Jalaluddin Haqqani: Charlie Wilson’s Goodness Personified

HUSSAIN SAQIB

National security interests of the US and Pakistan do not converge on certain issues one of which is targeting Haqqani network of the Afghan Taliban which has not so far created any threat for Pakistan. It has not been a strategic priority to target this group, therefore, Pakistan has been resisting the US pressure to launch a military operation in South Waziristan Agency of FATA. Pakistan may have its own strategic considerations of not thinning out its troops too much at the expense of eastern borders when nearly one-fourth of its military is already engaged in anti-Taliban operations. Evidence tells us that this region barring a few elements of Mehsud tribe loyal to TTP, has not posed any terrorist threat to Pakistan. It is believed that US wants Pakistan to eliminate the Haqqani network -- which is based in North Waziristan and is one of its fiercest enemies just across the border in Afghanistan -- in any North Waziristan operation. This is the reason that frequent drone strikes are directed against this region. On the other hand, Pakistan’s major problem is rooted in the South Waziristan agency, a safe haven of TTP which has played havoc in Pakistan by targeting thousands of innocent civilians, soldiers and security interests. It is for this reason that while the Pakistani military has launched major offensives in other regions in its unruly tribal belt, it has been hesitant to attack North Waziristan, which could pose the biggest risk.

Those who are interested to know about the origin, leadership and activities of Haqqani network, should bear one thing in mind; the network has  carried out very limited terrorists operations, all against US and NATO forces inside Afghanistan whom the group treats as the occupation forces. For example, on January 14, 2008  Kabul Serena Hotel attack is thought to have been carried out by the network. Similarly, kidnapping of British journalist Sean Langan in March 2008 was blamed on the network. Other acts attributed to Haqqani network include, assassination attempt on Hamid Karzai, 2008 Indian embassy bombing in Kabul, Kidnapping of David Rohde, Camp Chapman attack and May 2010 Kabul bombing was allegedly carried out by the network.  Responsibility of none of the attacks in Pakistan was ever accepted by this network.

This network is known for its was battles against the Soviet Union in the so-called Afghan jihad funded by CIA and Saudi Arabia for their own interests. This network, under Jalaluddin Haqqani, is one of three, and perhaps the most feared, of the Taliban-allied insurgent factions fighting U.S.-led NATO and Afghan troops in Afghanistan. Haqqani's bravery and ability to organize mujahideen fighters in 1980s won him funding and weapons from U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Former U.S. Congressman Charlie Wilson, who fund-raised for the Afghan resistance, once called Jalaluddin "goodness personified". The warrior was held in such high esteem that he visited the White House when Ronald Reagan was President. After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, Haqqani turned his ferocity and battle skills on Western forces. He earned a top spot on the CIA hit list, along with his old friend Osama bin Laden, whom he met during the anti-Soviet resistance.

Despite ill health, Jalaluddin, who is in his 70s, still inspires Haqqani foot soldiers believed to number up to 4,000, as well as other militant groups who revere him. His son Siraj, seen as more ruthless, runs the daily affairs of the network.

The Haqqanis are ethnic Pashtuns from the Zadran tribe in southeastern Afghanistan's Paktia province. The group is active across much of southeastern Afghanistan and seeks to regain full control over its traditional bases in Khost, Paktia and Paktika provinces. The Haqqanis are thought to have introduced suicide bombing to Afghanistan. The Haqqanis are based in North Waziristan, although they have been heavily targeted in recent months by missiles fired from pilotless U.S. drone aircraft.

The Haqqanis have become one of the biggest sources of tension between allies Washington and Islamabad. Pakistan has denied supporting the Haqqanis but has long resisted U.S. pressure to launch a full-scale offensive in Waziristan to crush the network for both domestic and foreign policy reasons. As one of the most powerful insurgent groups in Afghanistan, the Haqqanis could act as a spoiler if Pakistan feels its interests are threatened in any settlement to the ten-year war. It also sees the Haqqanis as the best insurance policy against the growing influence of rival India in Afghanistan. But caving in to Washington and attacking the Haqqanis could further destabilize Pakistan.

Pakistan hopes the United States will eventually welcome the participation of the Haqqanis in any Afghan peace talks. Kabul also understands the group can't be excluded. Although the Haqqanis fall under the command of Taliban leader Mullah Omar, U.S. officials believe they do not always accept Taliban authority and can act independently. Jalaluddin has historically shown a penchant for changing sides, as the Americans know all too well, and he may be more flexible than the hardliner Siraj. Washington is scrambling to bring stability to Afghanistan before its gradual withdrawal in July of 2011. Striking a deal with the Haqqanis may be wise while the ailing Jalaluddin might still have a say.

