Pakistan 'set for emergency rule'

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf is poised to impose emergency rule, private TV channels reported, shortly before going off air.

Private channels Geo News and Dawn News both quoted unnamed sources as saying the government had made up its mind.

Speculation has been mounting that Gen Musharraf might impose emergency rule.

He is awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on whether he is eligible to run for re-election last month while remaining army chief.

The BBC's Barbara Plett reports from Islamabad that there are fears in the government that the Supreme Court ruling could go against Gen Musharraf.

Pakistan has been engulfed in political upheaval in recent months, at the same time as the security forces have suffered a series of blows from pro-Taleban militants opposed to Gen Musharraf's support for the US-led "war on terror".

-----------------

Gus: see toon at the beginning of this line of stuff... 

Why Not Dissolve Pakistan, Too?

Pakistan is not a country. It is a failed British fantasy about the fabrication of a nation-state. It has other failed and failing peers in the Middle East, all fabricated during the 20th century. It is time to seriously review all of these structures and redraw the borderlines.

Pakistan was a phrase coined for an idealistic confederation of five Muslim provinces within the old British-controlled India (Punjab, Northwest Frontier Province or Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh and Baluchistan). However, these are tribal lands with distinct traditions and have very little in common. These provinces were all knocked together, on presumption of a common religion, and a “dominion” was fabricated within the Commonwealth with self-governance authority akin to independence after World War II. It was all part of the post-war fire sale of territorial control of Britain. The ill-conceived plan even set up a separate territory of East Bengal as East Pakistan, a subcontinent away, with the rough-and-ready argument of common religious beliefs and a majority Muslim population. East Pakistan eventually became independent and renamed itself Bangladesh.

------------------

Gus: Hey! That's not the way to treat a country as old and as cobbled together as Israel! And a country that plays cricket! And a failed British fantasy about the fabrication of a nation-state that has got nukes! Easy... easy... see toon blah blah...

West faces new Pakistan dilemma
By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website
The declaration of emergency rule in Pakistan by President Pervez Musharraf is an embarrassment for the US and British governments, which had been urging him not to take this step.

Both have condemned it. The question now is whether they will have to live with it.

Their hopes of forging an alliance of convenience between General Musharraf and the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto - leading to elections in January - have come to a halt and look like coming to an end.

They are faced with the dilemma of how far to work with the general, while at the same time condemning what he has done.

-----------

Gus: as if we didn't protest at General Musharraf being invited to Ausslieland by our own Porkyist in Chief, Rattus of Kirribilli...

Despotskan's Dictator President will fly into Porkieland today. A memorandum of overstating terrorism will be signed between two tin-pots or two US lackeys whichever comes first. Prime Minister Absolut Johnnee says they will also discuss prospects for cooperation between Porkieland and Despotskan in the field of mung beans. Johnnee also wants to talk about a formal partnership between the Porkieland Securities and Investments Commission (PSIC) and its Despotskan counterpart if it has any.

The cartoon at the head of this of stuff was posted just before Musharraf little tantrum — or even any mention of it. Uncanny... One could smell something in the air.

US reviews aid to Pakistan

The US says it is reviewing billions of dollars of financial aid to Pakistan after President Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency, thwarting US hopes of a transition to civilian-led democracy.

Pakistani police have been rounding up hundreds of people after General Musharraf defied US pressure and widespread domestic opposition by imposing the state of emergency.

"Obviously we are going to have to review the situation with aid, in part because we have to see what may be triggered by certain statutes," said US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who had advised against emergency rule in two phone calls to Gen Musharraf on October 31.

Washington has given Islamabad, a major ally in its battle against Al Qaeda, around $US10 billion ($10.84 billion) over the last five years.

Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said national elections, due in January, might be delayed by "up to a year", but declined to say how long the emergency would last. Between 400 and 500 people were being detained, he added.

--------------------

Gus: things do not happen higgledy-piggledy... The latest... "Their [the US and the UK's] hopes of forging an alliance of convenience between General Musharraf and the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto - leading to elections in January" shows the US is involved deep in forcing Pakistan towards "democracy"... Musharraf, like Saddam did, knows that democratic elections are likely to lead Pakistan into the hands of Muslim hardliners and extremists (Saddam knew it in Iraq, the US knew that in Iraq)... Thus the kettle is at boiling point. The US should have seen this coming. They have sniffers. People on the ground who work for the secret service and can pass on the temperature or the political weather predictions. Thus they knew it was coming... Having supported Musharraf for so long, the US can make lotsa noises about "democracy" knowing damn well that it's a risky move... The choice is hard: A crazy tinpot or a hard-line "democracy"? And they have nukes...

Break Pakistan into several bits and exterminate the extremists' bits? I'm sure some neo-cons would be thinking this... But they'd have to know it'd be very risky too... More dangerous than anything else... Too much "blending" in the soup...

