PAKISTAN Special

By: Shaukat Qadir

India would be better off trying to negotiate a state of peaceful coexistence with Pakistan, rather than follow a course that is bound to be self-destructive

Finally, some American analysts have acknowledged that New Delhi is actively involved in destabilising the Pakistani province of Balochistan. They have also come to the realisation that it is also funding some of the Taliban.

Foreign Affairs, a journal published by the Council for Foreign Relations in Washington, has published this discovery, supported by the large variety of speakers at a round table conference held recently in Washington.

The speakers at the conference included Christine Fair, a senior political analyst formerly at the RAND Corporation; Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institution; Sumit Ganguly, an Indian-born American citizen; and Ashley Tellis, the author of “India’s emerging nuclear doctrine”, published by RAND in 2001.

When Ashley asked me to comment on his work, I wrote back: “You have provided India with a nuclear doctrine that no one in India could have come up with, and have legitimised it through the RAND.”

With such participants, the conclusion is indisputable, but the US chooses to consider the evidence inconclusive. Though not when the evidence is against Pakistan!

I am prepared to believe that Pakistan, through Bangladesh, is involved in supporting insurgencies in India. The reasons are obvious: India is a far larger country, with greater resources and, in due course, is likely to outstrip Pakistan, economically and militarily, unless bled constantly.

Indian involvement to destabilise Pakistan is less easily understood, except as a tit-for-tat response, because it cannot take possession of Balochistan, and if Pakistan implodes India will face disastrous consequences.

A tit-for-tat response has its own logic and, in the wake of the Mumbai attacks, many Indian analysts, convinced of the Indian military’ inability to gain a decisive victory against Pakistan, suggested this policy.

One of them, Bharat Karnad, ex-member of the Indian national security advisory board, even sent me his article for ‘comments’. However, if the outcome of such a policy is as obviously self-defeating in the long run; perhaps India would be better off trying to negotiate a state of peaceful coexistence with Pakistan, rather than follow a course that is bound to be self-destructive.

I am a reluctant believer in conspiracy theories, but the writings of Charles Ferndale, Norman Finkelstein, Uri Avnery and Israel Shahak — not to mention Noam Chomsky — have half-convinced me that central to the Israeli Zionist — mind you, all Jews are not Zionists; Jews have their extremists, just like Muslims and Christians and Hindus have theirs — survival theory is that no regional power in its vicinity should be capable of confronting it militarily. Thus Iraq’s nuclear capability had to be destroyed, Iran prevented from getting there and, since Pakistan is already there, it must be destroyed from within. If this be so, theorists contend that the US and India are unwitting pawns in the hands of Israeli Zionists.

That would explain a number of inexplicable pieces of information. However, many of these could also result from the ineptitude of the CIA, a conclusion I strongly subscribe to, as well as policies for short-term political gains by Indian politicians. Take your pick.

The vast, silent, and irrelevant majority amongst the Mehsud tribe have no love lost for Baitullah, the undisputed Taliban leader of their tribe. I am reliably informed that he is rolling in dollars and has access to highly sophisticated light weaponry. Now he could have got these from a number of sources; India, Israel, Iran, Russia, or even the US.

I am also reliably informed that Baitullah Mehsud is in possession of highly sophisticated communication equipment and what are presumably homing devices. That narrows the field a little: Israel, the US, or Russia.

I am also, not so reliably, informed that there are strong rumours afloat that Baitullah Mehsud has been in touch with the CIA.

We know for certain that the Pakistan army has been asking the US for help in ‘taking out’ Mehsud and has on at least four different occasions provided the US with accurate information of his location over a period of twelve to twenty four after the US was informed, but he was never targeted.

We also know that US drone attacks have been more successful in the last few months and that their kill ratio of militants to innocent people has increased dramatically in favour of militants killed.

However, if my information is correct, that there are less than twenty hard-core Al Qaeda personnel present in each tribal area, not a single one of them has been successfully targeted. In fact, almost all of the militants killed in the Mehsud area were lowly soldiers, many of them Uzbeks and, according to some Mehsuds, some of those killed included those who disputed Baitullah’s leadership.

With a puzzle as disconnected as this, the dotted lines can be connected in many different ways to lead to widely divergent conclusions. I will leave it to the readers to arrive at their own conclusions. However, I will adjure them to bear in mind that the US refused to target Baitullah Mehsud on a number of occasions, despite Pakistani requests and accurate information on his location for many hours, and that no really high value target has ever been hit in the Mehsud area.

Each time a hit on a high value target has been claimed, it has been refuted within hours, sometimes days, occasionally even months later.

I leave it to you to dot the lines, but this time I am almost certain that there is a conspiracy; let each of you decide where it leads.

 

BY: SOBIA ADIL

Pakistan today experiences an increased level of conflict and a perception is being built to undermine its military capability.

In this context, America's approach needs to be seen in the context of its long-term strategic interests in the region, which forces it to engage with Pakistan. However, to achieve this it pursues a policy of controlled chaos enabling it to keep the option of political and military intervention alive.

In the case of Pakistan this shifting of conflict and creation of chaos serves the interests of most of the regional stakeholders and power-brokers operating inside Afghanistan. The coalition finds benefit in reduction of military operations on its side. Afghanistan finds it beneficial because the world's attention is diverted towards Pakistan. India is obviously happy, and so is Russia, while Iran is content since because its potential economic competitor – Pakistan – is handicapped by persistent security concerns.

In this regard the worrisome aspect is that while the US can pinpoint even a needle on the ground from space, it never finds sufficient evidence of miscreants hostile to Pakistan. One never reads about any Predator strike in terrorist sanctuaries in Swat and Bajaur. Neither has one heard of any blocking position by coalition and Afghan forces opposite Bajaur, where the militants flee and find sanctuary. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the conflict in FATA and elsewhere in the NWFP is being aided and abetted by Washington.

Another contributing factor is the increased presence of US Special Forces in the region and the presence of mercenaries in the garb of contractors and representatives of NGOs operating on both sides of the border. These elements provide security to individuals/organisations. They are reported to be extensively employed in conjunction with SOCOM (Special Operations Command) and the CIA. These former soldiers are mercenaries not constrained by any rules of engagement. Around 30,000 work in Afghanistan and many operate near and around FATA.

Yet another contributor worth evaluating is the arrangement of sustaining coalition forces in Afghanistan. On average, around 2,000 trucks travel every month through Pakistan and this operation is managed by the US Embassy through private contractors. The contents of these trailers are not known to Pakistan. The arrangement is a security hazard, to say the least.

The solution to extremism is not a military one and instead requires a long-term approach which can change hearts and minds. Of course, this requires patience and resources – America doesn't have the former while Pakistan does not have the latter.

Those who advocate more vigorous military action in FATA should understand that this will only complicate matters. The Karzai government and the coalition have of late sought to engage with the Taliban in Afghanistan and we must try and do the same on our side of the border. To win peace we should undertake selected operations against hostile foreign elements, and that too only if the coalition gives us matching support from the other side of the border.

