The West Afghan nightmare

By Ali Ashraf Khan

When in autumn 2001 the possibility of a military campaign was discussed as a reaction to the events of 9/11 despite the fact that not a single Afghan was even accused of being involved in it - people knowing the country and it history were cautioning the West not to go into this adventure which had broken the neck of the British Empire and the USSR and this might turn out to be another Vietnam. The will and the capacity of the Afghan people to fight for freedom and to clear their home land from foreign troops and their Afghan stooges can not be broken neither by napalm bomb, daisy cutters or chemical weapons nor air raids with cluster bombs, drone attacks and the like. Bob Woodward has written in his book Bush at War that when power drunken George W. Bush informed the high powered committee meeting that let us attack on Afghanistan it was General ® Colin Powel who told that it was to early to attack Afghanistan as by then we have no reason or justification to attack Afghanistan and any such move may be counter productive for US, so it was decided to attack on Iraq. This is nothing more then that power has gone to the heads of CIA & its establishment and President Obama is another tool in there hands.

The US for their own reasons which preceded 9/11 by more than a year insisted on waging war at Afghanistan and its Taliban regime. US decided to push Pakistan on the front line and seven things were asked to spineless Musharraf to do in this war, he replied to Colin Powel who was calling on behalf of President Bush that he accepts all seven dictates, President Bush and his team was surprised to learn that Pakistan has agreed to become front line ally, which has coasted Pakistan adversely and estimated economic and financial loss comes to around $ 100 Billion against which Kerry-Lugar-Bremen bill promises to re-imburse $ 2 Billion annually for next 5 years provided we improve or Human Rights record, which is questionable today, according to Ms. Clinton. The result was that within a few weeks the Taliban government was toppled and the Taliban had melted away and President Bush proclaimed victory for US and Pakistan has been landed in yet another mess with entire socio-economic infra-structure gone with the wind.

Almost ten years later the difficult fact dawns upon the US and its Western allies that victory in Afghanistan is a Pyrrhic victory, after every successful battle, attack or operation the US army is back to square one and colossal sum of $ 100 Billion dollars per annum the cost of war in Afghanistan is gone in this misadventure. Even the massive surge of soldiers during this year has achieved remarkably small inroads into Taliban controlled territory. On the other hand the slain Taliban commanders are replaced quickly and the reorganization of the fighters is taking place within a short period of time. Only temporary set-backs are inflicted in most of the cases. Even the accusation that the safe havens across the porous border in Pakistan were the reason for this do not seem very plausible because the Pashtuns of North Waziristan have now announced that in case of an operation in their region they would just cross over into Afghanistan, an option which is not at all liked over here and which would be an embarrassment for Afghans because that would demonstrate their lacking presence at the Afghan side of the border.

By the end of this year President Obama who is under severe pressure at the home front because of the vanishing popularity of his Afghan war and economic down turn leading to large scale unemployment at home American youth who were fountain of power for Obama in 2008 appears to have changed hearts. If President Obama does not understand the under current of his swift unpopularity in just two year in White House, he may not be re-elected for the second term, as such with this bleak prospects of his party struggling to retain majority in Congress & Senate in the forthcoming elections will have to decide what to do with the unpopular war as his main cadre of support the young Americans are not happy with economic down turn, which is the direct result of Afghan war and poor economic management at home leading to bankruptcy. Given the limited success of his surge policy he will have to speed up exit plans from Afghanistan before it is too late. For that he had hoped to get into negotiations with the Taliban and reportedly some talks with some people who can not be named have taken place. But the spokesman of the Taliban movement is clearly denying any will to negotiate with the foreign aggressors. Why should we do that when the US will be leaving soon and any long protraction of the war will be impossible politically? One can hear even comments that say that the Taliban are keeping back their forces for the time being so as not to endanger the troop withdrawal in July next year and will then deal with the rest and with Karzai accordingly.

A few days back NATO forces launched operation against drug peddlers in Ningahaar are adjoining Pakistani border and during that perhaps crossed into Pakistani territory fighting against locals on both side of border, Pakistan is tied lip till today while Afghan President has taken a serious view and called it a direct challenge to Afghan Sovereignty because he has alleged NATO to have used some kind of mercenary troops in this operation belonging to some Central Asian Republic in the region, which is highly alarming for future peace and harmony in the region, this outburst of President Karazai was broadcast on Sunday morning in BBC Urdu service programme.

President Obama and his administration had also tried to implicate the Russians into this lost war by trying to get access to the railway lines from the Baltic Sea through Russia to Afghanistan which Russians had created at that time as a supply line for their war efforts; but lo and behold Russians declined access to that. Given the US reaction to the Russian campaign in Georgia last year this is only just and appropriate reply. And Russians seem to have learned their lesson. In a talk with BBC former President of Russia Mikhail Gorbaechov, who at that time had been bringing Russian troops home declared very clearly that US and NATO can not win this war. Any news about Russian troops returning to Afghanistan to replace the West at the request of the same countries which had been helping to remove Russia from there in 1988 should, therefore, be taken with a pinch of salt. Russians might sell some helicopter or other equipment to NATO, but being a neighbour of Afghanistan as much as Pakistan and Iran they will have to safeguard their national interests in an Afghanistan after Western withdrawal.

The same caution is required with regard to the much-talked-about peace talks. From the way the peace talks are referred to it is quite clear that neither the US nor the West is interested in peace for Afghans, if they would be they would not have broken their peace in the first place. All they are interested in is a face-saving exist, which allows them to retain their grip and influence in the country afterwards. This is understood by both the Taliban and the Afghan government. They know that the struggle for power will continue or even surge after the withdrawal of the foreign troops. The Karzai government with its record of corruption and western leanings will not be acceptable to the Afghan people.

Why so much hesitancy about Kandahar in operation?

 One possible reason was that the Chief architect of the operation Gen McChrystal had left the scene and his successor Gen David Petraeus was not finding the obtaining operation environment conducive to take the plung into the spiritual home of Taliban.
_______________________________________________________

By Asif Haroon Raja

After failed operation in Marjah, talk of an operation in Kandahar gained currency. It was asserted that victory in Kandahar would break the back of Taliban and would render them fragile. Media hype was deliberately created to demoralise the militants. It was presumed that successful culmination of Operation Dragon Strike would provide much needed satisfaction and sense of moral ascendancy to the US military which after suffering repeated reverses was desperately in need for taste of victory. Other plus points envisaged were that it will help in checkmating demoralisation set in among coalition troops and Afghan National Army (ANA); silence the critics that were drying up pens to paint US military as losers; push back anti-US circles in USA and in western countries on the back foot; vindicate the position of hawks seeking more reinforcements for Afghanistan and continuation of policy of brute force; bolster sagging morale of ANA and troops from NATO and other countries and may encourage them to stay back; slow down frequency of attacks by militants, which had become a daily occurrence; give heart to occupying forces to follow it up with few more operations in quick succession in critical eastern and southern regions to maintain momentum and to wrest the initiative; give a better leverage to USA in political peace negotiations with Taliban for a political settlement on its terms.

