Sic Semper Tyrannis

"How a Single Spy Helped Turn Pakistan Against the United States" NY Times

 

"Munter said he believed that the C.I.A. was being reckless and that his position as ambassador was becoming untenable. His relationship with the C.I.A. station chief in Islamabad, already strained because of their disagreements over the handling of the Davis case, deteriorated even further when Munter demanded that the C.I.A. give him the chance to call off specific missile strikes. During one screaming match between the two men, Munter tried to make sure the station chief knew who was in charge, only to be reminded of who really held the power in Pakistan. “You’re not the ambassador!” Munter shouted. “You’re right, and I don’t want to be the ambassador,” the station chief replied. This turf battle spread to Washington, and a month after Bin Laden was killed, President Obama’s top advisers were arguing in a National Security Council meeting over who really was in charge in Pakistan. At the June 2011 meeting, Munter, who participated via secure video link, began making his case that he should have veto power over specific drone strikes. Panetta cut Munter off, telling him that the C.I.A. had the authority to do what it wanted in Pakistan. It didn’t need to get the ambassador’s approval for anything. “I don’t work for you,” Panetta told Munter, according to several people at the meeting. But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came to Munter’s defense. She turned to Panetta and told him that he was wrong to assume he could steamroll the ambassador and launch strikes against his approval. “No, Hillary,” Panetta said, “it’s you who are flat wrong.” There was a stunned silence, and National Security Adviser Tom Donilon tried to regain control of the meeting. In the weeks that followed, Donilon brokered a compromise of sorts: Munter would be allowed to object to specific drone strikes, but the C.I.A. could still press its case to the White House and get approval for strikes even over the ambassador’s objections. Obama’s C.I.A. had, in essence, won yet again."  NY Times

-----------------------------------

The basic theme in this piece is the extent to which CIA has been allowed a free hand, a free hand that makes them feel free to defy US ambassadors in their country of assignment and Secretaries of State as well. 

This is not a new thing.  CIA has always evaded the principle of the "Country Team" in which anbassadors are the leaders of all US Government activites in their country of accreditation, but in the past they have generally just ignored the ambassador while continuing to do what they pleased, but now they are more confident.

BTW.  Davis was in the army ten years.  He is a former soldier, not a retired soldier.  pl  

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/magazine/raymond-davis-pakistan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Nuclear instability in South Asia (FB Ali)

In the last couple of days there has been an interesting discussion here on another thread  on the subject of nuclear proliferation and the dangers of 'accidental' nuclear war. Mention was made of the situation respecting Pakistan and India, and Neil Richardson invited me to comment.

There is no doubt that the nuclear situation in South Asia is quite unstable and dangerous. Both India and Pakistan have sizable nuclear arsenals, which are being continuously augmented. The two countries have an ongoing history of animosity and have fought four wars in the last six decades. A recent factor greatly increasing the danger is the appearance of jihadi and other terrorists who are believed by India to be under Pakistani control, even the indigenous ones.

In both countries the arcane doctrines of nuclear command and control, developed in the West (especially in the US), are studied and implemented by industrious staff officers, who have been advised by Western experts. Their commanders are suitably briefed though, like nuclear commanders everywhere, they probably view the elaborate theoretical constructs underlying these procedures with a somewhat cynical eye. As David Habakkuk pointed out in the earlier discussion, US military commanders shaped the nuclear decision process for their civilian masters so as to achieve what they believed was the more realistic solution. In Pakistan and India civilian control is largely nominal; the fingers on the nuclear triggers are those of their generals.

Interesting times in Pakistan (FB Ali)

With its estimated 190 million population and its nuclear arsenal, Pakistan is an important country in its own right. However, its location makes it even more significant. Sitting next to Afghanistan, Iran and India, it plays a key role in the geopolitics of the region. It has been a major factor in the United States' two campaigns in Afghanistan, the first time playing a leading role in helping the Afghan mujahideen to expel the Soviet Union's occupying forces from their country, and, more recently, being blamed for the US's lack of success in defeating the Taliban insurgency.

Some recent developments, including some policy moves and changes, make it likely that the role that Pakistan has played in the region will change, as will the internal situation in the country. It is worth looking at these.

Pakistan's loneliest church celebrates Christmas in Taliban country

 

^{Pastor Nazir Alam smiles as he talks to a journalist at the church}

This Christmas, pastor Nazir Alam will stoke up a fire, lay a fresh cloth on the altar and welcome parishioners as they arrive at his church in Waziristan, a Pakistani tribal area known as an al-Qaeda haven.

"The lights are all up, and the choir boys are ready. The church is looking its best," said 60-year-old Alam, a former missionary who has celebrated his last ten Christmases there. "There's not much left to do but to pray and rejoice."

Outsiders might see little cause for joy. Pakistan is the sixth most dangerous country in the world for minorities, says London-based watchdog Minority Rights Group International. Christians, Shiite Muslims and Ahmadis are victims of a rising tide of deadly attacks.

But Alam's church, and the homes of most of his 200 parishioners, are nestled inside a Pakistani army base in South Waziristan, a mountainous region that was a hotbed of militancy until a military offensive in 2009.

"When the US went into Kabul, things became bad for everyone. But we are safe here. The army protects us," says Shaan Masih, who helps clean the church and likes to play the drums and sing carols.

Israel looks for face saving over Iran

"Pointing to a possible way out, Netanyahu has since said that more explicit international warnings could prevent war, indicating he wanted the United States to provide Tehran with unambiguous options to halt its nuclear activity or face war. "The greater the resolve and the clearer the red line, the less likely we'll have conflict," he said on Monday. Positions are likely to be clarified at an expected meeting late this month between U.S. President Barack Obama and Netanyahu when the Israeli leader addresses the U.N. General Assembly in New York. "That will be a crucial encounter. They will have to reach an understanding there. At the end of the day, you do reach an understanding, always," said Eiland, who had numerous dealings with Washington during his time as national security adviser. Reuters

--------------------------------------

No,  the US does not have to give Israel anything that it does not want to give it.  What is revealed here is that Israel is a client of the United States and not the other way around.  All that is needed to make that "stick" is to continue to "discipline" the client.

