SPY EYES

By Tony Cartalucci
BLN Contributing Writer

Blatant lies told by alleged "human rights activists" led to ignominious NATO-sanctioned brutality and ultimately brought BP, Shell, Total-sponsored Petroleum Institute representative, Abdurrahim el-Keib, into power in Libya. Now, these same corporate-financier interests, through their same networks of propaganda, duplicity and deception, are laying the ground work for a repeat performance in Syria.

It was just recently revealed that the UN Human Rights Council report regarding Syrian "crimes against humanity" was actually co-authored by Karen Koning AbuZayd, a director of the US Washington-based corporate think-tank, Middle East Policy Council, that includes Exxon men, CIA agents, US military and government representatives, and even the president of the US-Qatar Business Council, which includes amongst its membership, AlJazeera, Chevron, Exxon, munitions manufacturer Raytheon (who supplied the opening salvos during NATO's operations against Libya), and Boeing. The conflict of interest is so monumental it is only outdone by the corporate media's eager acceptance of the report and their complete negligence in airing the compromised backgrounds of those responsible for compiling it.

The UN report itself (.pdf) contained no verifiable evidence, but rather hearsay accounts recorded in Geneva by alleged "victims" "witnesses," and "defectors," put forth by "all interested persons and organizations." In other words, it was an open invitation for Syria's enemies to paint whatever image of the ruling government they pleased. While critics claim this is due to the Syrian government's lack of cooperation with the UN, it is more likely that the UN itself, with a proven track record of doing so in Iraq, the Ivory Coast, and most recently Libya, is merely complicit in providing "window dressing" for Wall Street and London's otherwise naked military conquests.

How to Start the War 

And it is through this purposefully distorted lens that calls for military intervention are being made. After months of denying the opposition was armed, the Wall Street-funded think-tank Council on Foreign Relations now openly claims that not only are the "protesters" armed, but there is a resistance army of "15,000." The CFR claims this "Free Syrian Army" is requesting weapons and air support. It has already been revealed that weapons are freely flowing over Syria's borders from foreign-supporters, most notably, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, and now even as far as Libya. The CFR report then goes on to explore the options available to NATO for facilitating "regime change" including the use of "overhead surveillance assets, logistical enablers, peacekeepers, armed drones, combat aircraft, ground troops," and "smuggled weapons."

Of course the number of Syrian defectors are as baseless as the UN human rights report. However, even the claim of a large, armed militant force operating inside of Syria directly contradicts the West's concurrent narrative that Syria's military is running rampant over defenseless civilians. With an army of "15,000 defectors" attempting to seize the nation by force with the help of foreign money, weapons, and diplomatic support, one finds it difficult to believe the Syrian government would instead be spending its time "massacring civilians." Just as in Libya, or any number of nations where foreign-backed "revolutions" have been attempted or achieved, Western-enabled violence is always a predetermined part of the equation, fully provisioned ahead of time with the subsequent violence cloaked behind tales of one-sided brutality aimed at the targeted regime.

As mentioned in the corporate-funded Brookings Institution report "Which Path to Persia?" the inclusion of covert armed support for US-backed protests is not just an option, but a necessity when carrying out such operations within a nation possessing competent security forces.

BEIJING - China's first aircraft carrier began its second sea trial on Nov. 29 after undergoing refurbishments and testing, the government said, as tensions over maritime territorial disputes in the region ran high.

The 300-meter (990-foot) ship, a refitted former Soviet carrier called the Varyag, underwent five days of trials in August that sparked international concern about China's widening naval reach.

"China's aircraft carrier platform, after successfully completing its first sea trial in August, returned to the shipyard as planned for further refitting and testing," the defense ministry said in a brief statement.

"The work has been carried out and it set sail again on November 29 to carry out relevant scientific and research experiments."

Beijing only confirmed this year that it was revamping the old Soviet ship and has repeatedly insisted that the carrier poses no threat to its neighbors and will be used mainly for training and research purposes.

But the August sea trials were met with concern from regional powers including Japan and the United States, which called on Beijing to explain why it needs an aircraft carrier.

The Nov. 29 announcement comes against a background of heightened tensions over maritime disputes in the Asia-Pacific region, where China's growing assertiveness has put it on collision course with the United States.

President Barack Obama this month irritated Beijing with a drive to enhance the U.S. role as a regional power, positioning Marines in northern Australia and pushing for a potentially transformational trans-Pacific trade pact.

