by Pakistan in the nature of our relationship,” Crowley stated.

The United States, he said, had demonstrated its commitment to the civilian government in Pakistan over the past couple of years. “And we understand that going back several years, the commitment to the civilian government in Pakistan by the United States has been uneven. So this is part and parcel of improving the relationship with Pakistan. Our investments in Pakistan are geared towards helping that government build its capacity and deliver effective services to its people. We’re committed to helping Pakistan improve the – its economy, including the economy in the tribal areas, and the frontier areas where we are concerned about the presence of extremist elements and safe havens that affect the security of Pakistan and the security of the United States,” the spokesman said.

“So, it’s – ultimately, we’re trying to both improve relations with Pakistan and the United States, but we’re trying to help Pakistan improve relations between its own population and its own government.”

Meanwhile, Indian journalists kept pressing the issue of the leaked US military reports about ISI’s links with the Taliban. “Our concerns about the ISI and its contacts with some of these elements has been well known,” Crowley said. “It has been a part of our conversation with Pakistan related stories for some time. Pakistan itself has commented publicly about this.
“We want to see that the aggressive action continues. Where we have concerns about ongoing contacts, we will not hesitate to raise them with Pakistan,” Crowley said.

“Ultimately, as we seek a military and political solution to this challenge, it will take the leadership of Afghanistan, as was outlined last week in the Kabul conference. But Pakistan will have to play a role in this, as will other countries in the region,” he noted.

“We think that while there might be granularity in some of the material that has been released, and again we emphasize that we think this release has done damage to our national security, there’s no startling revelations in these documents,” he said. “Pakistan’s relationship with the elements that morphed into the Taliban go back to the Soviet occupation were very well known. They’re known to the United States, they’re known to India, and they’re known to Afghanistan,” Crowley said.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online//Politics/31-Jul-2010/US-rejects-Karzais-outburst-on-Pakistan

Posted in Afghan, Current Affairs, India CA, Pak CA, Politics, US CA, US Int Rel., US PoliComments (0)

Categories

Archives