They’re tearing it down now, but Yankee Stadium was the scene of a great and long-lasting geopolitical drama.  For well over a year Jimmy Carter would show up at high noon on second base, remove his trousers, bend over, and be sodomized by a strange, bearded Persian person.  This, for all the world to see, every day, for 440 days.

And all the world did see.  And Al Qaeda was born.  In a very real way Jimmy Carter was their Lafayette.

We are not saying George Bush is as small as Jimmy Carter. But in a Vaguely similar way an Arabian person has made a fool of him for over six years.  Osama Bin Laden is not sticking anything in the president…but he is sticking his Tongue out.   “Hey.  I’m over here.  Come get me.  Or must I kill another three thousand of you pukes?”

Is that an October surprise?  The head of Osama?

It would certainly be a mood breaker.  If you have a large part of the nation mesmerized, you don’t want that.

The New York Times Editorial Board reported the following today: (see original, click here.)

Voters who wanted absentee ballots in an upstate New York County were surprised to see the name of the Democratic Presidential candidate. On the ballot, it read “Barack Osama.”

Major oops or dirty trick?

After the Albany Times-Union newspaper revealed the problem ballots on Friday, the Rensselaer County Board of Elections inisisted that the rendering of Barack Obama’s name was a simple mistake, and insisted that it was included on “only 300 of more than 4,000″ ballots.

“The board of elections acted quickly to correct the typographical error and regrets the error,” the board said in a statement. “The error was not deliberate and the Board of Elections is continuing to fairly manage the upcoming General Election in a bi-partisan and cooperative manner.”

Auch Osama bin Laden und die Todespiloten des 11. September 2001 waren ja Muslimbrüder. Für internationales Aufsehen sorgte im Juni 2007 die Machtergreifung des palästinensischen Arms der Bruderschaft, der Hamas, im Gaza-Streifen; seither herrscht dort ein totalitäres Regime.

Die Muslimbruderschaft verfügt heute weltweit über Zweigstellen in mehr als 70 Ländern, auch in Österreich. Sie organisierte laut dem Terrorexperten Olivier Guitta die gewalttätigen Proteste gegen die dänischen Mohammed-Karikaturen. Unter ihrem Einfluss stehen unzählige Moscheen und Kulturvereine in Europa.

...weiterlesen

While the term "victory" was never really an accurate way to describe any possible outcome, our understanding of the Jihad movement itself is so inherently flawed that even the most rudimentary goals in our the battle with Islamic extremism can never be achieved. Here's the quote from the Economist:

"To explain the movement, many experts draw parallels with globalisation. Some describe it as a venture-capital firm that invests in promising terrorist projects. Others speak of it as a global “brand” maintained by its leaders through their propaganda, with its growing number of “franchises” carrying out attacks..."

This is actually a very insightful way to describe Al Qaeda. The problem is that the description is reached through a thought process that represents a world-view completely alien to these terrorists.

Globalisation, venture capitalism, brand marketing are all western ideas that aim to make the world a better place. (How's that going, by the way?) By labeling any factions or arms within the Jihadist movement in these terms, we fail to grasp the geopolitical reality that created the likes of bin Laden and Zawahiri in the first place. This makes the task of winning hearts and minds in fringe Islamic communities impossible.

Before we get into the heavy philosophical discussion- let's look at the actual historical roots of Al Qeada.

To say that the United States created this enemy is true in a number of ways: beyond the obvious occupation of Islamic lands breeding an inevitable backlash, the U.S. actually gave political, financial, and logistical support to the same "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan that we are fighting today. Before we were stuck in our current quagmire in this God-forsaken wasteland, the Soviet Union was the occupying force. From 1978 to 1989 the Soviets fought in Afghanistan. Their original intention was to support Marxist forces in their struggle against the ruling Islamic parties.

Because we were absolutely determined to stop the expansion of Communism at all costs, the U.S. decided to lend its support to the mujahideen. CIA operatives were sent in to provide training and weapons to the Muslims, including one Osama bin Laden, in order to prevent the Soviet sphere of influence from growing. Eventually, the USSR was forced to withdraw in disgrace after a long war that shattered their aura of invincibility and drained vital funds and resources from the empire.

The Islamic parties maintained their hold of Afghanistan, and the country became a base for an assortment of Jihadist groups that would eventually seek to destroy their enemies beyond the region. At the same time this was happening, the U.S. was backing Saddam Hussein and Iraq in their long and bloody war with the Iranians. Thanks to our support, Hussein was able to beat back the extremist nation that had been taken over by radical Shiites. Iraq won the war and went on to live a peaceful existence free from the threats of radical Islam, living happily ever after for the rest of its days.

The lesson to be learned is that by overreacting to ideological opponents, the United States creates far greater threats than the ones they were made to fight.

Think of the U.S. as the mob in the Dark Knight, and Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein as the Joker:

"In their desperation, they turned to a man they did not fully understand."

That one phrase is perhaps the most poignant description of our foreign policy since World War 2. All over the globe, we have lent our support to groups with common enemies: be it Communist, terrorist, or otherwise. To this day we still provide weapons and funds to corrupt regimes, dictators, and (gasp!) terrorists in the name of battling our perceived threats.

But we do not fully understand. Not by a long shot. Another quote about another hopeless war comes to mind: during an episode of the Wire, two cops watch and do nothing while rival gangs beat each other over drug turf:

Carver: You know, I think this is why we can't win this.

Hauk: How come?

Carver: They screw up, they get beaten. We screw up, we get a pension.

The point is that the young men growing up in Baltimore and Kabul live in an entirely different world than the one that politicians and generals live in, and until we realize it, we stand no chance of winning either war.