Beijing sees the initiatives as intruding into its own sphere of influence, with the dispute over the South China Sea putting the two major world powers' differences into stark focus.

China claims all of the strategic area, as does Taiwan, while four Southeast Asian countries declare ownership of parts of it, with Vietnam and the Philippines accusing Beijing's forces of increasing aggression there.

The region is a conduit for more than one-third of the world's seaborne trade and half its traffic in oil and gas, and major petroleum deposits are believed to lie below the seabed.

The announcement of the carrier's second sea trial comes after Beijing said last week it would conduct "routine" naval exercises in the Pacific Ocean before the end of November.

China reportedly bought the carrier's immense armored hull - with no engine, electrics or propeller - from Ukraine in 1998.

The PLA - the world's largest active military - is extremely secretive about its defense programs, which benefit from a huge and expanding military budget boosted by the nation's runaway economic growth.

Earlier this year, China announced military spending would rise 12.7 percent to 601.1 billion yuan ($91.7 billion) in 2011.

Mahboob A. Khawaja, Ph.D.

__________________________________________________________________

When George Bush called General Musharaf at midnight a day after the 9/11 attacks, he spelled out the doctrine – “either you are with us or against us.” The Pakistani self-appointed President and military dictator had no sense of the time and history to THINK what scenario he was tackling to act or react. As most dictators do, they align themselves with any possibility to reinforce their self- interest and self- survival. This was the opportunity that Commander Bush enticed the four stars Pakistani General and dictator to accept and act right away.  General Collin Powell, the then US Secretary of State confirmed the Bush call to Musharaf in many discussions. If Musharaf had imagination and intellectual foresight and knew possible consequences of his disastrous action, he should have consulted with the Pakistani intelligentsia, political leaders and the public before declaring war on the self, the then Afghan Government and the people of Afghanistan. Bush offered him money and so called friendship to further the American interests and war strategy in Asia. The facts of the bogus war on terrorism cannot be denied nor modified that it was one-way war on the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Both nations would suffer for centuries to come. Michael Payne (“America: The World's Master of Double Standards: OpenEdNews: 7/10/2010), offers the context:

“It's really a monumental job that we have to keep all these nations under some kind of semblance of control and compliance; but, then again, someone has to do it and we are the best qualified for the job. That's why we have established the set rules that we expect the rest of the world to follow.”

Does the US war strategy require other nations (willingly or otherwise) to follow the American policy lead of war against all? Stephen Lendman (“America's Permanent War Agenda” 3/01/2010), an American political intellectual and a man of universal conscience puts the history in one nutshell:

“America glorifies wars in the name of peace, what historian Charles Beard (1874 – 1948) called "perpetual war for perpetual peace" in describing the Roosevelt and Truman administrations' foreign policies – what concerned the Federation of American Scientists when it catalogued about 200 post-1945 conflicts in which America was, and still is, the aggressor”

The US and Britain had no rational purpose to be fighting against the poverty-stricken and destitute people of Afghanistan and Iraq. The Afghans and Iraqi people never posed any political threats or military challenge to the security and sovereignty of the US or Britain. Wars are the outcome of naïve, egoistic and corrupt mindset representing minority ruling elite, irresponsible to consequences on human society and are planned, financed and fought by governments, not by groups or ordinary people. Wars are based on political agendas and they long for complete control over resources, people and territory. Michael Payne (“America: The World's Master of Double Standards: OpenEdNews: 7/10/2010), helps us to THINK what could be an unthinkable behavior of the US administration:

“Some cynic might ask, why is it if we have invaded and occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, and are making incursions into Pakistan, that these other nations such as Russia could not, under any circumstances no matter what the reason, invade other nations? The answer is very simple because that's the rule that we have put in place; we have the right to do it but others do not. It's because we say so. If it's a double standard, well so what? If some nations don't like it, just what are they going to do about it?”

