|
### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 20th, 2008
### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 19th, 2008 Terror War Re-Evaluated as Musharraf Steps Down. America and Pakistan’s neighbors are being forced to re-evaluate their strategy in the war on Al Qaeda and the Taliban after the resignation yesterday of President Musharraf, whose nine-year reign included a decision after September 11, 2001, to cooperate closely with America in the fight against international terrorism.
“President Musharraf has been a friend to the United States and one of the world’s most committed partners in the war against terrorism and extremism,” Ms. Rice said in a statement. “President Bush appreciates President Musharraf’s efforts in the democratic transition of Pakistan as well as his commitment to fighting Al Qaeda and extremist groups,” a White House spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, said. He added: “We’re confident that we will maintain a good relationship with the government of Pakistan.” American officials said they were confident that the uneasy ruling coalition of the moderately Islamic party led by Mr. Sharif and the Western-oriented party that was led by Benazir Bhutto until her assassination and is now led by her widower, Asif Ali Zardari; son, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, and Prime Minister Gilani, would cooperate with America on the war on terror as closely as Mr. Musharraf did. “The war against extremism is bigger than one man,” a State Department spokesman, Robert Wood, said. Mr. Musharraf’s “departure is a loss for the U.S. because the civilian government will not do as good a job against terrorism,” a former American ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, told The New York Sun. In the aftermath of the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, “What we needed in Pakistan is someone to stand with us, and Musharraf did just that,” a Bush administration official said yesterday, speaking on the condition of anonymity. America reciprocated to the tune of $10 billion in military support for the Pakistani government after Mr. Musharraf promised to dedicate his army and intelligence services to the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Now, according to some in Washington, the best remaining Pakistani partner in the war on terror is the current army chief of staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who has yet to express a preference for any party. Meanwhile, the partnership between the Pakistan Muslim League-N and the secular Pakistan Peoples Party is fragile and unlikely to maintain Mr. Musharraf’s tight grip over the army and the country’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence. India is specifically concerned that a resurgent ISI could shift Pakistan’s attention to Kashmir and hostilities with New Delhi from the war on terror and the Afghan border. As speculation about Mr. Musharraf’s departure increased in recent weeks, India’s national security adviser, M.K. Narayanan, told a Singaporean newspaper, the Straits Times, that the president’s absence would leave “a big vacuum.” India is “deeply concerned about this vacuum because it leaves the radical extremist outfits with freedom to do what they like, not merely on Pak-Afghan border but clearly our side of the border too,” Mr. Narayanan told the paper. In recent years, the long-standing tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad have eased under Mr. Musharraf. The two countries established commercial ties, while the situation in Kashmir grew calmer. During the last few weeks, however, cross-border attacks have increased, Pakistani-backed pro-independence Kashmiri fighters have intensified their activities, and diplomatic talks have slowed. Additionally, both India and Afghanistan blamed the ISI for the bombing in July of the Indian Embassy in Kabul. —————- So, all acknowledge that the real power in Pakistan - military dictatorship or not - is in the hands of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and who rules over them? Quite clearly, there never was a Pakistani Ataturk - and what do these generals want? Whatever it is - it is not democracy. What does Military Nationalism mean in a Pakistani context? Where is their loyalty when it comes to the Taliban, and even Al-Qaeda? What was their historic relationship to the Saudi Arabian money pipeline, or to the US involvement in the Cold War heating-up proxy-stage in Afghanistan with the introduction of religious extremism well funded via the Saudis? Will someone start using this Sunni potential as an antidote to the Iranian Shia element in the larger Islamic World? Historically, it was just only Pakistan, who besides the Saudi monarchy, recognized the annexation of Jerusalem by Jordan. Without a military hand ruling in Islamabad - this being replaced by a politically broad, but weak, alliance - will the ISI, and everybody else, find it more convenient to spend the ISI time now in playing the fields outside Pakistan, rather then trying to muddle the waters at home? Will anyone look under the rug of the old nuclear materials, and know-how sales, and will there be a second round of this sort of sales - specially as they have more to offer then Iran or North Korea? Musharraf or not, the incomming US President will have to worry about what goes on inside the nominal borders of Pakistan much more then the stated preocupation with Afghanistan. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 4th, 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. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani of Pakistan visited Washington this week What Was He Told There? 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. American officials said that the communications were intercepted before the July 7 bombing, and that the C.I.A. emissary, Stephen R. Kappes, the agency’s deputy director, had been ordered to Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital, even before the attack. The intercepts were not detailed enough to warn of any specific attack.
