What the new US-Afghan Strategic Partnership Agreement means

Posted by Admin On Thursday, 3 May 2012 0 comments
Eleven years ago, Afghanistan was the most isolated country in the world. The Afghan people were suffering silently, and their basic human rights were violated by many warring factions on...


Eleven years ago, Afghanistan was the most isolated country in the world. The Afghan people were suffering silently, and their basic human rights were violated by many warring factions on a daily basis. Regional states, which filled the vacuum in Afghanistan left by the departure of Soviet forces and the abandonment of the country by the West, supported Afghan proxies against one another to weaken and control Afghanistan and fulfill their geostrategic designs. When the Taliban took over Afghanistan in 1996, they sheltered Osama bin Laden and protected his operational terrorist activities. They also allowed the country to turn into the world’s main source of narcotic drugs, which financed their brutal atrocities against Afghanistan’s civilian population and fueled global organized crime.
As a pariah state, Afghanistan posed a grave security threat to the United States and its many interests in the region. On Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaeda operatives attacked the U.S. homeland and indiscriminately killed nearly 3,000 innocent American civilians, including many Muslims. In response, the Afghan people — who had long been terrorized by al Qaeda and the Taliban and had resisted both groups from within and outside Afghanistan — rose in support of the United States. They received American forces with open arms and fought alongside them to rid Afghanistan permanently of the terrorist threat. With such unprecedented popular support, coalition forces and the Afghan people quickly and decisively toppled the Taliban regime.
Since the fall of the Taliban, Afghanistan, the United States, and U.S. allies have made significant progress toward their shared goal of a region free from the threats of terrorism and extremism. To consolidate their shared gains over the past 11 years and cement those gains for another decade after 2014, the governments of Afghanistan and the United States have just signed an Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement as part of President Barack Obama’s visit to Kabul. The government and people of Afghanistan consider this landmark agreement a new beginning in their strategic relationship with the United States and the rest of the world for several reasons.
First, since the announcement in 2009 of the phased withdrawal of NATO forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, the Afghan people have been panicking about whether the world will once again abandon their country prematurely. Daily press reports about tired NATO allies leaving the country one by one have further fueled concern and fear among Afghans. But the signing of the agreement, which includes long-term security guarantees and development assistance to Afghanistan, should restore the Afghan people’s confidence in their partnership with the United States. A secure future in a stable region — something the Afghan people continue to expect — is now realistically achievable based on credible, long-term international commitments.
Second, in addition to outlining security and defense guarantees from the United States, the agreement designates Afghanistan as a “major non-NATO ally.” This should make it clear to terrorists and their affiliates that they can no longer hope to wait out the United States and NATO forces in Afghanistan. After the completion of the transition process in 2014, the United States and NATO will provide long-term support for “the training, equipping, advising, and sustaining of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF).” Such assistance will continue until Afghan security institutions firmly stand on their own and are capable of defending Afghanistan against all internal and external security threats.
Third, the agreement will undermine the tendency of certain states in the region to think of Afghanistan as part of their sphere of influence. Long-term security and defense cooperation between Afghanistan and the United States will prevent the implementation of any regional schemes to undermine Afghanistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Instead, the country’s immediate and near neighbors must join forces with the Afghan government to further enhance regional security and economic cooperation by adopting win-win solutions that are consistent with the objectives of all existing regional cooperation organizations.
Fourth, this new chapter in the strategic relationship between Afghanistan and the United States should assure those nations that have contributed to Afghanistan’s long-term stabilization and development that their contributions and losses have not been in vain. Their soldiers have fought bravely and made the ultimate sacrifice so that Afghanistan will never again return to the anarchy and chaos of the 1990s. With the continued support of these countries, Afghanistan is quickly integrating with the rest of the world, and will begin contributing to global peace and security through participation in future international peace operations.
Indeed, as the tragedy of 9/11 demonstrated, the cost of staying the course in Afghanistan is far lower than the cost of prematurely abandoning the country. It is reassuring to the Afghan people and the world that Afghanistan and the United States have finally reached a solid consensus — albeit with many disagreements and bumps in the relationship along the way — on their specific sovereign roles and responsibilities in securing Afghanistan now and into the future, and working toward a safe world and a stable region free from the threats of terrorism and extremism. The governments of Afghanistan and the United States now look forward, with unwavering resolve, to implementing the key objectives of the Strategic Agreement in the months and years ahead.
READ MORE

TTP plans to turn over Bannu jail’s escaped convicts

Posted by Admin On 0 comments
The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) will hand over many of the prisoners who escaped April 15 from the Bannu Central Jail, the biggest jailbreak in the country’s history, media reported May 1....


The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) will hand over many of the prisoners who escaped April 15 from the Bannu Central Jail, the biggest jailbreak in the country’s history, media reported May 1.
The TTP clarified that its objective was freeing Adnan Rashid, convicted of plotting in 2003 to kill then-president Pervez Musharraf, Daily Express reported. He was among the 384 prisoners who escaped.
The militants after several meetings decided to hand over escapees involved in murder and other common crimes, a militant leader said.
Meanwhile, authorities who searched the Bannu jail found cell phones and narcotics in various barracks, media reported May 1.
READ MORE