General (Ret.) Michael Hayden, former director of CIA, has also told the Israelis that they lack the ability to successfully attack Iran.  This opinion seems to be universal in the US Government.

On the other hand, if the Israelis wish, let them show the US (us) that we are wrong and that they can pull this off by themselves.  Let them show us that they can do it ALONE.

It would be interesting to learn what sort of evolution in Iranian- Pakistani relations such an Israeli attack would provoke.  pl  

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/04/us-israel-iran-idUSBRE8830QO20120904

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-57505379-503543/ex-cia-chief-michael-hayden-only-the-u.s.-can-strike-iran-nuclear-sites-effectively/

De Borchgrave on Pakistan

"A U.S. grovel is what Pakistan said would reopen Afghan supply routes. But  while the United States conceded bombing coordinates were misread by U.S.  fighter bombers and gunships, the Pakistani military supplied erroneous  information on the location of Taliban forces.

Finally, the United States uttered a word short of the apology demanded --  "sorry" -- and the Pakistanis, in a phony burst of wounded pride salved, allowed  truck convoys to inch forward as they were inspected for prohibited lethal  weaponry and to collect a toll of $300-$500 depending on the size of the  vehicle.

Some of the three out of four Pakistanis who say the United States is the enemy of Islam and consider reconciliation tantamount to treason, moved forward slowly in what they called "a long march" -- actually two days -- by truck, bus, car and bicycle -- from Lahore to the front of Parliament House in Islamabad." 

-------------------------------------------------

De Borchgrave is a clear thinker.  Age and experience DO count in learning to think.  He must be nearly 90 now.  His grandfather Charles Townshend commanded a Sikh Pioneer battalion at the siege of the British Indian Army garrison at Chitral in the Himalayas in the 1890s and later as a lmajor general of the Indian Army surrendered to the Turks at Kut in the first world war.  They have been around the "track" a few times in the sub-continent in his family.

When he tells you something about Pakistan, you should listen carefully.  pl

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/de-Borchgrave/2012/07/13/Commentary-Afghanistan-as-an-ally/UPI-90331342177017/#ixzz20bNbloXf 

 

Trucks roll through the passes.

"The first trucks carrying NATO supplies crossed from Pakistan to Afghanistan at the Chaman border crossing on Thursday, after a seven-month blockade of the ground routes (NYT, AP, CNN, AFP, Reuters, BBC). Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar agreed to reopen the supply lines after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called her on Tuesday, and said she was "sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military""  Foreign Policy

----------------------------------------------

I suppose the reason we did not make this meaningless statement long ago was that Jack Keane was advising generals Mattis and Allen as to the appropriate response.  His attitude toward Pakisttan was made clear in the post just below.  Pakistan is really as much an adversary in Afghanistan as an ally, but it is nevertheless true that we need the supply routes just now being re-opened. Without them the force in Afghanistan is relying on a "crazy quilt" of routes through the former Soviet Union that are costing us even more than the routes through Pakistan.  With withdrawal about to begin, the movement of heavy equipment to the port of Karachi over Pakistan's roads will be even more critical.

I am curious as to what else the Pakistanis received in return for their acceptance of this delayed apology.  How much trhey are now charging us in fees for the passage of our cargo.  Have the fees gone up?  pl

 

http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/07/05/first_nato_trucks_cross_pakistani_border

Afghanistan ─ Reality and the way out (FB Ali)

Watching the United States stumble from one bad policy into another over the 10 years of the Afghan war, one went through a whole gamut of emotions ─ bemusement, puzzlement, anger, sorrow ─ but ending up with bewilderment overpowering the others. How could this great empire, with all the resources of knowledge, experience, intellect, research and analysis at its command, get it so consistently wrong? How could this “greatest democracy in the world” allow special interests to take over its policy-making to the grave detriment of the true interests of the country and its people?

Part of the answer was provided by Andrew Bacevich in a recent article. He wrote: "Strategy is a quintessential American Century word, ostensibly connoting knowingness and sophistication. Whether working in the White House, the State Department, or the Pentagon, strategists promote the notion that they can anticipate the future and manage its course ...... Strategy is actually a fraud perpetrated by those who covet power and are intent on concealing from the plain folk the fact that the people in charge are flying blind”.

Another part of the answer comes from what happened to Bacevich. A former army officer, now a professor of history and international relations, he is one of the sanest people in America writing about current affairs. In recognition of that his writings were always welcome on the OpEd pages of the principal newspapers and in periodicals ─ until he started pointing out the folly in many of the policies being pursued by the US. He was then dropped like a brick. The only ‘experts’ who are now featured in both the MSM and scholarly journals are those who push the reigning narrative. Presumably, they are the only ones now read or heard in the corridors of power.

That is why it was such a pleasant surprise to come across an article that offered a remarkably clear-eyed view of the reality of the situation in Afghanistan today, and proposed a way out for the United States.

Several things from the Sunday newsies.

– On GPS today Gideon Rose, the editor of Foreign Affairs, stated that "now we are all Israelis." He based this on conversations with officials in Washington who indicated to him that a nuclear Iran was "intolerable." He further stated that this reflects his view that Iranian progress on nuclear weapons will soon require air attacks on that country. In listening to him it became clear that either he does not know what would be involved in an air campaign to damage the Iranian nuclear program or else he does not care to tell us. In fact such a campaign in order to be effective would involve at least 500 strike sorties and at least that many support sorties. One must ask what is the game here? I am quite certain that the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Gen. Mattis of the Marine Corps have counseled the president that they feel it would be most unwise to launch such a campaign. Their reasoning has to do with actual consideration of available resources and space/time factors. What is Mr. Rose's statement based on?

