Archive | April 2011

United States, India relationship at the expense of arms policy

Timothy J. Roemer, announced on Thursday that he would resign from his post , said the United States was “deeply disappointed by this news.”
                       Arms maker surround the pentagon and white house and Obama has made promises to the arms maker to keep in strong financial health.Obama use the prestige of his office to influence sales.
             India, which has listed two European manufacturers as the finalists for an order a new generation of fighter jets estimated to be worth $10 billion. American arms makers have struggled to win big contracts here. After decades of frosty relations during the cold war, which pushed India to rely extensively on the Soviet Union for military hardware, many in the Indian defense establishment are still wary of American intentions.
              The American bid to build the fighters came from Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Boeing had offered its F/A -18 jets, and Lockheed Martin pitched its F-16 planes. But India instead narrowed the list to the Rafale fighter from Dassault and the Eurofighter Typhoon jet made by a consortium of European companies. Russian and Swedish bids were also turned down.
              One Indian international affairs analyst, C. Raja Mohan, played down the significance of the American companies’ loss of this deal.“One deal doesn’t make everything,” said Mr. Mohan, a senior fellow at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi. “There has been a lot of hype about this deal. We are doing things with the U.S. that we never did before.”
              Nitin Pai, argued that India’s decision would hurt relations with the United States, at a time when the country needed stronger ties with America to advance its interests in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the United Nations Security Council, on which India is seeking a permanent seat.

Source: times


"?" kick some major ass in Afghanistan

“Countries in and out of the region are looking to exploit these resources, including the US, Russia and India. However, history and events are working against them. Russia had few friends when it left in 1989, and India, though appreciated in northern Afghanistan, is disliked elsewhere as the enemy of Pakistan. The US has over the past nine years failed to bring the prosperity it promised when it invaded the country and is now deemed another power to be expelled. Its departure will be an essential part of any settlement.

Pakistan, China, Iran and Turkey are in a better position to become Karzai’s business and state-building partners. Each has economic interests that mesh well with geopolitical ones: each wants to exploit Afghan resources and each wants to expel the US from Afghanistan”

The United States is seeking a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan. It hopes to

reverse the Taliban’s momentum and bring them to the bargaining table through a counter-insurgency program, diplomacy with indigenous tribes and foreign powers, and the attrition of Taliban forces. This, the US expects, will give it an important if not central role in a settlement.

But regional powers – primarily Pakistan and with the support of Iran and Turkey – see the lone superpower as overextended, weary, and nearing a fiscal crisis – a situation they seek to turn to their advantage. These four regional powers are in a good position to play crucial roles in a settlement and in an excellent position to benefit from one.

First, the regional powers, especially Pakistan, will use their influence with the Taliban to convince them to limit their ambitions to the south and east and accept a settlement with President Hamid Karzai at the helm in Kabul.

Second, the regional powers, especially Iran and Turkey, will press reluctant Afghan peoples to accept the settlement.

Third, the regional powers will help to form a rentier state to govern the country. Karzai will receive substantial revenue from foreign powers then allocate it to keep various peoples of the country in a loose but viable political framework.

Fourth, the regional powers will cooperate in the development of Afghanistan’s resources – largely to the exclusion of other powers – and accrue substantial geopolitical goals as well.

This holds the promise of peace, stability and prosperity, but nothing is without pitfalls in this part of the world.

The Afghan state, optimally
Despite its ethnic heterogeneity and unattractive geopolitical position amid ambitious states and empires, Afghanistan has known periods of peace and prosperity. The state was never powerful or deeply involved in the localities, and its officials were never respected or trusted. Local officials were considered outsiders and their purview was circumscribed by custom.

The ruler in Kabul – king or president – dealt with disparate tribes and peoples, not through a parliamentary body or loya jirga, (tribal councils) but through dialog and pacts with local elders and notables. The ruler apportioned sums of money to them to be used largely as they saw fit, and in return, the localities pledged support to Kabul.

Too much central power triggered opposition, and if persistent, to jolting rebellions. This took place in the late 1970s when the state’s reform efforts violated local custom and the country rebelled, leading to breakdown, Soviet intervention, and decades of war and turmoil.

Too little central power bred warlordism, foreign meddling and banditry. This was the state of affairs in the early 1990s when the Taliban rose to power by suppressing the chaos left after the Soviet Union departed and its client in Kabul lost control.

Because Afghanistan historically had little wealth, the money used by Kabul to hold things together came from foreign coffers, alternately British or Russian ones, in exchange for the country’s support or neutrality in the Great Game.

Afghanistan, then, was governed as a rentier state since the 19th century and not along the lines of a centralized state. Unappealing, counter-intuitive, and seemingly unstable from the outside, this quilt-work polity is nonetheless the optimal arrangement in Afghanistan – one that resonates with local sensibilities and with memories of the country’s best years.

Who will pay the rent?
The game continues, but Afghan’s newly-found mineralogical resources make it more complicated than the one in Rudyard Kipling’s day. Copper and iron, oil and gas, and the increasingly coveted rare earths are being discovered in Afghanistan in attractive quantities. Afghanistan is also a likely route for a pipeline connecting the oil and gas fields of Central Asia to ports on the Arabian Sea. Karzai knows all this and sees it as a sound basis for a long and prosperous rule.