Celebrated Journalist touts India as a State Sponsoring Terrorism

Posted by Admin On 0 comments

The journalists Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark an award-winning investigative journalist in their book comprising 500 pages put on sale from 1st May 2012 “The Meadow: Kashmir 1995 — Where...
The journalists Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark an award-winning investigative journalist in their book comprising 500 pages put on sale from 1st May 2012 “The Meadow: Kashmir 1995 — Where the Terror Began”  claim theWesterners were murdered by a group of Kashmiri militants who worked for the Indian Army. The book was released on March 29 in England .
The  adventurers and nature lovers across the globe, envy to see Kashmir a paradise on earth. But for one group of travellers in 1995, a trip to the Meadow became a nightmare that none of them could possibly have imagined. These men - two Americans, two Britons, a German and a Norwegian - journeyed to Kashmir in search of nature and humanity – but became entangled in a hostage drama that lasted for six months before they vanished from the face of the earth leaving their loved ones and family in agony for rest of their life. The conclusions in the book are drawn through investigations based on the interviews with police officials then investigating the case and the wives and girlfriends of the missing men. It  reveals how the Kashmir hostage crisis was an opening shot in the war on terror; what these terrorists did to a group of western adventurers and set them on a cold-hearted path to terrorise the West.
A review of the book “In the Meadow, A chilling alternate view of the 1995 Kashmiri kidnappings” published in NY Times discussed the kidnappings of six foreign tourists in a meadow in Kashmir by a group calling itself Al Faran. The Indian government, Indian Intelligence agencies and Indian Military prolonged their capture and sabotaged negotiations with the kidnappers which resulted in the killing of the hostages. This was later discovered that it was an Indian conspiracy to put the blame on Pakistan and its intelligence agencies afterwards for the killing and kidnapping of the tourists. However, upon investigation it was learned that the men were killed by another group, funded and controlled by the Indian government(See salients from the book below). However, India has always tried to deceive its own people, region/neighbors and the world as a whole .The  TRUTH can only be blurred but never hidden. Few examples from recent history are as under:-
Own people:
  • On night between February 17-18, 2007 at least 68 people, mostly Pakistanis, were killed in a series of explosions and a resultant fire on Pakistan-bound train in the northern Indian state of Haryana, near Panipat, about 80km north of Delhi. Initial investigations blamed the Pakistan-based LeT (Lashkar-e-Tayaba) and JeM (Jaish-e-Muhammad), so much so a Pakistan national, Azmat Ali, was also arrested in this connection…Later it was found by the police that right-wing Hindu activists and an Indian army officer Colonel Prohit had a significant role in not only the Samjhauta Express bombing but also in the Malegaon and other similar terrorist incidents. The confessions of Swami Aseemanand have now further confirmed the Hindutvaradicals’ role in terrorism.
  • In the Makkah Masjid blast on May 18, 2007, 14 people were killed and as a reaction around 80 Muslims were initially rounded up by the police. The bombs are believed to have contained a deadly mix of RDX and TNT, in proportions often used by the Indian army.” CBI director Ashwani Kumar told the media that an activist named Sunil Joshi“played a key role in orchestrating the Ajmer blast and a set of mobile SIM cards that had been used in activation of the bomb-triggers in the Makka Masjid blast was used again in the Ajmer blast. ..India’s National Investigating Agency (NIA) filed a case in a court accusing 11 Hindus and members of the ultra-right-wing Sanathan Sanstha, of masterminding and executing the October 2009 Margao blast.
  •      In Ajmer Sharif  Blast on October 11, 2007 ,3 people died. In 2010, Rajasthan ATS arrests Devendra Gupta, Chandrashekhar and Vishnu Prasad. Initial arrests of Abdul Hafiz Shamim, Khushibur Rahman, Imran Ali linked  to  HuJI, LeT could not be proved.  Again in Malegaon 2ndBlasts in September  2008 in which 7 died   Pragya Singh Thakur, Lt Col Srikant Purohit and Swami Amritanand Dev were found involved.
This shows a glimpse of investigation handling in India however more can be understood by a statement of Mumbai advocate Mihir who said: “It is believed that CBI is seeking directions from the home ministry to see the Ajmer, Makkah Masjid, Malegaon and other blasts in conjunction, after there has been no conclusive evidence of the involvement of Islamic groups”.
Source: This is how India shine, read here