- David Ignatius has a column in today's Washington Post in which he says that the US military have essentially abandoned the doctrine of counterinsurgency. This is not a surprise. We have been predicting it on SST for years. The COIN doctrine has once again proven to be impracticable when applied to large-scale situations in which the counterinsurgents are not the owners or even the permanent occupiers of the territory. As I have tried to counsel the Coinistas over the last few years, theprophets of failed dogma inevitably suffer the same fate as their rejected teaching. Ignatius makes the plea that this doctrine should not be altogether abandoned but should be retained as some small capability of the Armed Forces. I would support that. It is a suitable secondary mission for U.S. Army special forces (the Green Berets). UW should remain their primary mission. Conventional ground forces should be greatly reduced in size to save money and to discourage the idea of large-scale foreign ground interventions.

–Supposed experts continue to express surprise that the Egyptian electorate is going to vote an Islamist parliament into office. They do not comprehend the fact that the Egyptian population in the majority are deeply Islamist. What is going to happen is that this parliament and the leadership of the Egyptian military are going to combine with the new president, whenever he is elected, to consolidate their various positions. I still think that the next president is likely to be Amre Mousa. Eventually either the Islamists or the military will end up in charge in Egypt but that may take a while.  pl

A Russian threat to the supply line?

"... in Afghanistan, everything comes from outside and the insurgency this year has been very high as 700 causalities have been reported. Therefore after the Russian decision, Afghanistan will turn into a reverse Kargil for NATO. “They will have weapons but no bullets to fire; and if Pakistan shuts the air corridors on NATO then it would be a cold death for them and America will have to renegotiate with Pakistan”, she said."  the news

-------------------------

I don't know anything about this paper but the level of menace is worrisome.  "A cold death?"  This is the first that I have heard of Russia threatening our supply line.  Is that true?  pl

http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=10685&Cat=13

Should we get "out of Dodge?"

"Pat, 

As always, I greatly enjoy your blog and greatly appreciate your hard work keeping it going. 

I have a simple question I would like to see posed to the wise people for discussion on your blog under my by-line of WP. 

What would happen if the U.S. immediately ceased all aid and subsidies to Pakistan, burned all of its bases, equipment, and embassy in Afghanistan, and put all American troops, personnel, and contractors on planes back to the U.S. so they all arrived in time for Christmas?  Or, to put it another way, what would be the consequences of an immediate, total, and absolute withdrawal from Afghanistan and Pakistan? 

It is time for the U.S. radically to rethink its approach to the region.

JP"

 

The Memogate Brouhaha (FB Ali)

All of Pakistan has recently been watching with rapt attention the twists and turns of an unfolding scandal that the country’s febrile media has happily termed ‘Memogate’. The ruling party, in full defensive mode, watches apprehensively even as it bobs and weaves with every disclosure. The opposition parties gleefully plot and maneouvre to gain maximum advantage, while the generals nervously button and unbutton their holsters. The privileged upper class pauses in its living of the good life, and ordinary people forget their problems and miseries for a while, as the breathless TV anchors report each new development. Even the Pakistani Taliban declared a ceasefire, perhaps the better to follow the unfolding story without such distractions as setting off bombs or laying ambushes.

Cordesman on Iraq and Afghanistan

"Yet Iraq is already a grand strategic failure. The US went to war for the wrong reasons, let Iraq slide into a half decade of civil war, and failed to build an effective democracy and base for Iraq’s economic development. Its tactical victories – if they last – did little more than put an end to a conflict it help create, and the US failed to establish anything like the strategic partnership it sought.

The US invasion did bring down a remarkably unpleasant dictatorship, but at cost of some eight years of turmoil and conflict, some 5,000 US and allied lives and 35,000 wounded, and over 100,000 Iraqi lives. The Congressional Research Service estimates that the dollar cost of the war to the US alone is over $823 billion through FY2012, and SIGIR estimates that the US and its allies will have spent some $75 billion on aid – much of it with little lasting benefit to Iraq.

The outcome in Afghanistan and Pakistan now seems unlikely to be any better. While any such judgments are subjective, the odds of meaningful strategic success have dropped from roughly even in 2009 to 4:1 to 6:1 against at the end of 2011. It is all very well for senior US officials to discuss ―fight, talk, and build,‖ and for creating a successful transition before the US and ISAF allies withdraw virtually all of their combat troops and make massive cuts in the flow of outside money to Afghanistan. The US, however, has yet to present a credible and detailed plan for transition that shows the US and its allies can achieve some form of stable, strategic outcome in Afghanistan that even approaches the outcome of the Iraq War." 

 --------------------------------------

There is war and then there is dumb war.  These have been dumb wars, poorly conceived and poorly executed.  pl

https://csis.org/files/publication/111115_Afghanistan_at_End_2011.pdf 

 

"Secret Pakistan" BBC

I strongly recommend that you all watch the six parts of this that are Available on U-Tube.  This is not being broadcast outside the UK.  That makes it appear that some governments do not want us to see it.  There will be a second segment next week.  If someone finds better links please give them to me.

The American officers and numerous former CIA men who had their say in this deserve our respect.  The Obama Administration is relentless in its pursuit of "leakers" and that is how they will see this.  pl

http://criticalppp.com/archives/60846

or

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=secret+pakistan&aq=0z&oq=Secret+P

 

Pakistan wants a Chinese naval base.

According to this article Pakistan is pressing China to construct a naval port at Gwadar in SW Pakistan on the Arabian Sea.   China has already taken over  (at Pakistan's request) the little used commercial port at Gwadar.  Karachi is Pakistan's major port.

The Chinese are apparently reluctant to make an overseas naval commitment of this scope.  Such a naval base would be Pakistani but dual use by the two countries seems likely.  The same article mentions a separate possible Chinese naval base in Sri Lanka.

Uighur Muslim guerrillas are active in Chinese teritory in Sinkiang.  These are reported in this piece to be trained in camps in Pakistani Waziristan.  The Chinese are interested in establishing a ground military presence in the north of Pakistan to put an end to that training and support.