By no means is one advocating any disengagement with America, for it is a relationship that is significant and must be pursued. However, what is needed is critical evaluation of the relationship and the drawing of a red line, so to speak, which Pakistan should refuse to cross since it will be at the expense of its own national and security interests. Furthermore, the engagement should not be limited to one with a primarily military nature and should be extended to cooperation with civil society, Pakistani think tanks, political institutions, the media and in the form of increased people-to-people contact.

BY: SHIREEN M MAZARI
The big picture for Pakistan should be more visible now in terms of what the US agenda is for this country. But that agenda has been carefully operationalized since the opportunity presented itself to the US in the form of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 – in which, by the way, no Pakistani was involved. Some of us have been highlighting that agenda for some years since, and also pointing out how complicity of our leadership was a requirement for that agenda to continue moving ahead. And what is that agenda?

Clearly, it involves the US creating space within the tribal areas to move in militarily and eventually restructure the whole Muslim nuclear entity of Pakistan. Attacking civilians and thereby creating chaos and panic which would inevitably lead to a mass displacement and add to the pressure on the central government in Islamabad. Also, knowing full well – after all if we can conclude that such killings will create more space for extremists and terrorists, one can assume the US analysts and advisers must have done the same – that by unleashing a war against our tribals and abusing our sovereignty they will create more space for the terrorists; and thereby more reasons to further destabilise us from outside while we face increasing attacks from our home-grown terrorists. Let us not fool ourselves – the US is no friend but a powerful enemy and its ultimate aim is to defang us in terms of our nuclear assets. Already the statements have become more honed in terms of our nuclear assets – both directly, in terms of a bizarre fear that our nukes will fall into "terrorist" hands even though it is the US that seems to have a problem of loose nukes (remember the US planes flying with such weapons only last year?); and, indirectly, by having their politicians and some international agencies build up a crescendo of Pakistan being the most dangerous country in the world and a new "war zone".

That was the first phase of the plan for Pakistan. As the US war on terror has unfolded in our part of the world, we have suddenly seen the emergence of a Tehrik-i-Taliban, Pakistan and countless other militant groups – some of whom were raised and funded by the CIA in earlier years and may well have sustained that linkage. The most aggressively loyal Pakistanis of the tribal belt have now been turned into challengers of the writ of the Pakistani state. Is it not worth understanding why and how? We are being forced into accepting the US war now as "our war" although in reality while we are facing a severe threat from extremists and home grown terrorists, our fight against these forces has to be different from the US war on terror. That is still not our war but is in fact fuelling and aggravating our terrorist problems.

Now the US has moved to phase two where it is actually seeking direct intervention on the ground before it finally puts international pressure on us to hand over our nuclear assets – showing the world how Pakistan has indeed become a "war zone" in which the international community must intervene to take charge of the nuclear assets. Of course, the US would then offer to head such a mission. Seems far fetched? Then recheck what has been happening in terms of US policy vis a vis Pakistan since 9/11 and the statements emanating from the US at the official and media levels.

As for us Pakistanis, we are being confronted with a two-front war: against a qualitatively new terrorist threat in terms of suicide bombings and the growth of a violent extremism; and, against an indirect war being conducted by the US against our long term survival as an independent nuclear state. But, as I stated at the beginning, none of the US agenda would be feasible without the support of the Pakistani rulers. Unfortunately this support has been there from the start but now it has reached new proportions.

During the Musharraf government we were given many briefings to the effect that the US and NATO/ISAF could only intrude aerially into our space with our permission. As a perturbed pilot informed me the other day, he was shocked to learnt that apart from the UAVs flying into Pakistani air space, NATO and ISAF aircraft are flying round the clock tactical missions in Pakistan. Apparently, they have been cleared by our controllers' to fly tactical in FATA, "Pukhtunkhwa" and Balochistan. The Musharraf government had also given unprecedented access to the US in terms of bases and intelligence. But our democratic leadership has gone even further in affecting unilateral compromises, including it now appears permission to hit and kill our own people, which impact our very survival as an independent nuclear entity.

Regardless of how our own Goebbels tries to explain away the Zardari interview to the Wall Street Journal, the quotes speak for themselves and nor has a correction been sought or offered on either side. First there is the absurd style of reference President Zardari uses when talking of Pakistan and its institutions as his personal fiefdom, "my F-16s", "my security personnel" (that is the military) "my war" and so on. And of course he wants the world to "give me" $ 100 billion!

More damaging though is his declaration that not only is he "an American friend" but that the US is carrying out Predator missile strikes on Pakistani soil with his government's consent. His logic for insisting the US support his government also undermines Pakistan because he seeks to show that if he falls our nukes will fall into terrorist hands. Is this how he protects our national interests? Now if his wish of accessing our strategic institutions with his cronies and the like is fulfilled, we may as well hand over all our assets to the US – and now, by default, given the Indo-US strategic partnership, to India.

But then, they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and it seems our president has no understanding of our history since he declares grandly, "India has never been a threat to Pakistan". Please, Ms Rehman, at least teach him some basic history and you do not have to use Pakistani sources either! As for his comment on the Indo-US nuclear deal – which even more rational US analysts have decried as a factor in upping the nuclear arms' levels in South Asia, our ignorant President sees it merely as the "largest democracy" in the world "getting friendly" with the "oldest democracy" in the world!

In fact, he sees his own country simply as a backyard to serve Indian development. As for the poor Kashmiris, they have been labelled "terrorists" for seeking liberation from Indian occupation! To our shame, a Pakistani ruler's effigy was burnt for the first time since 1979, in Baramulla town in Occupied Kashmir with 400 Kashmiris defying curfew to express their anger at the Zardari labelling of the Kashmiri freedom fighters as "terrorists". So far, Zardari has certainly been good news only for the US and India!

If Musharraf was forced to compromise with the US – although now his compromises appear miniscule when compared to what the present government is giving to the US – to ostensibly sustain himself in power then what is our present leadership so worried about in terms of the US? Are there still some dangerous skeletons despite the NRO that the US can utilise to keep the democratic dispensation in line with its eventual goal of ending the nuclear Pakistani state as we know it?

If the present trends continue we may well eventually confront a civil war across the country. This is exactly the situation the US is seeking to come in fully and set up its own quisling set up. As we and the US know, there have always been many in our leadership only too willing to play that role. As for the present leaders, their embarking on the road to power may well have been prepared in Washington, but it is Pakistan's realities that will ensure their stay in or removal from power. Can they manage to get out of the US embrace to see their own realities?

BY: MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY

The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran is now in the final planning stages. Coalition partners, which include the US,  Israel and Turkey are in "an advanced stage of readiness".

Various military exercises have been conducted, starting in early 2005. In turn, the Iranian Armed Forces have also conducted large scale military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf in December in anticipation of a US sponsored attack.

Since early 2005, there has been intense shuttle diplomacy between Washington, Tel Aviv, Ankara and NATO headquarters in Brussels .