Despite creating hype about the decisive offensive to be launched in June, and despite identifying multiple advantages that could be gained by striking at the heartland, somehow the envisaged offensive was postponed several times. After drumming up operation in Kandahar for quite sometime, of late its importance has been downplayed. One possible reason was that the chief architect of the operation Gen McChrystal had left the scene and his successor Gen David Petraeus was not finding the obtaining operational environment conducive to take the plunge into the spiritual home of Taliban. Passion for Kandahar operation was overtaken by peace-talk mantra. Lot of coverage was given to peace Jirga in Kabul followed by secret parleys between Taliban and Karzai.

Besides peace talks, somehow focus of US attention drifted from Kandahar to North Waziristan (NW). It was strongly suggested that neutralisation of NW was a pre-requisite for success in Kandahar. An impression was created as if Taliban in Kandahar were being supported from NW whereas on ground the two places are situated far apart, former in the south and latter in the northeast. Additionally, attention of the world was deflected from Kandahar towards other issues such as Times Square incident, presence of Osama in NW and Mullah Omar in Quetta, projection of NW as the breeding ground and hub centre of terrorism, and lately Mumbai-style terror attacks on European cities by al-Qaeda emanating from NW. Media performed all the tricks to keep Kandahar out of radar screen and NW on screen with its consequences on Pakistan. The latter was continuously nudged to launch an operation in NW. Variety of pressures were applied to make it do its bidding.

Having carried out diversionary effort through media, NATO-US forces on the quiet got offensively deployed in proximity of Kandahar in late September and thereon started to gradually tighten the noose around the city to impose an economic blockade on the pattern of Gaza. One of the major reasons for launching a silent offensive is Marjah fiasco. Operation Sword and Panther’s Claw had been launched last February with 15000 US troops, several thousands British troops and ANA. Tanks, helicopters, jets, APCs and humvies were extensively used to create shock and awe. Media hype was created by USA terming it the biggest operation ever launched by US Marines after Vietnam War. It was claimed that the militants would be wiped out of the town within no time and a functional civilian government installed.

The Mujahideen quietly retreated from certain areas under a tactical plan to lure in foreign troops in soft target areas. When they got dispersed, they were trapped. Taliban fighters returned by April-May and regained control over outer perimeter of the town. People of Marjah refused to cooperate with foreign troops, ANA and Afghan police because of which consolidation could not take place.

In north of Helmand, all districts remained in the hands of Mujahideen. In south, where operation was intense, writ of Taliban was restored in districts of Khanshin, Marji, Garam Sar. Foreign troops are entirely dependent upon air supply since no road supply is possible. Tanks and logistic vehicles are vulnerable to sudden ambushes and minefields. In Nad Ali, they were forced to abandon their base. British troops occupied areas in Babaji and Pashak, but couldn’t retain it for long and had to withdraw. They then decided to withdraw from Sangin district as well.

In a nutshell, invading forces not only utterly failed to consolidate their hold over captured Marjah, a small town in Helmand province in southern Afghanistan, but also suffered heavy casualties. From February onwards, rate of fatalities has been constantly rising, making 2010 the worst year for ISAF. Most casualties occurred due to IEDs about which Taliban had earlier warned that their new version of improvised device would prove deadly. Hit and run attacks have also proved expensive. Mounting fatalities of offenders tapered off media hype and soon Marjah operation was smoke screened behind stony silence.

These reverses have taken the steam out of belligerence expressed by US military at the dawn of 2010 and posed caution on future offensive plans. Kandahar which was to be tackled in phase two in June is therefore being tackled cautiously without any hullabaloo and recklessness.

Apart from aggressive deployment around the third largest city of Afghanistan, a massive covert drive has been unleashed through intelligence agencies, Blackwater and local informers to gain first hand credible information about militants inside the city, their state of preparedness, their hideouts and bunkers, logistics and arms dumps, and their sympathisers. A network of spies combs the city to pass on information. Besides, influential persons including warlords are busy winning over the sympathisers and fighters. This covert action has been named Operation Hamkari (cooperation) which is aimed at gaining collaboration of sizeable segment of Kandharis to help in providing a secure base for fighting in built up areas at an opportune time and also in identifying enemy. Certain areas on the outskirts like Arghandab have already been secured for use as launching pads for assaults.

ANA will be used to lead the assault with coalition troops giving the backup support. The attackers may be able to wrest control over the city but their gains may prove illusory as in the case of Marjah. Governed by rules of guerrilla warfare, Taliban seldom indulge in pitched battles against a stronger force. In all likelihood they will abandon the city and after the winters would start irritating, pricking and nibbling occupiers of Kandahar to drive them mad.

Although Obama administration has revised its given schedule of pull back from July 2011 to 2014 so as to keep up pressure on militants in Afghanistan and to lessen anxieties of Karzai regime, Israel, India and hawks within US power centres, I have a hunch that pullback will be on time, but completion time will be extended. Length of extension will be subject to operational preparedness of ANA and its ability to undertake security duties independently. In case the US-NATO troops find it difficult to stay put, they may shift to northern parts of the country from where they would continue rendering aerial support, logistics and training support to ANA to keep fighting the Taliban.

Russia’s Afghan foray is bad news for Pakistan and China

By Brian M Downing

Russia’s use of its military and security forces has historically not been known for economy of force or strategic subtlety. Injudicious invaders and troublesome satellites have been met with overwhelming force. However, in the decades after Joseph Stalin and his successors belatedly departed the scene, Russia has used its might more judiciously and subtly.

Russia's incursion into Georgia in 2008 succinctly conveyed displeasure with North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) expansion into Eastern Europe, underscored the vulnerability of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline linking Central Asia to the West, and made countries in the area wonder if they could rely on NATO security arrangements.

Joint Russian-US raid on opium caches in

Afghanistan demonstrates even more economy of force, and considerable craft as well. It registers Russia’s deep concern with the disintegrating situation in Afghanistan, strengthens global perceptions of geopolitical partnership with the US, and is eliciting concern in Afghanistan, the Taliban leadership, Pakistan, and China. All this with a single strike conducted by a small force.

US Drug Enforcement Agency officials and a task force including Russians and Afghans destroyed four opium refining laboratories and over 1,000 kilograms of high-quality heroin in Zerasari village of Achin district, in Nangarhar province near the Pakistani border.

Afghanistan is the world’s largest producer of heroin, with the opium crop last year estimated at almost 4,000 tons. Most of the drugs that flow into Russia come from Afghanistan.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has vigorously protested the raid, remonstrating from his Kabul retreat that it was an affront to national sovereignty. Indeed it was - and that is precisely how Russia and its partner intend it to be read back in his heavily guarded splendor. To make the point even clearer and more stinging, Afghan forces were used without the Afghan president's foreknowledge.

