What is happening between the US and Pakistan? Or is it CIA vs ISI Now !!!!

Those who recall my attempt some months ago to explain Joe Biden’s hurriedly-arranged visit to Pakistan, would recall that I tried outlining why and how Pakistan was assisting the Afghans to find an Afghan solution for their future — a future in which all Afghans across the ethnic divide would participate, including the various chapters of the Afghan Taliban. While Pakistan would assist, the ‘(Burhanuddin) Rabbani initiative’ was intended to be exclusively Afghan.
I also mentioned in the same article that, when Biden’s hurriedly-scheduled visit was announced, The Washington Post (concluding from the briefings he received) outlined his messages to Pakistan. Apart from increased military and civil aid/assistance, these included a reassurance that no ground attack by US/Isaf forces would occur on Pakistani soil, the US would no longer press for an operation by the Pakistan Army in North Waziristan Agency (NWA) and, that “Pakistan has an important, if not dominant role in Afghanistan”.
A month later, we were caught up in the Raymond Davis imbroglio. However, that, too, was settled amicably and CIA operatives in Pakistan were grossly reduced. It should have been expected that relations between these two ‘allies’ would improve. But what has happened since? Let us examine recent developments before attempting to understand why these have occurred.

The day after Davis’s release, a drone attack in NWA killed around 44 civilians (no militants). For the first time, Pakistan launched a genuinely strong protest; so much so, that the army chief, General Kayani, vocally condemned the attack (a first). For some days, the Pakistan Air Force patrolled the skies along the Durand Line and drone attacks halted. In the meantime, our ISI chief travelled to Washington for a meeting with his counterpart at the CIA.
He had not yet set foot in Pakistan when, on April 22, another drone attack in NWA killed 22 people, including women and children! I have frequently commented that, since 2008, drone attacks by the CIA have become increasingly accurate in targeting militants and the (indecent term) ‘collateral damage’ has become minimal. Suddenly, after Davis’s departure, these have become even more inaccurate than they were in the period from 2006-2008! Why?
In his online article, “Carving up Pakistan: The Balochistan gambit”, Tony Cartalucci wrote on April 22: “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 recipient of this outrage and unrest is a national government seemingly bent to the will of the United States as it callously murders Pakistanis. In particular, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is being intentionally weakened, undermined and isolated from the whole of Pakistan”.
The last sentence is given credence by the fact that, after a considerable interval, during which the ISI was not subjected to false allegations by the US, suddenly US military chief Admiral Mullen found it necessary to castigate this organisation again. With such vehemence did he do so, that once again, Pakistan’s army chief had to decry this ‘negative propaganda’!

Then there is the incident of the two-day firefight in Dir! Where did that come from? It certainly isn’t al Qaeda, which maintains only a token presence in Afghanistan, having moved to greener pastures in the Middle East and Iraq. Equally certainly, it wasn’t the Taliban.
In his online article “CIA Directs and Funds Terrorism In Pakistan CIA’s Afghan Kill Teams Expand US War in Pakistan”, published September 21, 2010, Spencer Ackerman points at the likely perpetrators. “Let there be no doubt that the US is at war in Pakistan. It’s not just the drone strikes. According to insider journalist Bob Woodward’s new book, the CIA manages a large and lethal band of Afghan fighters to infiltrate into Pakistan and attack al Qaeda’s bases. What could possibly go wrong?” He adds, “Administration officials didn’t just confirm the existence of the teams — they bragged about them. ‘This is one of the best Afghan fighting forces and it’s made major contributions to stability and security,’ says one US official who would only talk on condition of anonymity — and who wouldn’t elaborate”. Ackerman concludes, “One of the larger political narratives Woodward’s book apparently presents is President Obama’s inability to either bring the Afghanistan war to a close or find good options for tailoring it to the US’ main enemies in Pakistan. When the CIA comes to the Oval Office with a plan for inflicting damage on the safe havens — no matter how fraught with risk and blowback the plan is — is it any surprise that Obama would approve it?”
Ackerman’s comments seem to confirm my growing belief that US foreign policy, at least towards this region, is not tailored in the White House, but in the Pentagon and Langley. If the GHQ has a definite input in our foreign policy, it seems we are only following the sterling example of ‘the World’s Greatest Democracy’, the US of A!
And what is more, the US has, once again, linked this seizure of promised aid as well as its intent to continue its inaccurate drone attacks in NWA to the precondition that Pakistan undertake a military operation in NWA — if not, no aid and drone attacks now (rather obviously) targeting civilians will continue!
“Elementary, my dear Watson”, as the inimical Sherlock Holmes would have said, “the US has to destabilise Pakistan”. The only question is: Why?