IMO all of this is related to the rapidly disintegrating relations between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on the one hand and the United States on the other.  pl

 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MJ26Df03.html

 

 

"Taliban commanders say Pakistan intelligence helps them " Reuters

Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:00am EDT

"LONDON (Reuters) - Pakistan's security service provides weapons and training to Taliban insurgents fighting U.S. and British troops in Afghanistan, despite official denials, Taliban commanders say, in allegations that could worsen tensions between Pakistan and the United States.

A number of middle-ranking Taliban commanders revealed the extent of Pakistani support in interviews for a BBC Two documentary series, "Secret Pakistan," the first part of which was being broadcast on Wednesday.

A former head of Afghan intelligence also told the program that Afghanistan gave Pakistan's former president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, information in 2006 that Osama bin Laden was hiding in northern Pakistan close to where the former al Qaeda leader was eventually killed by U.S. special forces in May.

Admiral Mike Mullen, then the top U.S. military officer, accused Pakistani intelligence last month of backing violence against U.S. targets including the U.S. Embassy in Kabul.

He said the Haqqani network, an Afghan militant group blamed for the September 13 embassy attack, was a "veritable arm" of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI). Pakistan denies the U.S. allegations.

One Taliban commander, Mullah Qaseem, told the BBC the important things for a fighter were supplies and a hiding place.

"Pakistan plays a significant role. First they support us by providing a place to hide which is really important. Secondly they provide us with weapons," he said, according to excerpts provided by the BBC.

Other Taliban commanders described how they and their fighters were, and are, trained in a network of camps on Pakistani soil.

According to a commander using the name Mullah Azizullah, the experts running the training are either members of the ISI or have close links to it.

"They are all the ISI's men. They are the ones who run the training. First they train us about bombs; then they give us practical guidance," he said." 

------------------------------

It appears that Pakistan has played us like a violin.  pl 

Afghanistan, Pakistan's Ally

"Afghanistan would support Pakistan in case of military conflict between Pakistan and the United States, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said in an interview to a private Pakistani TV channel broadcast on Saturday."  MSNBC

-------------------------------

Yet another triumph for the neocons. Bush, Obama, the COINistas, (especially you, (Nagl), Petraeus, etc.  Laughable in a horrid way.  I suppose I will be forced to resurrect my decade long critique of all this.  pl

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44998270#.TqSe0HLpf-B

 

A new kind of war - FB Ali

On the recent thread about Anwar al-Awlaki’s killing, the question came up as to whether the US really is at war or not. This is an important issue, and its answer carries much wider significance beyond just the legality of killing Awlaki.

The short answer to the question, of course, is: it is war, because the US chooses to treat it as such. But it’s the dawn of a very different kind of war.

When George Bush declared his Great War on a nebulous noun (which most people understood to mean Islamists, though some construed it as Islam), he still waged it in the conventional manner. Pinning the blame for 9/11 on Afghanistan and Iraq, he invaded both countries. This was not much different from Austria-Hungary declaring war on and invading Serbia in 1914 because of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand by a Serb nationalist.

Osama bin Laden : The real story? - FB Ali

The killing of bin Laden in a US Special Forces raid on a house in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad unleashed a torrent of stories about the event. The accounts by various US officials (given in bits and pieces immediately after the raid) gave little information on the details of the operation, and none on the ‘back story’. This left the field open to a lot of speculative accounts about how the raid took place and the events leading up to it. A rash of conspiracy theories also sprang up, many of which flatly denied bin Laden was even present in the house, while others put forward various versions of the Pakistani role in these events.

Recently, two accounts have been published that claim to be based on information from sources ‘in the know’ or ones who actually participated in the planning (though perhaps not the execution) of the raid. The first was a detailed account by Nicholas Schmidle in The New Yorker, based on interviews with and information provided by senior White House staff and some of the planners of the raid. This was obviously the “official” version, what the US administration would like people to believe. The second is a post on her blog by RJ Hillhouse, in which she quotes her intelligence sources on certain aspects of the raid, especially the events leading up to it.

By studying these two accounts, separating the grain from the chaff, and judiciously filling in some of the blanks, it is possible to come up with what is likely to be fairly close to the real story.

 

Pakistan says - Keep your money.

 
"U.S. officials have been quoted as saying the move is a response to Pakistan's decision to expel American military trainers and put limits on visas for U.S. personnel.

Analysts say the suspension also is aimed at pressuring Pakistan's army to do more to cooperate with the U.S. to fight militants"  VOA

---------------------------------------

All right.  Let's keep our money.  I am accustomed to be told in the ME "We have our pride..."  Ihis is usually from Arabs.  This time it is from Pakistan.

We should have a rule.  Anyone who tells us something like this should not be "forced" to take our money, especially  now when we are hard up for money at home.  The Pakistani Army brass says they will continue the fight against the militants who want a lor of them dead or in exile.  Well, good on'em!  Best of luck fellahs!  Hang onto those nukes.  India and indeed the world are watching you.  If the Islamists take over your country, there might not be one.

Pakistan is a "vital" ally?  How?  The operation that killed OBL had nothing to do with the cooperation of Pakistan's army or the ISI.  Don't believe anything to the contrary.

Actually, the reaction of the US Government to this "issue" in Pakistan should be normative.  The moral - If you take our money we expect you to play the game honestly with us.  If you do not, as Pakistan has not then we will walk away from you.  pl  

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/US-Suspends-Military-Aid-to-Pakistan-Pakistan-Says-It-Doesnt-Need-US-Military-Aid-125340418.html

Afghan Endgame : Current state of play - FB Ali

The endgame continues to unfold in Afghanistan, as it has now for over a year. Writing in May last year, I had discussed the goals and objectives that the various players in the Afghan conflict (and the factions within each of them) wanted to achieve in this endgame. In this past year these goals haven’t changed, but the methods that the players are adopting of trying to achieve them have changed with the changing situation. This is an appropriate occasion to review how the endgame is being played now.