At the moment, the US can only let things go their merry way, try to smooth the waters a bit and make a few remarks of displeasure...

Unless an unhappy general in the tinpot's army decides to remove the tinpot, etc...

U.S. Is Likely to Continue Aid to Pakistan
By DAVID E. SANGER and DAVID ROHDE
Published: November 5, 2007

WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 — The Bush administration signaled Sunday that it would probably continue to keep billions of dollars flowing to Pakistan’s military, despite the detention of human rights advocates and leaders of the political opposition by Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the country’s president.

In carefully calibrated public statements and blunter private acknowledgments about the limits of American leverage over General Musharraf, the man President Bush has called one of his most critical allies, the officials argued that it would be counterproductive to let Pakistan’s political turmoil interfere with their best hope of ousting Al Qaeda’s central leadership and the Taliban from the country’s mountainous tribal areas.

-----------------------

"Tinpots are more useful than democracy..." indicates Mr Bushit... "We'll give more weapons to this Pakistani tinpot... so we can make sure the only people left in the world as those who loves us..."

Asma Jahangir: Musharraf has lost his marbles and is targeting progressives Published: 05 November 2007

The situation in the country is uncertain. There is a strong crackdown on the press and lawyers. A majority of the judges of the Supreme Court and four judges of the High Court have not taken their oaths. The Chief Justice is under house arrest (unofficially). The president of the Supreme Court Bar, Aitzaz Ahsan, and two former presidents, Mr Muneer Malik and Tariq Mahmood have been imprisoned for one month under the preventive detention laws.

 ....

Ironically the President (who has lost his marbles) said that he had to clamp down on the press and the judiciary to curb terrorism. Those he has arrested are progressive, secular-minded people while the terrorists are offered negotiations and ceasefires.

-------

Gus: As I wrote in the blog above: "Musharraf, like Saddam did, knows that democratic elections are likely to lead Pakistan into the hands of Muslim hardliners and extremists (Saddam knew it in Iraq, the US knew that in Iraq)... Thus the kettle is at boiling point. The US should have seen this coming."

What I will add is this: Musharraf is a middle-of-the-road-hardliner tinpot. He knows most of the trouble will come from the numerous extremists breeding in Pakistan. Thus should there be elections — even if the "secular-minded progressive people" win — there could be massive unrest and lots more troubles... leading to army intervention etc... Back to where he started plus more troubles. Thus, by madly controlling what is uncontrollable, Musharraf is dividing his country more than ever. He's chosen the easiest way — dealing with the upsurge of people power: clamp it. The progressives want democracy, are somewhat restless but aggressively weak... The extremists want theocracy, are armed and ready to fight to the death for their beliefs... For Mr Moosh, clamping down on the real extremists would be a lot harder and dicey... Mr Moosh thus hits the easy target to look like a tough general... preventing these easy targets become fodder to the extremists in a 'democracy", plunging Pakistan into a Muslim totalitarian state... Or is it the reverse?

Yes, Mr Moosh uses the reverse psychological hit-on-the-head trick. But he's planning to ease up and let the elections go ahead anyway... So he does not make sense anymore... Under pressure from the West, he's lost the plot but he still want to be a tinpot... Ah, the Shakespearean curried dilemma...

Unfortunately, Pakistan is in for a rough ride... But Mr Musharraf may be right... Despite our Clowner and Johnnee "demanding" he stops the clamp down, Mr Moosh knows it's not as simple as that... Our Clowner and our Johnnee may know that too but they want to appear on the good side of "democracy", although our Johnnee did not have any qualms shaking hand with the despot tinpot...

Get rid of John Howard. 

Mobile phones cut in Islamabad as judge addresses lawyers

Mobile phones went dead in the Pakistani capital Islamabad as the country's sacked chief justice addressed a meeting of lawyers by telephone, witnesses said.

Top judge Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who was ousted by President Pervez Musharraf after the declaration of a state of emergency, urged lawyers to hold protests in a speech also broadcast on private television.

After a few minutes the line that the judge was speaking over was cut and mobile phones in the capital went dead, AFP correspondents and witnesses said.

Musharraf's a dictator, says Downer

November 7, 2007

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is a dictator, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says.

"He's certainly by certain standards ... a dictator," Mr Downer told ABC TV.

----------------

Welcome to the circus, Mr Clowner... Nice to see you opening doors that are already opened. Great platitude in hindsight! Fantastic footwork! but oh why did you and our Rattus-in-charge bring the red carpet for "dictator" Musharraf, a few years ago?...

And what are these "certain standards"? Red nose, long shoes and a clown suit?