You may also like to read:

Haqqani Network, Pakistan connection and shattered dreams for Afghanistan peace.....

TTP serves Indian interests in Pakistan while Indo-US relations go on the rocks…..

After the break-up of former USSR, India has been trying to serve US national interests in South Asia and Indian Ocean region in order to sideline Pakistan and be counted as a counterweight to China. The best way to achieve this end has so far been to paint Pakistan as a rogue state infested with terrorists even within Pakistan’s security establishment. This has, however, led to the least desired outcome. Instead of becoming internationally isolated, Pakistan has been pushed further into China’s tight embrace, a development which has caused panic for both the US and India. India-sponsored TTP terrorism targeting Pakistan’s security interests inside Pakistan and its attempts at creation of a wedge between Pakistani people and the armed forces through a supportive media is not a secret anymore. But in the ultimate analysis, Pakistanis are not going to stop supporting their armed forces. There is another attempt, again through unsuspecting politicians and media anchors to pitch Pakistan against the US by downplaying terrorist acts and playing up the issue of drone strikes. To re-enforce this onslaught, TTP has been made to make two strange statements; TTP will not attack Pakistan’s nuclear assets, rather it will try to take them over to use against the enemies and terrorist acts in Pakistan will continue even after the end-game in Afghanistan till the terrorists establish a Taliban government in Pakistan.

The terrorists are trying to give very dangerous message to the world; come and take Pakistan’s nuclear assets and bomb Pakistan a la Afghanistan before it becomes Islamic Emirate.

While Pakistan is expected to come out clear after the current crisis of national security is over, India has started snubbing the US. A staunch opponent of the US in the days of cold war, India had established an unprecedented partnership with Americans, including a historic nuclear cooperation deal in 2008. This positive trend culminated in President Obama’s visit last year to Mumbai and New Delhi, during which he announced American support for India’s ambition to a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council.

It was good while it lasted. According to an article titled, US-India Relations on the Rocks? published by The National Interest and co-authored by Stephen Cohen,  the United States needs to move on and recognize that India’s commitment to strategic autonomy is a fundamental constraint to further improvement in bilateral relations. New Delhi wants to take it slowly because it is wary of becoming another Japan, a client state. It is this grand concern with self-reliance—and not technical or other factors—that led to India’s surprising decision last month to exclude two American contenders, Lockheed and Boeing, from an $11 billion contract for one hundred and twenty-six fourth-generation fighter jets—India’s biggest defense purchase ever.

New Delhi’s preference for two European jets (France’s Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon), while excluding Swedish and Russian contenders along with the American F-16 and F/A-18, came as a rude shock to those who had banked on surging U.S.-India defense and security relations. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, India purchased $223 million worth in military equipments from the United States in the last five years—twice as much as in the preceding twenty years. Both countries also held over sixty joint exercises and military exchanges since 2000 and set up a new counterterrorism dialogue that included unprecedented levels of intelligence sharing after the 2008 terrorist attacks on Mumbai.

Defense analysts jumped in immediately to offer possible explanations for the American defeat. Some underlined the fighters’ different performance during high-altitude tests in the Himalayas, along with other technical factors, including speed and radar systems, which may have given the European fighters an advantage. Others privilege political reasons—including pockets of anti-Americanism in the Indian air force—as well as a government plagued by corruption scandals, which may have limited its capacity to make a decision on more than purely objective criteria. Another explanation highlights the controversies involving the quality of previous purchases from the United States, especially that of the USS Trenton, a 1971 amphibious transport dock on which an explosion killed five Indian navy personnel in 2008.

While each of these factors may have played a role, they ignore the most fundamental reason: India’s concern for strategic autonomy in the event of another war with Pakistan and its attempt to maintain a balance in its lineup of military suppliers. Washington may well have promised New Delhi the world, but in the end India will always fear that its actual combat capacity in such critical moments could be severely affected by relying exclusively on American technology, supplies and support. This sensitivity and mistrust is aggravated by the fact that the United States is also the major supplier to the Pakistani air force, having in recent years transferred thirty-two F-16 variants and several air-to-air missiles and P3C Orion surveillance aircrafts to Islamabad.

New Delhi also justifiably sees Washington as overly stringent on end-use monitoring; Washington would never have allowed these planes to be fitted with nuclear warheads and play a role in India’s nuclear deterrent. In contrast, reports indicate that the Eurofighter offered access to significantly more advanced technology as well as the possibility of assembly in India. This indicates to what extent India remains committed to self-reliance, not only in terms of production, but also operability—the nightmare of 1965, when the United Stated cut off Indian access to crucial military supplies at the height of another Indo-Pakistani crisis, is still fresh in the minds of many Indian strategists.