In recent developments, CIA Director Porter Goss on a mission to Ankara , requested Turkish Prime Minister  Recep Tayyip Erdogan "to provide political and logistic support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets."  Goss reportedly asked " for special cooperation from Turkish intelligence to help prepare and monitor the operation."  In turn, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has given the green light to the Israeli Armed Forces to launch the attacks by the end of March:

All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of March, 2006, as the deadline for launching a military assault on Iran .... The end of March date also coincides with the IAEA report to the UN on Iran 's nuclear energy program. Israeli policymakers believe that their threats may influence the report, or at least force the kind of ambiguities, which can be exploited by its overseas supporters to promote Security Council sanctions or justify Israeli military action.

The US sponsored military plan has been endorsed by NATO, although it is unclear, at this stage, as to the nature of NATO's involvement in the planned aerial attacks.

"Shock and Awe" : The various components of the military operation are firmly under US Command, coordinated by the Pentagon and US Strategic Command Headquarters (USSTRATCOM) at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska . The actions announced by Israel would be carried out in close coordination with the Pentagon. The command structure of the operation is centralized and ultimately Washington will decide when to launch the military operation.

US military sources have confirmed that an aerial attack on Iran would involve a large scale deployment comparable to the US "shock and awe" bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003. American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq . Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted.

Military planners could tailor their target list to reflect the preferences of the Administration by having limited air strikes that would target only the most crucial facilities ... or the United States could opt for a far more comprehensive set of strikes against a comprehensive range of WMD related targets, as well as conventional and unconventional forces that might be used to counterattack against US forces in Iraq 

In November, US Strategic Command conducted a major exercise of a "global strike plan" entitled "Global Lightening". The latter involved a simulated attack using both conventional and nuclear weapons against a "fictitious enemy". Following the "Global Lightening" exercise, US Strategic Command declared an advanced state of readiness.

While Asian press reports stated that the "fictitious enemy" in the Global Lightening exercise was North Korea, the timing of the exercises, suggests that they were conducted in anticipation of a planned attack on Iran . 

Consensus for Nuclear War: No dissenting political voices have emerged from within the European Union. There are ongoing consultations between Washington, Paris and Berlin . Contrary to the invasion of Iraq, which was opposed at the diplomatic level by France and Germany, Washington has been building "a consensus" both within the Atlantic Alliance and  the UN Security Council. This consensus pertains to the conduct of a nuclear war, which could potentially affect a large part of the Middle East Central Asian region. 

Moreover, a number of frontline Arab states are now tacit partners in the US / Israeli military project.  A year ago in November 2004, Israel's top military brass met at NATO headquarters in Brussels with their counterparts from six members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt,  Jordan,  Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania . A NATO-Israel protocol  was signed. Following these meetings, joint military exercises were held off the coast of Syria  involving the US, Israel and Turkey . and in February 2005, Israel participated in military exercises and "anti-terror maneuvers" together with several Arab countries.

The media in chorus has unequivocally pointed to Iran as a "threat to World Peace".  The antiwar movement has swallowed the media lies. The fact that the US and Israel are planning a Middle East nuclear holocaust is not part of the antiwar/ anti- globalization agenda.  The "surgical strikes" are presented to world public opinion as a means to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. We are told that this is not a war but a military peace-keeping operation, in the form of aerial attacks directed against Iran 's nuclear facilities.

Mini-nukes: "Safe for Civilians": The press reports, while revealing certain features of the military agenda, largely serve to distort the broader nature of the military operation, which contemplates the preemptive use of tactical nuclear weapons. The war agenda is based on the Bush administration's doctrine of "preemptive" nuclear war under the 2002  Nuclear Posture Review. Media disinformation has been used extensively to conceal the devastating consequences of military action involving nuclear warheads against Iran . The fact that these surgical strikes would be carried out using both conventional and nuclear weapons is not an object of debate.

According to a 2003 Senate decision, the new generation of tactical nuclear weapons or "low yield" "mini-nukes", with an explosive capacity of up to 6 times a Hiroshima bomb, are now considered "safe for civilians" because the explosion is underground.

Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of "authoritative" nuclear scientists, the mini-nukes are being presented as an instrument of peace rather than war.  The low-yield nukes have now been cleared for "battlefield use", they are slated to be used in the next stage of America 's "war on Terrorism" alongside conventional weapons. Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states.[Iran, North Korea ]  Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them more effective as a deterrent. ( Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)

In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing "collateral damage". The Pentagon has intimated, in this regard, that the ‘mini-nukes’ (with a yield of less than 5000 tons) are harmless to civilians because the explosions ‘take place under ground’. Each of these ‘mini-nukes’, nonetheless, constitutes – in terms of explosion and potential radioactive fallout – a significant fraction of the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.  Estimates of yield for Nagasaki and Hiroshima indicate that they were respectively of  21000  and 15000 tons

The new definition of a nuclear warhead has blurred the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons:  'It's a package (of nuclear and conventional weapons). The implication of this obviously is that nuclear weapons are being brought down from a special category of being a last resort, or sort of the ultimate weapon, to being just another tool in the toolbox,' said Kristensen.

We are at a dangerous crossroads: military planners believe their own propaganda.  The military manuals state that this new generation of nuclear weapons are "safe" for use in the battlefield. They are no longer a weapon of last resort. There are no impediments or political obstacles to their use. In this context, Senator Edward Kennedy has accused the Bush Administration for having developed "a generation of more useable nuclear weapons." 

The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of World Peace. "Making the World safer" is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.

But nuclear holocausts are not front page news!  In the words of Mordechai Vanunu "The Israeli government is preparing to use nuclear weapons in its next war with the Islamic world. Here where I live, people often talk of the Holocaust. But each and every nuclear bomb is a Holocaust in itself. It can kill, devastate cities, destroy entire peoples."

Space and Earth Attack Command Unit: A preemptive nuclear attack using tactical nuclear weapons would be coordinated out of US Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska, in liaison with US and coalition command units in the Persian Gulf, the Diego Garcia military base, Israel and Turkey.

Under its new mandate, USSTRATCOM has a responsibility for "overseeing a global strike plan" consisting of both conventional and nuclear weapons. In military jargon, it is slated to play the role of  "a global integrator charged with the missions of Space Operations; Information Operations; Integrated Missile Defense; Global Command & Control; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Global Strike; and Strategic Deterrence.... " 

In January 2005, at the outset of the military build-up directed against Iran , USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction."  To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled  Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike, or JFCCSGS was created.

JFCCSGS has the mandate to oversee the launching of a nuclear attack in accordance with the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, approved by the US Congress in 2002. The NPR underscores the pre-emptive use of nuclear warheads not only against "rogue states" but also against China and Russia .