Those Nuclear Flashpoints Are Made in Pakistan

By Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins
Sunday, November 11, 2007;

George W. Bush is hardly the first U.S. president to forgive sins against democracy by a Pakistani leader. Like his predecessors from Jimmy Carter onward, Bush has tolerated bad behavior in hopes that Pakistan might do Washington's bidding on some urgent U.S. priority -- in this case, a crackdown on al-Qaeda. But the scariest legacy of Bush's failed bargain with Gen. Pervez Musharraf isn't the rise of another U.S.-backed dictatorship in a strategic Muslim nation, or even the establishment of a new al-Qaeda haven along Pakistan's lawless border. It's the leniency we've shown toward the most dangerous nuclear-trafficking operation in history -- an operation masterminded by one man, Abdul Qadeer Khan.

U.S. Secretly Aids Pakistan in Guarding Nuclear Arms
By DAVID E. SANGER and WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: November 18, 2007

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 — Over the past six years, the Bush administration has spent almost $100 million so far on a highly classified program to help Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, secure his country’s nuclear weapons, according to current and former senior administration officials.

But with the future of that country’s leadership in doubt, debate is intensifying about whether Washington has done enough to help protect the warheads and laboratories, and whether Pakistan’s reluctance to reveal critical details about its arsenal has undercut the effectiveness of the continuing security effort.

The aid, buried in secret portions of the federal budget, paid for the training of Pakistani personnel in the United States and the construction of a nuclear security training center in Pakistan, a facility that American officials say is nowhere near completion, even though it was supposed to be in operation this year.
...
“I am confident of two things,” he added. “That the Pakistanis are very serious about securing this material, but also that someone in Pakistan is very intent on getting their hands on it.”

-----------------

Gus: on the one hand the US invaded Iraq, lying about WMDs to loot the oil, on the other hand they helped the other despot/tinpot/dictator, Musharraf, stay in power and give him a hand with his nukes... They would have to know that Musharraf's position is untenable — and that all order may collapse in Pakistan, even with Bhutto. But the US have to deal with 160 million people, which is a lot more than the easy pushover desert-dwellers in Iraq... The US, under dumb dumbo, have been walking the blurred line of pragmatism with hypocritical opportunism — like a drunk elephant in a china store where the owners have to pay for the breakages...

"That the Pakistanis are very serious about securing this material, but also that someone in Pakistan is very intent on getting their hands on it"

Brother, this sentence is max-loaded to minimise the true perception of the problem!... Confident??? "the Pakistanis are very serious..."? Sure... Half the population may be serious... But most likely the other half ("someone") is very intent on getting their hands on it...

You're allowed to worry. Now.

And our Johnnee embraced Musharraf, the president/dictator/despot, like a brother...!! Red carpet and all in Canberra — the subcapital of orstralya after Kirribilli Sydnerney...

Throw Howard out!

Bush Failed to See Musharraf’s Faults, Critics Contend
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: November 18, 2007

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 — In the six years since Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, joined President Bush in the fight against Al Qaeda, it has been an unlikely partnership: a president intent on promoting democracy and a military commander who seized power in a bloodless coup.

Mr. Bush has repeatedly called Gen. Musharraf “a friend.” In 2003, the president invited the general to Camp David, a presidential perk reserved for the closest of allies. Last year, at the general’s insistence, Mr. Bush risked a trip to Pakistan, jangling the nerves of the Secret Service by spending the night in the country presumed to be home to Osama bin Laden.

But now that the general has defied the White House, suspending Pakistan’s Constitution and imposing emergency rule, old tensions are flaring anew. Mr. Bush is backing away from the leader he once called a man of “courage and vision,” and critics are asking whether the president misread his Pakistani counterpart.

They said Mr. Bush — an ardent believer in personal diplomacy, who once remarked that he had looked into the eyes of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and had gotten “a sense of his soul” — was taken in by the general, with his fluent English and his promises to hold elections and relinquish military power. They said Mr. Bush looked at General Musharraf and saw a democratic reformer when he should have seen a dictator instead.

------------

Gus: let's hope — despite all the bushit misfiddles — that the situation in Pakistan setttles for the best...

Pakistan barred from Commonwealth

Pakistan has been suspended from the Commonwealth because of its imposition of emergency rule, the organisation has announced after a meeting in Uganda.

Secretary General Don McKinnon said Pakistan was being suspended "pending restoration of democracy and the rule of law".

-------------- 

Does this mean we're stuffed for cricket?

But then:

-------------- 

President George Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reaffirmed US support for Pakistani military ruler Pervez Musharraf over the weekend, even as the general stepped up the mass repression he launched with the imposition of de facto martial law on November 3.

At a Sunday morning press conference, Musharraf announced that elections would be held in early January, but indicated that emergency rule and the suspension of the Pakistani constitution would continue indefinitely, likely through the election period itself. Bush, Rice and other US officials have hailed Musharraf’s plan to hold sham elections while political dissent is banned, independent newspapers are suppressed and thousands of political opponents remain in prison a “welcome” step toward democracy.

Speaking to the press at his Texas ranch following a meeting Saturday with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Bush insisted that the US and Musharraf “share a common goal” in opposing Al Qaeda. Repeating the standard justification for every aspect of US foreign policy, Bush said that support for the Pakistani military ruler was a necessary response to September 11.