We describe terrorists groups in terms of venture capitalism and globalisation because we assume that these are universal values and interests. American policy makers seem to believe if given the chance for a decent education and a career, none of these young men would choose to blow themselves up in the name of Jihad. Perhaps they don't realize that bin Laden himself comes from a very wealthy and reputable Saudi family. Perhaps they don't realize that some people aren't interested in Democracy, or heaven forbid the thought, making lots of money.

Which is worse? A world with a growing sphere of Communist influence? Or a world filled with loosely connected terrorist groups whose goal is to destroy western civilization entirely?

Whoever said that the enemy of my enemy is my friend was clearly unqualified to direct foreign policy, which is why, even with the economy the way it is, they have a great chance of finding a job in the U.S. government.

via Arrastão

The absentee ballots sent to voters in Rensselaer County (New York) listed the Democratic nominee for president as "Barack OSAMA." That's right folks, Osama.

You can see the whole story here.

This one kind of analyzes itself but they're just writing it off as a simple error nobody caught. I wonder why?

In Rensselaer County, New York, Barack Obama's named was spelled as Barack Osama!  It was apparently mailed to 300 members of that community.  See the entire ballot here:  http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com//osama_absentee.pdf 

The Supevisor of Elections stated that it was an honest typgraphical error.  Yeah! Like s and b are next together on the keyboard.

JCSC takes serious note of hostile propaganda against ISI, strategic programme

Updated at: 2020 PST, Saturday, October 11, 2008

RAWALPINDI: A session of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee meeting (JCSC), which is the highest military leadership forum where defence and security issues are discussed, was convened here at Joint Staff Headquarters today.

The forum took serious note of lately appearing insinuations about Pakistan's strategic programme and the ISI. The participants expressed complete satisfaction with the safety, security and command arrangements put in place to guard the nation's strategic assets.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=57547

Now read this extract from the following article written on 19 Nov 2007:

"This is not about Musharraf anymore. This is about clipping the wings of a strong Pakistani military, denying space for China in Pakistan, squashing the ISI, stirring ethnic unrest, and neutralizing Pakistan's nuclear program. "

See how events are unfolding. The forced ouster of Musharraf by a pre planned campaign and strong character assassination. Then strong propaganda against ISI and Pak military all over. So now should we expect ethic unrest (which seems quite possible in the current economic downfall and on going War) and lastly neutralizing Pakistan's nuclear program to finally disband Pakistan?

Please read this and analyze by yourself:

The Plan To Topple Pakistan Military

On Nov. 19, 2007, this column predicted either Pervez Musharraf or Benazir Bhutto would be assassinated [she was killed five weeks later] and warned in clear words: “This is not about Musharraf anymore. This is about clipping the wings of a strong Pakistani military, denying space for China in Pakistan, squashing the ISI, stirring ethnic unrest, and neutralizing Pakistan’s nuclear program. The first shot in this plan was fired in Pakistan’s Balochistan province in 2004. The last bullet will be toppling Musharraf, sidelining the military and installing a pliant government in Islamabad. Musharraf shares the blame for letting things come this far. But he is also trying to punch holes in Washington’s game plan. He needs to be supported.” Less than a year later, it is stunning how we never saw the signs. Patriot Pakistanis are worried about their homeland. I have no faith in Islamabad. Is anyone listening in Rawalpindi? [Ahmed Quraishi, Aug. 31, 2008.]

By AHMED QURAISHI

Monday, 19 November 2007.

WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—On the evening of Tuesday, 26 September, 2006, Pakistani strongman Pervez Musharraf walked into the studio of Comedy Central’s ‘Daily Show’ with Jon Stewart, the first sitting president anywhere to dare do this political satire show.

Stewart offered his guest some tea and cookies and played the perfect host by asking, “Is it good?” before springing a surprise: “Where's Osama bin Laden?"

"I don't know," Musharraf replied, as the audience enjoyed the rare sight of a strong leader apparently cornered. "You know where he is?” Musharraf snapped back, “You lead on, we'll follow you."

What Gen. Musharraf didn’t know then is that he really was being cornered. Some of the smiles that greeted him in Washington and back home gave no hint of the betrayal that awaited him.

As he completed the remaining part of his U.S. visit, his allies in Washington and elsewhere, as all evidence suggests now, were plotting his downfall. They had decided to take a page from the book of successful ‘color revolutions’ where western governments covertly used money, private media, student unions, NGOs and international pressure to stage coups, basically overthrowing individuals not fitting well with Washington’s agenda.

This recipe proved its success in former Yugoslavia, and more recently in Georgia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

In Pakistan, the target is a Pakistani president who refuses to play ball with the United States on Afghanistan, China, and Dr. A.Q. Khan.

To get rid of him, an impressive operation is underway:

• A carefully crafted media blitzkrieg launched early this year assailing the Pakistani president from all sides, questioning his power, his role in Washington’s war on terror and predicting his downfall.
• Money pumped into the country to pay for organized dissent.
• Willing activists assigned to mobilize and organize accessible social groups.
• A campaign waged on Internet where tens of mailing lists and ‘news agencies’ have sprung up from nowhere, all demonizing Musharraf and the Pakistani military.
• European- and American-funded Pakistani NGOs taking a temporary leave from their real jobs to work as a makeshift anti-government mobilization machine.
• U.S. government agencies directly funding some private Pakistani television networks; the channels go into an open anti-government mode, cashing in on some manufactured and other real public grievances regarding inflation and corruption.
• Some of Musharraf’s shady and corrupt political allies feed this campaign, hoping to stay in power under a weakened president.
• All this groundwork completed and chips in place when the judicial crisis breaks out in March 2007. Even Pakistani politicians surprised at a well-greased and well-organized lawyers campaign, complete with flyers, rented cars and buses, excellent event-management and media outreach.
• Currently, students are being recruited and organized into a street movement. The work is ongoing and urban Pakistani students are being cultivated, especially using popular Internet Web sites and ‘online hangouts’. The people behind this effort are mostly unknown and faceless, limiting themselves to organizing sporadic, small student gatherings in Lahore and Islamabad, complete with banners, placards and little babies with arm bands for maximum media effect. No major student association has announced yet that it is behind these student protests, which is a very interesting fact glossed over by most journalists covering this story. Only a few students from affluent schools have responded so far and it’s not because the Pakistani government’s countermeasures are effective. They’re not. The reason is that social activism attracts people from affluent backgrounds, closely reflecting a uniquely Pakistani phenomenon where local NGOs are mostly founded and run by rich, westernized Pakistanis.