He has been upbraided for his government's incompetence in national affairs and his family's complicity in drug commerce. Plagued and angered by drugs smuggled in from Afghanistan, Iran - rival of the US but colleague of Russia - would wish this latter point made clearer to a man it gives bagfuls of cash. Further, any deal Karzai might be working on with the Taliban must take serious note of Russian interests, and not be arrived at in close collaboration with Pakistan and with undue consideration of the fortunes of the House of Karzai.

The Taliban have been served notice that Russia is concerned with the rise of militancy and terrorism near its southern periphery, which has a large Islamic population - and one with an unsettlingly high birthrate. The Taliban must respect that warning and limit its influence to the Afghan south and east.

Any Taliban effort to expand into the northern province of Kunduz, despite a sizable Pashtun population there, would endanger the former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Those states have in recent years had to deal with militant groups tied to the Taliban and al-Qaeda - one of which, the Islamist Movement of Uzbekistan, was driven out in the 1990s, found haven in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and today serves with al-Qaeda along the AfPak line.

There is little prospect of Russian troops returning to the Pashtun south and east, but implied in the raid, if only obliquely, is the possibility of Russian assistance in reconstituting the Northern Alliance armies - the non-Pashtun forces who fought the Taliban to a standstill in the 1990s and drove them out of the country in 2001 with US help. Northern peoples are increasingly weary of Pashtun pre-eminence in national affairs and are seeking international leverage against Karzai, assistance in rearming, and perhaps even support for regional independence.

There are doubtless drug assets in many parts of Afghanistan, especially in Helmand province in the south, but the Russian-US raid took place far away from Helmand and only about five kilometres from the border with Pakistan - an area where Pakistani frontier troops and intelligence personnel operate freely. The expression of opposition to Pakistani support for insurgents and its heavy hand in negotiations is clear, especially in Islamabad and Rawalpindi. The joint raid underscores the growing logistical cooperation between the US and Russia, which is an increasingly attractive alternative to the unreliable routes through Pakistan. Moscow has allowed non-lethal cargo destined for Afghanistan to be transported across Russian territory.

China's rather muscular foreign policy in recent months has raised concerns in states along its long periphery, including Russia, whose resource-laden Siberian region might seem attractive to a resource-hungry neighbouring power. China has also been working more closely with the Pakistani military; it has recently introduced thousands of uniformed "flood relief workers" near Kashmir. This of course has alarmed India, a longstanding Russian ally and a burgeoning regional and global power toward which the US has been drawing nearer in recent years.

The US and Russia are cooperating more closely in Central Asia and elsewhere on security matters. This cooperation indicates that renewed tensions between the two powers of a few years back - Cold War Two, it was being called - are being eased.

Neither Russia nor the US can afford increased defence budgets and the world can do without a rivalry exacerbating smaller conflicts around the globe. Further, their cooperation in stabilising Afghanistan or at least in limiting the Taliban's expansion will be welcomed in many parts of the world, though not in Pakistan or China.

Parcel bombs point to al-Qaeda switch

By Syed Saleem Shahzad

The foiled al-Qaeda plot to blow up two cargo planes indicates that the group’s international operations, now under the stewardship of Egyptian Saiful Adil (Saif al-Adel), will focus on relatively low-intensity terror attacks around the world rather than on big missions such as the September 11, 2001, assault on New York and Washington.

Two United States-bound bombs sent in air cargo from Yemen were intercepted in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates and in Britain. The devices were discovered on Friday hidden in printers. Such an idea bears the hallmark of Adil, who was earlier this year released from Iranian custody after disappearing following the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan in late 2001.

Asia Times Online reportedly exclusively how al-Qaeda's military chief was freed with about 15 other al-Qaeda members in a deal that saw Heshmatollah Attarzadeh, the commercial attache at the Iranian consulate in Peshawar, released by militants. Those freed included Saad bin Laden (one of Osama bin Laden's sons), Suleman al-Gaith and Abu Hafs al-Mauritani.

Asia Times Online also recently broke news of Adil and other top al-Qaeda members living in North Waziristan tribal area on the border with Afghanistan. "Saiful Adil is likely to be the new face of al-Qaeda in 2011, with operations emanating in Pakistan and spreading to Somalia, Yemen and Turkey to pitch operations in Europe and India," the article reported.

Adil's return to al-Qaeda's command will reverse the strategies of the late 1990s, devised by Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the mastermind of September 11, militant contacts tell Asia Times Online. Khalid was known for his big-ticket ideas without thought for the consequences, while Adil is known to have a much more nuanced approach that takes into account the bigger picture.

Big picture, small operations

The parcel bomb plot understandably raised alarm in capitals across the world. Various analysts gave their take on the incident, with some placing emphasis Saudi Arabia, following a report quoting a US official that Saudi bomb-maker Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, believed to be working with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, was a key suspect.

A report on Monday said that US officials had intercepted parcels from Yemen bound for Chicago in mid-September, which they believed was a "dry run" to test timings for the package bomb plot foiled last week. Those shipments contained household goods including books, religious literature and a computer disk, but no explosives.

A US official was reported as saying that the packages were shipped by "someone with ties to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula", referring to the Yemen-based offshoot of al-Qaeda that Britain and the US have accused of being behind last week's plot.

Even before September 11, Adil believed in smaller attacks that would damage American interests but which would not necessarily result in an overwhelming reaction, as happened after the September 11 attacks when Afghanistan was invaded and the Taliban driven out for harboring al-Qaeda; and then Iraq occupied in 2003.

This became a main disagreement between Khalid and Adil, who argued that while the September 11 attacks were meticulously planned and carried out, they led to the ouster of the Taliban government and the death of thousands of dedicated Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters.

The subsequent "war on terror" resulted in more than 700 al-Qaeda members being arrested in Pakistan and taken to the US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, and also led to the ongoing US drone war that has killed scores of al-Qaeda members in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border areas.

Adil believed that September 11 overall caused more damage to al-Qaeda than benefit. He wanted a calculated war against America in which the response would be sustainable for al-Qaeda.

Adil had been involved in several high-profile terror operations since the 1980s in Egypt. His footprints were found in the bombing of two American embassies in Africa in 1998, besides many other attacks. In all these instances, the US response was muted - a few missiles were launched at Afghanistan in 1998 and a special Central Intelligence Agency unit was set up to catch bin Laden.

Adil is committed to boosting recruitment and the promotion of an ideology that will stimulate al-Qaeda-led anti-Western resistance in occupied Muslim territories and other countries. This will be done with low-intensity attacks that support resistance movements rather than lead to their obliteration.