The decision should therefore be seen as one privileging diversification, diffusing the risk of excessive reliance and dependence on a single partner. American experts implicitly acknowledged this Indian concern by speculating in recent months that India might split the order among two or three different suppliers, perhaps an American, a European and a Russian one. But they ignored the specific cyclical way India diversifies, rotating among different suppliers. In recent years, Russia, the United States, Israel and even Brazil were able to secure important contracts from the Indian air force, but (excepting Britain) European countries have remained largely absent from its acquisitions basket. From this perspective, the Eurofighter Typhoon is particularly attractive as it is developed by a consortium including not only habitués Britain and Germany but also newcomers Spain and Italy.

What is more perilous, drone attacks on terrorists’ hideouts or acts of terrorism?

Media spin is in full play again. While international media is questioning Pakistan’s ability to safeguard its strategic assets and these questions remain unanswered by the local media, Pakistan’s media is pursuing different objectives. The major objective is to mislead the public and put pressure on the otherwise incompetent members of spineless Parliament to shift focus from the menace of terrorism to drone attacks on hideouts of terrorists. The spin has so far been very successful. The talk-show hosts, some of them known for their links with and sympathies for the terrorists, are successfully playing with the sensitivities of the common people to direct the hatred from blood-thirsty terrorists to the USA. A situation is being created to bring the people on to the roads to demand war with the US in order to test the nerve of the morally weak government and push the already cornered security apparatus towards a disastrous situation.

Is this all being done for a purpose? Let us take stock of the situation.

It is common knowledge that religious extremism started rearing its ugly head in Pakistan when the Americans closed the shop after break-up of the Soviet Union and the foot soldiers and managers of holy Afghan war against USSR lost their jobs. The first major act of terrorism was plane crash of Bahawalpur in 1988 in which the President of the country and senior generals of Army were killed along with plane’s crew, American ambassador and a senior US defense official of brigadier-general’s level. The perpetrators of this crime were never exposed or known by the country. The decade of 1990s is still known for sectarian terrorism killing scores of innocent people including foreigners in their places of worship. 

The first suicide blast of 1995 carried out in Egyptians embassy of Islamabad was proudly claimed by al Qaeda. All those sectarian criminals were trained in training camps inside Afghanistan and were never handed over to Pakistan despite demands made through official channels. It was then clear that Taliban were aiding and using these terrorists to kill and coerce those professing Islamic faith not approved by violent brand of the faith promoted by some of the friendly countries in the Islamic world. These so called friendly countries had funded Afghan war through promotion of their brand of faith.

It was in those days that OBL had to leave Sudan under American pressure and take refuge in Afghanistan, lock stock and barrel. It was in that particular decade that Americans fired cruise missiles from Arabian Sea on OBL’s hideout in Afghanistan in 1998. These missiles crossed Pakistani airspace and some of these missiles also landed in Pakistan’s territory. This was apparently a unilateral action but the question of violation of sovereignty was never raised. Ramzi Yusaf, accused of masterminding bomb attacks in the US was apprehended in Islamabad and handed over to the US. Aimal Kansi, an ex-CIA operative who had killed his handler outside CIA HQ in Langley was apprehended by Americans themselves from DG Khan in a unilateral action and subsequently executed in the US. 

It is clear from the above that thousands of innocent Pakistanis were killed in acts of terrorism in 1990s when there were no drone attacks. And these acts were carried out by the very same organizations who are now carrying out terrorist activities in Pakistan. After 9/11, the terrorist incidents in Pakistan targeted innocent civilians and foreigners. Major acts of terrorism, till the commencement of drone strikes in June, 2004 are listed as under:

2001

• 28 October:- Attack on a Protestant church in southern Punjab city of Bahawalpur resulted in 16 deaths and 6 injuries. The casualties were all Christian worshippers except one police officer.^[

• 21 December:- Pakistani interior minister Lt. Gen. (retd) Moinuddin Haider's elder brother Ehteshamuddin Haider was shot dead by assailants near Soldier Bazaar in Karachi.

 2002

• 22 February:- The American journalist Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered in Karachi.

• 26 February:- At least 11 Shi'a worshipers were killed by indiscriminate firing by a group of masked gunmen at the Shah-i-Najaf Mosque in Rawalpindi.

• 17 March:- A grenade attack on a Protestant church in the heavily guarded diplomatic enclave in Islamabad killed five persons, including a US diplomat's wife and daughter, and left more than 40 others injured.