All of this may appear to be spur-of-the-moment and Musharraf-specific. But it all really began almost three years ago, when, out of the blue and recycling old political arguments, Mr. Akbar Bugti launched an armed rebellion against the Pakistani state, surprising security analysts by using rockets and other military equipment that shouldn’t normally be available to a smalltime village thug. Since then, Islamabad sits on a pile of evidence that links Mr. Bugti’s campaign to money and ammunition and logistical support from Afghanistan, directly aided by the Indians and the Karzai administration, with the Americans turning a blind eye.

For reasons not clear to our analysts yet, Islamabad has kept quiet on Washington’s involvement with anti-Pakistan elements in Afghanistan. But Pakistan did send an indirect public message to the Americans recently.

“We have indications of Indian involvement with anti-state elements in Pakistan,” declared the spokesman of the Pakistan Foreign Office in a regular briefing in October. The statement was terse and direct and the spokesman, Ms. Tasnim Aslam, quickly moved on to other issues.

This is how a Pakistani official explained Ms. Aslam’s statement: “What she was really saying is this: We know what the Indians are doing. They’ve sold the Americans on the idea that [the Indians] are an authority on Pakistan and can be helpful in Afghanistan. The Americans have bought the idea and are in on the plan, giving the Indians a free hand in Afghanistan. What the Americans don’t know is that we, too, know the Indians very well. Better still, we know Afghanistan very well. You can’t beat us at our own game.”

Mr. Bugti’s armed rebellion coincided with the Gwadar project entering its final stages. No coincidence here. Mr. Bugti’s real job was to scare the Chinese away and scuttle Chinese President Hu Jintao’s planned visit to Gwadar a few months later to formally launch the port city.

Gwadar is the pinnacle of Sino-Pakistani strategic cooperation. It’s a modern port city that is supposed to link Central Asia, western China, and Pakistan with markets in Mideast and Africa. It’s supposed to have roads stretching all the way to China. It’s no coincidence either that China has also earmarked millions of dollars to renovate the Karakoram Highway linking northern Pakistan to western China.

Some reports in the American media, however, have accused Pakistan and China of building a naval base in the guise of a commercial seaport directly overlooking international oil shipping lanes. The Indians and some other regional actors are also not comfortable with this project because they see it as commercial competition.

What Mr. Bugti’s regional and international supporters never expected is Pakistan moving firmly and strongly to nip his rebellion in the bud. Even Mr. Bugti himself probably never expected the Pakistani state to react in the way it did to his betrayal of the homeland. He was killed in a military operation where scores of his mercenaries surrendered to Pakistan army soldiers.

U.S. intelligence and their Indian advisors could not cultivate an immediate replacement for Mr. Bugti. So they moved to Plan B. They supported Abdullah Mehsud, a Pakistani Taliban fighter held for five years in Guantanamo Bay, and then handed over back to the Afghan government, only to return to his homeland, Pakistan, to kidnap two Chinese engineers working in Balochistan, one of whom was eventually killed during a rescue operation by the Pakistani government.

Islamabad could not tolerate this shadowy figure that was creating a following among ordinary Pakistanis masquerading as a Taliban while in reality toeing a vague agenda. He was rightly eliminated earlier this year by Pakistani security forces while secretly returning from Afghanistan after meeting his handlers there. Again, no surprises here.

SMELLING A RAT

This is where Pakistani political and military officials finally started smelling a rat. All of this was an indication of a bigger problem. There were growing indications that, ever since Islamabad joined Washington’s regional plans, Pakistan was gradually turning into a ‘besieged-nation’, heavily targeted by the American media while being subjected to strategic sabotage and espionage from Afghanistan.

Afghanistan, under America’s watch, has turned into a vast staging ground for sophisticated psychological and military operations to destabilize neighboring Pakistan.

During the past three years, the heat has gradually been turned up against Pakistan and its military along Pakistan’s western regions:

• A shadowy group called the BLA, a Cold War relic, rose from the dead to restart a separatist war in southwestern Pakistan.
• Bugti’s death was a blow to neo-BLA, but the shadowy group’s backers didn’t repent. His grandson, Brahmdagh Bugti, is currently enjoying a safe shelter in the Afghan capital, Kabul, where he continues to operate and remote-control his assets in Pakistan.
• Saboteurs trained in Afghanistan have been inserted into Pakistan to aggravate extremist passions here, especially after the Red Mosque operation.
• Chinese citizens continue to be targeted by individuals pretending to be Islamists, when no known Islamic group has claimed responsibility.
• A succession of ‘religious rebels’ with suspicious foreign links have suddenly emerged in Pakistan over the past months claiming to be ‘Pakistani Taliban’. Some of the names include Abdul Rashid Ghazi, Baitullah Mehsud, and now the Maulana of Swat. Some of them have used and are using encrypted communication equipment far superior to what Pakistani military owns.
• Money and weapons have been fed into the religious movements and al Qaeda remnants in the tribal areas.