Region/Neighbours:
  • India has always had hegemonic approach towards its neighbours and its goodwill gestures have mostly concluded with economic or militarily strangulating projects for the neighbours. May it be the construction of a barrage at Farakka, near the border with Bangladesh or Wullhar Barrage over River Jhelum to dry up the water resources for its neighbours.
  • Pakistan is locked in other territorial disputes with India such as the Siachen Glacier, Sir Creek and construction of dams including Baglihar Dam built over the River Chenab in Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Similarly China, Nepal, Myanmar, Sri Lanka all have host of problems leading to mistrust in neighbours relationship.
  •    India has redrafted its military doctrine on building border infrastructure as a force multiplier in a real war situation. Indian Army Chief’s statement of taking on both Pakistan and China simultaneously through its cold start doctrine is an announced policy.
Source: Who is attacking Balochistan? Read here
The world as a whole:
  • One of the Worlds biggest Glacier reservoir are depleting fast.  Blaming only global warming for rapid defrosting is a false impression being created deliberately by India with a view to covering up the serious and catastrophic environmental crime its army is committing. It leaves not even an iota of doubt that the rapid shrinkage of the Siachen Glacier is due to chemical and explosive storage and cutting of glacial ice by the Indian army and not by global warming.
  • Indian troops are involved in dumping of chemicals, metals, organic and human waste, and daily leakages of 2,000 gallons of kerosene oil. This oil passes through 250 kilometre of a plastic pipeline, laid by the Indian army across the glacier.
  • The global environment and human rights experts and activists may realise one day that they have stains of this blood on their ignorance and not putting enough pressure on Pakistan and India to demilitarise the glacier.
  •  The glimpse of misguided investigation handling by India quoted above is worth noting. Wendy Sherman  US Under Secretary of state announced in New Delhi on April 02,2012  that the US had put a bounty of US $10 million on Hafiz Muhammad Saeed a leader of Pakistan based social welfare organization Jama’at-ud-Da’wah(JuD) to please India.. Despite India’s investigation record and fact that Pakistani courts has acquitted Hafiz Saeed on many occasions and in many cases due to lack of evidences against him. On October 12, 2009, the Lahore High Court quashed all cases against Hafiz Muhammad Saeed and set him free. The court also notified that Jama’at-ud-Da’wah is not a banned organization and can work freely in Pakistan. Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, one of two judges hearing the case, observed “In the name of terrorism we cannot brutalise the law. But somehow india has succeeded in hiding reality.
See detailed study  here
Conclusion:
It is very much evident from the facts revealed in the book and above mentioned facts that in order to get psychological benefits, India has always remained indulged in dirty games. Either this benefited India or not but it gave a massive blow to humanity. India contributes in making future of this world bleak. Therefore it is the responsibility of analysts, social workers and environmentalists to take notice of these psychological wars that India has waged against not just its neighbors but against the whole world .
Review of Book “The Meadow: Kashmir 1995 — Where the Terror Began”
A Srinagar based human rights group has requested the region’s State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) to investigate the circumstances surrounding the kidnapping and subsequent killing of four western tourists by a militant group in 1995 in Indian-controlled Kashmir.
The journalists Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark in their book put on sale from 1st May 2012 “The Meadow: Kashmir 1995 — Where the Terror Began”  claim that the four Westerners were murdered by a group of Kashmiri militants who worked for the Indian Army. They came to the conclusion after their investigations based on the interviews with police officials then investigating the case. The book was released on March 29 in England.
The book contains blow-by-blow descriptions of the negotiations for the hostages’ release between an inspector and the kidnappers, which seemed to be nearly completed several times, only to be blown apart when the agreed terms of the negotiations were leaked to newspapers, including the Hindustan Times, infuriating the kidnappers. At times when the Indian government claimed the kidnappers and their hostages were untraceable, the book said, they were being watched and photographed by an Indian Army helicopter.
Rather than working for the hostages’ release, the Indian government, Indian intelligence agencies and Indian military prolonged their capture and sabotaged negotiations with the kidnappers, a new non-fiction book called “The Meadow” alleges. Indian officials’ actions were part of a larger plan to present Pakistan, and the Pakistan-backed insurgency in Kashmir, in as harsh a light as possible to the world at large, the book says. Ultimately, the men were killed by a second group, funded and controlled by the Indian government, the book alleges.
“All the time New Delhi said it was trying to crack Al Faran, a group within intelligence and the STF (Special Task Force, an Indian Police division) was letting them dangle, happy to let the militants portray themselves as savage criminals,” one police detective who worked on the case tells the authors.