The drive is supported by Pakistani Ilyas Kashmiri and his 313 Brigade, the field operational arm of al-Qaeda operating out of North Waziristan.

At the time of Adil's release, a senior Pakistani counter-terrorism official told Asia Times Online, "If Saiful Adil has been exchanged, Pakistan is not aware of this, but it would be bad news for the Western world as it would mean a revival in al-Qaeda's international operations."

His prediction appears to be spot on.

Why Yemen? Is the West choosing a new target?

Last weeks attempted attacks – either at US-bound aircraft or some synagogues somewhere in the US, presumably in Chicago – remain the hottest topic in Western media.

The pure facts run as follows. Last Friday two packages containing explosives were found on cargo planes which initially flew from Sanaa, Yemen, with destination in the US. One package was found in Dubai, the other one in East Midlands Airport near Nottingham, England. Both packages – one carried by UPS, the other one by FedEx – were addressed to synagogues in Chicago. No one has yet claimed responsibility for the attempted attacks, but the security official were very quick in attributing the plot to the Yemeni section of  Al-Qaeda.

The incident was followed by intense search of all cargo and passengers’ baggage in several US airports. Also, reports show that 26 more suspicious packages were detained in Yemen. On Saturday, Yemeni officials arrested a 22-yerar-old woman Hanan al-Samawi, a suspect in the plot. But later on Sunday, she was released on bail after it turned out that someone stole and used her identity card to plant the packages containing explosives.

Meanwhile, the panic has stricken the US and Western Europe. Most countries of the West upgraded the level of terrorist alert. Great Britain even declared a ban on any aircraft that started its flight in Yemen, to k\land on Britain’s territory.

The whole story needs some clarification.

First, why Yemen?

The fact is that the Yemeni authorities have a very poor control over their territory, and definitely have lesser desire to fight international terrorism than their Saudi neighbors. As a result, some notorious figures in the terrorist movement have found a safe haven in Yemen, especially after Afghanistan and Pakistan ceased to be such as a result of constant military activities.

Second, why now, and why Chicago?

Actually, the timing for the attacks (or, attempted attacks, or, presumably attempted attacks) was chosen very carefully. The United States face the mid-term elections, and the Democratic administration is heading for a worst defeat in decades. If we look back at a not so distant past, we can remember that a highly resonant terrorist attack is probably the best way to raise the rating of the ruling administration. And an attack uncovered befor3e it was executed gives additional points to the authorities. So, whatever the real motives of the terrorists, the whole uncovered plot is designed to give Barack Obama and the Democrats a couple of points due to ‘voting out of compassion’. The fact that the explosives were addressed to synagogues in Chicago (Obama’s native town) speaks for itself.

Then, what follows next?

A most obvious answer would be that Obama’s administration is looking at a new point of applying its attempts and initiatives. After the obvious failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, they may be looking at Yemen as a new venue of their geopolitical Great Game. The strategic importance of that country is hardly to be over-estimated. The power that controls Yemen, would control the most vital sea routes from Europe to Middle East, South and Southeast Asia. At the moment, if anyone controls this vital region are the Somali pirates. For the US, taking hold of a territory there with prospects of building its military bases, would mean a return to the scene that, due to the failures of the recent one or two decades, seems at present lost.

But then, there is another and probably most crucial question. What means the US is ready to use against a force that from the very beginning was a pure US invention, i.e. Al-Qaeda?

By now, military measures have proved their complete futility, both in Iraq and Afghanistan. More so, if Yemen has really become a safe haven for extremists, it is due only to the American-led invasion of those two countries. So, a military operation against Yemen may result only in one thing: Al-Qaeda will shift its operations to another area, and hence, the seeds of terrorism will be further disseminated.

Of course, the clock of history cannot be reversed and turned backwards. But learning from the past seems to be very useful. And looking back at the 1980s, we may state that it was the US who, by supporting the mujahedeen forces in Afghanistan, created the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Now, by violently fighting them in the Middle East, they are turning the whole Muslim world against themselves and their allies. What will they achieve by spreading their military activities to yet another area in that volatile region, is a question, the answer to which hardly anyone would like to hear.

What is behind UK-France military cooperation?

Great Britain has expressed readiness for military cooperation with France, even though London is not yet prepared for the establishment of the united armed forces of the European Union. This was the keynote idea at the one-day UK-France summit in London.

In London, British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy signed two significant agreements, one of them on military cooperation. It stipulates the creation of a “combined joint expeditionary force” to involve a 5,000 strong brigade from each side. These troops will operate under a single command to be chosen for each particular military campaign. Another treaty - on the joint development of nuclear weapons - will provide for opening the associated research centers in both countries. Furthermore, Paris and London will hold joint military exercises and agree on the joint use of aircraft, including British A400M fuelling planes, if needed.

The documents signed in London, which have already been dubbed “unprecedented” and “historical”, certainly testify to a considerable enhancement of British-French relations in the field of defense. This might be caused by France’s complete re-integration into the NATO military structure last year. At present, France and Britain have common interests in a wide range of defense issues, while the numbers of their troops are quite comparable. Although both are nuclear powers, it is getting increasingly hard for the two countries to maintain their military potential and influence worldwide.

Especially given that the defense budget of the United States drastically surpasses that of Britain and France combined. It is no secret that, amid the ongoing economic crisis, London and Paris may soon fail to honor their commitments to NATO, whose charter demands that every member’s defense budget must account for at least 2 percent of GDP. These financial challenges may have forced Britain and France to launch close cooperation in the sphere of defense, experts argue.

Nevertheless, owing to historical considerations, London and Paris will never agree on the full consolidation of their military capabilities. Britain still recalls France’s condemnation of the US-British invasion of Iraq in 2003. Among other things, people in Britain have always been skeptical about the possible centralization of European defense, while the French disapprove of London’s tight political and military ties with Washington. Perhaps, this is exactly what prevented the UK and France from reaching an agreement on the joint use of aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines of the two countries, as we said before.

The British government is convinced that the new agreements signed with France are not indicative of Britain’s inability to independently fight for its own hand in terms of both economy and defense. But critics, especially those among the members of the opposition Labor Party, believe that their government should not place too much reliance on France where British strategic interests are concerned. By the way, there are a lot of so-called “Eurosceptics” within the ruling Conservative party, who strongly oppose British-French military cooperation.

Thus, Prime Minister David Cameron will have to take pains to persuade the British parliament to approve military-nuclear agreements with France, since the alliance with NATO still remains a cornerstone of Great Britain’s defense policy.