Exploiting the situation, assets within the Pakistani media started promoting the idea that the Pakistani military was killing its own people. The rest of the unsuspecting media quickly picked up this message. Some botched American and Pakistani military operations against Al Qaeda that caused civilian deaths accidentally fed this media campaign.

This was the perfect timing for the launch of Military, Inc.: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy, a book authored by Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa Agha, a columnist for a Pakistani English-language paper and a correspondent for ‘Jane’s Defence Weekly’, a private intelligence service founded by experts close to the British intelligence.

TARGET: PAK MILITARY

The book was launched in Pakistan in early 2007 by Oxford Press. And, contrary to most reports, it is openly available in Islamabad’s biggest bookshops. The book portrays the Pakistani military as an institution that is eating up whatever little resources Pakistan has.

Pakistani military’s successful financial management, creating alternate financial sources to spend on a vast military machine and build a conventional and nuclear near-match with a neighboring adversary five times larger – an impressive record for any nation by any standard – was distorted in the book and reduced to a mere attempt by the military to control the nation’s economy in the same way it was controlling its politics.

The timing was interesting. After all, it was hard to defend a military in the eyes of its own proud people when the chief of the military is ruling the country, the army is fighting insurgents and extremists who claim to be defending Islam, grumpy politicians are out of business, and the military’s side businesses, meant to feed the nation’s military machine, are doing well compared to the shabby state of the nation’s civilian departments.

Dr. Siddiqa and her book are not important. Worse things have been said about Pakistanis before. All of these details are insignificant if detached from the real issue at hand. And the issue is the demonization of the Pakistani military as an integral part of the media siege around Pakistan, with the American media leading the way in this campaign.

Some of the juicy details of this siege around Pakistan include:

• The attempt by several American and British writers – and one Pakistani, Dr. Siddiqa – to pitch junior officers against senior officers in Pakistan Armed Forces by alleging discrimination in the distribution of benefits. Apart from being malicious and unfounded, her argument was carefully designed to generate frustration and demoralize Pakistani soldiers.
• The American media insisting on handing Dr. A. Q. Khan to the United States so that a final conviction against the Pakistani military can be secured.
• Mrs. Benazir Bhutto demanding after returning to Pakistan that the ISI be restructured; and in a press conference during her house arrest in Lahore in November she went as far as asking Pakistan army officers to revolt against the army chief, a damning attempt at destroying a professional army from within.

Some of this appears to be eerily similar to the campaign waged against the Pakistani military in 1999, when, in July that year, an unsigned full page advertisement appeared in major American newspapers with the following headline: “A Modern Rogue Army With Its Finger On The Nuclear Button.”

Until this day, it is not clear who exactly paid for such an expensive newspaper full-page advertisement. But one thing is clear: the agenda behind that advertisement is back in action.

Strangely, just a few days before Mrs. Bhutto’s statements about restructuring ISI and the need for army officers to stage a mutiny against their leadership, the American conservative magazine The Weekly Standard interviewed an American security expert with similar ideas:

"A large number of ISI agents who are responsible for helping the Taliban and al Qaeda should be thrown in jail or killed. What I think we should do in Pakistan is a parallel version of what Iran has run against us in Iraq: giving money [and] empowering actors. Some of this will involve working with some shady characters, but the alternative—sending U.S. forces into Pakistan for a sustained bombing campaign—is worse.” Steve Schippert, Weekly Standard, Nov. 2007.

In addition to these media attacks, which security experts call ‘psychological operations’, the American media and politicians have intensified over the past year their campaign to prepare the international public opinion to accept a western intervention in Pakistan along the lines of Iraq and Afghanistan:

• Newsweek came up with an entire cover story with a single storyline: Pakistan is a more dangerous place than Iraq.
• Senior American politicians, Republican and Democrat, have argued that Pakistan is more dangerous than Iran and merits similar treatment. On 20 October, Joe Biden told ABC News that Washington needs to put soldiers on ground in Pakistan and invite the international community to join in. "We should be in there," he said. "We should be supplying tens of millions of dollars to build new schools to compete with the madrassas. We should be in there building democratic institutions. We should be in there, and get the rest of the world in there, giving some structure to the emergence of, hopefully, the reemergence of a democratic process.”
• The International Crisis Group (ICG) has recommended gradual sanctions for Pakistan similar to those imposed on Iran, e.g. slapping travel bans on Pakistani military officers and seizing Pakistani military assets abroad.
• The process of painting Pakistan’s nuclear assets as pure evil lying around waiting for some do-gooder to come in and ‘secure’ them has reached unprecedented levels, with the U.S. media again depicting Pakistan as a nation incapable of protecting its nuclear installations. On 22 October, Jane Harman from the U.S. House Intelligence panel gave the following statement: "I think the U.S. would be wise – and I trust we are doing this – to have contingency plans [to seize Pakistan’s nuclear assets], especially because should [Musharraf] fall, there are nuclear weapons there.”
• The American media has now begun discussing the possibility of Pakistan breaking up and the possibility of new states of ‘Balochistan’ and ‘Pashtunistan’ being carved out of it. Interestingly, one of the first acts of the shady Maulana of Swat after capturing a few towns was to take down the Pakistani flag from the top of state buildings and replacing them with his own party flag.
• The ‘chatter’ about President Musharraf’s eminent fall has also increased dramatically in the mainly American media, which has been very generous in marketing theories about how Musharraf might “disappear” or be “removed” from the scene. According to some Pakistani analysts, this could be an attempt to prepare the public opinion for a possible assassination of the Pakistani president.
• Another worrying thing is how American officials are publicly signaling to the Pakistanis that Mrs. Benazir Bhutto has their backing as the next leader of the country. Such signals from Washington are not only a kiss of death for any public leader in Pakistan, but the Americans also know that their actions are inviting potential assassins to target Mrs. Bhutto. If she is killed in this way, there won’t be enough time to find the real culprit, but what’s certain is that unprecedented international pressure will be placed on Islamabad while everyone will use their local assets to create maximum internal chaos in the country. A dress rehearsal of this scenario has already taken place in October when no less than the U.N. Security Council itself intervened to ask the international community to “assist” in the investigations into the assassination attempt on Mrs. Bhutto on 18 October. This generous move was sponsored by the U.S. and, interestingly, had no input from Pakistan which did not ask for help in investigations in the first place.