Quoting the Kashmir police’s crime branch squad, the two authors write that the investigators had been convinced that the Government-controlled renegades had the control of four Westerners after Al Faran dropped them.
“The squad reported some of its thoughts to its seniors, using these kinds of words, ‘Sikander’s men handed over Paul, Dirk, Keith and Don to Alpha’s renegades in the third of fourth week of November, around the time when the final sightings dried up. Sikander has given up. Al Faran is finished. Embarrassingly, India controls the renegades.’”
Adrian Levy told in a interview to NYT that “We also determined the exact route taken by the kidnappers, and followed that route, through Anantnag, and over in Kishtwar and the Warwan Valley, interviewing hundreds of villagers over the years, staying in Sukhnoi where we learned from villagers, and then the IB and the J&K police, the hostages had been deliberately penned in for 11 weeks approximately, while they were observed in detail and near daily, by an Indian helicopter.”
Inspector General Rajinder Tikoo (who led the negotiations with the kidnappers) confirmed it to Adrian that the sabotaging of the talks and that intelligence did not want there to be a resolution. He resigned as a result from the inquiry. He then had no part to play and does not express a view of the ending.
A member of the Crime Branch team who worked on the case describes the “dawning realization that their desire to solve the crime was at odds with the goals of some senior figures in the military and the intelligence services, who could have saved the hostages but chose not to.” Authors claim that “The kidnapping was a boon that enabled the Indian intelligence fraternity to clearly demonstrate Pakistan backed terror and demonize Kashmiri aspirations.”
“Right from the beginning the strings were being pulled from New Delhi,” said Altaf Ahmed, a police security official who worked with the security adviser to the government of Kashmir.“Those of us dealing with the hostage-taking on the ground in Srinigar were not in control.”
On Christmas Eve, 1995, the four remaining hostages were walked into heavy, deep snow behind the lower village of Mati Gawran, shot and buried, an eyewitness to the killings said, the book reports.
“There was only one end for them, and we all knew it,” he said. “No one could risk the hostages being released and complaining of collusion, having seen uniforms and STF jeeps,” he said. (STF is the Special Task Force of police in Kashmir).
The book’s claims echo some of the darkest fears brewing in the international intelligence community after the hostages, or their bodies, failed to surface month after month.
Almost a year after they were taken, the fate of the hostages was still uncertain, despite diplomatic appeals and secret military operations from the United States, United Kingdom and Germany, The New York Times reported.
“So far none of these efforts have come close to ending the drama, whose ambiguities and illusions and hopes deceived have baffled a succession of anti-terrorism experts sent by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and by Scotland Yard,” John F. Burns wrote from Kashmir in May of 1996. He writes:
Nobody can even be sure whether the kidnappers, who call themselves Al Faran, are real insurgents or, as many better known Kashmiri guerrillas assert, are Indian-backed renegades who have set out to discredit the entire movement.
“There are many bizarre things about this entire business,” a senior diplomat said. But the diplomat added that India, while gaining politically from the bruising that the hostage-taking had given to the image of Pakistan and to the insurgents, had nonetheless dealt honestly in attempts to free the men.
Still, the diplomat added, “there are cross-currents here that have troubled us deeply.”
The rights body International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Indian-administered Kashmir (IPTK) and Association of Parents of Disappeared (APDP) has asked SHRC to direct Government to make the report public. “As a part of the ongoing work on the issue of nameless and unmarked graves in Indian- controlled Kashmir, we request SHRC that the case of the four kidnapped persons be considered,” said Khuram Parvez, member IPTK.
On July 4, 1995 during a trekking expedition at tourist destination Phalgam, four foreigners – Don Hutchings of USA, Keith Mangan of England, Paul Wells of England and John Childs of USA were kidnapped by a lesser known militant group Al-Faran, believed to be an offshoot of Harkat-ul-Ansar.
On July 8, 1995 two more trekkers Dirk Hasert of Germany and Hans Christian Ostro of Norway were kidnapped from the same area. However, the fate of four tourists remained a mystery.
Childs escaped on July 8, 1995 and Ostro’s beheaded body was found on Aug. 13, 1995 in the Shael Dar forest of Anantnag District.
The book also claims that a western female trekker had approached the Indian army camp in Pahalgam to say she had witnessed the kidnapping of Dirk Hasert. “Instead of assisting her, a Major of the Indian army sexually assaulted her,” mentions the book.
The IPTK has also sought investigation against then Inspector General of Kashmir Zone, P S Gill, and then Superintendent of Police of Anantnag, Ashkoor Wani to inquire into their role in the alleged manipulation of the DNA tests of one of the hostages.
An official at SHRC said they have received the application on Friday and clubbed it with unmarked graves case. “The case has been listed for hearing before the division bench of the Commission on April 17,2012″ the official said.