Since November,  JFCCSGS is said to be in "an advance state of readiness" following the conduct of relevant military exercises. The  announcement was made in early December by  U.S. Strategic Command to the effect that the command unit had achieved "an operational capability for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons." The exercises conducted in November used "a fictional country believed to represent North Korea " (see David Ruppe, 2 December 2005): 

"The new unit [JFCCSGS] has 'met requirements necessary to declare an initial operational capability' as of Nov. 18. A week before this announcement, the unit finished a command-post exercise, dubbed Global Lightening, which was linked with another exercise, called Vigilant Shield, conducted by the North American Aerospace Defend Command, or NORAD, in charge of missile defense for North America.

'After assuming several new missions in 2002, U.S. Strategic Command was reorganized to create better cooperation and cross-functional awareness,' said Navy Capt. James Graybeal, a chief spokesperson for STRATCOM. 'By May of this year, the JFCCSGS has published a concept of operations and began to develop its day-to-day operational requirements and integrated planning process.'

'The command's performance during Global Lightning demonstrated its preparedness to execute its mission of proving integrated space and global strike capabilities to deter and dissuade aggressors and when directed, defeat adversaries through decisive joint global effects in support of STRATCOM,' he added without elaborating about 'new missions' of the new command unit that has around 250 personnel. Nuclear specialists and governmental sources pointed out that one of its main missions would be to implement the 2001 nuclear strategy that includes an option of preemptive nuclear attacks on 'rogue states' with WMDs. (Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005)

CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022: JFCCSGS is in an advanced state of readiness to trigger nuclear attacks directed against Iran or North Korea .

The operational implementation of the Global Strike is called CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022. The latter is described as "an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,' (Ibid). CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'

'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran, North Korea -- proliferators and potentially terrorists too,' he said. 'There's nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.'(According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese economic News Wire, op cit)

The mission of JFCCSGS is to implement CONPLAN 8022, in other words to trigger a nuclear war with Iran .

The Commander in Chief, namely George W. Bush would instruct the Secretary of Defense, who would then instruct the Joint Chiefs of staff to activate CONPLAN 8022.

CONPLAN is distinct from other  military operations. it does not contemplate the deployment of ground troops. 

CONPLAN 8022 is different from other war plans in that it posits a small-scale operation and no "boots on the ground." The typical war plan encompasses an amalgam of forces -- air, ground, sea -- and takes into account the logistics and political dimensions needed to sustain those forces in protracted operations.... The global strike plan is offensive, triggered by the perception of an imminent threat and carried out by presidential order.) (William Arkin, Washington Post, May 2005)

The Role of Israel:  Since late 2004, Israel has been stockpiling US made conventional and nuclear weapons systems in anticipation of an attack on Iran . This stockpiling which is financed by US military aid was largely completed in June 2005. Israel has taken delivery from the US of several thousand "smart air launched weapons" including some 500 'bunker-buster bombs, which can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs. 

The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113, can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now aimed at Iran .

Extension of the War: Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks, could also target US military facilities in Iraq and Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.

At present there are three distinct  war theaters: Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine . The air strikes against Iran could contribute to unleashing a war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region.

Moreover, the planned attack on Iran should also be understood in relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon , which has opened up a new space, for the deployment of Israeli forces. The participation of Turkey in the US-Israeli military operation is also a factor, following last year's agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.

More recently,  Tehran has beefed up its air defenses through the acquisition of  Russian 29 Tor M-1 anti-missile systems. In October, with Moscow`s collaboration, "a Russian rocket lifted an Iranian spy satellite, the Sinah-1, into orbit." (see Chris Floyd)

The Sinah-1 is just the first of several Iranian satellites set for Russian launches in the coming months.Thus the Iranians will soon have a satellite network in place to give them early warning of an Israeli attack, although it will still be a pale echo of the far more powerful Israeli and American space spies that can track the slightest movement of a Tehran mullah’s beard. What’s more, late last month Russia signed a $1 billion contract to sell Iran an advanced defense system that can destroy guided missiles and laser-guided bombs, the Sunday Times reports. This too will be ready in the next few months. (op.cit.)

Ground War: While a ground war is not envisaged under CONPLAN, the aerial bombings could lead through the process of escalation into a ground war.  Iranian troops could cross the Iran-Iraq border  and confront coalition forces inside Iraq . Israeli troops and/or Special Forces could enter into Lebanon and Syria .

In recent developments, Israel plans to conduct military exercises as well as deploy Special Forces  in the mountainous areas of Turkey bordering Iran and Syria with the collaboration of the Ankara government. Ankara and Tel Aviv have come to an agreement on allowing the Israeli army to carry out military exercises in the mountainous areas [in Turkey] that border Iran .

[According to]  ... a UAE newspaper ..., according to the agreement reached by the Joint Chief of Staff of the Israeli army, Dan Halutz, and Turkish officials, Israel is to carry out various military manoeuvres in the areas that border Iran and Syria . [Punctuation as published here and throughout.] [Dan Halutz] had gone to Turkey a few days earlier.

Citing certain sources without naming them, the UAE daily goes on to stress: The Israeli side made the request to carry out the manoeuvres because of the difficulty of passage in the mountain terrains close to Iran 's borders in winter. The two Hakari [phonetic; not traced] and Bulo [phonetic; not traced] units are to take part in the manoeuvres that have not been scheduled yet. The units are the most important of Israel 's special military units and are charged with fighting terrorism and carrying out guerrilla warfare.

Earlier Turkey had agreed to Israeli pilots being trained in the area bordering Iran . The news [of the agreement] is released at a time when Turkish officials are trying to evade the accusation of cooperating with America in espionage operations against its neighbouring countries Syria and Iran . Since last week the Arab press has been publishing various reports about Ankara's readiness or, at least, agreement in principle to carry out negotiations about its soil and air space being used for action against Iran .

Concluding Remarks:

• The implications are overwhelming.
• The so-called international community has accepted the eventuality of a nuclear holocaust. 
• Those who decide have swallowed their own war propaganda.
• A political consensus has developed in Western Europe and North America regarding the aerial attacks using tactical nuclear weapons, without considering their devastating implications.
• This profit driven military adventure ultimately threatens the future of humanity.
• What is needed in the months ahead is a major thrust, nationally and internationally which breaks the conspiracy of silence, which acknowledges the dangers, which brings this war project to the forefront of political debate and media attentiion, at all levels, which confronts and requires political and military leaders to take a firm stance against the US sponsored nuclear war.
• Ultimately what is required are extensive international sanctions directed against the United States of America and Israel . 

Mini-Nukes 

The earth-penetrating capability of the [nuclear] B61-11 is fairly limited, however. Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. Even so, by burying itself into the ground before detonation, a much higher proportion of the explosion energy is transferred to ground shock compared to a surface bursts. Any attempt to use it in an urban environment, however, would result in massive civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield range, the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area.

BY: URI AVNERY

"Hey! Take your hands off me! Not you! You!!!" - the voice of a young woman in the darkened cinema, an old joke.

"Hey! Take your hands off Tibet!" the international chorus is crying out, "But not from Chechnya ! Not from the Basque homeland! And certainly not from Palestine !" And that is not a joke.