Some Pakistani security analysts privately say that American ‘chatter’ about Musharraf or Bhutto getting killed is a serious matter that can’t be easily dismissed. Getting Bhutto killed can generate the kind of pressure that could result in permanently putting the Pakistani military on a back foot, giving Washington enough room to push for installing a new pliant leadership in Islamabad fully backed by the West.

Having Musharraf killed isn’t a bad option either. The unknown Islamists can always be blamed and the military will not be able to put another soldier at the top, and circumstances will be created to ensure that either Mrs. Bhutto or someone like her is eased into power.

The Americans are very serious this time. They cannot let Pakistan get out of their hands. They have been kicked out of Uzbekistan last year, where they were maintaining bases. They are in trouble in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran continues to be a mess for them and Russia and China are not making it any easier. Pakistan must be ‘secured’ at all costs.

This is why most Pakistanis have never seen American diplomats in Pakistan active like this before. And it’s not just the current U.S. ambassador, who has added one more address to her other most-frequently-visited address in Karachi, Mrs. Bhutto’s house. The new address is the office of GEO, one of two news channels shut down by Islamabad for not signing the mandatory code-of-conduct. Thirty-eight other channels are operating and no one has censored the newspapers. But never mind this. The Americans have developed a ‘thing’ for GEO. No solace of course for ARY, the other banned channel.

Now there’s also one Bryan Hunt, the U.S. consul general in Lahore, who wears the national Pakistani dress, the long shirt and baggy trousers, and is moving around these days issuing tough warnings to Islamabad and to the Pakistani government and to President Musharraf to end emergency rule, resign as army chief and give Mrs. Bhutto access to power.

PAKISTAN’S OPTIONS

So what should Pakistan do in the face of such a structured campaign to bring Pakistan down on its knees and forcibly install a pro-Washington administration in Islamabad?

There is increasing talk in Islamabad these days about Pakistan’s new tough stand in the face of this malicious campaign.

As a starter, Islamabad blew the wind out of the visit of Mr. John Negroponte, the no. 2 man in the U.S. State Department, who came to Pakistan last week “to deliver a tough message” to the Pakistani president. Musharraf, to his credit, told him he won’t end emergency rule until all objectives are achieved.

These objectives include:

• Cleaning up our northern and western parts of the country of all foreign operatives and their domestic pawns.
• Ensuring that Washington’s plan for regime-change doesn’t succeed.
• Purging the Pakistani media from all those elements that were willing or indirect accomplices in the plan to destabilize the country.

Musharraf has also told Washington publicly that “Pakistan is more important than democracy or the constitution.” This is a bold position. This kind of boldness would have served Musharraf a lot had it come a little earlier. And even now, his media management team is unable to make the most of it.

Washington will not stand by watching as its plan for regime change in Islamabad goes down the drain. In case the Americans insist on interfering in Pakistani affairs, Islamabad, according to my sources, is looking at some tough measures:

• Cut off oil supplies to U.S. military in Afghanistan. Pakistani officials are already enraged at how Afghanistan has turned into a staging ground for sabotage in Pakistan. If Islamabad continues to see Washington acting as a bully, Pakistani officials are seriously considering an announcement where Pakistan, for the first time since October 2001, will deny the United States use of Pakistani soil and air space to transport fuel to Afghanistan.
• Review Pakistan’s role in the war on terror. Islamabad needs to fight terrorists on its border with Afghanistan. But our methods need to be different to Washington’s when it comes to our domestic extremists. This is where Islamabad parts ways with and Washington.
• Talk with the Afghan Taliban. Pakistan has no quarrel with Afghanistan’s Taliban. They are Kabul’s internal problem. But if reaching out to Afghan Taliban’s Mullah Omar can have a positive impact on rebellious Pakistani Taliban, then this step should be taken. The South Koreans can talk to the Taliban. Karzai has also called for talks with them. It is time that Islamabad does the same.

The Americans have been telling everyone in the world that they have paid Pakistan $10 billion dollars over the past five years. They might think this gives them the right to decide Pakistan’s destiny. What they don’t tell the world is how Pakistan’s help secured for them their biggest footprint ever in energy-rich Central Asia.

If they forget, Islamabad can always remind them by giving them the same treatment that Uzbekistan did last year.

Mr. Quraishi heads Project Pakistan, a research effort based in Islamabad. He is also a foreign policy commentator for PTV Network. He can be reached at aq@ahmedquraishi.com

“Whenever the wind stops howling over the mountains of Tora Bora, a deep, rich chuckle can presumably be heard echoing down the valleys. If he is still alive, nobody will be enjoying the plight of America more than Osama bin Laden. The anarchic carnage in the American financial and political system brings in sight a humiliating withdrawal and defeat in Afghanistan and Iraq. It even raises the possibility of the final collapse of the evil empire which Osama forecast.” British columnist Neil Lyndon

If you cant win em join em. Now that you have tried the rest, try the best—

—presenting The American Taliban. The US and UK have reviewed their strategies and plans and come up with a peace plan for Afghanistan. Only time will tell if the Americans will be smoking the peace pipe with the Taliban, but according to press reports the Saudis are playing a significant role in brining the Taliban and Karzai together.

Mr. Karzai has been a total failure. NATO and ISAF have failed to achieve its objectives. The economies of all Western countries are in a free fall. The Neocons sit discredited and maligned, seeking cover under new garb. Islampphobic Guiliani and Tancredo ware rejected by the electorate.

Before the American drones make space for Peace doves in Afghanistan, before the Olive Trees begin blossoming there is time to take stock of the crisis.

A few tactonic events have taken place in West Asia that has led to the new peace initiative:

1) Taking advantage of the confusion in the fledgling new coalition government in Pakistan, the US landed troops into FATA testing the resolve of the Pakistan Army. The Pakistan Army fired at the forces and apparently brought down one helicopter.

… Islamabad halted all fuel shipments to US forces in Afghanistan in the aftermath of a cross-border attack by US special forces in South Waziristan last month. “Any sustained interruption of supplies would seriously hamper our ability to operate in Afghanistan because 80% of the logistical support for the US military operating in Afghanistan flows through Pakistan,” it said, noting that Washington should explore alternative supply routes into Afghanistan in the event that ties with Islamabad worsen. ” Pakistan Policy Working Group” of the government-supported US Institute of Peace (USIP): The Next Chapter: The United States and Pakistan”.

2) A strong of RAW inspired suicide bombings, the rise of Indian agent, Bait Mehsud, and the bombing of the Islamabad Marriott by RAW agents of Indian agents disguised as Al-Qaeda brought the Americans to the clear understanding that things were getting out of control in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

3) The total ineffectively of the Karzai government to control any major chunk of Afghanistan or even Kabul.

4) The inability of NATO and ISAF to defeat and reverse the tide of the 39 insurgent groups that control a major section of Afghanistan.

5) The Financial and economic crisis that has forced Britain to withdraw from Iraq and cannot continue to transfer the forces from one theater of war (Iraq) to another (Afghanistan).

6) NATO and ISAF refused to be drawn into the Cambodiazation of the Afghan war–namely the incursion into Pakistan.

What are the implications of a Taliban ruling Afghanistan? The Removal of Musharraf was a pivotal in putting in place the new strategy.

The report argues that the advent of a civilian-led government in Islamabad during the past year and ultimately the resignation of former president General Pervez Musharraf, combined with the forthcoming change of administrations in the US, marks an important opportunity for Washington “to rethink its entire approach to Pakistan”. Pakistan Policy Working Group” of the government-supported US Institute of Peace (USIP): The Next Chapter: The United States and Pakistan”.

It all came tumbling down. For the past decade the US has attempted to create new realities in Afghanistan. It now thinks that it has sufficiently destroyed the old structures that were in place. It may be grossly mistaken about this. After all the US is only influential in cantonments and US bases. The policy makers may not understand the deep roots of affinity that run between the Pakhtuns. The Paktuns make up a significant part of the Pakistani Army and the Pakhtuns are very influential in the government. With Zardari in power, the US may feel that the tentacles of the ISI may not be as deep as they used to be. In its naivete, the US may feel that the ISI has been defanged. The status quo has been disrupted and now the Americans want a new breed of Taliban to take over Kabul. Afghanistan has now once again been declared an area of influence of Pakistan. It has taken the a decade to acknowledge the fact that the Taliban cannot be defeated.

India with dreams of super power status is the biggest loser in this peace deal. The 107 consulates should be packing their bags. One cannot imagine any circumstance where the current level of Indian influence has any staying power in Afghanistan. The 10,000 Indian soldiers ostensibly there to protect their construction workers will have to go back where they came from. The construction work will be slowed down and wound up. The Indian presence follow the same residence that allowed Lord Curzon to pursue a policy of On to the Oxus, but had to retreat after the defeats at Maiwand etc. The Indian delegation had to pack up its bags and leave Kabul after the Soviets left Afghanistan. A similar fate awaits India.

Pakistan will have to tread carefully. An overly aggressive policy in Afghanistan will rankle many of the powers to be. Slowly but surely, the Durand Line has to be erased, and the inevitable union between Afghanistan Pakistan will emerge.

The basic implication is that most of the NATO and ISAF forces will withdraw from Afghanistan. When the Soviets withdrew it took the Afghans a decade to purge Afghanistan of the remnants of a decade long Soviet Occupation. It may take the Afghans a bit longer. Mr. Karzai surely will either be hanging from the nearest tree or enjoying life on one of the islands that he has purchased for himself.

The long term interests of the US may or may not be secure in Kabul. For a decade it has tried itself and tried to use the Indians in controlling Kabul. Both policies have failed miserably. Now the US has not only acknowledged the role of Pakistan in Afghan affairs, it is now using the good offices of Pakistani politicians to broker a peace agreement between the warring factions. This is exactly the agreement that Pakistan has been espousing for more than a decade. This was the agreement to which the Taliban had agreed to in September 2001. However at the time “Imperial Hubris” did not allow the Neocon policy makers to listen to sanity. The American Tin ear did not listen to the sagacious advice given to Washington by Islamabad. Pakistani advice was ignored and Afghanistan and Iraq were bombed to smithereens. Sadly in doing so the US actually strengthened Anti-Americanism in the world.

Having learnt their lesson the Russians have tried to stay out of the conflict in West Asia. Now the Chinese and the Russians will vie for access to warm waters.

Various American and British newspapers are already reporting on the peace deal.

Against the backdrop of a string of suicide bombings in Pakistan, British, American, and United Nations officials are grappling with the idea of a negotiated settlement with the Taliban. Christian Science Monitor October 6th, 2008

Mr Karzai said his envoys had travelled to Saudi -Arabia and neighbouring Pakistan to try to kick-start negotiations that are increasingly seen as the only solution to the violent insurgency gripping Afghanistan. The Financial Times

The chorus about the defeat in Afghanistan is now plastered all over the media. Perception is reality. The reality has caught up with the perception of the war in Afghanistan.