References:

Rights group seeks details of foreigner kidnappings in Indian-controlled Kashmir,
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-04/07/c_131512490.htm
India-backed gang behind killings of 4 Western tourists in 1995,
http://www.aaj.tv/2012/04/india-backed-gang-behind-killings-of-4-western-tourists-in-1995/
In ‘The Meadow,’ a Chilling Alternate View of the 1995 Kashmiri Kidnappings,
http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/in-the-meadow-a-chilling-alternate-view-of-the-1995-kashmiri-kidnappings/?pagemode=print
Did ‘India-backed’ militants kill 4 foreign tourists in Kashmir in ’95?,
http://www.asianage.com/print/139760
Book claims Western tourists were killed by pro-govt gunmen,�
http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Apr/4/book-claims-western-tourists-were-killed-by-pro-govt-gunmen-45.asp
A Conversation With : ‘The Meadow’ Author Adrian Levy,
ttp://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/a-conversation-with-the-meadow-author-adrian-levy/?pagemode=print
READ MORE

Obama’s secretive trip to Kabul, content with Taliban talks

Posted by Admin On 0 comments
On a swift, secretive trip to the war zone, U.S. President Barack Obama declared Tuesday night that after years of sacrifice the U.S. combat role in Afghanistan is winding down...


On a swift, secretive trip to the war zone, U.S. President Barack Obama declared Tuesday night that after years of sacrifice the U.S. combat role in Afghanistan is winding down just as it has already ended in Iraq. “We can see the light of a new day,” he said on the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death and in the midst of his own re-election campaign.
“Our goal is to destroy al-Qaeda, and we are on a path to do exactly that,” Mr. Obama said in an unusual speech to America broadcast from an air base halfway around the world.
He spoke after signing an agreement with Afghan President Hamid Karzai to cover the decade after the planned final withdrawal of U.S. combat troops in 2014. Mr. Obama said American forces will be involved in counter-terrorism and training of the Afghan military, “but we will not build permanent bases in this country, nor will we be patrolling its cities and mountains.”
In a blunt reminder of Afghanistan’s fragile security situation, a series of explosions and gunfire erupted in Kabul just hours after Mr. Obama left, killing at least seven people and wounding 17 more. The attacks occurred near a private armed compound that houses hundreds of international workers. One of the blasts was a suicide car bomb, Interior Ministry spokesman Sediq Sediqi said. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack.
The president landed in Bagram in darkness, and his helicopter roared to Kabul for the meeting with Mr. Karzai, under close guard with only the outlines of the nearby mountains visible. Later, back at the base, he was surrounded by U.S. troops, shaking every hand. He ended his lightning visit with the speech delivered straight to the television camera – and the voters he was trying to reach back home.
Two armoured troop carriers served as a backdrop, rather than the customary Oval Office tableau.
His Republican re-election foe, Mitt Romney, was in New York, where the destruction of the twin towers on Sept. 11, 2001, set in motion the decisions that led to the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Romney accused Mr. Obama of politicizing the fleeting national unity that came with the death of Mr. bin Laden, the 9/11 terror mastermind.
In a statement released by his campaign later, Mr. Romney said he was pleased that Mr. Obama had returned to Afghanistan, that the troops and the American people deserved to hear from the president what is at stake in the war. “Success in Afghanistan is vital to our nation’s security,” he said.
At the air base, Mr. Obama said, “This time of war began in Afghanistan, and this is where it will end. … With faith in each other, and our eyes fixed on the future, let us finish the work at hand and forge a just and lasting peace.”
Earlier, he delivered a similarly upbeat message to the troops. Noting their sacrifice, he said, “There’s a light on the horizon.”
It was Mr. Obama’s fourth trip to Afghanistan, his third as commander in chief. He was less than seven hours on the ground in all. He also visited troops at a hospital at the Bagram base, awarding 10 Purple Hearts.
According to the Pentagon, more than 1,800 American troops have been killed across more than a decade of war in Afghanistan.
Some 88,000 remain stationed there.
The wars here and in Iraq combined have cost almost $1.3-trillion. And recent polls show that up to 60 per cent of Americans oppose the continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan.
In his speech to the nation, Mr. Obama said, “I recognize many Americans are tired of war.”
He said that last year, “we removed 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Another 23,000 will leave by the end of the summer. After that, reductions will continue at a steady pace, with more of our troops coming home. And as our coalition agreed, by the end of 2014 the Afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country.”
Without mentioning the political campaign back home, Mr. Obama claimed that on his watch the fortunes of the terrorists have suffered mightily.
Over the past three years “the tide has turned. We broke the Taliban’s momentum. We’ve built strong Afghan security forces. We devastated al-Qaeda’s leadership, taking out over 20 of their top 30 leaders,” he said.
“And one year ago, from a base here in Afghanistan, our troops launched the operation that killed Osama bin laden.”
In a reference to the destruction of New York’s World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, he added, “As we emerge from a decade of conflict abroad and economic crisis at home, it is time to renew America … a united America of grit and resilience, where sunlight glistens off soaring new towers in downtown Manhattan, and we build our future as one people, as one nation.”
He spoke for less than 15 minutes, beginning at 4 a.m. local time in Afghanistan, 7:30 p.m. on the East Coast of the United States. Minutes later, Air Force One was on its way back to Washington.
Mr. Obama flew to the site of America’s longest war not only as commander in chief but also as an incumbent president in the early stages of a tough re-election campaign. Nor were the two roles completely distinct.
His presence was a reminder that since taking office in 2009, Mr. Obama has ended the war in Iraq and moved to create an orderly end for the U.S. combat role in Afghanistan.
In the political realm, he and Vice-President Joe Biden have marked the one-year anniversary of Mr. bin Laden’s death by questioning whether Republican challenger Mr. Romney would have ordered the daring raid that penetrated the terrorist leader’s Pakistan hide-out. Republicans are accusing the president of trying for political gain from the event, and Mr. Romney is insisting that he would indeed have ordered U.S. forces into action.
The deal signed with Mr. Karzai does not commit the United States to any specific troop presence or spending. But it does allow the U.S. to potentially keep troops in Afghanistan after the war ends for two specific purposes: continued training of Afghan forces and targeted operations against al-Qaeda. The terror group is present in neighboring Pakistan but has only a nominal presence inside Afghanistan.
Mr. Obama said the agreement was meant in part to pay tribute to the U.S. troops who have died in Afghanistan since the war began. He also underlined his message to Afghans.
“With this agreement I am confident that the Afghan people will understand that the United States will stand by them,” he said.
Mr. Karzai said his countrymen “will never forget” the help of U.S. forces over the past decade. He said the partnership agreement shows the United States and Afghanistan will continue to fight terrorism together. The United States promises to seek money from Congress every year to support Afghanistan.
To the troops, he readily conceded continued hardship.
“I know the battle’s not yet over,” he said. “Some of your buddies are going to get injured. And some of your buddies may get killed. And there’s going to be heartbreak and pain and difficulty ahead.” He added that his administration is committed to ensuring that once the war is over, veterans will be given their due.
Officials have previously said as many as 20,000 U.S. troops may remain after the combat mission ends, but that still must still be negotiated.
The president’s Tuesday night address was coming exactly one year after special forces, on his order, began the raid that led to the killing of Mr. bin Laden in Pakistan.
Since then, ties between the United States and Afghanistan have been tested anew by the burning of Muslim holy books at a U.S. base and the massacre of 17 civilians, including children, allegedly by an American soldier.
Mr. Obama had gone twice before to Afghanistan as president, most recently in December 2010, and once to Iraq in 2009. All such trips, no matter how carefully planned, carry the weight and the risks of considerable security challenges. Just last month, the Taliban began near-simultaneous assaults on embassies, government buildings and NATO bases in Kabul.
Besides the U.S. troops in Afghanistan, there are 40,000 in coalition forces from other nations.
READ MORE

Pak-US relations take an interesting twist as US moved to gang wars

Posted by Admin On 0 comments
When Washington announced in April a $10 million bounty on the Lahore-based Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, it was aimed at bringing about the jihadist leader’s conviction. He has been the alleged...