Obama's India visit - China, Pakistan, Iran will be watching

ALI SUKHANVER

There is a clear difference between traveling and wandering. Traveling is meaningful and wandering is meaningless. The US president Barrak Obama is traveling to India somewhere in the mid of this month. According to the Indian media reports, this visit is chiefly aimed at improving economic and defence related relations between the two countries but the neighbouring countries like China, Iran and Pakistan are looking at this visit from a different point of view. They are taking this visit as a warning from USA that these countries must not underestimate the hegemonic position of India in the region; if they do so, USA is there to take care of the situation. Whatever be the hidden or obvious motives of this visit, one thing is very much clear; this visit will weaken the ties between Pakistan and USA. Obama would be the first US President going to visit India flying over Pakistan simply ignoring millions of Pakistani people. Skipping over Pakistan means an insult to a strategic partner and a front role ally in the Global War on Terror, Pakistan. At the same time it is equivalent to glorifying India. President Obama seems unaware of his popularity among the people of Pakistan. In Pakistan; people may not like USA but they love Obama. There could be so many reasons for this liking but the most prominent of all these reasons is Obama’s unannounced relationship with Islam. He is perhaps the only American president whose success was sincerely celebrated in Pakistan. People were deeply involved in Obama’s election with all their emotional and passionate type of prayers. Those days, it was a very common feeling in Pakistan that Obama would minimize the distances created by the Bush administration between USA and Pakistan.  Now it seems that all those feelings were nothing but a sweet dream; whether black or white, Americans are Americans; they all think and act in the same way and the same direction; this is what now people of Pakistan opine. President Obama must know that US image in Pakistan is already somewhat sliding downwards and his ignoring Pakistan during this visit would no doubt add salt to the injuries.

 Side-lining Pakistan is in fact a message to the people of Pakistan from their most loved and admired US leader Obama that Pakistan is a means not the destination; they must not over-estimate their actual position. No doubt it is a very bitter message but it would help them realize the situation and act accordingly in future. For the last many decades, just to please USA, Pakistan has been sacrificing almost all it could sacrifice; but it got nothing in return, not even the trust and confidence of the US authorities. Obama’s expected visit to India is the best example of this distrust and disbelief. Obama’s expected visit to India is going to bring a vivid change in the political scenario of the South Asian region. Instead of patronizing India, USA must try to improve its relationship with China, Iran and Pakistan. All these countries enjoy a better repute in the region than India. Relationship with these countries would add to the honour and credibility of USA. In fact India has earned a lot of bad reputation because of its involvement in various nefarious activities in the region. It has so many conflicts and confrontation with the neighbouring countries. China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and above all Sri Lanka, all are in trouble at the hands of India. Pakistan has always been the worst victim to the Indian atrocities. The hegemonic desires of India have turned this region into a battle field of vested interests. President Obama must cast a deep look into the state of affairs before leaving for India. His role must be of a solicitor not that of an instigator.

At present Pakistan is passing through the worst phase of its life. A warlike atmosphere everywhere all along the borders, NATO drone attacks targeting the innocent citizens , terrorists suicidal blasts shattering the whole of social and economic structure and above all a series of Indian blames and allegations trying to defame Pakistani nation ; Pakistan is certainly bearing a lot. Unfortunately US authorities are doing nothing to help Pakistan out of this painful situation. There is an impression that USA is simply exploiting Pakistan in the name of Global War on Terror. Against the hopes and expectations of the people of Pakistan this exploitation has increased manifold in the reign of President Obama. The present US administration has ignored the fact that Pakistan is the only country which has sacrificed a lot on account of her efforts to fight against terrorism..

During his visit to India, President Obama must influence Indian leadership to stop exploitation of Pakistan on terrorism. This would help reduce tension between India and Pakistan. He must try to make the Indian authorities realize that Pakistan’s territorial integrity and sovereignty must always be respected at all costs and Pakistan’s loyalty and sincerity of cause must not be called in question. Though President Obama has very clearly mentioned it in most of his statements that US has no role to play in resolving the conflicting issues between Pakistan and India; they must be resolved through negotiations and table-talks but  US unjust support to India has developed a stubbornness in Indian behaviour. India never welcomes the peaceful solution of any of such issues. Kashmir is the touchiest issue between India and Pakistan which provides breeding grounds for terrorism. There could be no peace in the region unless this core issue is resolved. It is time for Obama to prove his statesmanship and convince Indian leadership to resolve Kashmir dispute as per the UN resolutions. Obama is a wise and intelligent politician who prefers rightful and fair deals and knows very well how to tackle with the situation. Being ambassador of world peace, he can initiate and guarantee a long term peace and prosperity in the region.

Obama's Party On the Brink of Losing the Congressional Elections

                           Incumbent US President Barack Obama

This is a devastating set of data for the incumbent party,it is a rebuke to the last two years.

For Obama having not been able to change anything as he promised to Americans and others, the time has come to face a quick defeat at the midterm congressional elections on Tuesday.

Unfortunately, the future congress will see the same faces from the Republican Party prepared to take control of the congress. It is expected the Republicans will speed up passing of archaic laws in favor of the wealthy and a return to taking more aggressive postures toward the international community.  

Latest polls indicate around 50 percent are going to vote for a majority Republican congress and only 43 percent prefer Democrats to remain in charge. According to Bill McInturff, a person familiar with this issue, ‘this is a devastating set of data for the incumbent party, it is a rebuke to the last two years.’ 

Overall, there's not much better to be expected of a Republican majority congress. Both major parties in the US are parts and parcels of a vastly corrupt system deeply intermingled within a network of Zionist and big corporate establishment that only seeks to prolong hold on power.

Barack Obama is swiftly losing what support he had from a vast majority of Americans only two years ago. He is considered one of the most controversial US presidents ever, notably with respect to his very contradictory speeches and policies since elected as the president.

There have been numerous occasions when Obama talked about one thing in front of millions of listeners and then almost without any hesitation did the exact opposite of what people heard him say on that day.

Asma Jahangir walks into a glass house

 Asma has landed in the glass house where every move and decision that she takes would be closely watched and evaluated by both friends and foes.
______________________________________________________________-

By Saeed Qureshi

By capturing the presidency of Pakistan’s Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Asma Jahangir has opted to enter the glass house that would expose her to blemishes from her detractors. Already a smear campaign is underway that purports to paint her image in lurid colors. She has been accused of being an Indian agent that seldom expressed sympathy with the Kashmiri freedom fighters. Her meeting with the anti Pakistan Hindu extremist Bal Thakrey wearing orange dress has already become the hot topic for gossip in various lobbies. Her antagonists even accuse her of being invisibly anti- Pakistan and pro India.

Her pronounced secularism may be debated in circles known as religious right. Her opponents allege that she could throw herself in ecstatic bouts of dancing and raveling with her Indian friends but would keep mum on the massacre of Muslims in Gujarat by the Hindu fanatics. Certain detractors of Asma even stretch the argument to an untenable limit that she was in favor of one united India meaning Pakistan to become a part of Indian federation. With a well-earned backlog of meritorious services for the womenfolk of Pakistan and as a front-runner human right activist, Asma’s election as the first women president of the Pakistan Supreme Court Bar Association is a landmark development. With a reputation of being thoroughly a woman of principles, she is expected not to budge or take sides in the face of making a decision to uphold the banner of justice or political righteousness.