 

As world cricket becomes a farce of backyard/schoolyard proportion (soon the players will steal each other's lunches), we're being spoon-fed a lot of rubbish by the official news channels that are the conduits for whitehouse disinformation. Benazir Bhutto was being pushed (not so secretly) by the US to go and play their "democracy" hands in Pakistan. She obliged and was killed... So the US is blaming this and that terrorist Bin Ladenish unit, when obviously a tinpot could have done the deed, by default, by neglect or by desire... Who knows... Forensics in Pakistan look as good as a sandcastle on a beach swamped by a ten-foot tidal wave... We'll never know. 

Robert Fisk: They don't blame al-Qa'ida. They blame Musharraf Published: 29 December 2007

Weird, isn't it, how swiftly the narrative is laid down for us. Benazir Bhutto, the courageous leader of the Pakistan People's Party, is assassinated in Rawalpindi – attached to the very capital of Islamabad wherein ex-General Pervez Musharraf lives – and we are told by George Bush that her murderers were "extremists" and "terrorists". Well, you can't dispute that.

But the implication of the Bush comment was that Islamists were behind the assassination. It was the Taliban madmen again, the al-Qa'ida spider who struck at this lone and brave woman who had dared to call for democracy in her country.

Of course, given the childish coverage of this appalling tragedy – and however corrupt Ms Bhutto may have been, let us be under no illusions that this brave lady is indeed a true martyr – it's not surprising that the "good-versus-evil" donkey can be trotted out to explain the carnage in Rawalpindi.

...

So let's run through this logic in the way that Inspector Ian Blair might have done in his policeman's notebook before he became the top cop in London.

Question: Who forced Benazir Bhutto to stay in London and tried to prevent her return to Pakistan? Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who ordered the arrest of thousands of Benazir's supporters this month? Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who placed Benazir under temporary house arrest this month? Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who declared martial law this month? Answer General Musharraf.

Question: who killed Benazir Bhutto?

Er. Yes. Well quite.

You see the problem? Yesterday, our television warriors informed us the PPP members shouting that Musharraf was a "murderer" were complaining he had not provided sufficient security for Benazir. Wrong. They were shouting this because they believe he killed her.

From the ABC

Pakistan nukes safe from militants: army chief

By South Asia correspondent Peter Lloyd

Pakistan's army chief has dismissed international concerns that the country's nuclear arsenal could fall under the control of militants.

General Ashfaq Kiyani is the man who succeeded President Pervez Musharraf as army chief last November and he is widely viewed as a dictator-in-waiting, should Mr Musharraf quit or be deposed as President.

In a statement released after the launch of a nuclear-capable missile during army exercises, General Kiyani said the Pakistani military was capable of safeguarding and securing nuclear assets against all categories of threat.

The statement was as much a message to militants as to the US, which has speculated about a possible American military operation to take control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons in the event of a future political crisis.

-----------

Gus: I am fully satisfied with this rock-solid knowledge... I can sleep at night with no worry whatsover... Everything is best in the best of the words, and getting better.  

See cartoon at the top of this line of blogs... 

I am a bit naive.

Someone who knows about Afghanistan from experience told me that Afghanistan can be sorted out "within a generation..." I argued, but was told to shut up which I eventually did.

Sure, my knowledge of the place only relies on official papers from the CIA, from MI6, official records of government papers, countless studies made by university professors and thousands of useless articles written by journalists. I've never been there.

The only Afghan that I've met were men of Pashtu origin. Even living in Australia, they were frightening enough to me — with an entrenched religious extremism designed to conquer this country and place women at the bottom of the pile, where they should be.

Thus I have no idea.

But going back to my original quest, my next question was "why the Europeans are a bit cold at fully wetting their feet in that country?"... Gate and Rice are a bit peeved that apart from a few troops, the Europeans don't want to commit much more, especially not to the south of Afghanistan because that's were the real troubles are. The natives shoot at you and grow poppies.

This from the BBC, seven years ago, the bold type is mine:

Monday, 24 September, 2001, 11:47 GMT 12:47 UK
Analysis: Role of the elite troops

The Pentagon does not want to invade Afghanistan. It has studied the Soviet army's operations there and knows that a long stay would play to the Taleban's strengths. It also doesn't want to flatten large areas of the country with bombing. There will be no Iraq-style air campaign.

For one thing, there are just not the equivalent targets in Afghanistan - the country is poor and much of its infrastructure has already been destroyed in years of civil war.

But if the US is to carry the international diplomatic coalition it has forged, it needs to make its strikes judicious, clearly focused and with every effort to avoid civilian loss of life - once again suggesting that it would be better to go in on the ground.