In May last year President Obama had sided with the war faction (led by Secretary Gates and the generals), and allowed them to pursue their strategy of sufficiently weakening the Taliban to permit the US to safely hand over the country to a friendly Afghan government and its army (backed by US airpower and SF). He had ruled against the ‘minimalist’ faction, led by VP Biden, that wanted an expeditious US pullout on the best terms that could be negotiated with the Taliban. Now, Obama has adopted the Biden goal as the ultimate aim, though, in typical fashion, he has compromised by letting the generals take one last kick at the can. However, he has given them firm deadlines for drawing down US forces in Afghanistan, and has clearly signalled that, for the US, the Afghan war is now finally over.

You mean the Pakistanis are NOT OUR FRIENDS?

 
"At a closed briefing last week, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee asked Michael J. Morell, the deputy C.I.A. director, to rate Pakistan’s cooperation with the United States on counterterrorism operations, on a scale of 1 to 10.

“Three,” Mr. Morell replied, according to officials familiar with the exchange.

The fate of the C.I.A. informants arrested in Pakistan is unclear, but American officials said that the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, raised the issue when he travelled to Islamabad last week to meet with Pakistani military and intelligence officers."  NY Times

-------------------------------

Actually three out of ten is not that bad.  Intelligence liaison relationships are always sometimes things and rather dependent on "the weather."  When interests align, they align.  When they do not...

Surely not the British!  Not them!  No?  If you say so...

Hey folks!  Pakistan is an independent foreign sovereign country not yet included in the imperium.  They are not we and we are not they.  No, it is not true that all people are basically the same, yearning to be freed of ancient "superstition" so that they can "bloom" in the bright sunlit uplands of modern (American) culture.

So, we are surprised...  No, we are "shocked!"  We are "shocked" that Pakistan finds unauthorised help given to a foreign intelligence agency to be possibly criminal behavior.  We are "shocked."

We are like children.  That is what we really are.

It is obvious that the Pakistani establishment protected Bin Laden and hid him from us.  Why?  It was because they are not we and we are not they.  Have you not ever noticed the crescent and star on Pakistan's green flag?  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/world/asia/15policy.html

 

Syed Saleem Shahzad, writer, RIP - James ben Goy

 
In the West, where modern journalism developed, we used to have writers like Saleem Shahzad . . .didn't we?  Writers completely committed to doing their job, which was foremost the exposure of the shenanigans and goings-on in and between government, the financial cabals embezzling our countries, and their military/police mafias.   Of course, we also used to have publishers who were committed to being that press explicitly identified in the First Amendment, correct?  Or, maybe we never had them at all, only a mythology.  Today we surely have neither, only talking heads, embedded flacks, and publishers wholly owned or cowed by the globalist financial interests.    

It's no accident Shahzad had to be found on the internet - see above - and let us see how long that openness continues to last.  The qualities that confined him thereto, like stones, for example, are what makes writers like him so important as points of illumination and inspiration.  To my knowledge he never made it full-time into any of the so-called major media outlets.  Until today, that is, where his murder is just another bat to beat on Pakistan. 

Farewell, Saleem, God give you peace.  I can't comment on you as a man, because I only knew you through your writing, but I will miss it, your irony, your wit, but most of all, your insights.  Speaking only to your career, you set the bar high, and your biggest irony, your final irony, was it was set in the most dangerous place on earth for your profession.  Who will step up to take your place?  And where? 

James ben Goy

United States and Pakistan - FB Ali

 
“The relationship, in truth, has never been about trust. It was and is a strategic alliance founded on complementary interests: Pakistan's desire for military assistance and its fear of becoming a pariah state, and the U.S.'s need for regional support in the Afghanistan war. While Pakistan and the U.S. share similar long-term goals — economic partnership, stability in the region — their short-term needs rarely intersect. That is why the question of whose side Pakistan is on is so galling to most Pakistanis and so infuriating to most Americans. "Pakistan is on Pakistan's side," says Tariq Azim, an opposition Senator and Deputy Information Minister under Musharraf”.  ‒  TIME

-----------------------------------------------

 Since the US raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, there has been a lot of heated rhetoric, bordering on the hysterical, in the media of both countries (some of that has even seeped into comments on this site). TIME is not known for in-depth analysis, but its May 23 cover story (Why we’re stuck with Pakistan) is a detailed and insightful discussion of the issue. Well worth a read (at the link below) for anyone who wishes to understand the background and recent history of the relationship, and the tensions and strains that currently bedevil it .

FB Ali

 http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2071005,00.html#ixzz1N0WD8B9T

Pakistani Leader Rebuts Criticism Over bin Laden - WSJ

 
"Pakistan's prime minister sought to assuage spreading anger at home over the U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden in a defiant speech to parliament, rejecting accusations that Pakistanis shielded the al Qaeda leader and suggesting the terror network was created by the U.S."  WSJ

-----------

Comments?  pl

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576313153255249860.html

#Pakistan in the light of day

 
"Pakistan’s army chief warned Thursday that any repeat of the type of U.S. commando operation that killed Osama bin Laden would be viewed as a violation of Pakistani sovereignty and would imperil military and intelligence cooperation between the two countries.

The combative statement came as a senior U.S. defense official said Pakistan would have to take “very concrete and visible steps” to persuade Congress to continue providing $3 billion in annual military and economic assistance."  Washpost

-------------------------

"It's nice to be nice to the nice."  Frank Burns

Let's see...  What does Pakistan do for the US? 

1-They let our Main Supply Route to Afghanistan run north from their ports to the Khyber Pass and to Quetta.  This is a major vulnerability for us.  With the size force we have in Afghanistan, we would have a difficult time supplying that force either through Russia or by air.  Pakistani companies make a lot of money in the haulage on this MSR.

2- Pakistan's military keeps it's existing and future nuclear capability out of the larger world game.  As has been discussed at SST many times, Pakistan either has or will soon have the real world CAPABILITY of ranging Israel's target set.  They have around 100 fully engineered and manufactired deliverable nuclear weapons.  They have aircraft and missiles (Shahiin 2 improved) that would do the job.  The missile launchers are fully mobile.  The US has zero control over this nuclear strike force.   Logically, the willingness of the Pakistan military to keep this "piece" off the chess board is a major boon to the US.  We do not want to see that willingness change to something else. 