Most wars would have multiple reasons, domestic, foreign and global outreach. The American led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are fought to maintain the US domination worldwide, to occupy the untapped natural resources of the Middle East in particular the oil and

 gas, and to protect the value of American dollar as a stable international reserve currency. In September 2000, the proactive policy paper written by the neoconservative intellectuals to envision “the Project for the New American Century (PNAC): sets out the milestone seeking American domination over the rest of the world powers and to meet its energies needs plans to occupy by force all the oil resources in the Arab Middle East. The blueprint supports military occupation of the oil exporting Arab countries and regime change where it is necessary to fulfill the policy aims of the New American Century of global domination. Centuries ago, German historian Carl Von Clausewitz wrote On War: “War is not merely a political act but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.” The small ruling elite who plans and wages war are often afraid of citizenry reaction and refusal to accept the so called antidote for the rationality of a war. Throughout the history European nationalism institutionalized the doctrine of war as a necessity to promote national interest and racial superiority over other by using war as a means to that end. Most proponents of wars have used “fear” as one of the major instruments of propaganda and manipulation to perpetuate allegiance from the ordinary folks to the elite warmongers in a crisis situation. Sheldon Richman (“War is Government Program” ICS, 05/2007), notes that “war is more dangerous than other government programs and  not just for the obvious reason – mass murder….war is useful  in  keeping the population in a state of fear and therefore trustful of their rulers.”

Ordinary citizens do not have passion for war as it disturbs the safe and secure, and destroys the living habitats. The ruling elite, the actual warmongers force people to think in their extreme terms of hatred and rejection of others so that people would be forced to align with the rulers to support and finance the war efforts. Sheldon Richman describes how Herman Goering, one of Hitler’s Minister understood the discourse of war making:

Paul Craig Roberts (“The Collapse of America Power”: ICS, 03/2008), attempts to explain how the British Empire had collapsed once its financial assets were depleted because of the 2^ndWorld War debts. Correlli Barnett (The Collapse of British Power, 1972) states that at the beginning of the WW2, Britain had limited gold and foreign exchange to meet the pressing demands of the war. The British Government asked America to help finance their sustainability to continue the war. Thus, ‘this dependency signaled the end of British power.’ For its draconian wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is heavily dependent on China, Japan and Saudi Arabia. It is well known that American treasury (bankrupt – 14 trillion dollars deficit that cannot be fixed) owes trillion of dollars to its foreign debtors and therefore, its financial dependency is increasingly becoming an obvious indicator of the end of American global hegemony and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now the US financial system  have broken down and some of the leading banking institutions have gone into declaring the bankruptcy the roller coaster repercussion could be seen across the American economic,  social and political spectrum of life. Under the Bush administration, America has shrinked its capability and vitality of role and in fact appears dismantled as a superpower status in global affairs. It is no wonder that other nations of world do not seem to take America and its traditional influential stratum in any serious context. Paul Craig Roberts (The Collapse of American Power”) refers to Noam Chomsky stating that under the neoconservative Bush Presidency, “America thinks that it owns the world.” But the fact of the matter is, explains Paul Craig Roberts, “that the US owes the world. The US ”superpower” cannot even finance its own domestic operations, much less its gratuitous wars except via the kindness of foreigners to lend it money that cannot be repaid.” It is undeniable that the US is “bankrupt” because of the on-going wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. David M. Walker Comptroller General of the US and Head of the Government Accountability Office (December 2007). reports that “In everyday language, the US Government cannot pass an audit.”

Chris Floyd (Darkness Renewed: Terror as Tool of Empire”), elaborates the warmongering mentality of the US policy makers: You goad and provoke violent extremist groups into retaliating against your attacks, your civilian-slaughtering invasions and incursions into their territory. Being unable to confront directly your war machine – the largest, most advanced military force in the history of the world, sustained by a tsunami of public money that each year surpasses the military spending of the rest of the world – they naturally respond with "asymmetrical" operations. At first, these are directed at nearby targets: your supply lines, the forces of your local proxies and allies, and other chaos-inducing depredations in the groups' own regions, designed to foul the lines of your control and drive you out. Just as naturally, you use these attacks to justify an even greater military presence in their regions. The cycle inevitably, inexorably ratchets upwards and outwards, until at last the extremists strike at your homeland – either with your connivance, or your covert acquiescence, or, in any event, with your foreknowledge that such an attack was sure to come. This is the moment you have waited for; this is exactly what you wanted. Now you can whip the herd back into a martial frenzy, keep the Long War going, and push aside the rabble's petty, small-minded desires for a peaceful, prosperous life at home, minding their own business.”