--------------

Gus: so what is the purpose of being in Afghanistan? Oil? hum... may be... Bin Laden and his band of merry terrorists? Women's rights? If these latter were paramount to our participation, we would have to make sure the religious police in Afghanistan was disbanded forthwith, or even tried for breaches of human rights. But is not there this fellow being pursued by the Afghan government for encouraging a discussion about "women's rights"... And I would not be surprised if this case is only the tip of a strict religious iceberg...

So, here we are six and a half years later and all we can say is we're not as bogged down as the Soviets were when they got into their own mess from 1979 till 1989... when The Pentagon did not want to invade Afghanistan... So what did the Pentagon want to do by invading Afghanistan? Chase Bin Laden? sure...

Back to the "generational" problem... When someone tells me that a problem I know has gone on for centuries can be sorted out in "one generation" I smell a rat. And I don't want to remind you of the history of Afghanistan since the early 1900s...

For example, when the Russians invaded Afghanistan, they only did it a bit like the US did with Vietnam... Send advisers to the fledgling Afghan Communist government in Kabul, then send military advisers then send a few troops to help the Afghan army, then send a big army to just protect themselves. Apparently the US was not paying attention... but that is their explanation of their failure to realise what was happening.

Thus the US started to give shit-loads of money to the "rebels" which they described as Mujaheddin — enemies of the communists in power (which the US loathed) and also enemies of the "Taliban"...

Then the Taliban was supported by Pakistan, in order to establish Afghanistan as a Muslim nation under Sharia law... Pakistan was still peeved it had lost East Pakistan to independence...

The money given to the Mujaheddin by the US went into several billion dollars, which at the time was not a small sum. The US was only supplying few weapons but helped secure undercover deals with Chinese and other countries to buy weapons. Knowing the amount of money and the very cheap price on offer, the Mujaheddin bought a shitload of bombs and stuff...

The line that the CIA is telling us that it understood the Mujaheddin and the Taliban were totally different is very fine indeed. The tribal make up in Afghanistan is at best blurry and very complex, and if they did fight each other, they also married a bit.

Of course some (many?) weapons paid for by the US money ended up in the hands of the Taliban who was also fighting the communists in Kabul... Eventually Ronald, the actor-president, decided to give the Mujaheddin the latest US anti-aircraft and anti-anything available in the US...

Seeing a quagmire, the Russians departed and the Mujaheddin got defeated by the Taliban (with the help of Pakistan) which took over the government for a few years with ghastly laws, including those that drove women into the dirt.

Once the Russians had gone the US did not bother to follow on...

The Russian had had their problems too. The communist had only arrived in power in Afghanistan via only one group of Afghans, assassinations, coup d'états, and in this country of gangsters — warlords they call them — the fights were akin to Mafia turf war in New York on a grander scale, with a merciless religion thrown in.

Thus the country was declared poor and of no interest until 9/11...

But a certain Jon Flanders writes [my bold type]:

Michael Klare, author of the book "Resource Wars", which has a major focus on the Caspian region, was interviewed by Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, Inc.,http://www.rferl.org on May 28, 2001. Klare is the Director of the Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies based at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts. In his book, Klare argues that it is not only the United States that is preparing for resource conflicts. He contends that all regional powers are focusing increasingly on how to protect or enlarge their access to vital resources over the next generation.

Klare tells RFE/RL that vast energy reserves in Central Asia and the Caucasus have made the region a priority for the United States despite the area's generally poor progress in post-communist reforms.

"I think in this case this is a national security consideration that's driving all of this. The United States has to get that oil from that region [Central Asia] and will make a deal with whatever governments are there in place that are willing to work with us [that is, the US], like the government[s] in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan that are far from ideal with respect to human rights and democratic procedure. And I think that's a reflection of the view that I write about in my book -- we [the US] view oil as a security consideration and we have to protect it by any means necessary, regardless of other considerations, other values."

-------------

Gus: so the generational crap lives on... We are told that we can solve the problem, win the war soon, if we make the effort.

I believe we're fed a lot of official crap from the agencies, of relationships between the US and the Europeans... I believe the Europeans do not want to commit fully because they know the Yanks are not perfectly honest about their intent. And the Yanks do not want to share the spoils for example... And war for some — the Europeans — cost real money upfront. The Yanks get credit. A small sore point.

Further more I am naive enough to have seen hatred between this and that people go on for "generations", One generation does not solve the problem, especially when extreme religious beliefs are involved.

So there are several ways to deal with Afghanistan : each with their own moralistic problems.

A) bomb the place out of existence.

B) have at least 2 millions well armed professional soldiers supported by air and tank cover and win "that war" at a cost.

C) pussyfoot and play the game of elastic containment.

D) get out of there.

E) build a supermarket in every town, with bright lights and shelves full of goodies, including toys and lollies made in China, colas and soft drinks from the US... And Blackwater guards at each entrance.

We're still in the game of elastic containment. As long as we can build and control the pipelines, all is sweet.

I know a bit more... but I prefer to be naive about this.