When Washington announced in April a $10 million bounty on the Lahore-based Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, it was aimed at bringing about the jihadist leader’s conviction. He has been the alleged mastermind for the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, leaving more than 160 dead, including six Americans.
But the move has gone awry, adding to the tortuous relationship between Washington and Islamabad arising from the deaths of 24 Pakistani soldiers near the Afghan border and closure of supply lines to NATO forces in Afghanistan. The defiance with which Saeed has treated the US threat has highlighted the power of the Pakistani street, an integral part of the country’s politics. At crucial points in Pakistan’s history such as the 1977 general election under the civilian rule of Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, street power, fueled by Islamic fervor, trumped elected authority, and paved the way for the shift from democracy to military dictatorship.
The electoral system is weighed in favor of feudal lords since a large majority of voters live in villages whereas day-to-day politics are played out in urban areas. In towns and cities, Islamist groups have wide support among the lower middle and working classes, prone to taking to the streets on any issue related to Islam. Little wonder that in the current episode, Saeed has emerged as the epitome of street power, a formidable force that poses an unprecedented challenge to the US.
Though a popularly elected civilian government has been running Pakistan since 2008, its military high command has not abdicated its traditional authority to decide policies concerning national security, an area that covers a vast ground, domestic and foreign. Its Inter-Services Intelligence directorate which plays a vital role in securing or enhancing Pakistan’s internal and external security became the primary tool to execute Islamabad’s crafty policy of making India bleed through “a thousand cuts” in the three-fifths of Kashmir it controls. In turn, the ISI used various non-governmental organizations to implement the official policy.
Saeed has emerged as the epitome of street power, posing an unprecedented challenge to the US.
Until the 1977 coup in Pakistan by General Muhammad Zia ul Haq, the Indo-Pakistani dispute on Kashmir, originating in 1947, was viewed by both sides in territorial terms, with the respective governments being the sole actors. But Zia ul Haq, a diehard Islamist, redefined the struggle to “liberate” Kashmiri Muslims from the yoke of Hindu India as a holy jihad.
Following the pattern of the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan, which was open to Muslims worldwide, he encouraged non-governmental organizations in Pakistan to join the anti-India jihad under the tutelage of the ISI. Lashkar-e-Taiba  (LeT) and the Jamaat ud-Dawa (JuD), funded partly by the government, figured prominently on the ISI list, and officials treated Saeed with reverence.
The democratic government of Benazir Bhutto that followed Zia ul Haq’s death in 1988 was “protective of jihadis,” and “never soft on Kashmir,” according to Retired General Hamid Gul, who was ISI director under her. So while Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party, PPP, was nominally secular, it came to accept the Islamic interpretation of the Kashmir dispute.
Between November 1999 and mid-December 2000, LeT staged 15 attacks on security forces in Indian Kashmir, killing 50 soldiers and losing 24 of its militants. In late December LeT terrorists engaged Indian troops in a firefight in the Red Fort in Delhi. “The [Red Fort] action indicates that we have extended the jihad to India [proper],” Saeed declared.
A year later five heavily armed militants of LeT, riding an official car, managed to get past a gate to the Parliament House in Delhi hoping to massacre many of the 800-odd lawmakers. They failed when their vehicle crashed into a stationary vehicle inside the complex’s perimeter, resulting in the closure of all entrances to the chamber.
The provincial Punjab government’s attempts to deactivate Saeed as a political-religious leader have failed.
Subsequent pressure by India and the post-9/11 Bush administration compelled Pakistan’s President General Pervez Musharraf to outlaw LeT in January 2002. But it was a halfhearted step, accompanied by Musharraf’s assertion that Pakistan would not surrender its claim to Kashmir. “Kashmir is in our blood,” he said. “No Pakistani can afford to sever links with Kashmir.”
Viewing the Kashmir issue through the Islamic prism has provided a virtually impregnable political shield to organizations such as LeT and JuD, effectively annulling impact of the official ban. JuD operates openly and LeT clandestinely.
The provincial Punjab government’s attempts to deactivate Saeed as a political-religious leader have failed due to the judicial verdicts. Twice during 2009 the Lahore High Court released Saeed from house arrest due to lack of evidence. That is why a US State Department spokesman explained that the bounty on Saeed was for evidence that would stand up in court – a tall order as recent events in Pakistan show.
In November 2010 a court in Lahore, applying the Blasphemy Law of 1986, sentenced Aasia Bibi, a Christian mother of four, to death for insulting Prophet Mohammed during a dispute with Muslim women in her village. Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab, criticized the law and signed a mercy petition addressed to the president. Two fiery clerics offered bounty to anyone who killed Taseer. On 4 January 2011, Mumtaz Hussein Qadri, one of Taseer’s police bodyguards, did so. Random interviews with people in the street revealed a widespread belief that Taseer was killed for insulting the Prophet Mohammed. On the eve of his appearance before a magistrate, the smiling Qadri was garlanded by a crowd of more than 200 lawyers ready to defend him. In contrast, fearing for his life, the public prosecutor did not turn up at the hearing. Likewise, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari did not show up at the funeral of Taseer, a PPP luminary, nor did opposition leader Nawaz Sharif or military corps commanders.
Retreat of the civilian and military power elite in the face of murderous intimidation heartens jihadist leaders.
The retreat of the civilian and military power elite in the face of murderous intimidation heartened jihadist leaders like Saeed. Broadening their support base are US drone attacks in Pakistan’s tribal belt adjoining Afghanistan, which are condemned almost universally in Pakistan.
Determined to block the reopening of Pakistan’s land routes into Afghanistan for NATO traffic under any circumstances, Saeed cobbled together an umbrella organization of 40 political and religious groups under the Difa-e Pakistan Council (DePC), Defense of Pakistan, in December. Its leaders immediately took to addressing rallies in major cities.
Their rallies draw huge crowds. Council leaders combine patriotism with religious piety in an environment where a large majority of Pakistanis believe that Washington’s “war on terror” is a war on Islam. The latest opinion survey by the Washington-based Pew Research Center, published in  June 2011, shows that 75 percent of Pakistanis have an unfavorable view of the US, and 68 percent consider it as “more of a threat.”
The council decried Washington’s bounty on Saeed, calling it “a nefarious attempt” to undermine its drive to safeguard Pakistan’s sovereignty. The Council’s hands have been strengthened by the Parliament’s resolution on 12 April, demanding an end to US drone attacks and hot pursuits by US or NATO troops inside Pakistan.
When the Obama administration and Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani review mutual relations on the basis of the Pakistani Parliament’s resolution, they will find the shadow of Saeed lurking over them. More than the leading representative of militant jihadism in Pakistan, Saeed has come to epitomize street power. Recent episodes in Pakistan show that when it comes to a crunch, street power trumps electoral authority. The US thus faces a formidable foe in Pakistan whose cooperation it badly needs to withdraw from Afghanistan in an orderly and dignified fashion by 2014.
READ MORE