Countries in and out of the region are looking to exploit these resources, including the US, Russia and India. However, history and events are working against them. Russia had few friends when it left in 1989, and India, though appreciated in northern Afghanistan, is disliked elsewhere as the enemy of Pakistan. The US has over the past nine years failed to bring the prosperity it promised when it invaded the country and is now deemed another power to be expelled. Its departure will be an essential part of any settlement.

Pakistan, China, Iran and Turkey are in a better position to become Karzai’s business and state-building partners. Each has economic interests that mesh well with geopolitical ones: each wants to exploit Afghan resources and each wants to expel the US from Afghanistan.

Pakistan has the advantages of proximity, road systems into eastern and southern Afghanistan, and capacious port facilities. It has long tried to build commerce with Central Asia. Indeed, Pakistani intelligence (Inter-Services Intelligence – ISI) helped to build up the Taliban back in the 1990s to suppress the banditry that was interfering with commercial traffic with the north. The ISI deployed Pakistani troops to fight alongside the Taliban (and al-Qaeda) against the Northern Alliance, prior to and during the US intervention in 2001.

Today, the ISI supplies the Taliban and other insurgent groups and provides them safe havens across the Durand Line that separates Afghanistan and Pakistan. Last year, the ISI demonstrated that it could round up Taliban leaders on short notice and impress upon them, and the US as well, that no negotiations could proceed without its say-so and without its positions given considerable weight.

Crucially, the ISI has a great deal of power over the Taliban and is the only entity that can force them to the negotiating table and get them to sign a settlement and abide by it.

Pakistan’s collaboration with Karzai at the expense of the US will bring many benefits. Pakistan’s assistance to the US in Afghanistan has brought it into conflict with domestic militant groups such as the Tehrik-i Taliban (TTP), which is conducting a devastating bombing campaign in Pakistan – one that kills scores of people every month.

Breaking with the US will mollify the TTP and permit redirecting their talents toward the insurgency in India-administered Kashmir – the centerpiece of Pakistani foreign policy and the ISI’s idee fixe since the country’s inception. Pakistan also seeks to weaken India’s position in northern Afghanistan and press it on the Kashmir conflict.

Further, the wealth from exploiting Afghanistan will bolster Pakistan’s economy and military as well, and strengthen its partnership with a rising power in the region and the world – China.
China’s booming economy and need for commodities constitute one of the principal dynamics in world affairs today. Blocked by powerful developed countries along much of its periphery, it’s looking westward to Central Asia.

It has already skillfully, and with little notice, placed itself ahead of the other powers in the new Afghan game. It is operating an immense copper mine in eastern Afghanistan, developing iron mines in the central region, and building a railroad connecting the promising oil and gas wealth of Kunduz province in the north to the Khyber Pass and Pakistan in the south.

China shares Pakistan’s wish to limit the presence of a mutual rival, India. It is bolstering its military partnership with Pakistan by sending in thousands of “flood relief” workers and by building a naval facility on the Arabian Sea, which in conjunction with its presence in Afghanistan and naval bases in Myanmar and Sri Lanka, poses a formidable problem for New Delhi.

These bases will also take China a long way on its quest to become a global military power – one whose navy operates near the Persian Gulf and one that can challenge the US in a growing portion of the globe. Not for nothing is the navalist thought of American geostrategist and historian Alfred Thayer Mahan avidly read in Beijing today.

The prospects for considerable Chinese influence across the Central Asian land mass are quite good. Not since the Yuan Dynasty of the 13th and 14th centuries will China have wielded so much power and commanded so much respect. English geographer Halford Mackinder’s writings on Central Asia’s geopolitical import are also enjoying a readership in Beijing.

Existing enterprises in Afghanistan offer insight into an already operational arrangement. China obtained mining licenses by delivering a sum of money to the appropriate persons in Kabul, and then set to work. It extracts huge amounts of ore then transports them south – with little if any difficulty from the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and other insurgent bands that roam the area. Evidently, Pakistan, the insurgent groups and China have already reached a working arrangement, which, though preliminary, augurs well for all parties.

Iran shares the same economic and geopolitical interests as Pakistan and China. Hurt by US-led sanctions, it seeks greater trade opportunities and geopolitical support. Persia once reigned over large parts of Central Asia and its culture and influence have persisted well after the last of the Safavids and Qajars.

Iran loathes the Taliban, which massacred thousands of Shi’ites, killed several Iranian diplomats in Mazar-i Sharif in 1998, and contributes mightily to the country’s drug problem. However, Iran would agree to a settlement that restrained the Taliban, opened economic opportunities, and expelled the US.

Iran presently enjoys good relations with the northern peoples of Afghanistan (Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and others) as it long supported them against the Taliban and helped them (and the US) oust the Taliban in 2001. Today, Iran contributes to rebuilding western Afghanistan and revitalizing commerce between the two countries.

Iranian influence will be critical to any negotiated settlement. The northern peoples, though a slight majority of the population, feel increasingly marginalized in public life by Karzai and other Pashtuns in his coterie. Northerners have been ousted from key ministries and from high positions in the military – a process somewhat reversed in recent weeks, perhaps at Tehran’s request.