• 7 May:- Noted religious scholar Prof Dr Ghulam Murtaza Malik, his driver and a policeman were shot dead by two gunmen in Iqbal Town, Lahore.

• 8 May:- Bus bombing in Karachi kills 11 Frenchmen and 3 Pakistanis near the Sheraton hotel.

• 14 June:- A powerful car bomb exploded near the heavily-guarded US Consulate in Karachi, killing 12 people and wounding over 50 others. A portion of the outer wall of the consulate was blown apart.

• 13 July:- Nine foreign tourists and three Pakistani nationals were injured in an attack near an archaeological site in the district of Mansehra.

• 5 August:- At least six people were killed and four injured in a gun attack on a missionary school for foreign students in mountain resort of Murree. The attack was carried by four gunmen, when they started firing indiscriminately, however no pupils were among those killed, all of whom were Pakistani guards and employees at the school.

• 9 August:- Three nurses—and an attacker—were killed while 25 others injured in a terrorist attack on a church in the Taxila Christian Hospital, in Taxila, northern Punjab.

• 16 October:- More than eight people were injured in a series of parcel bomb explosions in Pakistan's largest city, Karachi.

• 25 September:- Gunmen stormed the offices of a Christian welfare organisation in Karachi, tied seven office workers to their chairs before shooting each in the head at close range.

• 15 November:- An explosion on a bus in Hyderabad, Sindh killed two people and injured at least nine others.

• 5 December:- Three people were killed in an attack at the Macedonian Honorary consulate in the city of Karachi. The dead – all Pakistani – were tied up, gagged and killed before the explosion at the office.

• 25 December:- Unidentified assailants threw a grenade at a Presbyterian church in Pakistan's central Punjab province, killing three young girls. At least 12 others were injured in the attack at Daska, near Sialkot.

2003

• 28 February:- Two policemen were shot dead outside the United States consulate in Karachi, the same place where 12 people were killed by a car bomb nine months ago.^[18]

• 10 March:- Two people were injured when a masked terrorist opened indiscriminate fire on a mosque in Gulistan Colony, Faisalabad.

• 8 June:- 11 Pakistani police trainees were shot dead in what is believed to have been a sectarian attack on Sariab Road, Quetta, as they all belonged to Hazara Shi'a branch of Islam. Another nine were reported wounded.

• 4 July:- At least 47 people were killed and 150 injured in an attack on a Shia mosque in the south-western Pakistani city of Quetta.

• 3 October:- Six employees of Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (SUPARCO) were killed and several others injured when their official van was fired upon on Hub River Road in Mauripur, Karachi. A Lashkar-e-Jhangvi cadre was officially charged.

• 6 October:- Maulana Azam Tariq, chief of the Millat-i-Islamia (formerly Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan) and MNA, was assassinated by unidentified gunmen along with four others as his car drove into the capital, Islamabad.

• 14 December:- President Pervez Musharraf survived an assassination attempt when a powerful bomb went off minutes after his highly-guarded convoy crossed a bridge in Rawalpindi. Musharraf was apparently saved by a jamming device in his limousine that prevented the remote controlled explosives from blowing up the bridge as his convoy passed over it.

• 25 December:- Another attempt was carried on the president 11 days later when two suicide bombers tried to assassinate Musharraf, but their car bombs failed to kill the president; 16 others nearby died instead. Musharraf escaped with only a cracked windscreen on his car. Militant Amjad Farooqi was apparently suspected as being the mastermind behind these attempts, and was killed by Pakistani forces in 2004 after an extensive manhunt.

2004

• 28 February:- An apparent suicide bomber was killed and three worshipers were injured in an attack on Imambargah in Satellite Town, Rawalpindi.

• 2 March:- At least 42 persons were killed and more than 100 wounded when a procession of the Shia Muslims was attacked by Deobandi extremists at Liaquat Bazaar in Quetta.

• 3 May:- A car bomb in south-western city of Gwadar killed three Chinese engineers and injured 10 other people.

• 7 May:- A suicide bomber attacked a crowded Shia mosque in Sindh Madrassatul Islam in Karachi, killing at least 15 worshipers. More than 100 people were also injured, 25 of them critically in the attack. One person was killed in the riots that followed the attack.

• 14 May:- Six members of Shia family was shot dead in Mughalpura locality of Lahore.

• 26 May:- Two car bombs explode within 20 minutes of each other outside the Pakistan-American Cultural Center and near the US consul general's residence in Karachi, killing two men and injuring more than 27 people, mainly policemen and journalists.

• 30 May:- A senior Deobandi religious scholar and head of Islamic religious school Jamia Binoria, Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai, was gunned down in his car while leaving his home in Karachi.