Siachen: Who are we keeping secrets from?

Posted by Admin On 0 comments
MORE than a week after the terrible avalanche at Gayari (in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir) buried nearly 110 Pakistan Army soldiers and another 70-odd civilians, there is no sign of recovery in...


MORE than a week after the terrible avalanche at Gayari (in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir) buried nearly 110 Pakistan Army soldiers and another 70-odd civilians, there is no sign of recovery in spite of Pakistan using every possible effort and even heavy machinery to shift the thousands of tonnes of snow that has settled above the unfortunate victims of nature’s anger. Any and every human being who can visualise the tragedy cannot remain unaffected.
General Kayani’s anguish and palpable helplessness while on a visit to that area was writ large on his face and his words, and in our own helplessness we can only empathise with him and the Pakistan Army. The tragedy, so soon after the major earthquake further south, has once again brought the issue of the “Siachen conflict” to the fore, and the tragedy may still serve the two countries if a solution to it can be found on the basis of fair and established norms.
But the question now has to be raised: Can we look for a solution to this conflict and cooperatively try to maintain a peaceful environment in that region in the hope that natural disasters at least would become less frequent, if not totally eliminated? The obvious answer is yes, especially since the two countries had signed an agreement as far back as July 27, 1949, as to how the cease-fire line is to be drawn in this area; and this agreement has to be only implemented in word and spirit. That agreement, normally called the Karachi Agreement signed by senior military officers from both sides (as a follow-on to the cease-fire agreement), clearly demarcated the Cease-Fire Line (CFL) based on the factual position on the ground as on that day. However, the CFL was demarcated on a one-inch map but only up to what came to be known as Point NJ-9842. The bilateral agreement specifies that the final stages of the CFL would be demarcated up to Khor and “thence north to the glaciers.”
Here we must note the use of plural in mentioning the CFL from this point onward. The CFL was left undemarcated at this point, no doubt, because it was not expected at that time that the high mountains to the north could become a source of conflict. But both governments had agreed that the line would continue to Khor, “thence north to the glaciers.” Incidentally, the CFL (and its successor LoC) runs south to north for nearly 15-km before it stops at NJ-9842. The use of plural in mentioning glaciers clearly indicates that there is more than one glacier in consideration here. A well-established principle and custom of demarcating borders and lines of control in mountainous areas is to follow the high crest separating the two watersheds on either side. This is also why mountain passes usually mark the boundaries.
North of NJ-9842 there are two glaciers: the Siachen Glacier to the east of the high crest and the Baltoro Glacier (where the avalanche took place) to the west of the crest which goes by the name of the Saltoro Ridge. Indian Army posts defending the Siachen Glacier are located on the Saltoro Ridge which forms a natural watershed between the two glaciers; and hence natural and consistent with customary as well as formally defined borders. Logically, therefore, the Saltoro Ridge (which runs south to north before it alters towards the north-west closer to the K-2 mountain) should be defined and demarcated as the mutually acceptable line in terms of the Karachi Agreement.
Unfortunately, Pakistan has not been willing to accept what are well-established principles as well as the substance of the Karachi Agreement it had signed. The nomenclature of the AGPL (Actual Ground Position Line), adopted to give some space to Pakistan, which has told its people that its army is fighting in Siachen (though it is not even at its edge), does not provide any sanctity to the line. In terms of the terminology, the AGPL merely indicates the ground position of the two sides at a particular time with little or no obligation to maintain it at the CFL or LoC. The term was adopted on the request of Pakistan; but perhaps Pakistan did not realise that this would leave the region wide open to any future military deployment by either side since the LoC would not connect to a recognised and accepted border.
The term Siachen is used rather loosely even by people who know better; and so is the term “de-militarisation” which Pakistan has been seeking to adopt since 1948. De-militarisation is not an option unless we are willing to accept the same for the state of J&K! A few days earlier General Pervez Musharraf had claimed that Pakistan’s aggression in Kargil was “tit for tat” for Siachen! He concedes that Pakistan had laid claim to some part of the Siachen Glacier which in his view was “no-man’s land.” This is indeed strange for a former DGMO, Army Chief and President of a country. Perhaps, the brave soldier had never read the Karachi Agreement? But responsible countries and professional armies don’t start a war of aggression merely because the chief “felt very bad.”
If we are to solve the problem in that area, the core issue is to make the map of Saltoro ridge and the location of Indian (and Pakistani) posts public. It is curious that such maps continue to be marked “Secret” even though the only people who know the exact position are the Indian and Pakistan armies along the Saltoro ridge! So, who are we keeping this secret from? Once the maps are made available to the public on both sides and its consistence with the Karachi Agreement re-emphasised, there would, no doubt, be greater acceptance of the reality and the utility of extending the LoC along the Saltoro ridge northward to K-2. Ultimately, this is the only solution to the battle against the elements.
READ MORE