“It confirmed some suspicions that I think were widely held,” one State Department official with knowledge of Afghanistan issues said of the intercepted communications. “It was sort of this ‘aha’ moment. There was a sense that there was finally direct proof.” The information linking the ISI to the bombing of the Indian Embassy was described in interviews by several American officials with knowledge of the intelligence. Some of the officials expressed anger that elements of Pakistan’s government seemed to be directly aiding violence in Afghanistan that had included attacks on American troops. Some American officials have begun to suggest that Pakistan is no longer a fully reliable American partner and to advocate some unilateral American action against militants based in the tribal areas. The ISI has long maintained ties to militant groups in the tribal areas, in part to court allies it can use to contain Afghanistan’s power. In recent years, Pakistan’s government has also been concerned about India’s growing influence inside Afghanistan, including New Delhi’s close ties to the government of Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president. American officials say they believe that the embassy attack was probably carried out by members of a network led by Maulavi Jalaluddin Haqqani, whose alliance with Al Qaeda and its affiliates has allowed the terrorist network to rebuild in the tribal areas. American and Pakistani officials have now acknowledged that President Bush on Monday confronted Pakistan’s prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, about the divided loyalties of the ISI. Pakistan’s defense minister, Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar, told a Pakistani television network on Wednesday that Mr. Bush asked senior Pakistani officials this week, “ ‘Who is in control of ISI?’ ” and asked about leaked information that tipped militants to surveillance efforts by Western intelligence services. Pakistan’s new civilian government is wrestling with these very issues, and there is concern in Washington that the civilian leaders will be unable to end a longstanding relationship between members of the ISI and militants associated with Al Qaeda. Spokesmen for the White House and the C.I.A. declined to comment for this article. Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, did not return a call seeking comment. Further underscoring the tension between Pakistan and its Western allies, Britain’s senior military officer said in Washington on Thursday that an American and British program to help train Pakistan’s Frontier Corps in the tribal areas had been delayed while Pakistan’s military and civilian officials sorted out details about the program’s goals. Britain and the United States had each offered to send about two dozen military trainers to Pakistan later this summer to train Pakistani Army officers who in turn would instruct the Frontier Corps paramilitary forces. But the British officer, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, said the program had been temporarily delayed. “We don’t yet have a firm start date,” he told a small group of reporters. “We’re ready to go.” The bombing of the Indian Embassy helped to set off a new deterioration in relations between India and Pakistan. This week, Indian and Pakistani soldiers fired at each other across the Kashmir frontier for more than 12 hours overnight Monday, in what the Indian Army called the most serious violation of a five-year-old cease-fire agreement. The nightlong battle came after one Indian soldier and four Pakistanis were killed along the border between sections of Kashmir that are controlled by India and by Pakistan. Indian officials say they are equally worried about what is happening on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border because they say the insurgents who are facing off with India in Kashmir and those who target Afghanistan are related and can keep both borders burning at the same time. India and Afghanistan share close political, cultural and economic ties, and India maintains an active intelligence network in Afghanistan, all of which has drawn suspicion from Pakistani officials. When asked Thursday about whether the ISI and Pakistani military remained loyal to the country’s civilian government, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sidestepped the question. “That’s probably something the government of Pakistan ought to speak to,” Admiral Mullen told reporters at the Pentagon. Jalaluddin Haqqani, the militia commander, battled Soviet troops during the 1980s and has had a long and complicated relationship with the C.I.A. He was among a group of fighters who received arms and millions of dollars from the C.I.A. during that period, but his allegiance with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda during the following decade led the United States to sever the relationship. Mr. Haqqani and his sons now run a network that Western intelligence services say they believe is responsible for a campaign of violence throughout Afghanistan, including the Indian Embassy bombing and an attack on the Serena Hotel in Kabul earlier this year. ———— Today on TV, as part of a discussion at the Washington Institute for The Middle East, Shaul Mofaz, The Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, a former Defense Minister and Chief of the Military Staff, was asked why Israel is worried about pre-nuclear Iran, but does not show worry about the nuclear Pakistan? His answer was that Pakistan is managed by a regime friendly to the US, even though there is the unruliness at the Afghan border, on the other hand Iran is ruled by an enemy elite even though the Iranian people are friendly people. He seemed to trust the government of Pakistan and we really wonder why? We do not think that a man of his past does not see the real facts on the ground - so all what we can conclude is that he sees the facts in Washington and he will not dare to step out from a line-up with the White House. So Quo Vadis Pakistan? And US - just because you helped create the Golem - will you now also continue to talk Afghanistan when it is clear that any solution to the AfghanPakiMess starts with actions in Pakistan. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 27th, 2008 Fareed Zakaria, on his GPS, the new bright star of CNN TV, had two guests from Europe on his program on Sunday, July 27, 2008 - the writers Bernard Henry Levy, known in France simply as BHL, and Josef Joffe, the editor of Die Zeit. GHL said flatly, were Obama to run for President of the EU he would get at least 85% of the vote. The Europeans see in him the joint embodiment of the two best figures in recent American history - MLK and JFK - and propelled by a very reasonable mix of realism and idealism. Bringing his impressions to a closer set of images - he sees in Obama someone who has the potential of leading from a mix of the Neocons with Kissinger. Joe Joffe thought that this week showed Obama as a canvas on which the Europeans projected what they want for America - that is how they want to see it. He also said that McCain, known to the Europeans, has vanished nevertheless from the media in Europe, as he thinks happened also in the US. “He has lost the battle of storytelling’ - he said. GHL added that in France “we would not elect a President from a minority - so we dream of America.” —————– http://www.nypost.com/seven/07272008/new… OBAMA’S SECRET RESCUE MISSION By GINGER ADAMS OTIS, New York Post, July 27, 2008 Barack Obama carried out a secret assignment during his global tour last week. Obama detailed the plight of Colleen Bargouthi, 36. She says that for the last year, her four daughters have been held in the Palestinian territories, made to wear headdresses and schooled in Islam by their Muslim father, Yasser Shibli. ————————— OPINION in The New York Times, Sunday July 27, 2008. Frank Rich writes about how Barack Obama has become “acting president,” and raises questions about John McCain’s “fitness to be president.” It almost seems like a gag worthy of “Borat”: A smooth-talking rookie senator with an exotic name passes himself off as the incumbent American president to credulous foreigners. But to dismiss Barack Obama’s magical mystery tour through old Europe and two war zones as a media-made fairy tale would be to underestimate the ingenious politics of the moment. History was on the march well before Mr. Obama boarded his plane, and his trip was perfectly timed to reap the whirlwind. ————————- OPINION In The New York Times, Friday July 25, 2008. Bush’s Puppets. { or Quo Vadis Stephen Johnson? Did You Forget Your Federal Oath To Have a Non-Partisan EPA? }
According to Bill Becker of the Presidential Climate Action Project, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson has neglected his federal oath to “well and faithfully discharge the duties” of his office by repeatedly allowing the Bush White House to manipulate environmental decisions and undermine action necessary to address climate change. (Photo: Getty Images)
* Bill Becker is executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project, an initiative to help the next President of the United States take decisive action on global warming and energy security in his or her first 100 days in office. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 21st, 2008 Obama Arrives in Baghdad to Discuss Iraq Strategy. By Sudarsan Raghavan and Debbi Wilgoren, Washington Post Foreign Service. BAGHDAD, July 21 — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama arrived in Iraq Monday morning to discuss U.S.-Iraq strategy and American troop levels, issues that have become a cornerstone of debate in the U.S. presidential campaign. But after meeting for nearly an hour with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other top U.S. and Iraqi officials, Obama declined to say what they had talked about. “We had a very constructive discussion,” the Illinois senator and presumptive Democratic nominee said before ducking back into a heavily guarded Chevrolet Suburban to head to his next meeting, with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. “I’ll be providing details later during my visit.” Obama is traveling as part of a congressional delegation that includes Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.), both critics of the war. But in many ways — from the red carpet rolled out for the group at Maliki’s residence to his seat of honor next to Maliki during a brief photo opportunity — he is being treated like a visiting head of state. The delegation began its trip with two days in Afghanistan, then flew to Kuwait, where the three senators met with Kuwait’s emir, Sabah Ahmed al-Sabah, and other senior officials, according to the official Kuwait News Agency. In Iraq, they will meet with top U.S. and Iraqi officials and military commanders, including Army Gen. David H. Petraeus. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 18th, 2008 This article we write as a response to two OP-ED page articles that appeared in the New York Times of July 17, 2008, and we felt that both these articles were nothing but technical reactions to what goes on in the real world and as such they actually missed the main point of what they were writing about.