LIKE EVERYBODY else, I support the right of the Tibetan people to independence, or at least autonomy. Like everybody else, I condemn the actions of the Chinese government there. But unlike everybody else, I am not ready to join in the demonstrations.

Why? Because I have an uneasy feeling that somebody is washing my brain, that what is going on is an exercise in hypocrisy.

I don't mind a bit of manipulation. After all, it is not by accident that the riots started in Tibet on the eve of the Olympic Games in Beijing . That's alright. A people fighting for their freedom have the right to use any opportunity that presents itself to further their struggle.

I support the Tibetans in spite of it being obvious that the Americans are exploiting the struggle for their own purposes. Clearly, the CIA has planned and organized the riots, and the American media are leading the world-wide campaign. It is a part of the hidden struggle between the US, the reigning super-power, and China, the rising super-power - a new version of the "Great Game" that was played in central Asia in the 19th century by the British Empire and Russia . Tibet is a token in this game.

I am even ready to ignore the fact that the gentle Tibetans have carried out a murderous pogrom against innocent Chinese, killing women and men and burning homes and shops. Such detestable excesses do happen during a liberation struggle.

No, what is really bugging me is the hypocrisy of the world media. They storm and thunder about Tibet . In thousands of editorials and talk-shows they heap curses and invective on the evil China . It seems as if the Tibetans are the only people on earth whose right to independence is being denied by brutal force, that if only Beijing would take its dirty hands off the saffron-robed monks, everything would be alright in this, the best of all possible worlds.

THERE IS no doubt that the Tibetan people are entitled to rule their own country, to nurture their unique culture, to promote their religious institutions and to prevent foreign settlers from submerging them.

But are not the Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria entitled to the same? The inhabitants of Western Sahara, whose territory is occupied by Morocco ? The Basques in Spain ? The Corsicans off the coast of France ? And the list is long.

Why do the world's media adopt one independence struggle, but often cynically ignore another independence struggle? What makes the blood of one Tibetan redder than the blood of a thousand Africans in East Congo ?

Again and again I try to find a satisfactory answer to this enigma. In vain.

Immanuel Kant demanded of us: "Act as if the principle by which you act were about to be turned into a universal law of nature." (Being a German philosopher, he expressed it in much more convoluted language.) Does the attitude towards the Tibetan problem conform to this rule? Does it reflect our attitude towards the struggle for independence of all other oppressed peoples?

Not at all.

WHAT, THEN, causes the international media to discriminate between the various liberation struggles that are going on throughout the world?

Here are some of the relevant considerations:

• Do the people seeking independence have an especially exotic culture?
• Are they an attractive people, i.e. "sexy" in the view of the media?
• Is the struggle headed by a charismatic personality who is liked by the media?
• It the oppressing government disliked by the media?
• Does the oppressing government belong to the pro-American camp? This is an important factor, since the United States dominates a large part of the international media, and its news agencies and TV networks largely define the agenda and the terminology of the news coverage.
• Are economic interests involved in the conflict?
• Does the oppressed people have gifted spokespersons, who are able to attract attention and manipulate the media?

FROM THESE points of view, there is nobody like the Tibetans. They enjoy ideal conditions.

Fringed by the Himalayas , they are located in one of the most beautiful landscapes on earth. For centuries, just to get there was an adventure. Their unique religion arouses curiosity and sympathy. Its non-violence is very attractive and elastic enough to cover even the ugliest atrocities, like the recent pogrom. The exiled leader, the Dalai Lama, is a romantic figure, a media rock-star. The Chinese regime is hated by many - by capitalists because it is a Communist dictatorship, by Communists because it has become capitalist. It promotes a crass and ugly materialism, the very opposite of the spiritual Buddhist monks, who spend their time in prayer and meditation.

When China builds a railway to the Tibetan capital over a thousand inhospitable kilometers, the West does not admire the engineering feat, but sees (quite rightly) an iron monster that brings hundreds of thousands of Han-Chinese settlers to the occupied territory.

And of course, China is a rising power, whose economic success threatens America 's hegemony in the world. A large part of the ailing American economy already belongs directly or indirectly to China . The huge American Empire is sinking hopelessly into debt, and China may soon be the biggest lender. American manufacturing industry is moving to China , taking millions of jobs with it.

Compared to these factors, what have the Basques, for example, to offer? Like the Tibetans, they inhabit a contiguous territory, most of it in Spain, some of it in France . They, too, are an ancient people with their own language and culture. But these are not exotic and do not attract special notice. No prayer wheels. No robed monks.

The Basques do not have a romantic leader, like Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama. The Spanish state, which arose from the ruins of Franco's detested dictatorship, enjoys great popularity around the world. Spain belongs to the European Union, which is more or less in the American camp, sometimes more, sometimes less.

The armed struggle of the Basque underground is abhorred by many and is considered "terrorism", especially after Spain has accorded the Basques a far-reaching autonomy. In these circumstances, the Basques have no chance at all of gaining world support for independence.

The Chechnyans should have been in a better position. They, too, are a separate people, who have for a long time been oppressed by the Czars of the Russian Empire, including Stalin and Putin. But alas, they are Muslims - and in the Western world, Islamophobia now occupies the place that had for centuries been reserved for anti-Semitism. Islam has turned into a synonym for terrorism, it is seen as a religion of blood and murder. Soon it will be revealed that Muslims slaughter Christian children and use their blood for baking Pitta. (In reality it is, of course, the religion of dozens of vastly different peoples, from Indonesia to Morocco and from Kosova to Zanzibar .

The US does not fear Moscow as it fears Beijing . Unlike China, Russia does not look like a country that could dominate the 21st century. The West has no interest in renewing the Cold War, as it has in renewing the Crusades against Islam. The poor Chechnyans, who have no charismatic leader or outstanding spokespersons, have been banished from the headlines. For all the world cares, Putin can hit them as much as he wants, kill thousands and obliterate whole towns.

That does not prevent Putin from supporting the demands of Abkhazia and South Ossetia for separation from Georgia, a country which infuriates Russia .

IF IMMANUEL KANT knew what's going on in Kosova, he would be scratching his head.

The province demanded its independence from Serbia , and I, for one, supported that with all my heart. This is a separate people, with a different culture (Albanian) and its own religion (Islam). After the popular Serbian leader, Slobodan Milosevic, tried to drive them out of their country, the world rose and provided moral and material support for their struggle for independence.

The Albanian Kosovars make up 90% of the citizens of the new state, which has a population of two million. The other 10% are Serbs, who want no part of the new Kosova. They want the areas they live in to be annexed to Serbia . According to Kant's maxim, are they entitled to this?

I would propose a pragmatic moral principle: Every population that inhabits a defined territory and has a clear national character is entitled to independence. A state that wants to keep such a population must see to it that they feel comfortable, that they receive their full rights, enjoy equality and have an autonomy that satisfies their aspirations. In short: that they have no reason to desire separation.