Belligerent Bugti admits smuggling Military Grade Weapons from Afghanistan

Posted by Admin On 0 comments

A politician smuggles landmines and anti-aircraft guns from Afghanistan. His cousin runs a terror group protected by foreign governments. Are politicians and political parties allowed to do this in a...
A politician smuggles landmines and anti-aircraft guns from Afghanistan. His cousin runs a terror group protected by foreign governments. Are politicians and political parties allowed to do this in a democracy or is it time to correct these flawed practices in Pakistan?
A video has surfaced that shows politician Shahzain Bugti telling the police he smuggled sophisticated military-grade weapons into Pakistan hours after misleading the media by saying the weapons were planted in his convoy.
The video was recorded by cellphone at around noon on Dec. 22, 2011.  Bugti is shown sitting on a sofa in what appears to be the office of a police official, telling the men in the room he did smuggle the weapons, including anti-aircraft guns and landmines. He also admits he lied to the media, claiming the weapons were planted in his convoy that traveled from the Afghan border to the outskirts of the provincial capital Quetta where Bugti was caught.
The video was filmed a few hours after Bugti was arrested at dawn, around 0430 hours, trying to smuggle lethal weapons in a convoy of sixteen cars. Tipped off by Pakistani intelligence, the Frontier Corp stopped Bugti’s convoy at Quetta’s entrance. The FC, treating Bugti with respect as a politician, negotiated with him for three hours to grant permission to check the convoy. Finally, the police and FC searched the cars and netted a dazzling list of weapons.
The weapons included:
50 Sub Machine Guns [SMGs]
4 Light Machine Guns [LMGs]
2 12.7mm Anti-Aircraft guns [See here]
2 14.2 mm Anti-Aircraft guns
1 SPG-9 [See details here]
1 9mm pistol
1 AUG assault rifle [See here]
46,000 rounds of SMG
1,600 rounds of 12.7/14.5
570 rounds of AUG
880 rounds of sniper rifle
39 rounds of 9mm pistol
17 mobile phones
Landmines
Explosives
Anti-personnel landmines
16 vehicles
Shahzain is the son of Tala Bugti, the chairman of the Jamhooro Watan Party, or JWP, and a grandson of Akbar Bugti.
Akbar launched an armed rebellion against the state in January 2005, unleashing a private army laced with sophisticated weapons smuggled from Afghanistan. He committed suicide in late 2006 inside a cave to avoid capture by soldiers who came to arrest him. He is known to have worked with the intelligence services of three countries operating in Afghanistan to help break Balochistan away from the rest of the country.
For this purpose, Bugti and his foreign backers revived a terror group called BLA, or Balochistan Liberation Army. The terror outfit was first created by India and the Soviet Union in the 1970s to carry out bombings in Pakistan.  The group was re-launched after the United States landed in Afghanistan as a joint operation involving Indians, the CIA and Afghan warlords.
The BLA is led by Brahamdagh Bugti, Akbar’s grandson and Shazain’s cousin, who has been hiding in Kabul for several years, protected by CIA and Afghan intelligence.
Brahamdagh’s cover was blown in early 2009 after his terror group kidnapped a UN official in Quetta who turned out to be a US citizen.
Several local Baloch supporters of Brahamdagh broke away from their boss and cooperated with Pakistani authorities in blowing his cover. [The episode was an embarrassment for CIA and opened the eyes of other parts of US government to what their main spy agency was doing in Afghanistan.]
Instead of handing him over to Pakistani authorities, the CIA negotiated an asylum deal for Brahamdagh in Switzerland, to keep him there as a tool to blackmail Pakistan.
In March 2012, Pakistan has warned Britain and Switzerland over their roles in supporting terror in Pakistan by giving asylum to BLA terror chiefs who orchestrate bombings that kill innocent citizens.
Unfortunately, the Balochistan High Court released Shahzain Bugti in January despite the huge cache of weapons that indicate Shahzain’s intent to wage war against his country and people in cohorts with foreign powers in Afghanistan. But the Supreme Court intervened and cancelled his bail on April 4. Despite this, Shahzain refused to appear before the court. The court waited for him for three weeks before finally issuing his arrest warrant over the weekend.
The case raises serious questions about federal government’s practice of giving tribal chiefs like Shahzain and his family millions of dollars of gas royalties instead of directly spending them on the impoverished people of the province. Tribal chiefs like Shahzain spend the money on building private properties abroad and recruiting and arming private armies that indulge in abduction of businessmen for ransom and killing citizens.
The case also raises questions about the involvement of almost all Pakistani political parties in creating and running private armies, in direct violation of the Political Parties Act and the laws. The State is yet to ban or disarm any of these parties.
Pakistani investigators should probe the role of BLA and its secret supporters like Shahzain Bugti in smuggling advanced weapons from Afghanistan to Karachi, where three armed ‘political parties’ are holding the country’s business hub hostage for years.
READ MORE