• 31 May:- A suicide bomber blew up the Imambarghah Ali Raza mosque in Karachi in the middle of evening prayers, killing 16 worshipers and injuring 35. Two people were killed in riots over the mosque attack and Shamzai's assassination.

• 10 June:- Gunmen opened fire on a convoy carrying the then corps commander Lt Gen Ahsan Saleem Hyat leaving 11 people dead in Karachi. The corps commander who escaped unhurt later became the vice chief of army staff under General Pervez Musharraf. This was the first such attack on the Pakistan Army, not counting the earlier assassination attempts on General Pervez Musharraf who was also the President of the country, since the military began operations in Waziristan in 2004.

In order to get the targets without any loss of life, the drone attacks were started. First drone attack was carried out on 18 June 2004, and casualties so far are in the range of about 1483-2364 as of May 16, 2011. Major targets of these drone strikes were Taliban, TTP, al Qaeda, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Lashkar-e-Islam and other foreign militants. The number of strikes and casualties in the beginning was very low but these strikes intensified from 2008. Major targets taken by these strikes were known al Qaeda, Taliban and TTP leaders like Nek Muhammad Wazir, Haitham al-Yemeni, Abu Hamza Rabia, Abu Laith al-Libi, Abu Sulayman Al-Jazairi, Midhat Mursi, Khalid Habib, Abu Akash,  Mohammad Hasan Khalil al-Hakim (alias Abu Jihad al-Masri),  Abdullah Azam al-Saudi, Rashid Rauf , Abu Zubair al-Masri, Usama al-Kini, Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan, Tohir Yo‘ldosh, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, Jamal Saeed Abdul Rahim, Bahadar Mansoor, head of Badar Mansoor group, and Rana Afzal, the man behind the FIA HQ bombing in Lahore.

It is clear from the above that terrorist strikes in Pakistan killing 35,000 innocent Pakistanis were not at all a reaction of the drone strikes. These terrorist attacks were meant to destabilize Pakistan and weaken and demoralize Pakistan’s security apparatus in order to gain a foothold in some part of the country to establish a Salafi Wahabi state. Those who are shifting focus of public attention from terrorism to drone strikes are simply misguiding the people. As a matter of fact, terrorist attacks are more perilous for the social order in Pakistan than the drone attacks and if Wikileaks says that Pakistani government tacitly approved these drone attacks, it become understandable.

The only reason terrorists have so far been able to successfully target Pakistan's security apparatus is because of the sympathies the pro-Taliban media and right-wing politicians have created for the terrorists. If this country destabilizes as a result of terrorism, this will be because of complicity of power-hungry politicians of all hues and immature media so crazy for the rating.

Related story:

Immature media anchors and opportunist politicians should wake up to the harsh realities....

Fifth Generation warrior of the Fourth Generation warfare....

Beijing, Washington DC and the Gwadar port---the new game plan is not that new….

Pakistan’s immature media anchors and opportunist politicians need to understand the new game plan; this involves tarnishing the image of Pakistan’s military in order to destabilize and eventually disintegrate the country for a larger scheme of reshaping the world to the advantage of the sole super power.  Pakistan’s current troubles with India and the USA have their roots in its all-weather friendship with China. Those who want to keep China away from taking advantage of Pakistan’s geo-strategic location in order to become the “numero-uno” global power can go to any extent. And the immediate action on cards is Pakistan’s disintegration to snatch Balochistan away, along with the port of Gwadar, from Pakistan by establishing a Free Balochistan State. It can now be clearly understood that insurgent movement in Balochistan was fanned and funded just for that purpose. This is in order to block the use of Gwadar port and development of ancillary terrestrial infrastructure in the province to deny an energy corridor to China for its energy needs. Pakistani prime minister’s visit to China, immediately after post-OBL row with the USA, has transmitted troubling signals; the visit and the statements made by leaders of both the countries have caused concerns and worries, both in New Delhi and Washington DC. Both the countries have never expressed their disapproval of Sino-Pak ties so loudly before.

Pakistan’s disintegration is not a new initiative in the game of reordering the world to keep one power as a sole hegemonic variable. There were different theories making rounds in national security circles. But the recent events, particularly those relating to Pakistan, have confirmed that the USA needs to sort Pakistan out in order to deal with growing Chinese influence and its economic might. There are fears in the informed circles in Washington DC that USA, post OBL operation, can even land its forces to occupy Pakistan. The USA is playing on the nerves of American people using threats to the U.S., including “rogue states,” “failed states,” “autocracies” and “terrorism”, but gives pride of place to the “challenges” posed by “rising and resurgent powers,” of which only China and Russia are named.