That applies to the French in Canada, the Scots in Britain, the Kurds in Turkey and elsewhere, the various ethnic groups in Africa, the indigenous peoples in Latin America, the Tamils in Sri Lanka and many others. Each has a right to choose between full equality, autonomy and independence.

THIS LEADS us, of course, to the Palestinian issue.

In the competition for the sympathy of the world media, the Palestinians are unlucky. According to all the objective standards, they have a right to full independence, exactly like the Tibetans. They inhabit a defined territory, they are a specific nation, a clear border exists between them and Israel . One must really have a crooked mind to deny these facts.

But the Palestinians are suffering from several cruel strokes of fate: The people that oppress them claim for themselves the crown of ultimate victimhood. The whole world sympathizes with the Israelis because the Jews were the victims of the most horrific crime of the Western world. That creates a strange situation: the oppressor is more popular than the victim. Anyone who supports the Palestinians is automatically suspected of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.

Also, the great majority of the Palestinians are Muslims (nobody pays attention to the Palestinian Christians). Since Islam arouses fear and abhorrence in the West, the Palestinian struggle has automatically become a part of that shapeless, sinister threat, "international terrorism". And since the murders of Yasser Arafat and Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the Palestinians have no particularly impressive leader - neither in Fatah nor in Hamas.

The world media are shedding tears for the Tibetan people, whose land is taken from them by Chinese settlers. Who cares about the Palestinians, whose land is taken from them by our settlers?

In the world-wide tumult about Tibet , the Israeli spokespersons compare themselves - strange as it sounds - to the poor Tibetans, not to the evil Chinese. Many think this quite logical.

If Kant were dug up tomorrow and asked about the Palestinians, he would probably answer: "Give them what you think should be given to everybody, and don't wake me up again to ask silly questions."

By GEN. (Retired)MIRZA ASLAM BAIG

The Pakistanis have foiled Washington’s plan for regime change in Islamabad . Now we have to move fast to foil a second conspiracy against Pakistan taking place in Afghanistan against our homeland. The Americans have established a huge intelligence network there to target Pakistan and a few other countries in the region. They have turned our northwestern neighbor into a free-for-all territory for smugglers, narcotic dealers, conspirators, intelligence agencies and NGOs, to operate with impunity. Pakistan has to destroy the anti-Pakistan base of operations in Afghanistan .

The people of Pakistan have succeeded in defeating the 'conspiracy for regime change' in Islamabad through their landmark mandate of Feb. 18, which, hopefully, would lead to the establishment of a sovereign parliament.

This parliament will be faced with the daunting task of defeating another dangerous conspiracy emanating from Afghanistan, which started with the occupation of Afghanistan in October 2001, when a large intelligence setup was created at Jabal-us-Seraj, north of Kabul , to provide the much needed intelligence to the occupation forces.

The areas in the north from Herat to Mazar-e-Sharif to Badakhshan are virtually under the control of the warlords.

In the south, areas bordering Pakistan are practically controlled by the Taliban, in addition to a 'free for all' territory for the smugglers, narcotic dealers, conspirators, intelligence agencies and the NGOs, to operate with impunity.

U.S. and India signed the Strategic Partnership Deal in 2005, with the declared objective of containing and curbing the rising military and economic power of China and the increasing threat of Islamic extremism in the region.

In this respect, both countries achieved harmony of interests in pursuit of these objectives. However, as the military situation worsened, attention got focused on the establishment of a large intelligence network in Afghanistan to destabilize Pakistan and other neighboring countries such as, China, Russia, Central Asian States and Iran.

It was at this time that the U.S. State Department declared that “Afghanistan, which has been part of Central Asia geopolitically, henceforth will be considered as part of South Asia .”

The implicit purpose was to bring Afghanistan within easy reach of India to use it as a base for intelligence operations against the neighboring countries.

We in Pakistan have enough information to identify this intelligence network inside Afghanistan , to accurately determine the dimensions of this Great Game.

The nerve center is at Jabal-us-Seraj, manned and operated by CIA, RAW, Mossad, MI-6 and BND (German intelligence). It’s a huge setup with concrete buildings, antennas and all the modern electronic gadgetry one can conceive of.

Country-specific outposts there are:

• Sarobi and Kandahar against Pakistan 
• Faizabad against China
• Mazar-e-Sharif against Russia and Central Asian states
• Herat against Iran

As far as Pakistan is concerned, Sarobi is the nerve center, headed by an Indian General officer, who also commands the Border Road Organization (BRO). Its forward bases are Ghazni, Khowst, Gardeyz, Jalalabad, Asadabad, Wakhan and Faizabad.

BRO has built an all-weather road from Sarobi to Asadabad to Faizabad. Sarobi network, targets the province of NWFP , Pakistan . Dissidents from Pakistan are trained at Sarobi for missions inside NWFP.

Wakhan is infested with dozens of electronic outposts covering Pakistan, China, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan .

Against Balochistan province, Kandahar has its forward bases at Lashkargah and Nawah. The dissidents from Balochistan are trained at Lashkargah for undertaking missions in Balochistan as well as in support of the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA). One of their tasks is to target the Chinese working in the province, particularly at Gwadar, Sandak and Hab.

The American anchorages on the Pakistani coast at Jiwani and Kalamat (The facilities at Jiwani and Kalamat were provided by Pakistan as logistic support bases to the Americans for operation in Afghanistan, but the same are now being used, to destabilize Balochistan and Iran.) jointly plan operations with BLA inside Balochistan.

They also use the Pakistani outposts at Mand for operations inside Iran . The American warships in the Arabian Sea and their intelligence base in Muscat provide the backup support.

The setup at Faizabad (Badakhshan) is against China and holds over 400 personnel mainly Muslim soldiers, engineers and workers from India . It serves as the training camp for the Chinese dissidents from the Xinjiang province of China . Indian Ulemas impart motivational education, giving the impression that the entire outfit at Faizabad was run by Pakistanis. The recently acquired facility for military deployment by India across the border in Tajikistan at Kalai Kumli adds a meaningful capability to India to operate inside Tajikistan, as well as Uzbekistan .

Against Russia , the intelligence base at Mazar-e-Sharif is run jointly by CIA, RAW, Mossad and BND. Chechen dissidents and agents from Turkmenistan are trained for operations in these countries. Rasheed Dostam and Ahmad Zia Masood are very active supporters of such activities in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan .

Against Iran, the forward base at Herat and Farah are manned by CIA, RAW and Mossad for subversive activities inside Iran . Jointly operating from these bases and the bases inside Pakistan, such as Kalamat, Jiwani and Mand, they have been able to undertake terrorist action inside Iran , killing a number of security forces personnel. The terrorist organization named Jandullah has been used for conduct of such operations inside Iran .  

The Karzai government in Kabul has granted all the main outposts of this network the status of diplomatic 'Consulates' to provide diplomatic cover for their activities, resulting into the worst kind of 'Terrorism Through Consensus' by the so-called civilized nations, in occupation of Afghanistan and the brutal violation of Afghanistan's sovereignty for this purpose.