Michel Meacher, British Environment Minister under former Prime Minister Tony Blair (“This War on Terrorism is Bogus”) provides most credible insight on the real reasons for the “War on Terrorism.” He explains that the war on terror is bogus as “the 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination.” He further records that “the so called “war on terrorism” is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives…..in fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11.” In its report prepared by the Baker Institute of Public Policy (April 2001), it stated clearly that “the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to….the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East” and it its recommendations elaborated the dire need that because it was a challenging risk therefore, the “US military intervention” was the most favored action (Sunday Herald: Oct 6, 2002).  

Both the US and United Kingdom have increasing dependence on imported oil from the Middle East. The overriding motivation for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are shielded by political smokescreen that the US and UK will run out of sufficient hydrocarbon energy supplies whereas, the Arab and Muslim world would control almost 60% of the world oil  producing capacity and perhaps more significantly 95% of the remaining global oil production capacity. The news media reports indicate that the US is predicted to produce only 39% of the domestic oil production in 2010, whereas in 1990 it produced 57% of its total oil consumption. The UK Government projects ”severe” gas shortages by 2005 and it confirmed that 70% of the electricity will drawn from gas and 90% of gas will be imported. It is interesting to note that Iraq is said to have 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its approximately 15-20 % of the world oil reserves. In another research report by the Commission on America’s National Interests (July 2000), it observed that the most promising new energy resources are found in the Caspian Sea, Central Asian region and it would spare the US exclusive dependence on the Saudi Arabian oil imports. The report outlined the feasible routes for the Caspian Seas oil deliveries, one hydrocarbon pipeline via Azerbaijan and Georgia and another pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan would ensure the future strategic demands of the US government. To review the documentary evidence of the 9/11 events, it is not unlikely that many strategists have seen the American Government failure to avert the 9/11 terrorist attacks as facilitating a much needed stage drama for its policy aims and an invaluable opportunity to attack Iraq and Afghanistan – a military intervention already been well planned in early 2000. The PNAC policy blueprint of September 2000 projects the transformation of the American power as an unchallengeable global superpower and the need for some tangible tragedy to make it happen. The paper outlines that it “is likely to be a long one in the absence of of some catastrophic and catalyzing event- like a new Pearl Harbor.”  In his analytical view, Minister Michael Meacher (“This War on terrorism is Bogus”) states that “global war on terrorism” has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave way for a wholly different agenda-the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command and over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project.”

Under President Barrack Obama, the global community waited anxiously how and when the promised change will come to America’s failed entanglement in Iraq and Afghanistan. How soon will President Obama be able to put the body of US politics together again after its moral, political and financial collapse? Obama secured Nobel Peace in anticipation of his proactive promise to end the illegal and immoral hostilities against the Muslim world. If the facts of life speak their language, Obama betrayed the rational expectations of the global community in restoring peace and order to American broken image and political ruins.  America and Britain appear lost, not knowing how to come out of the self-engineered defeat in wars against Islam and the humanity.  The Masses in Iraq and Afghanistan have sympathies with the true believers and the Muslim freedom fighters appear to have lost nothing. They had no banks to declare bankruptcy, they had no mansions to be destroyed and they had no Bush, Cheney and Blair to be declared as War criminals against the mankind. What an irony , given all the material powers and advanced weaponry, the US and Britain could not override a handful of freedom fighters (mujihadeens) encountering the world’s most trained cruel armies just with traditional weapons and will power. They remain in tact and active on all the fronts even buying weapons from the US and Russia to fight against them. American strategists know well to do business in global arms market. The so called superpowers are extremely nervous not knowing how soon they could be replaced by smaller nations of the developing world.

In recent days, the US and its paid  and some coerced allies are doing the lip service and staging warmongering-like preparations against Iran on its nuclear development program. The global community is fully aware that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, yet it will not open up its facilities to IAEA visit and inspection. Whereas, Iran has cooperated and allowed IAEA expert visits to see the suspected sites and they found no evidence of any bomb making capability over there. Michael Payne shares his critical concerns and reflects on the American duplicity :

“Israel continues to accuse Iran of covertly building a nuclear weapon and has threatened to bomb the suspected nuclear facilities numerous times. It insists that Iran has no right to nuclear weapons because that would pose great danger to the Middle East. So, we have to conclude that it is perfectly okay for Israel to have nuclear capability but Iran, who insists that it is only developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes, must immediately suspend its programs. It's the old double standard once again; Israel can do anything it wants in the Middle East but Iran and other nations cannot, thus taking hypocrisy to new heights.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is an international organization that seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to inhibit its use for any military purpose. Acting as an agency of the UN, it has inspected Iran's nuclear program and facilities for years and has found no concrete evidence of any nuclear weapons development.”