On the other hand, the Michael I. Meyerson article, written by a Professor of Law, delves into the legalities of a US that came about by freeing itself from the oppression of the British Crown and made thus sure that no foreign-born will assume American leadership. We think this was a bit Shakespearean in the sense we encounter in Macbeth. Even there the villain was a regular local boy and the trees that came to the fortress were from his countryside. Anyway, as the Professor says - we must accept the law - shut up or put up. If we do not get to change the law, if an Einstein comes along we will still have to accept a Bush. OK, so what do I complain about? The answer is simple - even within the limitations that Professor Meyerson makes clear, and which get loosened for a McCain born abroad from US parents on National mission, the reality today is that the US Presidency has a huge impact today with the PEOPLE of the world, and not just with their governments. Even though the stature of the US has been largely diminished during the Bush eight years in power, and many governments now thumb their noses in the face of the US - the likes of North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Libya, Zimbabwe, South Africa…..the list is growing, yet the people in those countries are actually looking up to the United States as a model of what they would like to be when they grow up. So, it is imperative, if the US wants to improve its IMMAGE abroad, the President must make sure that he also has the backing of the people ABROAD and not just the people in the US. As a point of information, nobody yet talks about this in the written press, but these days the basketball National team of Iran, that will be competing in the Olympics after they won the Asian championship, is now touring US campuses and just had their game at the University of Ohio. I understand that these very tall young Iranians have only praise for the US teams and we can assume that their faith in Ahmedi-Nejad has been shaken somewhat. We know that Senator Obama cannot go and speak to the Iranian people in front of the remains of the Cyrus palace, he is going to Kabul, Baghdad, and Ramallah and will not be able to speak to the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine. He will just speak to Americans in those locations, and this will be thus only for American consumption. Let me say that this will not be much of a learning experience - he will learn there as little as McCain did when touring in the center of 100 bodyguards when he declared that Iraq was safe for him. The best Obama will be able to say that his trip was made safe by the Americans and therefore time has come to declare victory and look for energy in our own wind, water, sun, soil and air - the elements that nature allowed us to work with. OK, so what am I saying? Obama will continue to Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and the UK. I would hate to see him endanger his safety at a mob scene in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem or Amman, but when it comes to Berlin, Paris, London that is something else, and here we get to the Christoph Peters article. I would love to see 100.000 or even one million Germans waving German and US flags listening to the now famous Obama oratory - right there at the Brandenburg Gate - call it Berlin III if you wish - this after the Kennedy and Reagan previous pep-talks. Who will come out there will be the German people who actually have little in common with their East-German product Chancellor. The German people who do not like the Bushes do love US leadership when it is in the hands of a promising new fresh face. They want to hear what he has to say and this will become the ice-breaker for the US present isolation. The people are no diplomats - they are allowed to be honest. What Angela Merkel was afraid off is not the wrath of one outgoing George W. Bush, but of the multitude of her own people who did not forget her trying to play second fiddle when she could have known better. But really - Merkel is not the issue here - the issue is a new US under a potential new President who will have the chance to say this time much more then “Ich bin ein Berliner” - he will be able to say if he can pull himself to say this in plain language: I SEE BEFORE ME THE CHALLENGES OF A NEW WORLD - THE BEGINNING OF A POST-PETROLEUM ECONOMY - AND I AM WITH YOU IN THE EFFORT TO BUILD THIS NEW WORLD. I PROMISE YOU AND AMERICA THAT WE WILL TAKE ACTIONS TOGETHER, AND WE WILL HAVE NEW PROSPERITY THAT WILL COME FROM SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT BASED ON RELIANCE ON RENEWABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY. The Europeans at least will hear that there is a future even in a globalized world. If nothing else, there is still a chance for a Trans-Atlantic Union as it was in the Kennedy and Reagan days. This will allow the world of the future to have three One-billion-pluss people groupings/economies and the formation of a leadership that can handle this by agreements, rather then by competition that explodes in proxy wars. God willing, with a million in attendance at the Gate, if Sarcozy, does the same for him on Champs Elise, and Brown allows for the Hide Park Gardens - this will have impact on the chronically deficient US electorate. The folks back home in Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Florida, will see that the US does not have to be retired yet, and that the face of this best product of an integrated America is the face that the world was waiting for. Are we into an American Messianic Age that comes after eight years of self-destruction? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/opinio… OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR to The New York Times “ANGELA MERKEL, Germany’s chancellor, has made known her displeasure at the possibility that Barack Obama might use an appearance before the Brandenburg Gate here to present himself to the world as a politician of balance and integrity. Such an event would doubtless be heavy with symbolism as well as heavily attended, and one should always be wary meddling in another nation’s elections. Yet Ch |
























Printer Friendly