Northerners look on reports of negotiations with the Taliban as a looming betrayal that will lead to another round of fanatical oppression. Iran can assuage such concerns and press Karzai, Pakistan and China to ensure that the Taliban limit their ambitions to the south and east.

Though hostile to the Taliban, Iran has some influence with them. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps provides a limited amount of weaponry to insurgents and trains them at a base near Zahedan in southeastern Iran, not far from the Afghan border. It does so to signal the US that any attack on Iran, whether by the US or Israel, would lead to greater aid to the insurgents and to greater casualties for the US. Surely the Farsi language has an

<a href=”; target=”_blank”> </a> 
equivalent of the old aphorism about the enemy of one’s enemy.

Turkey has sought to expand its influence in Central Asia since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. It did so with the encouragement of the US, which sought a secular and democratic influence in the region to prevent that of Islamist and authoritarian Iran, and to spread its own influence in hydrocarbon-rich Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.

However, Turkey is a confident rising power now. It seeks to assert its own interests and reduce the influence the US has had over it since the early days of the Cold War. To the disappointment of the US, it has developed closer ties with Iran and together they are expanding trade and geopolitical opportunities in Central Asia.

There are cultural ties among the Turkic peoples who live in various areas from the Mediterranean to western China. Among them are Afghanistan’s Uzbeks and Turkmen – approximately 10% of the population and chiefly in the north – who have looked to Turkey on cultural and trade matters at least since the days of the missions of Turkey’s founding father Kemal Ataturk there after World War I.

Turkey can work with Iran to convince northerners to accept the political framework in Kabul and to share in the promising development of national resources with the rising powers in the region.

In recent weeks, Turkey has been actively increasing its diplomatic positions on various Central Asian matters (and the Palestinian issue as well). It has offered to host a Taliban office in Ankara from which talks can be explored.

As a Muslim country, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and having troops in Afghanistan (thought not in a combat role), Turkey’s efforts have potential. As a likely future member of the European Union and as well an emerging Central Asian trade axis, Turkey sees itself a formidable power in a new era.

Problems in the game
The interests and dexterity of Afghanistan’s partners are considerable, though pitfalls are clear to anyone not blinded by the glittering appeal of economic and geopolitical boons.

Iranian-Turkish influence and Karzai’s recent courting notwithstanding, many northerners mistrust Karzai and any settlement with the Taliban he is party to.

Though the northern militias are said to have been disbanded, this is unlikely, and in any case northerners compose a majority of the army’s rank and file, who are more attentive to the appeals of Tajik and Uzbek notables than to the orders of venal and condescending Pashtun officers.

So badly fragmented is Afghan society after 30 years of warfare, with so many once-respected notables and elders dead or living abroad, that holding it together may be impossible. A north-south partition is not inconceivable.

Historically, Afghans are suspicious of outsiders and the past 32 years of intermittent war have done little to allay those concerns. The departure of the US, followed by a sudden influx of Pakistani and Chinese and Iranian and Turkish personnel, might plough under an old insurgency but sow the seeds of a new one. Presumably, all parties will agree to use locals wherever possible, but few Afghans will be deceived as to where the real power lies, where the traffic is headed, and where the riches are accumulating.

China’s economic and geopolitical masterstroke at the expense of India could have destabilizing consequences as New Delhi will feel outmaneuvered and endangered. New Delhi and Washington have recently drawn closer with trade agreements, including armaments, which could lead to a jarring realignment, the outcome of which cannot be predicted.

Perhaps most importantly, the arrangement relies on a stable Pakistan for control over the Taliban and the transportation of Afghan resources to world markets. Pakistan may be able to mollify domestic militant groups by ousting the US from Afghanistan, but problems will remain.

It faces desperate poverty, deep sectarian animosities, separatist movements in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (formerly North-West Frontier Province), and a barely-functioning political system that lurches from military rule to civilian rule with little political development along the way.

China and to a lesser extent Iran may find themselves in the unenviable position of trying to hold Pakistan together. Alternately, Pakistan could find itself reduced in importance as the senior partners shift to Iranian land routes and port facilities.

Strains may develop within the regional powers. The Taliban’s control of opium production, in which the Karzai government and the ISI may be complicit, is a source of tension with Iran where a serious drug problem exists. Pakistan’s relationship with Iran is also strained by its ties to Saudi Arabia, Iran’s chief rival for mastery in the Persian Gulf, which is developing a sizable military force composed of Pakistani (and Iraqi) mercenaries.

Karzai’s role
What if anything does Karzai bring to this arrangement? A look at the forces at work might suggest he is a meaningless figurehead and can be manipulated and if need be, brushed aside. Karzai – and given the field of leading politicians, perhaps only Karzai – can play an important role.

Though largely unremarked upon amid concern over his corruption, Karzai has built a measure of support in the south and east with several Pashtun tribes which from long experience mistrust or even loathe the Taliban. The Shinwari, Wardak, Popalzai and many other Pashtun tribes support Karzai, giving him some leverage in even the most contested provinces.