Not a true betting man, I'm prepared to bet that the same old will be in 2035... See cartoon at top, then I will shut up.

 

Gates, Truth and Afghanistan

Published: February 12, 2008

By the Bush administration’s standards, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was remarkably candid last week: acknowledging that popular opposition in Europe to the Iraq war was making it harder to persuade European governments to send more troops or take more risks to salvage Afghanistan.

Nearly everything about President Bush’s botched war of choice in Iraq has made it much harder to win Afghanistan’s war of necessity. The fact that Mr. Gates is permitted such truth-telling is a measure of how bad things have gotten in Afghanistan and how much the United States needs more outside help.

------

May be the writer of the article above and Mr Gates are as naive as I am since a lot of their views merge on the ones I expressed in the blog above... Especially about the Europeans not wanting to be injured in the conflicts...

Pakistanis Deal Severe Defeat to Musharraf in Election
Johan Spanner for The New York Times

By CARLOTTA GALL AND JANE PERLEZ
Published: February 19, 2008

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistanis dealt a crushing defeat to President Pervez Musharraf in parliamentary elections Monday, in what government and opposition politicians said was a firm rejection of his policies since 2001 and those of his close ally, the United States.

Almost all the leading figures in the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, the party that has governed for the last five years under Mr. Musharraf, lost their seats, including the leader of the party, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussein, the former speaker of parliament, Chaudhry Amir Hussein, and six ministers.

Though official results would not be announced until Tuesday, early returns indicated that the vote would usher in a prime minister from one of the opposition parties, and opened the prospect of a parliament that would move to undo many of Mr. Musharraf’s policies and that may even try to remove him.

The early edge went to the opposition Pakistan Peoples Party, which seemed to benefit from a strong wave of sympathy in reaction to the assassination of its leader, Benazir Bhutto, eight weeks ago, and may be in a position to form the next government.

The results were interpreted here as a repudiation of Mr. Musharraf as well as the Bush administration, which has staunchly backed Mr. Musharraf for eight years as its best bet in the campaign against the Islamic militants in Pakistan. American officials will have little choice now but to seek alternative allies from among the new political forces emerging from the vote.

Unilateral Strike Called a Model For U.S. Operations in Pakistan

By Joby Warrick and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 19, 2008; A01

In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.

The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.

Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.

August 1, 2008 Pakistanis Aided Attack in Kabul, U.S. Officials Say

 

By MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON — American intelligence agencies have concluded that members of Pakistan’s powerful spy service helped plan the deadly July 7 bombing of India’s embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, according to United States government officials.

The conclusion was based on intercepted communications between Pakistani intelligence officers and militants who carried out the attack, the officials said, providing the clearest evidence to date that Pakistani intelligence officers are actively undermining American efforts to combat militants in the region.

The American officials also said there was new information showing that members of the Pakistani intelligence service were increasingly providing militants with details about the American campaign against them, in some cases allowing militants to avoid American missile strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

Concerns about the role played by Pakistani intelligence not only has strained relations between the United States and Pakistan, a longtime ally, but also has fanned tensions between Pakistan and its archrival, India. Within days of the bombings, Indian officials accused the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, of helping to orchestrate the attack in Kabul, which killed 54, including an Indian defense attaché.

This week, Pakistani troops clashed with Indian forces in the contested region of Kashmir, threatening to fray an uneasy cease-fire that has held since November 2003.

The New York Times reported this week that a top Central Intelligence Agency official traveled to Pakistan this month to confront senior Pakistani officials with information about support provided by members of the ISI to militant groups. It had not been known that American intelligence agencies concluded that elements of Pakistani intelligence provided direct support for the attack in Kabul.

---------------

see toon at top... 

 From Al Jazeera

Pakistan to impeach Musharraf

Pakistan's ruling coalition has announced it will begin impeachment proceedings against Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president.

Asif Ali Zardari, the leader of Pakistan's ruling coalition, made the announcement at a news conference in Islamabad, the capital, on Thursday afternoon.

"We have good news for democracy," Zardari said. "The coalition believes it is imperative to move for impeachment against General Musharraf."

Zardari said Musharraf had failed to get a vote of confidence from the new government, following its election in February.

"The economic policies pursued by President Musharraf during the past eight years have brought Pakistan to the brink of critical economic impasse," he said.

"His policies have weakened the federation and eroded the trust of the nation in national institutions."

In his speech to the press, Zardari warned Musharraf against dismissing parliament in a bid to avoid the impeachment proceedings.

Agreement reached

The coalition had previously been split by the twin issues of what to do about Musharraf and how to carry out their pledge to reinstate senior judges sacked by him under emergency rule last year.

But officials said an agreement was reached on Wednesday night, when Nawaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) party, assured Zardari that he could count on the support of former PML-N members who currently belong to a pro-Musharraf party.

--------

see toon at top... 