Read more »

Should CIA Start Wearing Military Uniform? - Voice of Pakistan

The first four Directors of the CIA (from 1947-1953) were military officers, but since then, there has been a tradition (generally though imperfectly observed) of keeping the agency under civilian rather than military leadership. That's why George Bush's 2006 nomination of Gen. Michael Hayden to the CIA provoked so many objections from Democrats (and even some Republicans).

The Hayden nomination triggered this comment from the current Democratic Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein: "You can't have the military control most of the major aspects of intelligence. The CIA is a civilian agency and is meant to be a civilian agency." The then-top Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, said "she hears concerns from civilian CIA professionals about whether the Defense Department is taking over intelligence operations" and "shares those concerns." On Meet the Press, Nancy Pelosi cited tensions between the DoD and the CIA and said: "I don't see how you have a four-star general heading up the CIA." Then-Sen. Joe Biden worried that the CIA, with a General in charge, will "just be gobbled up by the Defense Department." Even the current GOP Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Pete Hoekstra, voiced the same concern about Hayden: "We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time."

Of course, like so many Democratic objections to Bush policies, that was then and this is now. Yesterday, President Obama announced -- to very little controversy -- that he was nominating Gen. David Petraeus to become the next CIA Director. The Petraeus nomination raises all the same concerns as the Hayden nomination did, but even more so: Hayden, after all, had spent his career in military intelligence and Washington bureaucratic circles and thus was a more natural fit for the agency; by contrast, Petraues is a pure military officer and, most of all, a war fighting commander with little background in intelligence. But in the world of the Obama administration, Petraeus' militarized, warrior orientation is considered an asset for running the CIA, not a liability.

That's because the CIA, under Obama, is more militarized than ever, as devoted to operationally fighting wars as anything else, including analyzing and gathering intelligence. This morning's Washington Post article on the Petraeus nomination -- headlined: "Petraeus would helm an increasingly militarized CIA" -- is unusual in presenting such a starkly forthright picture of how militarized the U.S. has become under the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner:

Gen. David H. Petraeus has served as commander in two wars launched by the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. If confirmed as the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Petraeus would effectively take command of a third -- in Pakistan.

Petraeus's nomination comes at a time when the CIA functions, more than ever in its history, as an extension of the nation's lethal military force.

CIA teams operate alongside U.S. special operations forces in conflict zones from Afghanistan to Yemen. The agency has also built up a substantial paramilitary capability of its own. But perhaps most significantly, the agency is in the midst of what amounts to a sustained bombing campaign over Pakistan using unmanned Predator and Reaper drones.

Since Obama took office there have been at least 192 drone missile strikes, killing as many as 1,890 militants, suspected terrorists and civilians. Petraeus is seen as a staunch supporter of the drone campaign, even though it has so far failed to eliminate the al-Qaeda threat or turn the tide of the Afghan war. . . .

Petraeus has spent relatively little time in Washington over the past decade and doesn't have as much experience with managing budgets or running Washington bureaucracies as CIA predecessors Leon E. Panetta and Michael V. Hayden. But Petraeus has quietly lobbied for the CIA post, drawn in part by the chance for a position that would keep him involved in the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Yemen.

It's rare for American media outlets to list all of our "wars" this way, including the covert ones (and that list does not even include the newest one, in Libya, where drone attacks are playing an increasingly prominent role as well). But Barack Obama does indeed preside over numerous American wars in the Muslim world, including some that he started (Libya and Yemen) and others which he's escalated (Afghanistan and Pakistan). Because our wars are so often fought covertly, the CIA has simply become yet another arm of America's imperial war-fighting machine, thus making it the perfect fit for Bush and Obama's most cherished war-fighting General to lead (Petraeus will officially retire from the military to take the position, though that obviously does not change who he is, how he thinks, and what his loyalties are).