The wars spread hatred, social and political disorder and do not help any nation to solve any problems but create more aimed at depriving the future generations from time and opportunities to live in peace and harmony. When something loses its vitality, purpose and direction, it ends-up in self-defeat and piles of garbage. The US-British strategic policy makers do not have the right kind of weapons to fight against Islam and God.  They appear to miss the historical conclusion that those who cross-over the limits of REASON and global responsibility, do end–up in self-geared failures and disasters. Both are trapped in self-generated illusions and are fighting against their own interest and survival.  The US and British political leaders waging the continued global warfare, have no idea nor rational THINKING and leadership abilities to conduct wars or to know the prevalent realities of fighting on a war front. They run and manage political horses and appear to be engaged in pursuing their egoistic ambitions to rule the mankind, not to protect its well being and survival interests and priorities. America and its allies need a Navigational Change. One would imagine, if the US and British policy makers had any rational understanding of fighting in a distant land without knowing the enemy and without having a logical basis for the wars, they would have cautioned the leaders and prevented them from historical repetition of disgraced failure.

Pakistani paid agents of influence – the rulers including the Generals NEED to see the mirror. Who does not know the double standard pitched in by Zardari and the General Kiyani on the Raymond Davis case and his final freedom against the killing of two Pakistani young men at Lahore. Few months earlier, the US media reported that Raymond Davis was arrested and charged with two counts of attempted attack to kill civilians in Colorado and Washington. The issue of his killing of two Pakistanis was referred to in the US court. Raymond Davis claimed, he acted in self defense as he was operating in a “War Zone.” The prosecutor clarified that “Lahore” (Pakistan) was not in a war zone but that the war was going on in neighboring Afghanistan. Raymond Davis again justified and contended that “Lahore” is located in a “War Zone.”  Should the people of Pakistan not question the sadistic and treacherous rulers (Zardari and General Kiyani) and demand an answer if in fact Lahore is located in a “war zone” of which the Pakistani masses have no idea except their traitor rulers who helped Raymond Davis to escape the normal course of legal justice in Pakistan.

Ostensibly, the US Obama administration is looking for a fast track convenient opportunity to dispel the obvious military defeat in their cruel pursuits. The facts on the ground unmask the inherent treachery and folly abundantly clear that Obama is directing expansions of the wars into Pakistan and Iran. A usual, the Western news media once again developing the people’s psyche to accept whatever Obama and the British would claim to be the threats are. The forthcoming Presidential elections in America would help Obama if he could enlarge the scope of number games and claim credits for destroying the nuclear establishments of Pakistan and Iran. The political killing of Ben Laden has already uplifted his standing better than other candidates in the US election game. These masters of cruelty and deception would create an unusual situation or crisis that would warrant immediate action and the world would know its occurrence only after the facts. The other day, US led midnight surprise attack on a Pakistan tribal post killed 26 sleeping soldiers. The planners expect reaction and retaliation from the paid mercenaries of the Pakistani elite armed forces. This will give the US opportunity ad abilities to move deep inside Pakistan and finish the remaining lifelines of the Pakistani defense and nuclear installations.  Pakistan’s well bribed and bought political rulers – Zardari, Geelani, Malik and the Generals are not only complacent but terribly naïve and stupid too. They are under the direct dictates and commands of the US military establishments. The masses across Pakistan are up in arms denouncing the perpetrators of the bogus war on terrorism. They are competing in shouting matches against Obama and the CIA run drone attacks on the civilian populations. What they do not realize that Obama or the CIA did not go to Pakistan for this entanglement except for the dictator Musharaf, and now Zardari, and the Generals are the real culprits – rulers who betrayed Pakistan and offered the territory and facilities to the US intransigence and terrorism of wars. They should be forced to resign and be held accountable in a public court of law- indeed for their treachery and treason to the interest of the people of Pakistan. It all depends, those protesting if they are sincere and are not paid protesters to manage the emotional outbursts and then back to business as usual.  Pakistani masses must act and behave rationally knowing and understanding the facts of human affairs – who are their real enemies – the traitors are inside, not in America. America’s friendship is hard to be defined as most often it comes with secret strings attached that public does not know. They should knock at the doors of Zardari and Kiyani and demand responsible answers.