It is surprising that after so much of suffering, as a result of this conspiracy, the government of Pakistan has woken up now to say that foreign hands are involved in the recent bomb blasts and suicide attacks. To defeat this conspiracy is the daunting task the new government and the sovereign parliament would be facing and we all hope it will stand up to the challenge.  

Mirza Aslam Baig is a former chief of army staff of the Pakistani Armed Forces.

This article is published with permission and courtsey of http://www.ahmedquraishi.com/

BY: MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY 

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto has created conditions which contribute to the ongoing destabilization and fragmentation of Pakistan as a nation. The process of U.S.-sponsored "regime change,“ which normally consists in the re-formation of a fresh proxy government under new leaders has been broken. Discredited in the eyes of Pakistani public opinion, General Pervez Musharaf cannot remain in the seat of political power, but at the same time, the fake elections ported by the "international community" scheduled for January 2008, even if they were to be carried out, would not be accepted as legitimate, thereby creating a political impasse. There are indications that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was anticipated by U.S. officials: "It has been known for months that the Bush-Cheney administration and its allies have been maneuvering to strengthen their political control of Pakistan, paving the way for the expansion and deepening of the ‘war on terrorism’ across the region. Various American destabilization plans, known for months by officials and analysts, proposed the toppling of Pakistan 's military... The assassination of Bhutto appears to have been anticipated. There were even reports of “chatter” among U.S. officials about the possible assassinations of either Pervez Musharraf or Benazir Bhutto, well before the actual attempts took place.

Political Impasse: "Regime change" with a view to ensuring continuity under military rule is no longer the main thrust of U.S. foreign policy. The regime of Pervez Musharraf cannot prevail. Washington's foreign policy course is to actively promote the political fragmentation and balkanization of Pakistan as a nation. A new political leadership is anticipated but in all likelihood it will take on a very different shape, in relation to previous U.S.-sponsored regimes. One can expect that Washington will push for a compliant political leadership, with no commitment to the national interest, a leadership which will serve U.S. imperial interests, while concurrently contributing under the disguise of "decentralization,” to the weakening of the central government and the fracture of Pakistan 's fragile federal structure. The political impasse is deliberate. It is part of an evolving U.S. foreign policy agenda, which favors disruption and disarray in the structures of the Pakistani State . Indirect rule by the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus is to be replaced by more direct forms of U.S. interference, including an expanded U.S. military presence inside Pakistan … This expanded military presence is also dictated by the Middle East-Central Asia geopolitical situation and Washington's ongoing plans to extend the Middle East war to a much broader area. The U.S. has several military bases in Pakistan . It controls the country's air space. According to a recent report: "U.S. Special Forces are expected to vastly expand their presence in Pakistan as part of an effort to train and support indigenous counter-insurgency forces and clandestine counterterrorism units" (William Arkin, Washington Post, December 2007)… The official justification and pretext for an increased military presence in Pakistan is to extend the "war on terrorism.” Concurrently, to justify its counterterrorism program, Washington is also beefing up its covert support to the "terrorists." 

The Balkanization of Pakistan: Already in 2005, a report by the U.S. National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the CIA forecast a "Yugoslav-like fate" for Pakistan "in a decade with the country riven by civil war, bloodshed, and inter provincial rivalries, as seen recently in Balochistan." (Energy Compass, 2 March 2005). According to the NIC-CIA, Pakistan is slated to become a "failed state" by 2015, "as it would be affected by civil war, complete Talibanisation, and struggle for control of its nuclear weapons.” (Quoted by former Pakistan High Commissioner to UK , Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Times of India, 13 February 2005): "Nascent democratic reforms will produce little change in the face of opposition from an entrenched political elite and radical Islamic parties. In a climate of continuing domestic turmoil, the Central government's control probably will be reduced to the Punjabi heartland and the economic hub of Karachi ," the former diplomat quoted the NIC-CIA report as saying. Expressing apprehension, Hasan asked, "Are our military rulers working on a similar agenda or something that has been laid out for them in the various assessment reports over the years by the National Intelligence Council in joint collaboration with CIA?" (Ibid)  Continuity, characterized by the dominant role of the Pakistani military and intelligence has been scrapped in favor of political breakup and balkanization… According to the NIC-CIA scenario, which Washington intends to carry out: "Pakistan will not recover easily from decades of political and economic mismanagement, divisive policies, lawlessness, corruption, and ethnic friction." (Ibid). The U.S. course consists in fomenting social, ethnic, and factional divisions and political fragmentation, including the territorial breakup of Pakistan . This course of action is also dictated by U.S. war plans in relation to both Afghanistan and Iran … This U.S. agenda for Pakistan is similar to that applied throughout the broader Middle East Central Asian region. U.S. strategy, supported by covert intelligence operations, consists in triggering ethnic and religious strife, abetting and financing secessionist movements while also weakening the institutions of the central government…The broader objective is to fracture the Nation State and redraw the borders of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Pakistan's Oil and Gas reserves: Pakistan 's extensive oil and gas reserves, largely located in Balochistan province, as well as its pipeline corridors are considered strategic by the Anglo-American alliance, requiring the concurrent militarization of Pakistani territory… Balochistan comprises more than 40% of Pakistan 's land mass, possesses important reserves of oil and natural gas, as well as extensive mineral resources… The Iran-India pipeline corridor is slated to transit through Balochistan. Balochistan also possesses a deep seaport, largely financed by China, located at Gwadar on the Arabian Sea , not far from the Straits of Hormuz where 30% of the world's daily oil supply moves by ship or pipeline. ( Asia News.it, 29 December 2007) Pakistan has an estimated 25.1 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of proven gas reserves of which 19 trillion are located in Balochistan. Among foreign oil and gas contractors in Balochistan are BP, Italy's ENI, Austria's OMV, and Australia 's BHP. It is worth noting that Pakistan 's state oil and gas companies, including PPL which has the largest stake in the Sui oil fields of Balochistan, are up for privatization under IMF-World Bank supervision… According to the Oil and Gas Journal (OGJ), Pakistan had proven oil reserves of 300 million barrels, most of which are located in Balochistan. Other estimates place Balochistan oil reserves at an estimated six trillion barrels of oil reserves both onshore and offshore 

Covert Support to Balochistan Separatists: Balochistan's strategic energy reserves have a bearing on the separatist agenda. Following a familiar pattern, there are indications that the Baloch insurgency is being supported and abetted by Britain and the U.S… The Balochi national resistance movement dates back to the late 1940s, when Balochistan was invaded by Pakistan . In the current geopolitical context, the separatist movement is in the process of being hijacked by foreign powers… British intelligence is allegedly providing covert support to Balochistan separatists (which from the outset have been repressed by Pakistan 's military). In June 2006, Pakistan's Senate Committee on Defence accused British intelligence of "abetting the insurgency in the province bordering Iran "  