Nevertheless, angels too are censured for being sinful in the game of power that more often than not degenerates into a morbid campaign of slur and diatribe. The fractious culture that pervades and dominates every organ of society, as well has, its pernicious shadows over the legal community and bar. There are quite distinct divisions among the lawyers’ ranks. There are factions that support the sitting government. There are those that oppose the government for many faults that they find in it. The lawyers are also divided into opposing camps with regard to the judiciary especially the superior judiciary for the decisions that it hands out against the government and the rulers. They might have personal rancor for decisions given against them in the judicial cases they represent.

In the recent past, we have seen some distasteful raucous demonstrations and uproarious protest rallies by lawyers condemning and decrying the judges. There were demands by the agitating lawyers for sacking certain judges of lower courts and even the chief justice of the Lahore high court Justice Sharif. So the lawyers being as one of the central pillars of the civil society are turning rabble-rousers and street agitators committing acts of arson, manhandling of the opponents, physical assaults on the police operatives and outrageous and derogatory sloganeering against the judiciary and their fellow lawyers from the opposite camps. It is in the air that the federal law minister Babar Awan was hugely instrumental in facilitating the victory of Asma Jahangir who could even otherwise have carried the day by dint of her own brilliant merits and good reputation as a famed human rights activist. But th stigma that she was vigorously supported by the PPPP faction of the coalition government cannot be washed off by any means. The argument marshaled to substantiate this assertion is based upon the sudden generous disbursement of money to various bars in the country by the Law minister who seems not to be contained by any let or hindrance or public repugnance. Asma’s suspected tilt towards the government is proven by her rivals from her anti supreme court statements, soon after the formation of the PPP government, in response to the December 16, 2009 judgment, which declared Musharraf’s November 3 emergency as unconstitutional and resulted in Dogar court judges packing home. Asma’s rivals claim that her statement made after the victory, implicitly contains a warning to the judiciary to behave otherwise face the wrath of the lawyers. This statement might spur a kind of friction between the pro-judiciary and anti- judiciary groups within the lawyers’ community. Does it mean that her statement carries a message for the judiciary not to persist in the anti government trend of prosecution such as the insistence on compliance of the verdict on NRO and perusal of Swiss cases? Was she deliberately planted by the incumbent government to counter the chief justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry in order to restrain him from moving further on this course? Asma is said to be an uncompromising hawk that possesses the mettle and disposition to ruffle the feathers and gloat in predicaments. She can mount a challenge for the apex judiciary once she would be convinced for genuine reasons or the feigned ones that it was time to take on the supreme court judges individually or collectively. With the sizeable backing of an army of recalcitrant defenders of law, she can create embarrassing bottlenecks for the superior judiciary to operate without hindrance. These are pure presumptions. It is as well possible that she adopts neutral stance or extends unflinching support to the judicial decisions even detrimental to the people occupying high offices in the government.

Only the coming time would unravel what strategy Asma Jahangir adopts to play her role as the president of the Pakistan’s Supreme Court Bar Association. If she remains neutral in the ongoing tussle between the Federal government and the Supreme Court of Pakistan, she would enhance her stature and would earn kudos. If there is a salnt or tilt in favor of the government, she will face rebukes and even calumny that might wash off of what grand work she did in the past for the supremacy of law, democracy and particularly for the empowerment of women and for human rights.

She has landed in the glass house where every move and decision that she takes would be closely watched and evaluated by both friends and foes. Traditionally in the past, the SCBA presidents were mocked and decried by the opposite factions. Asma could also face scorn, ridicule, and flak even if her intentions would be pious. As such, she has to be extremely vigilant and be prepared to walk on a tight rope lest she falls on either side.

The writer is a Dallas-based freelance journalist and a former diplomat.

Changing mood in China

By Shiraz Paracha

US interference in the regional issue of the South China Sea has caused a stir in Beijing’s military and political circles and some in the Chinese military are prepared for a show of power with the United States.

It appears that continuous China bashing by the United States and its allies has compelled Beijing to challenge Washington's hegemony in the Asia Pacific region. China has declared total sovereignty over the South China Sea by calling it an area of 'core national interest'. The country is ready to defend its claim by force. In such a scenario, China can restrict US navy ships and military movement in the region that is home to thousands of US troops in the nearby countries.

Strategically, the region is extremely important for the US which has 28,500 troops in South Korea and 47,000 troops in Japan. The US Special Forces are also based in the Philippines in the name of fighting terrorism but their actual purpose seems to be the containment of China.

The South China Sea stretches from Singapore and Malacca Straits in the South to the Strait of Taiwan in the north covering an area of about 3,500,000 kilometres. The Sea links the Indian Ocean with the Pacific Ocean and it is one of the busiest routes in the world in terms of commercial traffic and military movements. The seabed of the South China Sea has vast reserves of oil and gas and countries around the Sea are heavy consumers of energy with China as the top consumer.

The South China Sea borders China, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam and Brunei. Since World War II under bilateral security treaties with the countries of the region, the United States maintains permanent fleets in the Pacific Ocean in South East Asia. The huge US military and navy presence in the region has helped the country to maintain its global dominance.

However, that arrangement may not last for long because as a main economic and military power, Beijing is seeking a bigger and more assertive role in the Asia Pacific region. To the United States China is a foe, not a friend. China's amazing economic growth has forced the US to accept the country as a trading partner but both countries are not compatible. China is a Socialist country with a very strong non-Western culture, while the US is home of enterprise Capitalism and Western values.

Beijing understands the fears of its Western rivals as well as the concerns of China's pro-Western neighbours such as Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines. From the beginning of this century, China has adopted strategies of 'peaceful rise', and 'peaceful development'. The Chinese leadership has been trying to ensure the world powers, particularly the United States, that China poses no threat to world order and it is pursuing an agenda of peaceful coexistence; however, Beijing seeks a multi-polar world opposed to hegemony of one state.

Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao's address at the UN General Assembly in September was a superb display of Chinese humbleness and peaceful diplomacy. His speech was entitled “Getting to Know the Real China,” in which Prime Minister Wen told the world forum that China was a developing country where 150 million people live in poverty. He said that China would continue to achieve greater progress through education, science and technology.

Perhaps Prime Minister Wen's aim was to convince the world that China does not have global military and political ambitions because it is still at the primary stage of development.

Nevertheless, the world's only superpower does not appear to believe in China's policy of peaceful coexistence. The United States is watching China's military progress, and the drumbeaters of Chinese threat in the US military are on a mission to isolate China.

The commander of the US forces in the Pacific Ocean, Admiral Robert Willard, accused China of building the world's first Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM). Talking to reporters in August 2010, he claimed that the Chinese 1,500-2,000 kilometre range ASBM would be able to hit and destroy US aircraft carriers located near Chinese coastal waters.