The card being played right now by US establishment and its allied media is to weaken the only institution left intact in Pakistan; its military. The military-bashing campaign is being reinforced by unaware Pakistani media and some of the opportunist politicians who are trying to settle their score with the military establishment for sacking their inefficient and corrupt government. 

The current situation has cleverly been managed to block China from using Gwadar port which is very close to Iran’s Chabahar port built by India for its economic and strategic reasons. Right from the time Chinese started building this port, there were instances of violence in Balochistan and open opposition to this port voiced by Baloch nationalists who, as later proved, were working at the behest of India. According to an article recently published in Information Clearing House, in order for China to sustain its status as the emerging economic superpower, it must take all the necessary steps required in order to have sufficient energy resources for the near future. According to Pakistani think tank, BrassTacks, Chinese interests in the Indian Ocean became visible in 2002, when they invested heavily and began work on the Gwadar Port, located in Balochistan, a province of Pakistan. The Gwadar Port has its benefits for both Pakistan and China. The cost benefits to China of using Gwadar as the port for western China’s imports and exports are as evident as the long-term economic benefits to Pakistan of Gwadar becoming a port for Chinese goods. Not only does Gwadar enable China to fulfill its energy needs, but it will also provide a strategic military footprint in the Arabian Sea, which has the United States worried.

Due to its geo-strategic location, Pakistan is important both for China and the USA and both are competing to have their respective footprints in Pakistan for their influence in the region. In order to halt this, the report says, the globalists need to block China’s access to the Arabian Sea by way of Gwadar. According to BrassTacks, to do this, “there needs to be a ‘new Pakistan’ as indicated in Operation Enduring Turmoil.” Operation Enduring Turmoil is a plan of Project for New American Century (PNAC) to disassemble Pakistan into three parts. According to a “game plan” drawn out by Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, in a 2006 article of the Armed Forces Journal, “Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier tribes would be reunited with their Afghan brethren [and] would also lose its Baluch territory to Free Baluchistan. The remaining ‘natural’ Pakistan would lie entirely east of the Indus, except for a westward spur near Karachi.” With this done, what was once the NWFP, a province of Pakistan, is now part of Afghanistan, and what was once Baluchistan, a province of Pakistan, is now its own state, Free Baluchistan. This would force China to impossibly go through Afghanistan and Free Baluchistan in order to reach the Arabian Sea. Such an arrangement would cut China’s route to the Arabian Sea.

In order to make an assessment of the game plan, let us look at the developments from November 2009 onward. China sends out an interesting signal ahead of US president Barack Obama’s scheduled visit to Beijing by offering a set of advanced fighter jets to Pakistan. It has agreed to sell $1.4 billion worth of jets to Islamabad days ahead of the planned visit of the US president Barack Obama to Shanghai and Beijing on November 15-18. The move jolted the US administration as it works on notes and talking points for Obama’s meetings with Chinese leaders because he is expected to discuss Beijing’s relationship with India and its role in internal conflicts in Pakistan and Afghanistan. 

A year later, in October 2010, the following interesting perspective on how things were heating up between the US and Pakistan is published by Margolis:

The neoconservative far right in Washington and its media allies again claim Pakistan is a grave threat to US interests and to Israel. Pakistan must be declawed and dismembered, insist the neocons. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is reportedly being targeted for seizure or elimination by US Special Forces. Many Pakistanis believe the United States is bent on dismembering their nation. Some polls show Pakistanis now regard the United States as a greater enemy than India. 

Now, let’s fast-forward to early April 2011. This year will mark the 60th anniversary of diplomatic relations. Most Pakistanis don’t want closer relations with Washington–they want to build closer relations with Beijing, and work on creating the Muslim Union (similar to the European Union) in Central Asia. Links with Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey are key to the future of Pakistan. Islamabad is moving ever closer to China, both militarily and economically– and that’s a fact Jack. By mid April things start going downhill; very fast. The transactional relationship between Washington and Islamabad is coming to an end. While US-Pakistani transactional relations are fraying at both ends, the opposite is true of Sino-Pakistani relations. Pakistan supported China when she was recognized only by Albania, and built the bridge to the USA. This fact cannot be forgotten by the Chinese who mention it in every summit and mentioned it in this summit also. 