Karzai, it bears repeating, will be critical in holding together – through foreign payments and rentier-largesse – the disparate and often warring peoples of Afghanistan, Pashtun and non-Pashtun alike. Without a viable central figure, foreign powers will have to deal with a welter of competing and perhaps hostile regional leaders, warlords and bandits to get the resources out of the ground and into the ports.

For all his many faults, Karzai is a better face for foreign businesses to deal with than any other contender for power. Few if any world leaders wish to be seen inking a trade deal with as reviled and volatile a figure as Taliban leader Mullah Omar or any of the principal warlords of Afghanistan.

The Afghan president has thus far shown little skill in building a state or working with a representative assembly. Curiously, while working with Pakistan, China, Iran and Turkey, he need not deal with a representative assembly or be an exceptionally adroit politician – or even a very popular one. He need only be acceptable to domestic groups, pliant to foreign partners, and generous in the disbursement of subsidies. Karzai may have found his metier.

Karzai can perform one other part in this new game. He alone can one day, with or without the approval or foreknowledge of any representative assembly or world body, order the United States to leave his country.

Pakistan, China, Iran and Turkey are all rising powers with strong economic and geopolitical interests in Afghanistan and the region. All have working relations with Karzai and with many Afghan peoples, Pashtun and non-Pashtun, south and north – even with those who mistrust or despise Karzai. All but Turkey are opposed to a US presence.

And all but Pakistan have already benefited from the US’s invasion of Iraq in 2003. Iran had its deadliest enemy ousted and hanged, his army crushed and disbanded, and a friendly Shi’ite majority come to power. The new Iraqi government rewarded China with far more oil licenses than it did the US. Turkey became an export route for oil from the Iraqi north. And the Shi’ite government ordered the US out of Iraq by the end of 2011. The regional powers wish to benefit from another American war that excites hostility against it and opens opportunity to them.

Karzai in recent weeks has become increasingly antagonistic toward the US. His declamations over civilian casualties have an operatic quality and he turned a barely-noticed burning of the Koran in a tiny American church into violent attacks on outsiders – Americans and others. Had he not secured the support of other powers, he would not overly offend what seems the only force keeping him in power.

Pakistan choked off US/International Security Assistance Force supply routes through the Khyber Pass for a few weeks last year (another is planned) and it more recently ordered the curtailment of drone strikes inside Pakistan, which the US is unwilling to abide with. Pakistan and the US are heading for a break – one that the former would not move toward had it not already secured a partnership with China.

Karzai is reaching out to northerners by ousting a Pashtun defense minister, one thought too close to the US, and replacing him with a northerner supported by the Uzbek warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum. His finance minister, too, is thought to be soon to depart – another figure deemed pro-US.

Events are taking place as the US faces the realization, for the first time in its history, that it is overextended militarily and lurching toward fiscal calamity. The heady sense of limitlessness in world affairs that the US felt in the decades after the intoxicating victory of World War II is beginning to fade.

Several emerging powers feel that same sense of limitlessness. They are convinced that the world is now open to them and that they can better manage the affairs of the globe. But Afghanistan is a difficult place to begin.

Brian M Downing is a political/military analyst and author of The Military Revolution and Political Change and The Paths of Glory: War and Social Change in America from the Great War to Vietnam. He can be reached at 


Assassinating the Leader of a Sovereign Nation

Dangerous Precedents Have Been Set by Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron and Hague. Peddling a policy that includes assassinating the leader of a sovereign nation, besieged under blatantly false pretenses, sets a dangerous precedent that may backfire in the faces of the arrogant men calling for it.

         With the US now openly admitting to recruiting, training, funding, and equipping armies of “activists” to go back and subvert their nations’ governments.As this facade of legitimacy crumbles, the imperialist nature of the aggression becomes more overt and we now see what looks more like the opening salvos of World War III than a “wave of democracy” sweeping the world.
       ‘Give Up Now Or We’ll Kill You,’ Liam Fox Warns Gaddafi As He Starts Talks With U.S. On Widening Scope Of Airstrikes — Daily Mail  
Two and four large missiles or bombs hit and exploded in the compound early today, A Libyan official accompanying journalists at the scene said 45 people were wounded, 15 seriously, in the bombing. It was an attempt to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi.

       America already has the blood of Salvador Allende on
its hands, and who knows who else, and France and the UK have plenty of blood on their hands from the past as well. But no leaders have ever been so bold in their public assertions that it was, and is, their “right” to assassinate another leader of a sovereign nation.If this internationally illegal behavior — this action — is allowed to go unpunished, then we can expect chaos throughout the world. No leader of any nation will be safe, and that includes the warmongering group of four: Obama, Hague, Cameron and Sarkozy.

Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy have set two very dangerous precedents that may come back to devour them, if China, Russia or some other power group decides to respond in kind against them. They feel they have the right to:

1. Go in and help the CIA-backed Libyan “rebels”; instigate the overthrow of the Qaddafi government.

2. Assassinate the leader of any sovereign nation, as they   wish, for whatever reasons they choose.  

Suppose China decides to come to the USA to help the Latinos in Arizona, Texas and California. What would Obama do?