#Raid in Pakistan - Radio Interview

 

I was on the Pat Campbell radio show this AM to talk about the bin Laden op.  pl

http://podcast.1170kfaq.com/PCInterviews/tabid/1838/Default.aspx

#Something’s happening.......... FB Ali

The media’s preoccupation with the terrible earthquake and tsunami in Japan, followed by the protracted nuclear crisis, had hardly subsided when the Arab Spring burst into bloom with its tense standoffs, between the old order and the new, erupting into violence, and actual war in Libya, with the West as a participant. All this drove the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan off the news, except for a brief flurry of reporting following Pastor Terry Jones’s incendiary exploits. (Personally, I don’t think there is anything to the story that the Quetta shura has made the reverend an honorary Taliban in recognition of his services to the cause).

However, the war in those distant lands has been grinding on in its usual fashion ‒ IEDs and suicide bombers killing soldiers and civilians (though there was the odd case of two US soldiers being killed by a US drone), coalition air strikes and SF night raids killing insurgents and civilians, the Pakistan army’s operations in its tribal areas continuing unendingly, young Taliban suiciders blowing up Pakistanis. The political and strategic games between the main players in the war have also been continuing, though it appears that they are now starting to take a significant new turn.

 

#Drones? Who? What?

 
"In all, about 335 American personnel — C.I.A. officers and contractors and Special Operations forces — were being asked to leave the country, said a Pakistani official closely involved in the decision.

It was not clear how many C.I.A. personnel that would leave behind; the total number in Pakistan has not been disclosed. But the cuts demanded by the Pakistanis amounted to 25 to 40 percent of United States Special Operations forces in the country, the officials said. The number also included the removal of all the American contractors used by the C.I.A. in Pakistan."  NY Times

----------------

(Irony Alert)  What's the matter with those people in Pakistan?   Don't they understand that the US decides for them what will or will not be?  Sovereignty? We dealt with that idea in Iraq.  Didn't we?

To quote Christopher Matthews (is that still his name?) a few years back, "Who is in charge in Iraq, Us or them?"

Well, soon they will "sober up" (sort of) and realize who is in charge.  Petraeus will fix all this.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/world/asia/12pakistan.html

The Davis saga ends ‒ FB Ali

It started with a bang (quite a few bangs, actually), but ended with a whimper. On Wednesday afternoon the sessions court convened inside Kot Lakhpat jail, with the accused present, as well as the families of the victims. Their lawyers weren’t there because, when they arrived at the jail earlier that day, they were escorted to another room and placed under armed guard. Also not there was the young widow of one of the victims who, overcome with grief and the futility of hoping for justice, had taken her own life. (Of course, as devotees of le Carré will recognise, Raymond Davis himself was also a victim).

The judge read out the indictment; then a representative of the victims’ families stood up and told him that they had accepted payment of compensation for the killings and, under the diyyat provisions of the law, had pardoned the killer. Having confirmed this, the judge ordered the prisoner released. In the hush that followed, as Davis walked towards the US Consul seated behind him he had tears trickling down his face, but the whimpering sound probably came from some of the womenfolk among the families. Within minutes Davis left in a convoy of diplomatic vehicles; within the hour he was on a plane bound for Bagram airbase in Kabul.

#The fallout from the Davis affair ‒ FB Ali

Raymond Davis’s murder trial has begun, while the US continues to press for his repatriation, though now much more circumspectly. Whatever the outcome of these proceedings, this affair has already had a significant impact on the US-Pakistan relationship, and may yet do so also on Pakistan’s internal situation.

I had concluded my previous thread on the subject by advancing the hypothesis (triggered by a couple of useful pointers from TTG and MTJY) that Davis was working for a JSOC Special Mission Unit whose task related to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. This hypothesis has acquired some legs if one considers the effects this event has had, and is having. All of them were set off when it caused the balance of power in the Pakistani establishment to tilt away from the US-friendly faction towards the Pakistan-friendly one (the bulk of this establishment is, of course, just self-friendly).

#Update : The Raymond Davis Affair ‒ FB Ali

The saga rolls on, while (as they used to say in the old pulp novels) the plot thickens. Davis remains in prison awaiting trial. Relations between Pakistan and the US continue to be quite strained. And the circle of collateral damage widens.

 The facts of the incident that sparked all this are now fairly clear. Davis, in a rental car, was driving around in Lahore in areas where foreigners scarcely ever venture, tailed by two ISI auxiliaries on a motorbike. After an hour or more of trying to shake them off, they both came abreast at a stoplight. He pulled out a gun and, firing through his windscreen, shot them both. Accounts differ as to whether they made any threatening gesture, but one was killed as he was trying to run away.

The backup van that Davis called for came roaring up the wrong way on a one-way street, ran over a cyclist, killing him, then turned around and roared off. Davis was arrested, and weapons, ammo and other paraphernalia were found in the car. On his cell phone were numbers that were later traced to phones in the tribal belt where the Taliban operate, while his camera had pictures of religious schools and military sites.

Dealing with change - FB Ali

Barack Obama was elected as the apostle and agent of change. He hasn’t been able to bring about much change, but is now likely to get his fill dealing with it ‒ not in the US, but in the Muslim world. What has happened in Tunisia and Egypt is not some passing phenomenon. There is a wave of change surging through Muslim countries, and it is likely to ebb and flow for a long time. Obama (and his successor) are going to have their hands full coping with it. As will other powers. For this is the latest phase in the relationship between the Muslim world and the rest.