And finally, on April 27, the report says, the following catalyst prompts the Obama team to execute the Kill Osama Bin Laden Script. This is the pivotal point in the Bin Laden Death Operation Script as a catalyst for the soon to come Pakistan Occupation:

1. Pakistan is lobbying Afghan President Hamid Karzai against building a long-term strategic partnership with the United States, and urging him instead to look to Pakistan and its ally, China, for help in striking a peace deal with the Taliban and rebuilding the economy, according to Afghan officials. 
2. Washington’s relations with Pakistan have reached their lowest point in years following a series of missteps on both sides, and Pakistani officials say that they no longer have an incentive to follow the American lead in their own backyard, the report added. 
3. “Pakistan is sole guarantor of its own interest,” said a senior Pakistani official, adding: “We’re not looking for anyone else to protect us, especially the US. If they’re leaving, they’re leaving and they should go.” 
4. Export-Import Bank of China decides to loan Pakistan $1.7 billion to develop a city-wide train system in the eastern city of Lahore.

Since the holes-filled and never-explained ‘kill or capture’ operation, the presidential PR machine, the US media and their extension guised under ‘alternative’ have been beating the war drums. After all, as with any wars of ours, public opinion must be shaped, and public backing must be garnered. This is one of the latest reflecting just that: 

After the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, few American voters believe that country is an ally of the United States in the war against terrorism. Moreover, most doubt Pakistan is worthy of continued U.S. foreign aid. That’s according to a Fox News poll released Wednesday. Nearly three out of four voters — 73 percent — say the United States should stop sending foreign aid until Pakistan demonstrates a deeper commitment to the war against terrorism. Some 19 percent would continue to provide funding. With the discovery that bin Laden apparently had been living in Pakistan for years, the consensus is Pakistan is not a friend (74 percent). A small 16 percent minority of voters views Pakistan as a strong U.S. ally in the war against terrorism.

You must be thinking: Pakistan must have tons in their own dossier to expose US government duplicities, lies, and nefarious activities. So why have they been relatively silent in all this? Why don’t they open the flood gate on ‘facts’ surrounding Bin Laden, his supposed role in 9/11, his supposed journey since 9/11, and his supposed death recently? The report says that: neither party has played all their cards yet. Just take a look at how Gates has been playing both sides carefully while measuring the outcome of various factors in play:

Gates reiterated the accusation that elements within the Pakistani government knew about the location of Osama bin Laden and were keeping that information from the United States. Bin Laden was killed in a US raid earlier this month. At the same time, Gates echoed comments by other officials, conceding that the US has absolutely no evidence to that effect and that it is “pure supposition on our part.” The repeated accusations, despite being based on “pure supposition” have done major damage to US-Pakistan ties, and have spawned calls from Congress to suspend all aid to Pakistan to punish them.

Gates, who attended the conference with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen, also said that the US raid that killed bin Laden had “humiliated” the Pakistani government, and that they had “paid a price” for bin Laden’s presence. Mullen added that the US ability to attack Pakistan with impunity was “a humbling experience” for the Pakistani military.

The White House neocons are in the midst of age-old diplomatic games, bluffing, and hedging their bets. They have the ‘foreign & military aid’ card. They have the ‘ISI dirt files’ card. They have the ‘ultimate China leaning’ card. And of course, they have the ‘mighty power of preemptive occupation war’ card which is always blessed and supported by NATO and overlooked by their butlers in the UN. China has its own set of cards; whether it is their biggest market for dumping goods, or carrying the US debt, or who knows what else. For now they are using the ‘talk’ card with no real strings attached.

As for the people of the world, they’ll be sitting and waiting for the three parties to conclude this stage of their global hegemony game. They’ll be reading and watching and listening to their PR machine in the media give us one concocted fantasy after another. As in all other wars of these people will have zero to say, zilch to gain, and plenty to lose.


Related link:


Military threats will bind Pakistan and China together....
Immature media anchors and opportunist politicians should wake up to the harsh realities....
Beware; "AfPak" means Pakistan after Afghanistan....

What legitimizes global intervention and genocide? Please read carefully......

Why is all this sudden barrage of baseless allegations against Pakistan’s premier security establishment? The onslaught by the USA (read: CIA) is understandable because there will always be an onslaught in the areas where national interest of Pakistan is in conflict with that of the USA. And this particular fury is directed at Pakistan security establishment to put blame somewhere to justify US failure in Afghanistan. This onslaught is perceived by Pakistanis in positive light and makes them proud of their security apparatus. To them, it clearly means that Pakistan’s establishment is working overtime for safeguarding national interest. But why equally venomous utterances by Pakistan’s opposition leader against his country’s premier agency and that too without any provocation, is something which is not easily palatable by thinking Pakistanis. It has now become abundantly clear that it is CIA which is working hands-in-glove with al Qaeda, or is at least using its name for its diabolic activities in the world, in general, and in Pakistan, in particular. An article in the Intel Hub, titled, Carving Up Pakistan; The Baluchistan Gambit makes an interesting reading.