Gabriel Kolko (Another Century of War), stressed how “America contributes to much of the world's disorder through its interventions and as the world's largest arms producer and exporter. Post-WW II, the US became a global menace, today claiming "terrorism" as the main threat – a bogus fiction to justify militarism, perpetual wars heading the nation for moral, political and economic bankruptcy.”

American historian Harry Elmer Barnes "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: A Critical Examination of the Foreign Policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and It's Aftermath" ) offered this stern warning if the US led wars continue leading to man’s annihilation from this planet:

"If trends continue as they have during the last fifteen years, we shall soon reach this point of no return, and can only anticipate interminable wars, disguised as noble gestures for peace. Such an era could only culminate in a third world war which might well, as Arnold J. Toynbee has suggested, leave only the pygmies in remote jungles, or even the apes and ants, to carry on 'the cultural traditions' of mankind."

America's Illegal Wars of Aggression – The "Supreme Crime" Stephen Lendman shares undisputed insights to Obama administration continued intransigence:

”All US post-WW II conflicts were premeditated wars of aggression against nations posing no threat to America ……..James Petras and others have said behind every imperial war is a great lie, the more often repeated the more likely to be believed because ordinary people want peace, not conflict, so it's vital to convince them………..

Besides the Afghan escalation, he's also destabilizing Pakistan to balkanize both countries, weakening them to control the Caspian Sea's oil and gas riches and their energy routes to secured ports for export………Like George Bush, Obama plans permanent war and more military spending than all other nations combined at a time America has no enemies. He promised change and betrayed us. Grassroots activism must stop this madness and make America a nation again to be proud of. The alternative is too grim to imagine.”

Courtesy: Opinion Maker

By Meinhaj Hussain, m.hussain@grandestrategy.com

Bismillah ar-rahman ar-raheem. Midnight, on the 26th of November, a Pakistan Army post, manned by soldiers from the Azad Kashmir Regiment, detected movement in a valley below and adjacent to their check-post. The checkpoint is 2 km inside Pakistani territory and located on high ground. After identifying the movement as armed individuals via night vision devices, spot light and flares, the soldiers opened fire. Shortly, they came under attack of an AH-64 Apache helicopter, resulting in the loss of 19 lives.

Gleaning from the ISAF press release, it seems that these unidentified individuals were US soldiers infiltrating well into Pakistani territory, without any prior notice to Pakistani counterparts. Furthermore, there is no official operation indicated by the occupation forces, so this was likely a classified operation. The Pakistanis have given coordinates of all Pakistani posts / bases in the region and, given the GPS and other navigation devices available to NATO, it is impossible that the occupation forces did not know that they were: 1) inside Pakistani territory and 2) where this base was located.

This leads to the conclusion that at some point in the past, the US military has received permission to expand the war into Pakistan and to "increase the heat temperature" so to speak.

Continuing with our narrative, the attacked troops called regional command for help, and a quick reaction force was send to aid them. These were then attacked by A-10s of the occupation forces. The battle lasted for at least an hour and resulted in the death of not only the Pakistani forces engaged but also those asleep in the compound. Total death toll stands at 24-28.

Given that the battle lasted that long and that US forces have both coordinates and high tech equipment to note their position, and being aware of the location of the Pakistani base 2km inside Pakistani territory, the attack is obviously deliberate. Given both that the A-10s, which are USAF assets and AH-64s (Army / Marine) assets were involved, this was a predetermined operation aimed, coldly calculated to have specific objects.

An educated guess of those objectives are as follows. The United States want to destabilize Pakistan or to directly confront her. Their supply is well stocked for the winter and they have developed alternative routes to Afghanistan. They now wish to create political space to go into Pakistan. A destabilized Pakistan would allow them this opportunity.

At present, the mood within the Pakistan Army, particularly junior / mid-tier officer ranks would lend credence to the possibility that the US may have achieved its objective. What the rank and file want is a punitive punishment of the US. Kayani cannot accomplish this without losing military procurements and showing that the political establishment has no effective power. On the other hand, if he does not react appropriately, he loses face with his men who are on the verge of a mutiny. This is thus a lose-lose situation for Pakistan and a win-win scenario for the US.

Any Pakistanis reading this would be sincerely advised to calm down, there will be enough time to return the favor to the Americans, insh'Allah. Do not act in haste, do not lose your discipline. Actions should not be taken in haste, calm down, relax. We shall deal with them insh'Allah in a time and location of our choosing and not theirs.