One reason why it's so valuable to keep the CIA under civilian control is because its independent intelligence analyst teams often serve as one of the very few capable bureaucratic checks against the Pentagon and its natural drive for war. That was certainly true during the Bush years when factions in the CIA rebelled against the dominant neocon Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Feith clique, but it's been true recently as well:

Others voiced concern that Petraeus is too wedded to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- and the troop-heavy, counterinsurgency strategy he designed -- to deliver impartial assessments of those wars as head of the CIA.

Indeed, over the past year the CIA has generally presented a more pessimistic view of the war in Afghanistan than Petraeus has while he has pushed for an extended troop buildup.

That's why, noted The Post, there is "some grumbling among CIA veterans opposed to putting a career military officer in charge of an agency with a long tradition of civilian leadership." But if one thing is clear in Washington, it's that neither political party is willing or even able to stand up to the military establishment, and especially not a General as sanctified in Washington circles as Petraeus. It's thus unsurprising that "Petraeus seems unlikely to encounter significant opposition from Capitol Hill" and that, without promising to vote for his confirmation, Sen. Feinstein -- who raised such a ruckus over the appointment of Hayden -- yesterday "signaled support for Petraeus."

The nomination of Petraeus doesn't change much; it merely reflects how Washington is run. That George Bush's favorite war-commanding General -- who advocated for and oversaw the Surge in Iraq -- is also Barack Obama's favorite war-commanding General, and that Obama is now appointing him to run a nominally civilian agency that has been converted into an "increasingly militarized" arm of the American war-fighting state, says all one needs to know about the fully bipartisan militarization of American policy. There's little functional difference between running America's multiple wars as a General and running them as CIA Director because American institutions in the National Security State are all devoted to the same overarching cause: Endless War.

Read more »

CIA Start Purging From Pakistan

The United States was never, and is not, an enemy of Pakistan. But the US political, military and intelligence thrust in Afghanistan over eight years has decidedly placed the US on the side of our enemies. This is a US choice, not a compulsion.
From day one, Washington chose to turn Kabul into the new hub of anti-Pakistanism in the region. A lot of evidence suggests a CIA role in tolerating and exacerbating anti-Pakistan insurgencies along our Afghan border. Today all anti-Pakistan terrorists take refuge in US-controlled Afghanistan. American political engineering inside Islamabad [‘Exhibit A: the crumbling coalition government’] is motivated by an overriding key objective: downsizing the Pakistani military and forcing the nation to accept Indian regional hegemony. If Pakistan does not accept this it will be punished.
The role of CIA drones in destroying Al-Qaeda is a myth. The agency’s figures on Al-Qaeda in Pakistan’s border regions are questionable, to begin with. The single-biggest achievement of drone missiles is pushing Pakistani tribesmen into the hands of terrorists and mind-control technicians who reprogramme them to kill Pakistani civilians and soldiers.
US claims about the Pakistani tribal belt becoming the most dangerous place in the world is another myth. Over the past 13 months, most of the terror plots in the United States and Europe came from US and European citizens, some of them were of Pakistani origin, who visited this region from the Afghan, not Pakistani, side, and under the noses of the US, ISAF and NATO. How these people managed to slip through tight American and European security procedures is inexplicable, but the stories were always timed with US pressure on Pakistan to start a new civil war against its own people in North Waziristan.
We must eliminate terrorists who kill Pakistanis, but also we must win back tribal Pakistanis. That is not possible without ending foreign meddling and terror sanctuaries in the CIA’s Afghan backyard. The TTP and Swat terrorists cannot survive if not for the American sanctuary in Afghanistan.
A third American myth that needs to be blown is our tribal belt being the source of US failure in Afghanistan. A few on our side of the border sympathising with the Pakhtun-led resistance in Afghanistan because of tribal affinities cannot turn the tables in Kabul. The impending US rout and the growing Pakhtun resistance are a direct result of America’s 2002 plan to punish the Pakhtuns—against strong Pakistani advice. That blunder is the driving force behind Afghan resistance, not Pakistan’s tribal belt.
Pakistanis have had it with this double game. The dramatic escape from Pakistan last month of CIA’s Islamabad station chief is one sign of this. He and his staff are involved in the murder of Pakistanis in an illegal covert war: the UN mandate for American occupation in Afghanistan does not include a role for the CIA to wage a covert war in Pakistan.
The CIA’s responsibility for these murders extends to Pakistanis killed in at least two attacks mounted by Pakistani forces earlier this year, one of them in Tirah Valley—based most likely on flawed CIA intelligence—resulting in the killing of more than 60 Pakistanis.
In the case of the two attacks based on CIA information, the data was so flawed in one case that the Pakistani army chief had to personally apologize for the wrongful deaths and compensate the victims. The bold move by the army chief indicated dismay within the military over innocent Pakistani casualties. It represented a break from the days of his predecessor Pervez Musharraf, whose administration sanctioned, and owned, the CIA’s Pakistan operations.
The US government and the CIA were quick to plant stories accusing the ISI of leaking Mr. Jonathan Banks’ name. But Mr. Banks’ identity is on record in the files of the Pakistani embassy in Washington and in the Foreign Office in Islamabad. This is why even the next CIA station chief is not safe as long as determined Pakistanis are out there seeking justice through a lawsuit.
Statements attributed to President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani clearly show they consented to Pakistani civilian casualties in CIA attacks. US journalist Bob Woodward quoted Mr. Zardari as telling senior US officials he was not concerned about civilian Pakistani deaths. And former US ambassador Anne W Patterson wrote in a diplomatic cable to Washington that Mr. Gilani encouraged US officials in a meeting to continue CIA drone attacks, and that he would cover up for civilian deaths in public. This is probably why drone attacks in just one year, 2010, at 136 attacks, exceeded the number of attacks in the preceding six years: 96 in 2004-2009.
Meanwhile, Pakistan’s envoy in Washington Husain Haqqani has been lobbying to get CIA agents and private US security contractors into Pakistan. His wish was granted last year when President Zardari allowed him the discretion to issue visas in Washington without verification. On one occasion, almost 500 such visas were granted in less than 24 hours. Mr. Haqqani has been bullish about allowing undercover US intelligence and military personnel into Pakistan and often argued with his diplomatic superiors over this. Last year, he even complained about the ISI chief to the prime minister over visas to Americans. The classified letter strangely leaked to an Indian television channel in New Delhi.
But if the pro-US Zardari government is involved, what is the Pakistani military doing? Perhaps Gen. Kayani does not wish to challenge the civilian government’s understandings with Washington because that could lead him down the slippery slope of military intervention, which the army chief doesn’t favor.
It is important that the CIA and its agents are purged from Pakistan as soon as possible. Here is a comment that an American left on a US website after reports that CIA drones killed tens of people in Pakistan in the last week of 2010: “It’s interesting to witness a country actively cooperating and assisting another country waging war against itself. What a proud nation that must be.”