Suppose some of the Muslim countries decide to hire mercenaries to assassinate France’s Sarkozy because they feel he is being unfair to Muslims who live in France. What would Sarkozy do then?

Suppose Qaddafi sends agents in to sabotage or to kill any of this group of four — what would they do? I’m sure they’d go screaming to the UN saying, “This is a violation of international law!”

Ah, the laws of double standards and hypocrisy; it’s okay if we do this to you, but you can’t do it to us!


New Great Game in Afghanistan,Pak-US Rift

Islamabad and Kabul seem to be working together to counter what Pakistan has described as a new “Great Game” in Afghanistan. Political analysts describe it as U.S. intentions to establish permanent bases on Afghan soil to be used for launching attacks against Iran and other countries.
                Times of India says. Even as Fathollahi claimed that India and Iran had “close viewpoints” on Afghanistan, But Iran does not share India’s concern that the Pakistani army and ISI might foist themselves on Afghanistan once the international security forces leave the region by 2014. Unlike New Delhi, Tehran wants the forces to leave Afghanistan as soon as possible.However, the Iranian foreign minister said his government considered Pakistan an integral constituent of any regional strategy, including on Afghanistan, and has always believed in co-operating with Islamabad.”The Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister also threw cold water on resurrecting the Northern Alliance or dividing Afghanistan–”Northern Alliance is not separated from other parts of Afghanistan”.
                There has been a lack of trust between Washington and Islamabad
mainly because of the way the US forced Pakistan to participate in the war, and twisted its arm to act against its own interests. The US took advantage of the chaos that reigned during the power transition from Musharraf to Zardari. Langley grew the CIA network and dramatically increased drone bombings, fully knowing that this would destabilize the situation in Pakistan.

                 Both sides are trying to secure their national interests while jockeying with the different players in the region. General Kayani got an extension on the promise that Islamabad would be able to secure a position on the negotiating table–a commitment given to him by none other than Mrs. Hillary Clinton. The US needs a fall-guy for its defeat in the Hindu Kush. The graveyard of empires has defined the limits of a Superpower. Washington knows it needs Pakistan, no matter how frustrating and irritating the relationship is.
                 Today the US is facing some of the pugnacious Pakistani resilience. Unlike Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya, the U.S. cannot even think about using blatant  force to pressure Pakistan, a fact of which the Pakistanis are well aware of.  All the US can do it send scores of mercenaries into Pakistan to try to intimidate it. However JSOC operations can go only so far–and the ISI is now wise to US tactics and is countering them in a potent manner. Islamabad has a knife on the  NATO jugular–it controls the main US supply line from Karachi to Kabul in Afghanistan.
Sources in Pakistan confirm the that difference between the US and Pakistan can be encapsulated in the following few bullets:

  1. The Pakistanis want the CIA infrastructure dismantled in Pakistan and a halt to drone strikes.
  2. In a post-US Kabul, Islamabad wants a smaller Afghan National Army of about 100,000 instead of 400,000 that the US wants.
  3. The US wants a highly centralized Afghan government while Pakistan wants a lose confederation.
  4. Rawalpindi wants reconciliation with the “Good Taliban” while  the US wants to hammer the “Bad Taliban”.
  5. The situation is complicated by the differences between the hawkish General Petraeus‘ political ambitions and Admiral Mullen’s pragmatic approach of including the Pakistanis in the final Afghan settlement.

According to press reports this disastrous “War on Terror” has cost Pakistan more then $ 75 billion and US has merely compensated less then $ 10 billion over the past decade. The Pakistanis want to halt the US supply lines–and really don’t care about US aid anymore.
It is apparent that the ephemeral strategic alliance made by President George W. Bush and Gen. Pervez Musharraf is as dead as a door nail. The Pakistani official quoted by Ms. Parlez is a poignant reminder of the reality of US-Pakistani relationship “The feeling of being allies was never there,” … “I’ve said to the Americans: ‘You are going to fail in Afghanistan and you are going to make us the fall guy.’ I still think this is going to happen.”

Source: pakistan patriot

Shamsi Air Base taken back from CIA, US forces

One Bold Step, Order to Vacate Shamsi Air Base

So Message was loud and clear, Stop Drone Attacks

Pakistan has stopped all US operations from the Shamsi Air Base in Balochistan, an airport which was given to American forces for use after 9/11 and drone attacks were launched from the base on targets in the tribal areas, military sources have confirmed. It was also used extensively in 2001 when thousands of US sorties took off to bomb Afghanistan a few weeks after the 9/11 attack in New York.

As the relations between Islamabad and Washington have strained due to latter’s mounting interference and repeated breach of Pakistan’s sovereignty, the US Embassy spokesman, Alberto Rodriguez, confirmed that there are no US forces at the Shamsi Air Base in Balochistan. 

Pakistan Air Force (PAF) spokesperson, when approached about his version on the vacation of US forces and the deadly drones from Shamsi airfield, explained that the airfield does not belong to the PAF while the Pakistan Army sources confirmed that the airfield was free from the American forces.

No one was prepared to share with The News the dates or the time period when the Shamsi airfield was vacated by the Americans although the sources insist that it is a recent development.