Exaggerated claims about China's military capability can be a calculated US move to paint China as an aggressive and unreliable country to its neighbours, and to increase international pressure against China. However, contrary to US claims about Chinese military intentions, the use of military hard power has been a cornerstone of the United States foreign policy. The US has been providing military aid to China's rival Taiwan. Earlier this year, despite Chinese protests, the United States announced that it would sell billions of dollars worth of latest weapons and military technology to Taiwan.

The United States has a history of hostility towards China. For example, for China Tibet is an internal issue but allegedly the CIA has been funding Dalai Lama and his Tibetan movement since the 1950s. Few months ago, President Barack Obama invited the Dalai Lama to the White House - the invitation, obviously, angered Beijing.

Trashing the image of rival nations and countries is a common tool of Western governments and policymakers since Cold War times. Often Western media and politicians use the beaten path of freedom of press and human rights as excuses to target non-Western cultures. In the case of China, these two issues are mentioned over and over again by the Western media and politicians. China is accused of imposing restrictions on the Internet but not many in the West praise China for launching its own Internet, independent of the US domain system. The anti-China campaign goes on and also includes violations of animal rights by Chinese firms that frequently make headlines in the Western media.

The Nobel Peace Prize is the latest tool to brand China as a cruel and repressive state. This year's Nobel Peace Prize was given to Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese dissident, who was sentenced to 11 years of imprisonment by a Chinese court in 2009 for his involvement in anti-state activities. Similarly, the 2003 Nobel Peace Award was given to a pro-West Iranian woman Shirin Ebadi, who was opposed to the policies of the democratically elected Iranian government.

The actual problem is the economic slowdown of Western economies at a time when the sustained and stunning economic growth continues in China. The West knows that if Chinese growth continued at the same pace it would be impossible to stop China from becoming the world's biggest economic superpower. The West has been pressing hard that Beijing stops controlling the Yuan - the Chinese currency. International monetary agencies and the United States have been demanding that the value of the Chinese currency must be increased. But Beijing has refused to bow to Western pressure.

Western efforts to contain Chinese growth and endless China bashing campaigns are the cause of increasing irritation in China, particularly in the country's military circles. This is the context in which China has listed the issue of the South Asia Sea as non-negotiable like that of Tibet, Taiwan and Xingjian.

By declaring the vast China Sea as an inland sea over which China will have indisputable sovereignty, not only China has challenged the United States' right to roam oceans and seas of East Asia, it has also asserted itself as the major power in that region, which is ready to defend its interests, even by military means.

Shiraz Paracha is an international journalist and analyst. His email address is: shiraz_paracha@hotmail.com

Another decade of neo-colonial war in Afghanistan

 The only way to end this criminal war and allow the Afghan people to decide their future is to demand the immediate and unconditional withrawal of all foreign troops and the payment of tens of billions of dollars in war reparations.
_______________________________________________________________

In the lead-up to next month’s NATO summit in Lisbon, the Obama administration and its allies, confronting widespread anti-war sentiment at home, are attempting to dupe the public by claiming that the US/NATO combat role in Afghanistan will end by 2014, with troop withdrawals to begin next year. Behind closed doors, however, the talk is not of an end to the war, but rather of an open-ended, neo-colonial occupation. In opening a debate on the Afghan war in the Australian parliament last Tuesday, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard spilled the beans. After noting that Afghan President Hamid Karzai expected to assume full responsibility for his country’s security by the end of 2014, Gillard bluntly spelt out that the “transition process” would not mean the end to the Australian military presence in Afghanistan.
Gillard said, “Let me be clear, this transition process refers to the Afghan government taking lead responsibility for security. The international community will remain engaged in Afghanistan beyond 2014. And Australia will remain engaged. There will still be a role for training and other defense cooperation. The civilian-led aid and development effort will continue... We expect this support, training and development task to continue in some form through this decade at least.”
While ministers and officials in the US and other countries have spoken vaguely about a continuing military role in Afghanistan after 2014, Gillard is the first leader to declare that the US-led military occupation will continue for another decade—at least. Her repeated references to the “new international strategy” highlight the fact that this is the Obama administration’s plan. And if Australia, with its current, modest troop numbers of 1,550, intends to remain for another 10 years, then the US and its closest allies are preparing for a large military presence in Afghanistan into the indefinite future.

Taking her cue from Washington, Gillard tried to justify the ongoing occupation by declaring Afghanistan must never become a safe haven for what he called terrorists. However, the intensifying US-led war is not directed against al-Qaeda but against the “Taliban”. According to the CIA, it numbers no more than 50 in Afghanistan. The “enemy” are the Afghan people, predominantly Pashtun tribesmen, who are bitterly hostile to the continued foreign military presence that has wreaked death and destruction on the civilian population for more than nine years. Suppressing “terrorism” means a never-ending neo-colonial war against the Afghan people. Washington’s “war on terrorism” was only ever a pretext for advancing US ambitions for dominance in the energy-rich regions of the Middle East and Central Asia. The US strategy was drawn up well in advance of the highly suspicious 9/11 incidents on New York and Washington.
The invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and the subjugation of Iraq in 2003 were part of broader plans for refashioning the Middle East and establishing a greater US presence in Central Asia. Now focused on the challenge posed by a rising China, the Obama administration is not about to relinquish US footholds in Iraq or Afghanistan that could prove very useful in the future. His troop “surge” in Afghanistan, like that in Iraq, is aimed at securing a permanent US presence, including military bases.
If Gillard was a little more open about the US plans, it was only to demonstrate that her Labor government is in lockstep with Washington. The Australian prime minister has already indicated that she might accompany her defense minister to the NATO conference in Lisbon where she would line up with Obama in pressuring other allies to make a similar open-ended military commitment. Canada has announced that it will be pulling its 2,800 soldiers out of Afghanistan by next year. Italy has set a deadline of 2014 for the complete withdrawal of its 3,300 troops. Gillard is standing unequivocally on the US side, despite overwhelming domestic opposition to the war, in a bid to ensure full US support as Australia shores up its own strategic position in the South West Pacific.
Next month’s haggling over the “transition process” at the NATO conference in Lisbon has been preceded by a preparatory gathering in Rome this week on Afghanistan. US special envoy to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke insisted that the Lisbon conference would not lay out a timetable for specific provinces to be handed over to Kabul’s military control. He also emphasised that “transition” did not equal troop withdrawals, confirming that the US would be pressing for long-term military commitments.
Leading up to the Lisbon conference, the US has been at pains to stress the advances being made through the troop surge. In the Washington Post for instance, US officials claimed that the aggressive military campaign in recent months has killed or captured hundreds of Taliban leaders and more than 3,000 fighters, forcing some insurgent groups to consider negotiations with the Karzai government. They spoke of “pockets of security” in former Taliban strongholds where schools have been reopened and bazaars are bustling.
The slaughter of Taliban leaders and fighters, particularly in the current offensive around the southern city of Qandahar, is largely the result of intensified special forces operations. Like the reign of terror from aerial bombing, these assassination squads are notorious for killing civilians, thus adding to the bitterness and hatred among Afghans toward the occupation of their country. The so-called pockets of security in the south—the product of the expansion in foreign troop numbers to 150,000—are paralleled by reports of escalating insurgent attacks in the country’s north.
The note being sounded by the Obama administration and its camp followers like Gillard cannot hide the fact that nine years of war have proven to be an unmitigated disaster for the Afghan people. According to very conservative UN estimates, at least 14,000 civilian deaths are directly attributable to the military conflict. The military occupation is propping up a venal regime in Kabul that is notorious for corruption and ballot rigging. The majority of the population is still mired in poverty and lacks access to elementary services such as electricity, education and health care.
The only way to end this criminal war and allow the Afghan people to decide their future is to demand the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all foreign troops and the payment of tens of billions of dollars in war reparations.