Read more »

Zulqarnain withdraws asylum application

LONDON: Retired run-away wicketkeeper, Zulqarnain Haider Syed, has voluntarily withdrawn his application for asylum in Britain, after the Pakistan government assured him and his family of “the highest level of security” in Pakistan, the News has learnt. Sources say the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has also given serious indications of Zulqarnain’s possible rehabilitation into Pakistani cricket.

Zulqarnain’s dramatic decision to withdraw his asylum application and make a possible return to Pakistan came two days after safety assurances were given him in person by Pakistan High Commissioner to the UK, Wajid Shamsul Hasan and Interior Minister, Rehman Malik. Syed also had a cordial conversation with PCB Chairman, Ijaz Butt who, according to sources, assured Zulqarnain that the Board would lift the life ban imposed on him if he returned to Pakistan.

The News has obtained a copy of the letter written by the former Pakistan wicketkeeper to British Home Secretary, Theresa May. “In light of the assurances that I have received, I feel that I no longer need sanctuary in the UK and have accordingly decided to withdraw my claim for asylum,” reads the letter. “I am aware that my asylum claim remains outstanding and has not been determined as yet.”

The letter goes on to say Wajid Shamsul Hasan had assured Zulqarnain from the outset that he would try his best to ensure that his family was provided appropriate security and safety in Pakistan. “I am thankful to Mr Hasan for honouring his promise,” Zulqarnain says. “I believe that Mr. Hasan has played a crucial role in convincing higher authorities that it is important to look after my family who are being threatened by the same elements that threatened me in Dubai.”

The letter also details Zulqarnain’s reasons both for seeking asylum and for now withdrawing his request for sanctuary. Zulqarnain fled to Britain and applied for asylum in the first week of November last year after, as he claims, receiving death threats from the underground betting mafia for refusing to fix two games. He also announced retirement from international cricket. This was followed by a vitriolic exchange between the PCB and Zulqarnain and a life ban was imposed on him for standing up the Pakistani side. The Board also suspended his central contract.