Ten British MPs were involved in a closed door session of the Senate Committee on Defence regarding the alleged support of Britain 's Secret Service to Balcoh separatists (Ibid). Also of relevance are reports of CIA and Mossad support to Baloch rebels in Iran and Southern Afghanistan … It would appear that Britain and the U.S. are supporting both sides. The U.S. is providing American F-16 jets to the Pakistani military, which are being used to bomb Baloch villages in Balochistan. Meanwhile, British alleged covert support to the separatist movement (according to the Pakistani Senate Committee) contributes to weakening the central government. The stated purpose of U.S. counter-terrorism is to provide covert support as well as training to "Liberation Armies" ultimately with a view to destabilizing sovereign governments. In Kosovo, the training of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in the 1990s had been entrusted to a private mercenary company, Military Professional Resources Inc (MPRI), on contract to the Pentagon… The BLA bears a canny resemblance to Kosovo's KLA, which was financed by the drug trade and supported by the CIA and Germany 's Bundes Nachrichten Dienst (BND)… The BLA emerged shortly after the 1999 military coup. It has no tangible links to the Baloch resistance movement, which developed since the late 1940s. An aura of mystery surrounds the leadership of the BLA. Washington favors the creation of a "Greater Balochistan" which would integrate the Baloch areas of Pakistan with those of Iran and possibly the Southern tip of Afghanistan, thereby leading to a process of political fracturing in both Iran and Pakistan … "The U.S. is using Balochi nationalism for staging an insurgency inside Iran 's Sistan-Balochistan province. The ‘war on terror’ in Afghanistan gives a useful political backdrop for the ascendancy of Balochi militancy". Military scholar Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters, writing in the June 2006 issue of The Armed Forces Journal suggests in no uncertain terms that Pakistan should be broken up, leading to the formation of a separate country: "Greater Balochistan" or "Free Balochistan .” The latter would incorporate the Pakistani and Iranian Baloch provinces into a single political entity… In turn, according to Peters, Pakistan's North West Frontier Province (NWFP) should be incorporated into Afghanistan "because of its linguistic and ethnic affinity.” This proposed fragmentation, which broadly reflects U.S. foreign policy, would reduce Pakistani territory to approximately 50 percent of its present land area. Pakistan would also lose a large part of its coastline on the Arabian Sea …                                                                                                  

Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO's Defense College for senior military officers… This map (as described), as well as other similar maps, has most probably been used at the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles…   "Lieutenant-Colonel Peters was last posted, before he retired to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, within the U.S. Defence Department, and has been one of the Pentagon’s foremost authors with numerous essays on strategy for military journals and U.S. foreign policy." (Ibid)               

"Strong Economic Medicine": Weakening Pakistan's Central Government: It is by no means accidental that the 2005 National Intelligence Council (NIC)-CIA report had predicted a "Yugoslav-like fate" for Pakistan pointing to the impacts of "economic mismanagement" as one of the causes of political breakup and balkanization… "Economic mismanagement" is a term used by the Washington-based international financial institutions to describe the chaos which results from not fully abiding by the IMF's Structural Adjustment Program. In actual fact, the "economic mismanagement" and chaos is the outcome of IMF-World Bank prescriptions, which invariably trigger hyperinflation and precipitate indebted countries into extreme poverty… Pakistan has been subjected to the same deadly IMF "economic medicine" as Yugoslavia: In 1999, in the immediate wake of the coup d'etat which brought General Pervez Musharaf to the helm of the military government, an IMF economic package, which included currency devaluation and drastic austerity measures, was imposed on Pakistan .

Pakistan 's external debt is of the order of US$40 billion. The IMF's "debt reduction" under the package was conditional upon the sell-off to foreign capital of the most profitable state owned enterprises (including the oil and gas facilities in Balochistan) at rock bottom prices . Musharaf's Finance Minister was chosen by Wall Street, which is not an unusual practice. The military rulers appointed at Wall Street's behest a vice-president of Citigroup, Shaukat Aziz, who at the time was head of Citi-Group's Global Private Banking. Citi-Group is among the largest commercial foreign banking institutions in Pakistan .  There are obvious similarities in the nature of U.S. covert intelligence operations applied in country after country in different parts of the so-called "developing World.” These covert operations, including the organization of military coups, are often synchronized with the imposition of IMF-World Bank macro-economic reforms. In this regard, Yugoslavia 's federal fiscal structure collapsed in 1990 leading to mass poverty and heightened ethnic and social divisions. The U.S. and NATO sponsored "civil war" launched in mid-1991 consisted in coveting Islamic groups as well as channeling covert support to separatist paramilitary armies in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia. A similar "civil war" scenario has been envisaged for Pakistan by the National Intelligence Council and the CIA: From the point of view of U.S. intelligence, which has a longstanding experience in abetting separatist "liberation armies,” "Greater Albania" is to Kosovo what "Greater Balochistan" is to Pakistan's Southeastern Balochistan province. Similarly, the KLA is Washington 's chosen model to be replicated in Balochistan province.

The Assassination of Benazir Bhutto: Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in Rawalpindi , no ordinary city. Rawalpindi is a military city host to the headquarters of the Pakistani Armed Forces and Military Intelligence (ISI). Ironically Bhutto was assassinated in an urban area tightly controlled and guarded by the military police and the country's elite forces. Rawalpindi is swarming with ISI intelligence officials, which invariably infiltrate political rallies. Her assassination was not a haphazard event. Without evidence, quoting Pakistan government sources, the Western media in chorus has highlighted the role of Al-Qaeda, while also focusing on the possible involvement of the ISI… What these interpretations do not mention is that the ISI continues to play a key role in overseeing Al Qaeda on behalf of U.S. intelligence. The press reports fail to mention two important and well-documented facts: 1) the ISI maintains close ties to the CIA. The ISI is virtually an appendage of the CIA. 2) Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA. The ISI provides covert support to Al Qaeda, acting on behalf of U.S. intelligence. 

(This paper was originally published in Jan 2008.The contents of this article are entirely writer’s own views and PAKISTANSpecial Team may not agree with some or all for obvious reasons.) 

Pakistan is burning, courtesy of repeated military rules and an inability to come up and perform to the expectations of the nation on part of it's politicians who by and large remain a horde of dwarfs as far as their stature is concerned.

 

 

However Pakistan's enemies have played a vital role in pushing this country into the abyss by actively carrying out clandestine and covert operations in all possible manners. CIA by far remains a key player in this context, who obviously has been operating in collusion with RAW of India, MI-16 and also Israeli and (now) Afghan intelligence agencies.

 

PAKISTANSpecial Team has obtained selected records from US national archives for it's readers. These excerpts provide enough insight into US' dirty role in dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971 and also the chaotic times of 50s, 60s and 70s.

 

 

Most interesting  is the document reporting alleged plans to kill Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Maulana Kausar Niazi and other leaders.

 

 

Copies of supporting documents may be provided in exceptional cases. For obtaining same contact pakistanspecial@gmail.com     Readers' comments and views are welcomed.

Download pdf file to view.     American Intelligence Activity in Pakistan.pdf