Almost a year back, Defence Minister Ahmad Mukhtar spoke on the topic of the Shamsi Air Base confirming that it was being used by American forces for logistical purposes but, he added, the government was not satisfied with payments for the use of the facility.

Mukhtar, however, did not go into the nature of airfield’s use by the American forces. Prior to Shamsi, Pakistan had also got vacated from the US forces the Jacobabad Air Base and Pasni, which were used for its operations in Afghanistan.

The US has been using the Shamsi Air Base in Balochistan province to station unmanned Predator drones that have been used to attack terrorist targets inside Pakistan’s tribal areas. Shamsi airfield, also called Bandari, is a small airfield and air station located about 200 miles southwest of Quetta near the town of Washki.

In 2009, media reports revealed that the airfield was used by the United States Central Intelligence Agency as a base for Predator drone attacks on so-called militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas but ended up killing several hundreds innocent people. On January 9, 2002 a US Marine Corps KC-130 aircraft reportedly crashed on approach to Shamsi. All seven crew members were killed in the crash.

In February 2009, The Times of London had announced that it had obtained Google images from 2006 which showed Predator aircraft parked outside a hangar at the end of the runway of the Shamsi airfield. Before that, a US Senator Dianne Feinstein said that the CIA was basing its drone aircraft in Pakistan. The US company Blackwater was also reported to have a presence there, hired by the government to arm the drones with missiles.

It was General Musharraf who had permitted the US to use its airbases not only to attack Afghanistan but also to launch drone attacks on the people of Pakistan in the name of the so-called war on terror. The present regime also continued with Musharraf’s policies and allowed much larger number of drone attacks than before.

WikiLeaks had revealed that Prime Minister Gilani had endorsed the drones’ policy. Gilani was reported to have even said to the US officials that his government would raise hue and cry over these drone attacks for the sake of countering the public pressure.

However, of late and after the Raymond Davis episode, things became extremely tense between Washington and Islamabad with the CIA insisting to carry on with its operations, including the drone attacks inside Pakistan, while the ISI is adamant to restricting the Americans from crossing the red-line.

Source: by Ansar Abbasi 

Obama is direct threat to saudi arabia.Pakistan!

Saudi Arabia is the main target of US in middle east after Egypt.Saudi Arabia must have a fear that the USA and its allies are planning to take over Saudi’s oil. Saudi Arabia now see Obama is a threat to national security.
              Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia Gets Pakistani Military Support vs CIA Color Revolution. If CIA will start color revolution in Saudi Arabia, Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia gets Pakistani military support to counter any CIA threat.

            A Russia-Saudi-Pakistan-China Bloc could challenge Wall St. and the City of London

                Pakistan allies to china and Bandar conection to Russia, will make way to a new bloc Saudi,Pakistan,Russia and China. Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia is preparing his trip to Pakistan which means open way to china. Bandar goes to Pakistan means, whats nixon has done 40years ago. That is real alliance of strategic,economic and military, Bloc have a potential to change Global Scenario. 
                Saudi Arabia mainly rely on US for their security needs but now saudi Arabia realize that CIA have a plan to split Saudi Arabia gives the Saudis the holy sites and us the oil.So far, the US-Saudi special relationship has lasted 50 years because of a simple deal: oil in exchange for security.
                American real Aim is
to starting war between Saudi Arabi and iran by dragging them in Battle ground Bahrain, provide an opportunity to interfere and invade Saudi Arabia.The US has not had wholly “friendly” intentions towards the Kingdom for the past 30 years. Any appearance of such is only the visible veneer of real US military policy. Declassified documents reveal that there has been a constant drumbeat to invade Saudi Arabia that has sounded behind the closed doors of our government. The Pentagon, for three decades, has formulated and updated secret plans to seize Saudi oil wells and rid the Kingdom of the ruling House of Saud. This is not only a neo-conservative cabal. Time and again plans have been made for an invasion of Saudi Arabia for a larger purpose: US control of the global oil supply thereby dominating global economic markets.


Source: aangirfan

US losing the war in Afghanistan in the same way the Red Army lost it

 A renowned US journalist says Washington’s military and economic empire could collapse at any time as it has embarked on the same course in Afghanistan as the former USSR did back in the 1980’s.
                “We’re losing [the war in Afghanistan] in the same way the Red Army lost it,” said Chris Hedges in a December 17 interview with the Raw Story.
                “It’s exactly the same configuration where we sort of control the urban centers where 20 percent of the population lives. The rest of the country where 80 percent of the Afghans live is either in the hands of the Taliban or disputed,” he explained.

                “Foreigners will not walk the streets of Kabul because of kidnapping, and journalists regularly meet Taliban officials in Kabul because the whole apparatus is so porous and corrupt,” the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist said.
                 Hedges predicted that US President Obama’s war report due later in December would “contradict not only [US] intelligence reports but everything else that is coming out of Afghanistan.”

                 The CIA’s own assessment confirmed the long-time foreign correspondent’s speculation, as it came in striking contrast with Obama’s report.
                 Defense Secretary Robert Gates, however, insisted that the US controlled more territory in Afghanistan than in 2009.
           Hedges also referred to what it called “a corporate coup d’?tat in slow motion” as another symptom of the US decline. “Our public education system has been gutted. Our infrastructure is corroding and collapsing. Unless we begin to physically resist, they are going to solidify neo-feudalism in this country.”