Now Saudis offer dignified solution for Musharraf

Beleaguered President is given a lifeline to avoid impeachment

By Andrew Buncombe and Omar Waraich in Islamabad
Sunday, 17 August 2008

Pervez Musharraf's endgame drama has taken a new twist after Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief flew to Pakistan to urge the President's political opponents to allow him a graceful exit from office.

Less than two days before Pakistan's government is scheduled to lay out impeachment charges against Mr Musharraf in parliament, Prince Muqrin bin Abdul Aziz arrived in Islamabad to intervene on the beleaguered President's behalf. He urged the government to agree to a deal that would allow Mr Musharraf to avoid impeachment.

The intervention of Saudi Arabia could prove crucial. Along with the US and China, the Arabian kingdom – a major source of economic aid – has considerable influence in Pakistan. "Yes, Saudi intelligence chief Prince Muqrin bin Abdul Aziz did visit Pakistan on Friday and met senior government officials," a senior government official told Agence France-Presse (AFP). "The main purpose of the visit was to find an amicable solution to the impeachment issue and that no one should become a laughing stock."

The stumbling block to agreeing a deal for Mr Musharraf's departure is the former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, the man whom the former general forced from power in a 1999 coup. Mr Sharif has insisted the President should not be granted immunity from prosecution.

Saudi Arabia has been closely linked to the long struggle between Mr Sharif and Mr Musharraf. Last year Prince Muqrin was again involved in Pakistan's politics when Mr Sharif returned from exile in Saudi Arabia to try to launch an election campaign, only to be immediately deported to Jeddah by Mr Musharraf.

From the BBC

Pakistan's Musharraf steps down

President Pervez Musharraf announces his resignation

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who is facing impeachment by parliament, says he will resign.

The charges against the president include violation of the constitution and gross misconduct.

Mr Musharraf said he was confident that the charges against him would not stand but that this was not the time for more confrontation in Pakistan.

He has been one of the United States' strongest allies in its war against Islamist extremism.

His political rivals swept to power last February in national and provincial elections after months of political confrontation and worsening militant violence.

------------------ 

see toon at top... 

August 19, 2008  In Musharraf’s Wake, U.S. Faces Political Disarray

 

By JANE PERLEZ

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Facing imminent impeachment charges, President Pervez Musharraf announced his resignation on Monday, after months of belated recognition by American officials that he had become a waning asset in the campaign against terrorism.

The decision removes from Pakistan’s political stage the leader who for nearly nine years served as one of the United States’ most important — and ultimately unreliable — allies. And it now leaves American officials to deal with a new, elected coalition that has so far proved itself to be unwilling or unable to confront an expanding Taliban insurgency determined to topple the government.

“Whether I win or lose the impeachment, the nation will lose,” Mr. Musharraf said, explaining his decision in an emotional televised speech lasting more than an hour. He will stay in Pakistan and will not be put on trial, government officials said.

The question of who will succeed Mr. Musharraf is certain to unleash intense wrangling between the rival political parties that form the governing coalition and to add a new layer of turbulence to an already unstable nuclear-armed nation of 165 million people.

“We’ve said for years that Musharraf is our best bet, and my fear is that we are about to discover how true that was,” one senior Bush administration official said, acknowledging that the United States had stuck with Mr. Musharraf for too long and developed few other relationships in Pakistan to fall back on.

Administration officials will now have to find allies within the fractious civilian government, which has so far shown scant interest in taking on militants from the Taliban and Al Qaeda who have roosted in Pakistan’s badlands along the border with Afghanistan.

At the same time, suspicions between the American and Pakistani intelligence agencies and their militaries are deepening, and relations between the countries are at their lowest point since Mr. Musharraf pledged to ally Pakistan with the United States after the 9/11 attacks.

read more at The New York Times 

Iran Interfering in U.S.-Iraq Security Pact, General Says

By Ernesto Londoño
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, October 13, 2008; A14

BAGHDAD, Oct. 12 -- The commander of U.S. forces in Iraq said Sunday that American intelligence reports suggest Iran has attempted to bribe Iraqi lawmakers in an effort to derail a bilateral agreement that would allow U.S. troops to remain in Iraq after the end of this year.

Gen. Ray Odierno said in an interview that Iran, a Shiite Islamic nation eyed warily by the United States and Sunni Arab countries, is working publicly and covertly to undermine the status-of-forces agreement as officials from Iraq and the United States report nearing a deal that must be ratified by Iraq's parliament.

"Clearly, this is one they're having a full court press on to try to ensure there's never any bilateral agreement between the United States and Iraq," Odierno said. "We know that there are many relationships with people here for many years going back to when Saddam was in charge, and I think they're utilizing those contacts to attempt to influence the outcome of the potential vote in the council of representatives."

----------------

See toon at top... Still blaming the Iranians...

deleted

A court in Pakistan has freed disgraced nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan from house arrest, his lawyer says.

Mr Khan, who has been under tight restrictions since 2004, can now leave home and receive visitors but must still report to the government.