Pakistan Nucs = 100

 
"Pakistan's nuclear arsenal now totals more than 100 deployed weapons, a doubling of its stockpile over the past several years in one of the world's most unstable regions, according to estimates by nongovernment analysts."  Washpost - Karen de Young

--------------------------------------------

One of my favorite "hobby horses," why do the Israelis not act more concerned about this?  I thnk that the iproduct improved Shaheen 2 ranges Israel from western Baluchistan.  even if it does not as yet the weapons system has to be regarded as a threat in Tel Aviv.  Do the Israelis really think we can protect them from this?  If they do they are kidding themselves.  A deterrent against India?  Today, yes.  Tomorrow Who knows?  pl

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/30/AR2011013004136.html?hpid=topnews

The tunes they’re whistling - FB Ali

In late December Col Lang posted here a piece of mine entitled Whistling past the graveyard.... This was a reference to the recently published overview of the Obama administration’s review of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Even though this summary dealt in very general terms with what path the USA proposed to follow in the future, I commented that it gave little hope that this would be any more effective than past efforts in dealing with the real dangers and problems the US and the West faced in this area. 

Since then, various reports appearing in the media, and some actions on the ground, enable one to make a more accurate assessment of what policies are likely to be pursued after this review. It doesn’t come as much of a surprise to see that the principal players appear to be planning to follow different paths that suit their own particular interests. Since none of their policies are likely to deal effectively with the risks and issues looming in the area, it is apparent that, even though the tunes they’re whistling are different, they are still tiptoeing by the graveyard, each hoping that they’ll be safely past before the ghouls and banshees come charging out. 

Can Pakistan Strike Israel?

I want to open a thread on this subject for the purpose of discussing capabilities, not intentions.

Opinions seem to vary a bit as to current capability.  i want enlightened discussion here.

The ranges for missiles shown here do not seem to be definitive.

Recent evidence of poliical instability in Pakistan makes this question significant.  pl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Straw in the wind - FB Ali

Salman Taseer, governor of Pakistan’s biggest province, Punjab, was gunned down by one of his own bodyguards on Jan 4. The treacherous deed done, the guard (belonging to an elite police commando unit) calmly threw down his weapon and surrendered (as prearranged with his fellow guards, according to reports). He said he had done it because the governor had publicly demanded the repeal of the country’s blasphemy law (often misused to settle personal scores). A few days earlier, religious parties had held countrywide demonstrations and enforced shutdowns to protest against the governor’s outspoken criticism of the law; one cleric even offered a reward for his assassination. 

Cordesman "sobers up" on Afghanistan AND IRAQ.

Holbrooke is dead. Even in great pain he could not avoid schmoozing the surgical team about his diplomatic task and how obsessed with it he was.   This a man who truly let his work kill him.   All you Type A people out there!  Pay Attention!  Nobody is that important or necessary.

Anthony Cordesman should be appointed to replace Holbrooke.  He is equally self important and although he was an enthusiastic cheerleader for the "transformational" neocon goals of the wars of our time, he now professes to see the light of rational limitations on national folly.

He, too, likes the sound of his own voice and will make a suitable "guest" for Farid Zakariya and that Rose fellow.  

Send him, Lord.  pl 

http://csis.org/publication/americas-wars-afghanistan-pakistan-and-iraq

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkpoint-washington/2010/12/holbrookes_final_words_on_the.html

The Grocer and Alice’s Cat - FB Ali

It was the dawn of 2010, and the ISI had a problem: Pakistan’s spy agency was losing control over some of its Taliban proteges. The previous year the British and some Europeans, wearying of the unending war, had prevailed upon the UN representative in Afghanistan, Kai Eide, to get peace negotiations started between the Karzai government and the Taliban. With the assistance of the Saudis, Eide arranged some meetings with a few former Taliban leaders and also involved some Afghan officials. These didn’t bother the ISI; what was getting them worried now were reports that the Taliban’s No. 2 man, and operational commander, Mullah Baradar, was involved in these talks. 

Pakistan and ‘AfPak’ - FB Ali

It is rather remarkable that, ten years after having drawn Pakistan into its war in Afghanistan, the US is still not clear on the motivations that underlie Pakistan’s stance in this war, where they’re coming from, where they’re going. This doesn’t just apply to the self-styled ‘experts’ in Washington’s numerous think tanks; it also seems to apply, surprisingly, to administration policy makers. 

Typifying this confusion is the US government’s invention of the AfPak term to describe the theatre in which the war is going on. A term that had to be hastily dropped by officials, at least for public use, after Pakistan made it clear that it wasn’t amused. However, the US still thinks of it as the AfPak war, in which Pakistan’s function is to backstop and bolster US operations in Afghanistan. The generals conducting that war find it convenient to ascribe their lack of success to Pakistan’s failure to deliver, and keep demanding that Washington do something about it. 

"Clinton tells Pakistan to do more on flood relief" Reuters

"The international community can only do so much," Clinton said after a meeting in Brussels with European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who will host Friday's Pakistan conference.

"It is absolutely unacceptable for those with means in Pakistan not to be doing their fair share to help their own people while the taxpayers in Europe, the United States and other contributing countries are all chipping in to do our part."  Reuters

-----------------------------------------------------

Remarkable.  I have mixed feelings about this.  We just had a "near miss" in our relations with the country through which run most of our logistics to Afghanistan. Arnaud de Borchgrave wrote a column yesterday in which he describes Pakistan as a former ally.  What's the idea, to discipline the Pakistanis and make them know who is the boss?  What's the chance that such a thing would be effective, or would it just irritate them further?  

At the same time she is undoubtedly correct in telling the wealthy and the ruling in that bedeviled country that if they wish to be taken seriously they must act seriously.  pl

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69D3QO20101014

Afpak Report - Unclas

http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/10/09/afpak-report-unclassified-and-now-accessible/

Will Saber Rattling And Sanctions Work Against Iran? - National Security Experts - part 2

 
Will Saber Rattling And Sanctions Work Against Iran? - National Security Experts.

Key NATO supply route hit again in Pakistan - Zarar Khan

"Some attacks are believed to be the work of criminals, who can sell much of the vehicles, clothes and other goods they carry."  Zarar Khan

---------------------------------------------------

Sure...  That's why they shoot up the trucks and then burn them.