However, Zulqarnain states that he holds no negative feelings toward the PCB. “Anything that I have ever said has been aimed at bringing improvements and reforms to the Board, not only to ensure greater professionalism and a commitment to transparency but in order that the Board fulfill the rightful expectations of the nation,” reads the letter.

Zulqarnain told The News he had given Rehman Malik details of alleged corruption in Pakistani cricket, information about people he suspected were involved with bookies and the circumstances surrounding his sudden departure from Dubai in November last year. The International Cricket Council (ICC) told The News on Friday that it would not comment about whether to approach Rehman Malik to question him on his correspondences with Zulqarnain. But as part of wider investigations following the player’s claims, Malik could be questioned by the ICC’s Anti-Corruption Unit as well as Metropolitan Police.

Haider also emphasises that he did not take the decision to seek refuge lightly and that he was “compelled to take the steps that I did, given the real and genuine threats to my life and to the lives of my beloved ones,” he writes. “I had to effectively forsake my international career which had just started to blossom but my life and the safety of my beloved ones was far more important.”

Zulqarnain says in his letter to the Home Secretary that he went through “a horrendous experience” and was thankful his family, friends, well-wishers and cricket fans around the world “who have shown faith in me and stood by me during this most difficult and emotionally challenging time.”

The letter details a long list of people Zulqarnain expresses gratitude towards, beginning with the British government for providing him temporary refuge, support and for understanding his circumstances. This despite the fact that British authorities, with full help from the Interior Ministry of Pakistan, had cancelled the visit visa of Zulqarnain’s wife and daughters who tried to come to London to join him.

“I am particularly thankful to the Scotland Yard for providing me excellent security and for remaining in regular contact with me to ensure my well-being,” he says. Zulqarnain also thanked the Pakistani, English, and international media for their tremendous support throughout his ordeal and for invoking cricketing authorities to investigate the allegations of corruption against him.

Earlier, Zulqarnain was offered a contract by the Kent side Lashings after he arrived in the UK. However, he was not eligible for paid work while his asylum case was under consideration. Mohammed Amjad, an immigration expert from the Legal Rights Partnership told The News that if Zulqarnain returned to Pakistan and withdrew his asylum application this would not have adverse implications for later applications to return to the UK to take up a county contract.

“This is, of course, provided that he did not overstay before putting in an application for asylum,” said Amjad. “Also, he would need to secure a sports work permit before making an application to return to the UK.”

Read more »

HEC ordered to keep working

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) ordered the Higher Education Commission (HEC) to keep working under the ordinance until any amendment in the law before adjourning the hearing for indefinite period, Geo News reported.

On Monday, the SC while hearing the constitutional petition against the devolution of HEC issued notices to Attorney General of Pakistan, Ministry of Law, Ministry of Education and HEC and later adjourned the hearing till Tuesday.

A three-judge bench, headed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, heard the petition filed by the Directory of Riphah University against the devolution of HEC.

The apex court after hearing the arguments of Advocate Anwar Mansoor and issuing notice to the stakeholders adjourned the hearing.

Read more »

Corruption probe: Mubarak and sons detained

Cairo: Egypt has ordered the detention of former president Hosni Mubarak, ahead of an investigation into corruption and abuse allegations. He is said to be in an “unstable condition” in hospital with heart problems. He has been ordered to be detained for 15 days.

His sons Alaa and Gamal have also been detained amid allegations of corruption and violence, police say.

Mubarak stood down in February after a popular uprising against his rule.

Since then, tens of thousands of protesters have staged weekly Friday protests in Cairo’s Tahrir Square.

They want the ousted president to be put on trial for the deaths of protesters and alleged abuse of power during his 30-year rule.

Official records show that 360 people were killed during the protests, but rights groups put the figure at about 800 dead and hundreds more wounded.

The Revolution Youth Coalition, an umbrella group of organisations involved in the protests that led to Mubarak’s downfall, said it welcomed the steps to bring Mubarak and his family to justice.

The coalition called off mass protest planned for Friday in Cairo, saying one of its long-standing demands had been met.

The detention of Mubarak is an exceptional turn of events for a leader in the Arab world.

But the general public is suspicious at the timing of Mubarak’s heart problems and worried that ill-health, combined with old age, could prevent him from being tried.

Read more »