The loss of the Afghan War by the US and its reluctant allies will call into question the reason for the alliance and likely hasten Europe building an integrated military independent of US control. America’s grip on Western Europe would be ended. 
           That is why Afghanistan so unnerves Washington’s right wingers. The defeat of Soviet armies in Afghanistan in 1989 began the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Could the same fate be in store for the American Raj?

by Senior US journalist Chris Hedges

The West Versus China: A New Cold War Begins on Libyan Soil

The question as to why US-led NATO forces are determined to engineer a regime change in Libya is now becoming clear. While media pundits and political experts still argue over whether the Libyan rebel gangs are actually being backed and directed by US, UK and Israel intelligence agencies, broader long-range Western policy objectives for Libya are being completely ignored.
One only has to read the strategic briefings in U.S. AFRICOM documents to realise the true endgame in Libya: the control of valuable resources and the eviction of China from North Africa.
When the US formed AFRICOM in 2007, some 49 countries signed on to the US military charter for Africa but one country refused: Libya. Such a treacherous act by Libya’s leader Moummar Qaddafi would only sow the seeds for a future conflict down the road in 2011.

NATO: Reduced to a mere private security force for western corporate interests.

According to former Reagan cabinet official Dr Paul Craig Roberts, the situation with Qaddafi is much different than the other recent protests in the Arab world. “Why is NATO there?” has become to real question, says Roberts, who fears that risky involvement stemming from American influence could lead to catastrophic breaking point in Libya.

According to Bejing’s Ministry of Commerce, China’s current contracts in Libya number no less than 50 large projects involving contracts in excess of 18 billion USD. What is even more revealing here is that due to the recent instability in the North African region, China’s investments have taken a serious hit. The recent political turmoil in the region has caused China’s foreign contracted projects  to drop with new contracts amounting to $ 3,470,000,000, down 53.2%. Among them, the amount of new contracts in Libya, down by 45.3%, 13.9% less turnover; to Algeria, the amount of the contract fell 97.1%, turnover decreased by 10.7% – all within the first 2 months of this year.

 WHY WE ARE IN LIBYA: a revealing interview with Dr Paul Craig Roberts.
In addition to the numerous Chinese investments in Libya, the North African nation has also recently completed one of the most expensive and advance water works projects in world history- Libya’s Great Man Made River.  This 30 year venture finished only last year, gives Libya the potential for an agricultural and economic boom that would certainly mean trouble for competing agri-markets in neighbouring Israel and Egypt. It could also transform Libya into the emerging “bread basket” of Africa.
With global food prices on the rise, and Libya possessing a stable currency and cheap domestic energy supply, it doesn’t take an economic genius to see what role Libya could play in the global market place.

Founded under US President George Bush Jr, AFRICOM is a subset of the larger neo-conservative Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Central to AFRICOM’s strategic goals is to confront the increasing Chinese influence on the continent. One AFRICOM study suggests that China will eventually dispatch troops to Africa to defend its interests there:
“Now China has achieved a stage of economic development which requires endless supplies of African raw materials and has started to develop the capacity to exercise influence in most corners of the globe. The extrapolation of history predicts that distrust and uncertainty will inevitably lead the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to Africa in staggering numbers…”
So we have a vocalised fear on the part of US military planners, of a military confrontation with China… in Africa. Today it’s Libya, but tomorrow, it will be in Sudan. Does this sound a little familiar?  Well, it should…
What the Chinese economic data (above) does show clearly is that the strategic policy objectives outlined in Washington’s AFRICOM documents, particularly those ones designed to confront and minimise China’s economic interest in Africa- are working very well as a result of instability in the region.  ’Destabilisation’ as a tool of control has always worked for colonial powers. Engineered chaos can then be managed by a strong military presence in the region.
In effect, what we are witnessing here is the dawn of a New Cold War between the US-EURO powers and China. This new cold war will feature many of the same elements of the long and protracted US-USSR face-off we saw in the second half of the 20th century. It will take place off shore, in places like Africa, South America, Central Asia and through old flashpoints like Korea and the Middle East.

AFRICOM: Outlining America’s new military playground.
What makes this new cold war much deeper and more subtle than the previous one, is that it will not be cloaked in a popular ideology like ‘Capitalism vs Communism’.
This new war centres around one single issue- natural resources. The capture and control of the world’s remaining resources and energy supplies will be the theme which will govern- and literally fuel, all major conflicts in the 21st century. It will be fought through numerous proxies, and on far-flung pitches across the globe but it will never be spoken of by the White House Press Secretary or the Foreign Office in Downing Street.