"Seven Pillars of Wisdom" is about insurgency, not counterinsurgency.  Lawrence's great insight was that the Turks in the Hijaz could be paralyzed by attacks on the railroad and eventually imprisoned in their major garrison towns by logistical friction. 

I am interested in hearing how many potential supply routes there are.  At present I count four;  the two in Pakistan, one out of the Stans wherever the railhead is and an air line of communications staging through Manas or the Gulf.  pl 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101004/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan

 

A Gesture or Something More?

"Around 10 gunmen attacked the vehicles when they were parked at an ordinary truck stop on the edge of Shikarpur town shortly after midnight. They forced the drivers and other people there to flee before setting the fires, said police officer Abdul Hamid Khoso. No one was wounded or killed."  AP

----------------------------------------------------------

OK.  I told them so...

The real question is whether or not this represents an actual change in strategy by Islamic militants or is it a gesture of displeasure on the part of Pakistan, a warning. Time will tell.

A second order danger in this that should now be evident to all those whose territory or airspace is necessary to the supply of NATO that they have tremendous leverage if they wish to exert it.  pl 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101001/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan

 

 

"Clinton aims to refine goals of Afghan war" Yahoonews

 "Clinton landed in Islamabad where she will underscore the need for Afghan-Pakistani cooperation in winning the war but also announce plans to beef up U.S. development assistance to Pakistan, which is rife with anti-American sentiment.

In talks with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani on Sunday and military and civilian officials on Monday, Clinton is seeking to convince Pakistanis the U.S. is committed to the country's long-term development needs and not just short-term security gains.

This, officials hope, will lead to greater Pakistani cooperation on key U.S. policy goals, particularly combatting Pakistan-based militants accused of conspiring to attack the United States, including the failed Times Square bombing, and stepping up action against extremists along the Afghan border.

"To get there we need to change the core of the relationship with Pakistan," said Richard Holbrooke, the Obama administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan."  Yahoonews

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, the Pakistani leopard is going to lose its spots and change its ways?  It is going to give up its goal of dominating events in Afghanistan through manipulation of proxies?  Are Holbrooke and Clinton serious about this?  Do they really think they can tinker with history and long term national policy goals?  This is the kind of thing that sounds good at cocktail and dinner parties in Manhattan and Georgetown but does not reflect reality.  pl 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100718/ap_on_re_us/clinton_asia

"Outside the Beltway" Radio - 17 February, 2010

I was on "Outside the Beltway" radio last night with James Joyner and Dave Schuler. This three sided conversation lasted an hour and covered a lot of ground.  If you want to hear this podcast, the link is below.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/otb/2010/02/17/politics-and-foreign-affairs

Counterinsurgency – a much failed strategy?

Some time ago I was asked to encapsulate my views on the afghan policy situation.  The resulting summary is quoted below.  Since policy has clearly gone in a different direction I feel free to state my view for the record.  pl

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Bernard Fall was one of the most significant theoreticians and practitioner of Counterinsurgency (COIN) in the 20th Century.  He was the expert most listened to at the Special Warfare Center at Ft. Bragg when LTG William Yarborough commanded the school there in the Kennedy and Johnson eras. 

Fall defined COIN clearly.  He said that:  Counterinsurgency = political reform + economic development + counter guerrilla operations 

This theory of warfare was developed by the colonial powers as a “cure” for the wave on “wars of national liberation” that swept through their overseas possessions after World War Two.  Because of these revolts against authority most of the European powers found themselves faced with colonized populations engaged in extended attempts to obtain independence from the metropole.  Such rebellions were usually based on ethnic and racial differences with the colonizers and were often led by vanguard Left parties with communist connections.  That connection caused an eventual American policy commitment to the COIN struggle. That commitment sometimes occurred as a partner of the colonial power (Vietnam in the late ‘40s and ‘50s) and sometimes as a successor to the colonial power after at least partial independence had bee achieved. (Vietnam after the French) 

Peril in Pakistan - FB Ali

Whatever the outcome of President Obama’s deliberations, two things are certain. One, the war in Afghanistan will continue, in whatever altered shape or form. Two, it will still be the wrong war, against the wrong enemy, and in the wrong place. The danger that the United States and the West face in that region is not from a Taliban victory in Afghanistan but from an Islamist takeover of Pakistan. And every day that the war in Afghanistan continues brings that takeover one day closer.

 

"Show Time" for the Pakistan Army

"Taliban spokesman Azam Tari said the guerrillas had inflicted “heavy casualties” on the army, the Associated Press reported yesterday. “We will defend our land till our last man and our last drop of our blood,” the agency quoted him as saying. “This is a war bound to end in the defeat of the Pakistan army.”

The army has said it expects to complete the offensive in six to eight weeks, though today Abbas said he could not say how long it would last.

“This fight could be longer and harder than any the army has taken on so far,” said Ashraf Ali, director of the FATA Research Center, an Islamabad think-tank that studies the tribal areas, including Waziristan.

“The Waziristan terrain is much tougher for the army and better for guerrilla-style fighters,” Ali said. He added that the Taliban targeted in the campaign “are more experienced and trained than the ones in Swat,” the northern valley the army recaptured in a 10-week battle that ended in July.

Even a determined offensive may not crush the Mehsud faction or its allies.

The Taliban will “split into small groups and harass the strangers in a terrain which the Mehsuds know well,” said Bahukutumbi Raman at the Chennai, India-based Institute for Topical Studies. Pakistan is likely to face a new round of terrorist attacks in cities far from the fighting, he said. "  Bloomberg

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is to be feared in this situation is that the Pashtun tribesmen in South Waziristan might fight the Pakistan army to a standstill.  This could happen.  These men are fighting on their own terrain, under their own traditional leaders, for their own homes.  The terrain is very tough for a conventional army designed to fight India in maneuver warfare down on the plains to the east.

An army failure to dominate the situation would strengthen the Islamic zealots in the general Pakistan population and threaten the stability of the government. 

If the United States has played a significant role in pressuring Pakistan into this operation we may have future reason to regret our actions.  pl