He must give 48 hours' notice if he wants to leave Islamabad.

Mr Khan admitted transferring nuclear secrets to other countries in 2004 but was later pardoned by former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

Nuclear 'father'

"The high court has declared him a free citizen," lawyer Iqbal Jaffry told local television.

The Pakistani government says the restrictions that remain are for his own security.

--------

See toon at top (note the date).

Poet's shrine bombed over female visitors

Suspected militants have blown up the mausoleum of a 17th century poet revered in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, apparently because women visited the shrine.

The ethnic Pashtun poet, Abdul Rehman, is commonly known as Rehman Baba, and is loved by Pashtuns for his mystical verse.

People regularly go to his white, marble mausoleum on the outskirts of the north-western Pakistani city of Peshawar to pay their respects, but no-one was hurt in the pre-dawn blast.

"The structure of the shrine has been badly damaged but there were no casualties," police officer Zar Noor said.

Militants had warned people to stop women visiting the shrine, a resident told DawnNews television.

Militants have been stepping up attacks in Pakistan in recent years, especially in the Pashtun-dominated north-west.

As well as battling the security forces, the militants in many areas have tried to stamp out what they see as inappropriate practices such as music and dancing.

Radical Muslims such as the Taliban also consider paying homage at graves to be heretical.

--------------------

Blowing up stuff is more heretical than any other worship or simple visiting of grave sites... The Taliban has no humanity left in its trousers... Why the US supported these murderous idiots (during their war against Russia) is akin to the US supporting for a while that fellow felon, Viktor Bout, who the US knew was trading weapons to all and rebel sundry around the world, because the US needed his planes to ferry stuff for their little war in Iraq... Shame. Shame. 

Viktor is now "rotting" in a jail in Bangkok awaiting extradition to the US but he may know too much about Rusky and Yankee doodle to live long... Who knows.

Meanwhile the sexist cultural idiots are at their peak of stupidity. 

It's a weird irony that Iranians know the history of Anglo-Persian relations better than the Brits. When the newly installed Ministry of Islamic Guidance asked Harvey Morris, Reuters' man in post-revolutionary Iran, for a history of his news agency, he asked his London office to send him a biography of Baron von Reuter – and was appalled to discover the founder of the world's greatest news agency had built Persia's railways at an immense profit. "How can I show this to the ministry?" he shouted. "It turns out that the Baron was worse than the fucking Shah!" Of which, of course, the ministry was well aware.

Britain staged a joint invasion of Iran with Soviet forces when the Shah's predecessor got a bit too close to the Nazis in World War Two and then helped the Americans overthrow the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 after he nationalised Britain's oil possessions in the country.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-sanctions-are-only-a-small-part-of-the-history-that-makes-iranians-hate-the-uk-6269812.html

 

Moscow has condemned the US prison sentence for arms dealer Viktor Bout as "political" and says the case will be a priority in relations with Washington.

Bout was jailed for 25 years by a judge in New York for attempting to sell heavy arms to Colombian rebels intending to attack US pilots.

The ex-Soviet officer, who is suspected of dealing in arms since the 1990s, insists he is innocent of the charge.

Moscow may seek to have him transferred to Russia to serve his sentence.

Bout, a Russian citizen, was finally convicted last year after his arrest in Bangkok, Thailand, in 2008 following a sting operation in which US informants posed as Colombian rebels.

Sentencing was delayed twice as his lawyer sought more time to prepare and accused prosecutors of "outrageous government conduct" for allegedly entrapping the Russian.

Judge Shira Scheindlin said 25 years was an appropriate sentence for Bout's crimes given the sting set up by US officials. She also ordered him to forfeit $15m (£9.5m).

Bout's lawyer said an appeal would be made against the conviction.

'Clearly political'

Russia's foreign ministry described the imprisonment as "unfounded and biased", and "clearly political".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17636783

 

Bout's wife, Alla, later described the sentence as a victory for her husband because it was the minimum the judge had been allowed to impose.

"I think that if she had not been limited by the boundaries of the law that exist here, the case would have been dropped," she said.

-------------------

The USA do not like other people invading their turf, mainly that of selling weapons. They know of course that as weaponry becomes "obsolete", it gets onsold by the power who bought the stuff, via many official and unofficial ways. For example, here in Aiussieland we bought a stock of old Abrams tanks as US army surplus and the Chinese bought an old aircraft carrier from Russia for refit... But the small arms and really old bizos markets, such as ratty planes, is a bit more shady and demand certain trading expertise. Bout is one of these traders who often get "officlal" sanction, even from the US, to make sure the weapon trade is alive and well. For whatever reason the US decided to frame Bout, nothing to do with selling a couple of cargo planes to the Colombians...

Here we can see the way the US works in the murky shadows of this country and the extradition to Sweden on non-charges of our "own hero Assange" should be dismissed by the UK courts ASAP... 

see toon at top....