   Early reports out of Libya confirm that “Rebels” are being backed and directed by Western intelligence agencies.
The great PR spin trick in the run-up to NATO’s carpet bombing run in Libya was the West’s ability to characterise Libya’s violent armed gangs as mere protestors. The average American, British or French media consumer equated the Libyan uprising with those previously in Tunisia and Egypt. The reality of course was that they were anything but.
However, the bells of freedom and democracy had indeed rung, so all that was really needed at that point was a clever WMD-like diplomatic trick to dazzle the rows of intellectually challenged diplomats at the UN in New York City. The ‘No Fly Zone’ was repackaged and worked well enough for politicians to get their foot in the door to their respective War Rooms.
It seems to have worked so far but with NATO civilian body bags already beginning to pile up, the next phase- ground troops and a NATO military occupation of Libya, will be somewhat more complicated to execute without sustaining heavy political fallout. All of these complexed efforts are used to shroud western corporate and military long-term agendas in the region, all part and parcel of these new Resource Wars with China.
Few will argue that the average western observer and mainstream media consumer suffers from chronic historical amnesia. For Americans in particular, relevant history only extends as far back as the previous season of Dancing With the Stars, or American Idol.  Some might argue that this is by design, that on whole the masses have been conditioned to be passive actors in the new media-rich modern democracy because it makes managing the herds much easier.
The lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq have yet to return home for the US and Great Britain- both projects are still going concerns for the massive cartel of western corporations. This has allowed ambitious bureaucrats in Washington, London and Paris to try their hand again in Libya. In time however, Americans and Europeans will come to learn what every citizen and subject already learned many times over throughout world history. In theory it may work, but in practice, “Occupation” is a paradox. The US-UK may draw plans in private to occupy an Iraq or a Libya indefinitely but history doesn’t jibe with these imperial ambitions.
It will end one day, and end badly because the Neo-Roman Anglo-American Empire with all its legions abroad, cannot manage its fragile domestic affairs back at home. First comes the fall of the Senate, then the rise of the Caesar, and finally the collapse of the Denarius($) at home. The once great empire goes out with a whimper- too fat and too bankrupt to carry on.
Back in the day, the citizens of Rome cared little about the details of military largess and conquest abroad. There only interest was that the glory of Rome was upheld and for bread and circuses at home. As the Great Resource Wars of the 21st century continue to rage on unabated, one question comes to mind: what will mindful citizens in the aggressor countries do to change this present course of history?
Judging by the ease at which the West managed to pull of their latest heist in Libya, I would say… very little right now.
Author Patrick Henningsen is a writer and communications consultant and currently the Managing Editor of 21st Century Wire.

by Prof. Mickey Huff

Radioactive Particles hit Peshawar Shuba?ROSEMARY!

There is no ban on Importing cell phones, laptops, cars, spare parts and other gadgets from japan radiation effected zone, Soon or may be that radioactive particles  reached peshawar shuba market.No awarness about radiation and radioactive particles related to import of above goods from japan,so no voice against it.
         The radiation risk from import of these items is no longer negligable.Fukushima explosion and a massive cloud of radioactive isotopes gets dropped onto everything.  Despite these warnings, the real issue that few are willing to acknowledge.
 Now, Egypt has declared that it will halt all import of goods from Japan to avoid any unwanted radioactivity. This ban includes food imports, fresh produce, scrap metal and car parts.

                       Japanese cars in Russia labeled radioactive.In recent weeks, the Russian Customs port of Vladivostok were spotted and seized a fifty cars from Japan where the rate of radioactivity was much higher than normal. Contaminated vehicles have been isolated until health authorities decide how to proceed.

                Nissan Americas says it will start monitoring vehicles imported from Japan for radioactive material today.


Rosemary available in Tarnab Farm Peshawar

           Rosemary Found to Offer Best Protection against Radiation Poisoning and Compounds from rosemary fight against mutagenic effects of radiation.
                     In two separate studies, scientists in Spain found that nothing fights radiation damage to micronuclei like a simple garden herb known as rosemary.
They noted that ionizing radiation causes the massive generation of free radicals that induce cellular DNA damage. They studied the protective effects of several compounds against gamma ray induced chromosomal damage in micronuclei testing by adding various compounds to human blood before and after irradiation. When the compounds were added after gamma-irradiation treatment, the protective effects relied not on scavenging ability, but on activity against free radicals already present in the cells, such as lipoperoxy radicals which are mainly responsible for continuous chromosomal oxidative damage.
                       The fact that carnosic acid and carnosol found in rosemary are fat soluble allows them to provide highly asignificant protective anti-mutagenic activity. Even the most powerful water-soluble antioxidants lack the capacity to protect against gamma ray induced damage. This study can be found in the British Journal of Radiology, February 2 edition.
                      In their second study, the generation of radiation induced cellular DNA damage to skin from free radicals was the focus. The researchers sought to demonstrate that rosmarinic acid from rosemary would act as a photo-protector both by acting as a scavenger of free radicals and as an inducer of the body’s own endogenous defense mechanisms by regulating tyrosinase activity and stimulating melanin production. They found that formulation of toxic malonyldialdehyde was delayed by the use of rosmarinic acid, and the protection factor was 3.34 times greater than for other compounds studied, as measured in micronucleus testing. In vivo testing showed the capacity of orally administered rosmarinic acid to inhibit skin alterations as a result of UV radiation exposure. This study was reported in the February edition of Food and Chemical Toxicology.

%d bloggers like this: