Destabilization and invasion long planned
by Tony Cartalucci
Bangkok, May 11, 2011
Bangkok, May 11, 2011
In a 2007 article from the London Guardian titled, "Bush handed blueprint to seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal," it is stated that fears of destabilization inside Pakistan might prompt the United States to occupy Islamabad and the provinces of Punjab, Sindh, and Baluchistanin an attempt to secure Pakistan's nuclear warheads. Behind this report is Fredrick Kagan, brother of the equally sloven Robert Kagan of theForeign Policy Initiative, yet another contrived, corporate fueled warmongering think-tank.
Fredrick Kagan sits within the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). AEI's board of trustees represents a wide variety of corporate-financierinterests including those of the notorious Carlyle Group, State Farm, American Express, and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co (also of the CFR). War criminal Dick Cheney also acts as a trustee. Joining Kagan as members of AEI's "research staff" are warmongers Newt Gingrich, John Bolton, Richard Perle, John Yoo, and Paul Wolfowitz.
While the sense of self-importance these degenerates shower upon themselves may seem comical, with titles like "senior fellow" and "resident scholar," the fact that their "policy research" usually becomes corporate subsidized "policy reality" and subsequently the American people's unending nightmare, is enough reason to keep tabs on them. For instance Fredrick Kagan was supposedly the architect behind the US troop surge in Iraq. And while we may kid ourselves that with Obama taking office the agenda of these supposed Neo-Conservatives is sidelined, Paul Wolfowitz' plan to overthrow the nations of the Middle East, now being fully executed with US-funded revolutions, probably couldn't have been done without the veil of "left-cover."
Kagan's report regarding Pakistan's partial occupation and the seizure of its nuclear arsenal is founded on what may first appear to be a reasonable concern; the fear of Pakistan collapsing and its nuclear arsenal falling into the wrong hands. According to Kagan's narrative, Islamic extremists seizing Pakistan's nuclear arsenal pose as much a threat today as "Soviet tanks" once did.
It's not terrorists, it's China
What Kagan leaves out is the very source of this destabilization and America's overall grand strategy in the region. America's continued presence in Afghanistan as well as its increasingly aggressive "creep" over the Afghan-Pakistani border has been justified under the ambiguous and omnipresent threat of "terrorism." In reality, the true goal is to contain the rise of China and other emerging economies using the pretense of "terrorism." Destabilization via foreign-funded ethnic insurgencies, regime change via foreign-funded sedition, and a regional strategy of tension between power brokers in Beijing, New Delhi, and Islamabad have for years attempted to keep in check not just China and Pakistan's rise, but India's as well.
This is not merely speculative conjecture. China itself has recently accused the United States of directly attempting to destabilize their nation as well as using the pretense of "terrorism" as a means to hobble China's growing influence. In an April 2011 Reuters report, it was stated that "a senior domestic security official, Chen Jiping, warned that "hostile Western forces" -- alarmed by the country's rise -- were marshalling human rights issues to attack Party control." Compounding China's accusations are open admissions by the US State Department itself declaring that tens of millions will be spent to help activists circumvent China's security networks in an effort to undermine Beijing. This comes after it has been revealed that the entire "Arab Spring" was US-funded.
The issue of Pakistan in regards to China is not merely a figment of a paranoid Beijing's imagination, it is stated policy circulating throughout America's corporate-funded think-tanks. Selig Harrison of the Soros funded Center for International Policy has published two pieces specifically calling for carving off of Pakistan's Baluchistan province, not as part of a strategy to win the "War on Terror," butas a means to thwart growing relations between Islamabad and Beijing.
In "Free Baluchistan," he explicitly calls to "aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression." He continues by explaining the various merits of such meddling by stating, "Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces."
In a follow up article titled, "The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis," Harrison begins by stating, "China’s expanding reach is a natural and acceptable accompaniment of its growing power—but only up to a point. " He then repeats his call for meddling in Pakistan by saying, "to counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an Arabian Sea outlet at Gwadar."
Gwadar in the southwest serves as a Chinese port, the starting point for a logistical corridor through Pakistan and into Chinese territory. The plan is to plunge the entire nation into chaos and use US forces to systematically "help" restore order. The very suggestion of fomenting armed violence simply to derail sovereign relations between two foreign nations is scandalous and reveals the absolute depths of depravity from which the global elite operate from. It is quite clear that the "War on Terror" is but a pretense to pursue a policy of regional hegemony with the expressed goal of containing China. This in turn, is part of a greater strategy covered in the 2006 Strategic Studies Institute report "String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China's Rising Power across the Asian Littoral." Throughout the report China's growing influence and various means to co-opt and contain it are discussed. SSI makes special note to mention engaging with all of China's neighbors in an effort to play them off against Beijing in order to maintain American preeminence throughout Asia.