According to the article, with NATO providing Al Qaeda air cover in Libya as they commit an array of egregious war crimes in their bid to seize the country, the last shred of legitimacy for America’s official narrative regarding their war on the Afghan-Pakistani border disappears before our eyes. However, a more rational explanation for the seemingly irrational campaign of frequent Predator drone attacks on Pakistani soil is not only on the table, but has been put there by the global corporate-financier oligarchs themselves. To understand US-Pakistan relations within the context of the entirely fake “War on Terror” is impossible. Al Qaeda is merely the increasingly tenuous public excuse to justify continued wanton murder within Pakistan as well as occupations and interventions around the globe.

The principal objective of this seemingly illegitimate campaign is not to attack the militants, it is to destabilize Pakistan and weaken and isolate its security machine. According to the article, in a broader geopolitical context, these constant and seemingly random attacks in western Pakistan serve a more diabolical purpose. With each attack on “suspected militants,” the all inclusive term used to describe CIA targets, the authority and stability of Pakistan’s establishment is undermined and whittled away. With many of the attacks claiming the lives of civilians, outrage and unrest is purposefully being fanned and spread. The recipients of this outrage and unrest are a national government seemingly bent to the will of the United States as it callously murders Pakistanis.

According to the International Herald Tribune article, “End to US drone hits if military launches North Waziristan operation,” which even at face value smacks of extortion, “Pakistan’s security establishment has long been accused of having links with the Afghan Taliban particularly the influential Haqqani network.” Considering that further strikes will put political pressure on the Pakistani government to concede, the US is driving a wedge between them and the ISI which is undoubtedly the “security establishment” the Tribune is referring to. Instability alone benefits the United States in the short-term to extort a myriad of concessions fulfilling a range of ambitions. But perhaps the most overarching theme is to sever permanently yet another link in China’s “String of Pearls.”

The “String of Pearls” doctrine encapsulated in a 2006 Strategic Studies Institute report, aims at co-opting, destabilizing and otherwise neutralizing nation states cooperating with China and enabling it to project power and influence along its long and vulnerable oil link to the Middle East. Starting in Africa, throughout the Middle East, into Central Asia and terminating in Southeast Asia, the United States has been conducting a widespread campaign of doing just this.

Pakistan in particular has jointly built a new port with China in the coastal city of Gwadar in the southern province of Balochistan. This port serves as a potential terminal for a north-south transit corridor to transport oil and goods directly into Chinese territory via the northern Gilgit-Baltistan region of Pakistan. It also serves the potential to host a Chinese naval presence. The US bid to interfere internally to disrupt this is hardly a conspiracy theory. Globalist scribe Selig Harrison of the Soros funded Center for International Policy has published two pieces regarding the overarching importance of Pakistan in a broader geopolitical context and “suggestions” on how it can be solved.

This is the Great Game of 21^st century which has just started from the coast of Makran.

Harrison’s February 2011 piece, “Free Baluchistan,” in name alone indicates yet another “freedom movement” contrived and fueled to give a favorable outcome to his corporate-financier patrons. He explicitly calls to “aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression.” He continues by explaining the various merits of such meddling by stating, “Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces.”

Harrison would follow up his frank call to carve up Pakistan by addressing the issue of Chinese-Pakistani relations in a March 2011 piece unimaginatively titled, “The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis.” He begins by stating, “China’s expanding reach is a natural and acceptable accompaniment of its growing power—but only up to a point. ”

He then reiterates his call for extraterritorial meddling in Pakistan by saying, “to counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an Arabian Sea outlet at Gwadar.”

Considering that Baluchi rebels are already being funded and armed to wage war inside of Iran, it is more than likely similar aid is being rendered to them to confront the ISI and Pakistan’s government. This three-pronged attack on Iranian, Pakistani, and Chinese sovereignty in a region where 3 nuclear armed nations converge and billions call home is beyond reckless, providing us further insight into the deranged, degenerate minds behind “global governance.”

Those under the delusion that US troops will ever leave Afghanistan are in for a disappointment. Barring catastrophic economic collapse or an unexpected and grievous tactical defeat on the battlefield for Western forces, troops will only be moved around, replaced, or even bolstered until regional hegemony is established. Even then, the globalist “civil society” underlay and local security forces fully integrated and subservient to global military alliances would need to be built up and reliable before a single boot leaves the region. This will take decades to complete, which is exactly why we are told the US and UK will be in Afghanistan literally for “decades.”