The departing commander of British forces in Afghanistan says he believes the Taleban will never be defeated. Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, the commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade… told The Times

that in his opinion, a military victory over the Taliban was “neither feasible nor supportable.”…He indicated that the only way forward was to find a political solution that would include the Taliban. The Sunday Times

The defeat in Afghanistan is complete. Only the announcement is left. Well now the announcement also just came in. The war in Afghanistan is over—Now there is a plethora of news stories endorsing the writings.

ISLAMABAD (AFP) — Former Pakistani premier Nawaz Sharif is willing to broker talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban, his spokesman said Tuesday, amid reports that Sharif is already playing a key role.

The offer came after a Pakistani newspaper reported that Sharif, in conjunction with Saudi Arabia, is helping to seek a settlement between the hardline Taliban and the US-backed regime of President Hamid Karzai. AFP October 6th, 2008

The story of Afghanistan and colonialism begins a long time ago. British tried to take up White Man’s burden in Afghanistan.

NATO Lessons: 1880 UK defeat at Maiwand-Afghanistan

NATO Lessons: 1880 UK defeat at Maiwand-Afghanistan
Is NATO committing suicide in Afghanistan.
NATO lessons: UK defeat at Maiwind may shed some light on today’s situation.

1) There are news items that Iran has been helping some of the insurgent anti-American groups in Afghanistan–most specifically there are reports that Iran has been supporting Gulbadin Hikmatyar.

2) The US has been pressuring NATO and ISAF to help the US in a Iraq-like surge in Afghanistan? The UK has made it clear that it is in no position to support the war in Iraq and is withdrawing its troops from Iraq next year. The redeployment of those forces to Afghanistan is no longer economically feasible for the United Kingdom.

3) In response to the growing pressure, various American, UN and British commanders have publicly announced that “the war in Afghanistan is not winnable.

4) The Saudis were pressured by the US to assist in brining Mr. Karzai and the Taliban to the “peace table”.

5) Mr. Nawaz Sharif the ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan and the Opposition Leader was the bridge between Mr. Karzai and the representatives of Mullah Omar

6) Apparently the US has agreed to the Taliban coming back to power on the condition that they sever the links with Al-Qaeda

7) The Taliban have demanded that they will only participate in a government if the NATO, ISAF, and US occupation forces are withdrawn from the Hindu Kush

SOLUTIONS FOR AFGHANS Saving the Pashtuns of Afghania from Afghanistan. Eradicating the Pashtun plight and ending occupation.

Nawaz mediating between Taliban, Karzai

ISLAMABAD: PML-N Quaid Nawaz Sharif is playing a key role in conjunction with Saudi Arabia in bringing about a negotiated settlement between the Taliban and the Karzai regime to pave the way for withdrawal of the US and Nato forces from Afghanistan.
“It was for this precise reason that the PML-N chief has put off his departure from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan for another two days,” an informed source told The News. According to his new programme, the PML-N chief will return home on Tuesday.

“Nawaz Sharif was invited by Saudi King Abdullah and he undertook the present visit to stay in Saudi Arabia for nearly two weeks to talk about the nitty-gritty of the peace process,” the source said.

The day the PML-N chief landed in Saudi Arabia, he had a 90-minute meeting with the Saudi monarch, the source said, adding different national and regional issues, particularly the ongoing wave of terrorist attacks in Pakistan and bloodshed in Afghanistan, were discussed in detail.

According to a US media report on Monday, secret peace talks have been held between the Afghan government and the Taliban in the Saudi Kingdom. Both sides agreed to resolve the Afghan issue through dialogue, it said.

While PML-N leaders, closely working with Nawaz Sharif, were aware of Nawaz Sharif’s objective behind his extended stay in Saudi Arabia, sources close to President Asif Zardari were oblivious of the PML-N chief’s “role” and “efforts” in bringing the warring sides on the negotiating table.

“Nawaz Sharif is serving as a bridge,” one political source said and added the PML-N chief is an “old hand” on Afghanistan. During his two stints as prime minister, Nawaz Sharif had developed good working relations with almost all the Afghan Mujahideen leaders, who were now largely irrelevant because of the fighting strength of the Taliban.

The source referred to the March 1993 Islamabad accord, which eight Afghan Mujahideen leaders had signed because of Nawaz Sharif’s efforts.Nawaz Sharif stayed just a few days in Pakistan after his return from Britain and then flew into Saudi Arabia. In London, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband had a meeting with him in which Nato forces’ operations in Afghanistan and constant failures to control the situation figured prominently.

Sources believed that the Saudi initiative in which Nawaz Sharif had his own role has the backing of Washington and London.A British general has been quoted as saying that the war in Afghanistan can’t be won. Additionally, there have been reports of willingness of Washington and London for holding talks with the Taliban, especially after the incapacitation of the Karzai regime.

NATO needs 400,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. According to British and American General, even that would not be enough to defeat the Taliban. No country or group of countries have that amount of manpower to spare. The financial crisis in America and Europe makes it virtually impossible for the UK to send in an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. The Europeans and NATO is unable and unwilling to continue the war in Afghanistan.

There is not military solution to the Afghan quagmire. We have been advocating a more comprehensive solution for a decade. Replacing Mr. Karzai with Zalmay Khalilzad is like moving the deck chairs on the Titanic. The whole game is over. The US and European media too busy with the US elections has still not caught up with the reality of the fiasco in Kabul. The end is near.

Rupee News for several years has proposed that the Pakhtun areas of Afghanistan should be handed over to the Pakistani military and NATO and ISAF should leave Pakistan. Now this is affirmed by some American Thinktanks. Saving the Pashtuns of Afghania from Afghanistan. Eradicating the Pashtun plight and ending occupation. (http://rupeenews.com/2008/01/31/saving-pashtuns-of-old-afghanistan-in-afghania-eradicating-pashtun-plight-ending-occupation/)

Solution: ‘Pakistani boots’ on the ground inside Afghanistan (http://rupeenews.com/2008/09/06/solution-%e2%80%98pakistani-boots-on-the-ground-inside-afghanistan/)…a more compliant president Zardari will work with the new Afghan president Zalmay Khalilzad (expected to win the next elections in Afghanistan). Zalmay Khalilzad and Asif Zardari have been involved in a long term tet-a-tet even before the murder of Ms. Benzair Bhutto. Solution: ‘Pakistani boots’ on the ground inside Afghanistan

The New York Times has once again released the Obama campaign's talking points in the guise of a news story and they "cleared" him of his relation to terrorist and continuing radical and violence advocate, Bill Ayers, former member and apologist for the Weather Underground Organization (WUO). On the other hand, the National Review actually read the transcripts of board meetings of the Ayers-Obama project, The Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and addressed the Obama campaign's response to conclude:

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge stands as Barack Obama’s most important executive experience to date. By its own account, CAC was a largely a failure. And a series of critical evaluations point to reasons for that failure, including a poor strategy, to which the foundation over-committed in 1995, and over-reliance on community organizers with insufficient education expertise. The failure of CAC thus raises entirely legitimate questions, both about Obama’s competence, his alliances with radical community organizers, and about Ayers’s continuing influence over CAC and its board, headed by Obama. Above all, by continuing to fund Ayers’s personal projects, and those of his political-educational allies, Obama was lending moral and material support to Ayers’s profoundly radical efforts. Ayers’s terrorist history aside, that makes the Ayers-Obama relationship a perfectly legitimate issue in this campaign. (Obama's Challenge)

I highly suggest you read Obama's letter he sent to the National Review, as it's instructive of what Obama thinks is a legitimate self-defense -- he's not responsible because he didn't really DO anything. Has he not been using this defense over-and-over for every accusation made against him? The point isn't whether he's right, because we know most of the time he's telling the truth. He DIDN'T do anything, did he?

The money that passed between Senator Barack Obama and terrorist Bill Ayers was over a period of years and no mere passing moment or small change. A fresh way to look at the Obama/Ayers connection was stated by a commentor, but Richard Fernandez gives a good summary:

One of Glenn’s [Reynolds] readers has flipped the question and argues that the real question isn’t what drew Obama to Ayers, but what drew Ayers to Obama. “Here is the thing that eats at me. What did Ayers see in him? …  Dorhn, Ayers, Wright all saw something in Obama that made them want to be with him and promote him? These are not people who like promoting pro-America candidates.”

Of course Obama’s defenders can argue that people are in the unfortunate habit of projecting their aspirations onto politicians, especially one who famously described himself as a ‘blank screen’ on which different groups could project their dreams. Maybe what you see in Obama is whatever you want to see in Obama.  Such as for example, these madrassa kids. Glenn Reynolds realizes that this argument applies both to the critics and believers in Obama.  David Brooks caustically remarked that “Barack Obama loves the future because that’s where all his accomplishments are.” His supporters might argue that’s also where his defects lie. Which brings us back to Ayers.

Although Obama’s accomplishments may all lie in his glittering tomorrow,  Ayers and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge are inconveniently part of his existing record.  Ayers and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge are a substantial component of his political career. It is one point upon which Obama actually has “history”. Unlike the prospective, which is infinitely malleable, Ayers is the one of those things about Obama by which he can actually be measured. Therein lies the danger.

 

"Now six years ago, I stood up and opposed this war at a time when it was politically risky to do so because I said that not only did we not know how much it was going to cost, what our exit strategy might be, how it would affect our relationships around the world, and whether our intelligence was sound, but also because we hadn't finished the job in Afghanistan.

"We hadn't caught bin Laden. We hadn't put al Qaeda to rest, and as a consequence, I thought that it was going to be a distraction. Now Senator McCain and President Bush had a very different judgment.

"And I wish I had been wrong for the sake of the country and they had been right, but that's not the case. We've spent over $600 billion so far, soon to be $1 trillion. We have lost over 4,000 lives. We have seen 30,000 wounded, and most importantly, from a strategic national security perspective, al Qaeda is resurgent, stronger now than at any time since 2001.

"We took our eye off the ball. And not to mention that we are still spending $10 billion a month, when they have a $79 billion surplus, at a time when we are in great distress here at home, and we just talked about the fact that our budget is way overstretched and we are borrowing money from overseas to try to finance just some of the basic functions of our government.

"So I think the lesson to be drawn is that we should never hesitate to use military force, and I will not, as president, in order to keep the American people safe. But we have to use our military wisely. And we did not use our military wisely in Iraq."

Sen. Obama's comments from second debate:

"So what happened was we got distracted, we diverted resources, and ultimately bin Laden escaped, set up base camps in the mountains of Pakistan in the northwest provinces there. They are now raiding our troops in Afghanistan, destabilizing the situation. They're stronger now than at any time since 2001. And that's why I think it's so important for us to reverse course because that's the central front on terrorism. They are plotting to kill Americans right now. As Secretary Gates, the Defense secretary, said, the war against terrorism began in that region, and that's where it will end. So part of the reason I think it's so important for us to end the war in Iraq is to be able to get more troops into Afghanistan, put more pressure on the Afghan government to do what it needs to do, eliminate some