By Peter Symonds, a political analyst and writer, taken from the World Socialist Web Site.

Should Pakistan shoot down a drone?

 What Pakistan needs is a surgical strike at the US-Nato military adventurism inside Pakistan`s territory. Should a shoot down the next drone that violates Pakistan`s air space and kills Pakistani citizens?
_______________________________________________________________

Dr Haider Mehdi

TODAY, Pakistan is at the crossroads of its destiny: Either the deprived masses of this country, through a strongly demonstrated expression of their political will, will transform it into a sovereign, independent and dignified nation – or the incumbent ruling regime in Islamabad will turn this country into a permanent US-Nato subservient state fighting a war against its own people to infinity and auctioning out its armed forces to fight proxy wars for their “masters” in Washington, London, Bonn, Paris and elsewhere. It is a desperate situation, a calamity, the beginning of losing even “the thread” of one’s “love,” as Ghalib would have described it. 

Zalmay Khalilzad, true to the literal meaning of the phonetic sound of his name (in the Urdu language the word “Zulam,” sounding like Zalmay, means the embodiment of cruelty), was one of the most vocal and staunch advocates of the war and a formidable and influential political actor in the invasion and destruction of his native land, Afghanistan. Now, in a New York Times article entitled “Get Tough on Pakistan,” Zalmay Khalilzad is advocating a similar US foreign policy/military approach towards Pakistan: namely the unilateral invasion of Northern Waziristan by American troops and to carry the war into Pakistan’s territory using massive air-power and the incursion of troops by land routes. 

The Zalmay approach is a recipe for the destruction of Pakistan. In addition, he also calls for a larger presence of CIA operatives in the country and, in a nutshell, advocates a blue-print of turning Pakistan into a paid military-political satellite for serving the global financial interests of the US neo-conservative elite and multi-national corporations. Obviously, Zalmay is the front-line salesman of future American expansionist global policies. It is quite evident in the aforementioned article that Zalmay Khalilzad is projecting the mainstream American thinking on Pakistan and Afghanistan in terms of the future directions of US foreign policy in the South Asian region and in the Central Asian Islamic states.  

Expounding on future American resolve in regards to Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia, Zalmay states, “More fundamentally, the United States needs to demonstrate that, even after our troops depart Afghanistan, we are resolved to stay engaged in the region.” This is the crux of thinking in the elitist military-corporate oligarchies within the American political establishment. Pakistan is to be transformed into a precise American political-military tool, an instrument of US policy affirmation; in this context Zalmay states that “… among the options being discussed by American and Pakistani officials this week is a security pact that would mean billions of dollars more. But such efforts have led to only the most incremental shifts in Pakistan’s policy… to induce quicker and more significant changes, Washington must offer Islamabad a stark choice between positive incentives and negative consequences.” 

In the context of Pakistan’s on-going contemporary political-military engagement with the US, it is vitally important to fully understand the mindset and political conduct of important American political actors, such as Zalmay Khalilzad, as they reflect the mainstream ideological and strategic thinking of the inner-most ruling elite in Washington. Zalmay, like the majority of the powerful inner circle of foreign policy decision-makers in the US, suffers from a historically macho but pathological psychosis related to insecurity. In psychological terms, it is called the “megalomania” syndrome: the desire to feel superior and the deeply imbedded compulsion to have “power” over others – with a self-induced perception of grandeur and majestic command. The psychological impetus in this kind of behaviour, though not genetic, comes from deep-seated feelings of inferiority, reasserted as brutal, unscrupulous pursuit of power, prestige and domination. These are the driving forces in the American psychic. 

It is true that America has been an innovative leader in science, technology, medical science, information technology and above all in weapons engineering, but advancement in science and technology, in itself, does not produce a humanitarian ideology of compassion for human life. It is precisely this element which has been the missing link in the sociological paradigm of American political conduct when it comes to dealing with non-white, non-Judeo-Christian people and nations with diverse economic-political ideologies different from the US belief system. America has carried out massive killing and destruction all over the world on account of these factors. And now, American political heavyweight neo-conservatives, among them Zalmay Khalilzad, are advocating more destruction and killings in Pakistan, Iran and possibly in the entire region in the near future. This is 21st century and the US-Nato are still wholly devoted to the 19th and 20th century colonial mindset. However, they cannot fool the world any longer. 

Pakistan’s national tragedy in its deadlock of alliance with the US-Nato is that the incumbent political clan in Islamabad is not very different in its “megalomaniac” affliction than its counterparts in Washington and West European capitals. The incumbent regime in Pakistan is power hungry – it will do anything to stay in power – even marginalize the nation to an onerous, oppressive and burdensome existence of a total subservient state serving US-Nato global interests and hegemonic objectives at the expense of its people. It will surrender Pakistan’s sovereignty, its dignity, its territorial integrity and even push the nation into an endless war – to please its “masters” in Washington and the Nato capitals. Megalomaniac leaderships have no limits and no boundaries in their irrational political conduct. But the question is: how long will the Zardari-Gilani clan defy growing public discontent with the intrusive American-Nato political behaviour in this country? 

What Pakistan needs is a surgical strike at the US-Nato military adventurism inside Pakistan’s territory. Should it shoot down the next drone that violates Pakistan’s air space and kills Pakistani citizens? Indeed, the choice rests with Washington and Nato headquarters. If Zalmay and neo-cons can advocate the extension of a full-scale American war inside Pakistan, then why can’t Pakistan respond in kind to defend itself against a blatant “act of war”? Zalmay, in his article “Get Tough on Pakistan,” wrote, “… The United States should…carry out operations… with or without Pakistani consent. Arguments that such pressures would cause Pakistan to disintegrate are overstated.