Destabilizing Pakistan
In addition to the Gwadar port in Pakistan's Baluchistan region, China has also built dams, roads, and even nuclear power plants in the country. China has also supplied Pakistan with a tremendous amount of military technology. The only cards America seems to have left in its hand to counter this growing relationship are threats of destabilization, the subsequent stripping of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, and Pakistan's Balkanization into smaller, ineffectual states.
In a 2009 article by Seymour Hersh titled, "Defending the Arsenal," much attention was given to the immense amount of suspicion and distrust Pakistan views America with. In particular, distrust is garnered over America's obsession with "defending" Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Under the pretense of "helping" Pakistan if ever it fell into chaos, America has been trying to ascertain the location of Pakistan's nuclear weapons as well as the trigger assembles kept separate as a security measure.
While America supposedly "fears" destabilization, concurrently, the effects of their war with the Taliban on the Afghan-Pakistan border has overtly stirred up instability inside Pakistan. At one point, Hersh describes Islamabad's request for predator drones to conduct the attacks themselves, which was denied. They then asked for America to at least pretend to have given the drones to Pakistan and give them Pakistani markings - this was also denied. In fact, it seems almost as if the war against the Taliban, especially the drone campaign, is being used specifically to stir up the Pashtun minority and aim them at Islamabad, just as Harrison had suggested the Baluchistan insurgents be used to carve off Pakistan's southwest coastal region.
This brings us back to Fredrick Kagan's "blueprint," which is summed up in a New York Times piece co-authored with Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon. Their article titled, "Pakistan's Collapse, Our Problem," describes the complete collapse of the Pakistani government, overrun by "extremists." It goes on to describe "Pro-American moderates" within the Pakistani army in need of US forces to help them secure Islamabad and their nuclear arsenal. Several options are given for where the nuclear weapons could be stored safely, all of them involve US oversight. This would give the US an ideal geopolitical scenario that would permanently Balkanize the country along Pashtun, Baluchi, and other ethnic minority lines, and result in a permanent Western presence inside the country.
The article then goes on to say larger military operations to take back Balkanized sections of the country could be undertaken, "If a holding operation in the nation’s center was successful, we would probably then seek to establish order in the parts of Pakistan where extremists operate. Beyond propping up the state, this would benefit American efforts in Afghanistan by depriving terrorists of the sanctuaries they have long enjoyed in Pakistan’s tribal and frontier regions."
It should be noted that co-author Michael O'Hanlon also contributed to the "Which Path to Persia?" report which described how using foreign-funded armed insurgency, foreign-funded popular revolutions, co-opting members of the military, and covert military operations could be used to topple Iran's government. In Iran's case, this plan has already gone operational. In Pakistan's case it seems all but a foregone conclusion that it is at least being attempted.
If Kagan's plan were executed after sufficient instability and justification had been created, China's holdings in Pakistan would be entirely eliminated, with Pakistan itself becoming a permanent extension of the unending US occupation of Afghanistan. This explains China's initial reaction to the "Bin Laden" hoax. Immediately recognizing the unfolding implications, China rushed to Islamabad's defense calling for support from the international community for Islamabad. China also criticized America's intrusion into Pakistan's sovereign territory.
The US raid incensed the Pakistani people, attempted to drive a wedge between the military and the government, as well as gave rhetorical leverage to the US over Islamabad and the Pakistani military. The suggestion by the US that "Bin Laden" had a support network inside Pakistan's military appears to be an initial attempt to usher in some form of Kagan's "nuke-napping" invasion plan. With Beijing openly accusing the US of interfering in its internal affairs and with the "Arab Spring" quickly turning into regional warfare, there is no turning back for the globalists.
The corporate-financier oligarchs and their many helping hands are a degenerate elite who have spent their entire lives sheltered from the consequences of their actions. It has always been the soldiers and the taxpayers who bore the brunt for their delusions of grandeur. To them, war is a cost-benefit analysis, and like their financial pyramid schemes that only get bigger and bigger, so too their gambles with our lives and treasure. It appears that they are quite willing to destabilize Pakistan, a nation with 170 million people, and risk war, a nuclear exchange, and a possible confrontation with China and Russia in the process.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also read this article of Dec 2007, and connect the two. Indeed what has been said in these two articles, is increasingly suspected to be the reality by many Pakistanis. It is in this scenario that more and more Pakistanis, many of them retired armed forces officers, want to know what our army is upto and who is really looking after our national security. There are no ready answers. And thus there is extreme anxiety among all those who are given to meditating over the situation in Pakistan; the direction the country is headed; the role that the government is playing towards the destruction of Pakistan; and the hugely significant, and therefore suspect, silence of the army.
Also read this article of Dec 2007, and connect the two. Indeed what has been said in these two articles, is increasingly suspected to be the reality by many Pakistanis. It is in this scenario that more and more Pakistanis, many of them retired armed forces officers, want to know what our army is upto and who is really looking after our national security. There are no ready answers. And thus there is extreme anxiety among all those who are given to meditating over the situation in Pakistan; the direction the country is headed; the role that the government is playing towards the destruction of Pakistan; and the hugely significant, and therefore suspect, silence of the army.
Bush handed blueprint to seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal
· Architect of Iraq surge draws up takeover options
· US fears army's Islamists might grab weapons
The Guardian, 1 December 2007
Pakistani paramilitary forces holds an alleged suspect during a crackdown operation against militants near Mingora in northern Pakistan, Friday, November 30, 2007. Photograph: Mohammad Zubair
The man who devised the Bush administration's Iraq troop surge has urged the US to consider sending elite troops to Pakistan to seize its nuclear weapons if the country descends into chaos. In a series of scenarios drawn up for Pakistan, Frederick Kagan, a former West Point military historian, has called for the White House to consider various options for an unstable Pakistan.
These include: sending elite British or US troops to secure nuclear weapons capable of being transported out of the country and take them to a secret storage depot in New Mexico or a "remote redoubt" inside Pakistan; sending US troops to Pakistan's north-western border to fight the Taliban and al-Qaida; and a US military occupation of the capital Islamabad, and the provinces of Punjab, Sindh and Baluchistan if asked for assistance by a fractured Pakistan military, so that the US could shore up President Pervez Musharraf and General Ashfaq Kayani, who became army chief this week.
"These are scenarios and solutions. They are designed to test our preparedness. The United States simply could not stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss," Kagan, who is with the American Enterprise Institute, a thinktank with strong ideological ties to the Bush administration, told the Guardian. "We need to think now about our options in Pakistan,"
Kagan argued that the rise of Sunni extremism in Pakistan, coupled with the proliferation of al-Qaida bases in the north-west, posed a real possibility of terrorists staging a coup that would give them access to a nuclear device. He also noted how sections of Pakistan's military and intelligence establishment continued to be linked to Islamists and warned that the army, demoralised by having to fight in Waziristan and parts of North-West Frontier Province, might retreat from the borders, leaving a vacuum that would be filled by radicals. Worse, the military might split, with a radical faction trying to take over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
Kagan accepted that the Pakistani military was not in the grip of Islamists. "Pakistan's officer corps and ruling elites remain largely moderate. But then again, Americans felt similarly about the shah's regime and look what happened in 1979," he said, referring to Iran. The scenarios received a public airing two weeks ago in an article for the New York Times by Kagan and Michael O'Hanlon, an analyst at the Brookings Institution, who has ties to the Democrats.
They have been criticised in the US as well as Pakistan, with Kagan accused of drawing up plans for another US occupation of a Muslim country. But the scenarios are regarded with some seriousness because of Kagan's influence over thinking in the Bush administration as the architect of the Iraq troop surge, which is conceded to have brought some improvements in security.
A former senior state department official who works as a contractor with the government and is familiar with current planning on Pakistan told the Guardian: "Governments are supposed to think the unthinkable. But these ideas, coming as they do from a man of significant influence in Washington's militarist camp, seem prescriptive and have got tongues wagging - even in a town like Washington, built on hyperbole." Kagan said he was not calling for an occupation of Pakistan.
"I have been arguing the opposite. We cannot invade, only work with the consent of elements of the Pakistan military," he said. "But we do have to calculate how to quantify and then respond to a crisis that is potentially as much a threat as Soviet tanks once were. Pakistan may be the next big test." The political and security crises there have led the Bush administration to conclude that Pakistan has become a more dangerous place than it was before Musharraf took over in the coup of October 1999.
One Pentagon official said last week that the defence department had indeed been war-gaming some of Kagan's scenarios. A report by Kagan and O'Hanlon in April highlighted their argument. "The only serious response to this international environment is to develop armed forces capable of protecting America's vital interests throughout this dangerous time," it said. But in Pakistan, aides to Musharraf yesterday dismissed Kagan's study as "hyperbole".
"How can they (Americans) have the arrogance to dictate to us where we should go or which countries should be our friends? Gadhafi is my friend. He supported us when we were alone and when those who tried to prevent my visit here (Libya) today were our enemies. They have no morals. We cannot accept that a state assumes the role of the world's policeman."
"How can they (Americans) have the arrogance to dictate to us where we should go or which countries should be our friends? Gadhafi is my friend. He supported us when we were alone and when those who tried to prevent my visit here (Libya) today were our enemies. They have no morals. We cannot accept that a state assumes the role of the world's policeman."
- Nelson Mandela, 1997 (while on a State visit to Libya)
"Never before in modem history has a country dominated the earth so totally as the USA does today... America is now the Schwarzenegger of international politics: showing off muscles, obtrusive, intimidating...The Americans, in the absence of limits put to them by anybody or anything, act as if they own a kind of blank check in their 'McWorld'."
- Der Spiegel, Germany's leading news magazine, 1997
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment