WikiLeaks releases list of facilities vital to US security

 The WikiLeaks whistleblower website has published a secret list of key facilities around the globe that US State Department describes as vital to US national security.

The list includes scores of pipelines, undersea cables and factories across the world that would cause most damage to US interests if destroyed.

Several Russian sites are also listed, including the Druzhba oil pipeline, an export terminal in Novorossiysk and the Nadym gas pipeline junction in western Siberia.

The last massive portion of documents made public by notorious whistleblower WikiLeaks has a chance to shake the world much harder than before. “The Cable Disaster” grabs much more attention than secret military reports from the battle fields of Iraq and Afghanistan, and may lead to some serious changes in world diplomacy. 

This time Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, obtained a quarter-million pack of confidential American diplomatic cables. The release started on November 28, when Assange leaked the first cache of documents via selected media sources, despite the announced Distributed Denial-Of-Service attack on WikiLeaks.  The list of trusted media for the first time included Russian magazine Russian Reporter, while The Wall Street Journal, again – for the first time declined the offer to sign a confidentiality agreement.

Despite the fact that not all the documents have a top-secret status, their disclosure offers an extremely harsh look at the world of modern diplomacy. The bargaining of the diplomats, merciless and sometimes rude assessments of  foreign leaders, harsh criticism of corrupt local governments, and sober opinions on nuclear and terrorist threats – “The Cable Disaster” has it all. Following the release of the cables, the US Government took steps to forbid all unauthorized federal government employees from accessing classified documents publicly available on WikiLeaks. Despite this measure, in the first week after publication WikiLeaks remained the top search item in America according to trusted Google service – Google Insights.

It is not surprising that the Obama Administration decided that the publication of the classified materials posed a serious danger to the lives of American diplomats, embassy personnel and military officers. The problem may look really significant considering the fact that the authors of the cables were identified by name and title in WikiLeaks publications.  It’s interesting to mention that on November 26 Assange’s lawyer Jennifer Robinson wrote a letter to the US Department of State, asking for information on people who could be placed at “significant risk of harm by the publication of classified diplomatic cables”. But Harold Koh – the Legal Adviser of the Department of State declined the offer. "We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials” stated the government official.

While the Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton declared that WikiLeaks publications put the lives of American diplomats in jeopardy, Assange denied the accusation. “This sort of nonsense about lives being put in jeopardy is trotted out every time a big military or intelligence organization is exposed by the press. It's nothing new, and it's not an exclusively American phenomenon by any means.” – said the founder of WikiLeaks in his interview to Time Magazine. However, the White House already has serious plans for major reassignment of diplomats and intelligence operatives at US embassies around the world. “We’re going to have to pull out some of our best people,” stated a senior U.S. national-security official, “because they dared to report back the truth about the nations in which they serve.”       The Obama Administration admits that “The Cable disaster” may deal a serious blow to the American foreign policy, affecting the “best of the best” of government specialists – highly trained diplomats, representing the USA in  foreign countries.  The US Administration officials stated that some foreign governments have already expressed their discontent over the disclosed cables. Among them are France, Italy, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and others. At the same time there have been no official attempts made by the named governments to force the identified US representatives out of their countries. But, according to US officials, it may be just a matter of time.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the next two weeks plans to phone up world leaders to express her regret over the embarrassing publication of the classified documents. She has already spoken with 12 heads of state, including presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to US officials, both presidents stressed the importance of these countries’ friendship with the US. The founder of WikiLeaks denies all accusations of civil disobedience. “We are an organization that tries to make the world more civil and act against abusive organizations that are pushing it in the opposite direction” – declared Assange in his interview to Time Magazine - “As for the law, we have now in our four-year history had over 100 legal attacks of various kinds and have been victorious in all of those matters.

Uncle Sam threatens WikiLeaks prosecutions

It seems that the exposure is bringing WikiLeaks praise and applause by embarrassing the world`s most powerful country. But auestions are raised when one takes a closer look at the website. How long will a website committed to whistle blowing on the US government be tolerated?
____________________________________________________________

A day after US authorities said they would be conducting a criminal investigation into the leaks of thousands of confidential US diplomatic cables through the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks, Beijing expressed its hope that the situation would be carefully handled.

"We don't want to see any disturbance to China-US relations," Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Hong Lei said at a regular news briefing.

The criminal investigation, announced by US Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, raises the chances that the website and its founder will be targeted.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the government would take aggressive steps to hold responsible those who "stole" the secret documents.
"The United States deeply regrets the disclosure of any information that was intended to be confidential, including private discussions between counterparts or our diplomats' personal assessments and observations," she told reporters.
Holder said that, "to the extent that we can find anybody who was involved in the breaking of American law and who has put at risk the assets and the people that I have described, they will be held responsible; they will be held accountable."
Holder said that Julian Assange, founder of the WikiLeaks and an Australian citizen, was not immune from prosecution just because he was a foreign citizen, according to Reuters.
"We will move to close those gaps (in US law), which is not to say that anybody at this point, because of their citizenship or their residence, is not a target or subject of an investigation that's ongoing," Holder said.

 The Sweden-based Internet company WikiLeaks has been showered with media and public attention after exposing more highly confidential material regarding US diplomacy with other countries.
It seems that the exposure is bringing WikiLeaks praise and applause by embarrassing the world's most powerful country. But questions are raised when one takes a closer look at the website. How long will a website committed to whistle blowing on the US government be tolerated?
WikiLeaks, since this summer, has embarrassed Uncle Sam several times. This July it released some 90,000 documents on the US-led Afghanistan War. This week a further 250,000 US diplomatic documents were made public, creating a "9/11 of world diplomacy."
But it is worth noticing that most of the materials that were exposed are sensational in nature, yet minor pieces of information, and the negative effects their release can pretty much be mitigated by some remedial work.
The US State Department has condemned the WikiLeaks release, which seems only to have increased the credibility of the website. WikiLeaks claims that it has a large number of volunteers working all over the world with access to confidential information for free. The powerful and ubiquitous CIA has not been able to identify the source of the sudden leakage of diplomatic secrets. It sounds more or less unconvincing. Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, is still on the run, despite his high public profile.
Is there some tacit understanding between the website and the US government? It may be worth asking. And what does it mean to other countries that are on the radar screen of WikiLeaks?
If granted real authority, once WikiLeaks sets its sights on other countries, the fallout could be drastic. Leaked information could severely damage the social stability of nations that are not able to handle the release of so much sensitive information.
An information tsunami is flooding every country, but different countries have different abilities to control and absorb it.
Developed countries, especially the US, dominate the global flow of information at the moment.
Countries like China, despite their rising status in the information world, must have a line of defense against a hurtful information campaign.

Will Wikileaks release damage London-Washington ties?

The release by the Wikileaks website of extracts from US diplomatic messages will in no way affect the British-U.S. relations, an official spokesman for the British Foreign Office said on Sunday. 

 “We condemn any unauthorized release of classified information…It can damage national security…We have a very strong relationship with the US government. That will continue”, the statement reads.

However, some experts think that the WikiLeaks publication will not go unnoticed for the relations between the two countries.

According to reports in British media, WikiLeaks has released the telegrams sent by employees at the US Embassy in London to Washington. One of the telegrams says that the coalition government led by David Cameron is ‘unstable and won`t last for long’. Other extracts released by the website contain criticism of the British policy in Afghanistan.

Evidently, the release of these documents was hardly a pleasant surprise for Mr. Cameron and the British Ministry of Defense. The relations with the U.S. remain one of the priorities of the British foreign policy. The nation’s British Foreign Secretary William Hague comments…

But Mr. Hague also stressed that London will no longer shape its foreign policy in accordance with Washington’s preferences. He believes the relations with the U.S. should be ‘solid, but not slavish’. In this context The Daily Telegraph noted that ‘to be friends does not mean to be lapdogs’. By the way, this expression can often be heard from ordinary Britons when they discuss London’s relations with Washington.

However, Mr. Cameron`s intention yet has not been put into practice. Just a few weeks ago London faced harsh criticism from Washington over its defence budget cuts. But Mr. Cameron`s Cabinet silently accepted the criticism. London still backs the U.S. on Afghanistan and Iran. So, I`d rather not make hasty conclusions about ‘independent’ British foreign policy. The only thing is evident: after the WikiLeaks publication, the British politicians and diplomats will make more cautious remarks while communicating with their colleagues in the United States.

US diplomats have been spying on other countries; Wikileaks documents reveal

The hacked documents claim that in 2008 the Saudi King had urged the US to attack and destroy Iran`s nuclear installations.
________________________

Newly released Wikilleaks documents show US diplomatic missions and their officials have been involved in systematic spying missions againt host countries, reports Guardian after obtaining the latest documents from whistleblower website Wikileaks.

The site claimed it has gathered more 250,000 classified US documents showing the highest levels of corruption of some US officials.  NY Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El Pais have received these documents.

United States government officials are trying to curtail the spread of sensitive information. Washington is pressuring Sweden to arrest Wikileaks founder Julian Assange by accusing him of some unfounded charges.

‘The most controversial target was the UN leadership. That directive requested the specification of telecoms and IT systems used by top officials and their staff and details of 'private VIP networks used for official communication, to include upgrades, security measures, passwords, personal encryption keys,’ The Guardian reported.

The hacked documents claim that in 2008 the Saudi King had urged the US to attack and destroy Iran’s nuclear installations.

New York Times said the latest revelations by Wikileak are already sending shudders through the diplomatic establishment. It further noted that US will soon experience strained relations with the outside world in some unpredictable ways.

This increasingly plutocratic system that relies on lies, deceptions while being under the control of the Zionist lobby in the United States continues to exert its ominous power over the lives of 300 million Americans. It threatens other nations and at the same time faces some of the greatest challenges of its lifetime.

Parcel bomb plot: Al-Qaeda’s gift to Israel

Maidhc Ó Cathail

While Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) may have claimed responsibility for the parcel bomb plot, it’s worth considering how this latest Yemen-linked terror scare has been a gift to their avowed enemies.

A mere two weeks before the discovery of mail bombs addressed to “two places of Jewish worship in Chicago,” Rupert Murdoch sounded prescient as he received an award from the Anti-Defamation League for his support of Israel. "The terrorists continue to target Jews across the world," declared the media mogul in his acceptance speech. "But they have not succeeded in bringing down the Israeli government - and they have not weakened Israeli resolve." Equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, the Fox News owner smeared the growing worldwide condemnation of Israel's rogue behaviour as an "ongoing war against the Jews."

Benjamin Netanyahu, a frequent London house guest of Murdoch and a likely recipient of his political contributions, was quick to make hay of the foiled plot. Briefing the cabinet on his impending address to the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America, the Israeli prime minister told them that it would be "held against the background of reports about the attempt to attack the Jewish community in Chicago."

Linking the parcel bomb plot to some of the most iconic terrorist attacks of the post-9/11 era, Netanyahu said that "it does not matter if the target was a synagogue in Chicago or a railway station in Madrid, London, Mumbai or Bali." Deftly associating his increasingly isolated government with the victims of those attacks, the Israeli prime minister proclaimed: "We are facing a growing wave of terrorism by extremist Islam."

Netanyahu, never one prone to understatement, offered this analysis of the unsuccessful attempt to use desktop printers as terror weapons: "It is growing in the scope and brazen gall of its attacks, in the weapons with which it is arming itself, and in the sweeping objectives of the leaders of global terrorism."

He then assured his colleagues that "one of the main issues" he would be addressing in New Orleans with American Jewish leaders was "the steps that the civilised and free world must take in order to stop this wave that threatens us all."

Needless to say, those "steps" are unlikely to include an end to the 43-year occupation and colonisation of the West Bank or a lifting of the 4-year blockade of Gaza.

An American apologist for Israel's self-appointed guardian of "the civilised and free world" took a similar line. Joel Pollak, a Republican candidate in the midterm elections, released a statement condemning the attempted terror attack, saying he would be spending the Jewish Sabbath in West Rogers Park "in solidarity with the people of the 9th congressional district who were the direct targets of Al Qaeda terror." Sounding a lot like Netanyahu, Pollak attempted to rally his constituents by telling them, "We must not stop fighting to eradicate the twin evils of terror and hatred."

Again, we can take it as read that the "terror and hatred" Americans are being urged to combat only applies to Israel's enemies.

DEBKA-Net-Weekly, which describes itself as "the leading geopolitical newsletter," has even attempted to implicate Israel's current enemy number one, Iran. The next issue, for subscribers only, promises to reveal "how the al Qaeda air package plot fit [sic] into the selective partnership between Tehran and al Qaeda and homes in on the areas where their schemes dovetail."

But how trustworthy is "the leading newsletter in this rarefied field"?

"Debka is prepared mostly by former Mossad operatives. A reliable stream of information," Martin Peretz, the Islamophobic editor-in-chief of the staunchly pro-Israel New Republic assures us.

Ever since an Israeli firm let the Christmas Day crotch bomber "slip through" security at Schiphol Airport without a passport, a few influential voices with close ties to Israel have been instrumental in making Yemen "the new buzzword."

Appearing on Fox News two days later, the No. 1 pro-Israel advocate and leader in Congress, Senator Joe Lieberman, announced: "Iraq was yesterday's war. Afghanistan is today's war. If we don't act preemptively, Yemen will be tomorrow's war."

Within a week, Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at the Saban Center in the Brookings Institution, had an op-ed in The Daily Beast titled "The Menace of Yemen." Touting the botched Christmas Day plot as evidence of "the growing ambition of al Qaeda's Yemen franchise," Riedel called for "significant American support to defeat AQAP."

Riedel's employer, the Saban Center, is named after Haim Saban, the Israeli-American media mogul, who in 2002 pledged $13 million to found the Saban Center for Middle East Policy. Two years later, Saban admitted to the New York Times, "I'm a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel."

"The US may be walking into a bit of a trap," warns Gregory Johnsen, a Yemen expert and doctoral candidate at Princeton University's Department of Near Eastern Studies.

That "trap" has been best described by a former CIA officer. "America's misguided war on terror," Philip Giraldi pointed out in a recent article, "is in fact a complete adoption of Israeli security paradigms without any regard for the actual threats that confront the US, making Israel's many enemies also the foes of Washington."

Israel must be very grateful indeed for this latest terror scare. If al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula did not exist, they might have to invent it.

 

Maidhc Ó Cathail is a widely published writer based in Japan.

U.S. intelligence trades on fear

 We are in the grip of yet another so-called terror plot designed to terrify the wits out of everyone.
_______________________________________________________________________


By Yvonne Ridley


Anyone of a nervous disposition was sent in to a tailspin of panic over the increasingly dramatic news coverage… this manifested itself in a tsunami of 911 calls in America which paralyzed parts of New York, Maine and Philadelphia for several hours.

Mercifully in Britain the majority of us refuse to get caught up in this bloody nonsense for many different reasons. The primary one being we had already endured more than three decades of this during the height of the IRA activities in London.

Virtually every single day for 30 years there would be some terror alert in the English capital -- it was called shoestring terrorism. One telephone call could bring a halt to a section of the London Underground.

The police would make their necessary checks, the media would ignore it and we all got on with our lives refusing to be intimidated by Irish terrorism.

And that is exactly how we should have treated Friday’s terror nonsense -- that does not mean to say people should be reckless or less vigilant but governments should stop trying to impose a fear factor on its citizens.

We can not sacrifice our freedoms and liberties just because the United States wants to impose its own neurosis, hysteria and paranoia on the rest of the world.

While British anti-terror police say no explosives were found in a suspicious package found onboard a UPS flight, the White House issued a statement completely contradicting this. Now the parcel has been removed for full forensic testing!

Call me cynical, but I find it too much of a coincidence that this bizarre alert came less than 24 hours after British Airways chairman Martin Broughton has accused the country of bowing to U.S. demands for increased airport security measures.

Mr. Broughton criticized the U.S. for imposing more security checks on U.S.-bound flights, but not on its own domestic services.

He urged the UK to stop kowtowing to demands for passengers to take their shoes off and to put any laptop computers through scanners to be screened separately.

The UK government said it would give airport operators permission to review their security procedures and I hope they stick to their promise despite all this nonsense.

One of the most ridiculous procedures we have to go through is to submit all of our potions, lotions and liquids to airport security.

This came about because of the so-called plot to blow 10 airliners out of the sky. That the fools behind this crazy scheme didn’t even have passports or a collective IQ of George W. Bush mattered not.

A video was shown of an explosion onboard a plane if this chemical had been mixed with that chemical.

The fact the bombmakers would have had to create sub zero laboratory conditions onboard a plane which would take around 40 minutes, mattered not.

As a frequent flyer I can tell you no one would be allowed to hog the tiny toilets for more than five minutes.

Yet despite this nonsense we have to hand over our liquids, but can buy them in vast quantities minutes later having past through airport security.

Just recently I was stopped because I had a brand new 200ml jar of Eve Lom face cleanser and was told I could not take it through. I pleaded for some commonsense from the security officer and he even went to his superior when I pointed out that the jar cost more than my airline ticket.

A nearby passenger who had just wistfully given up his full bottle of Remy Martin brandy sympathized with me.

Since when did Eve Lom become a threat to Britain's national security?

The British Government’s COBRA emergency committee is meeting as I write this. God only knows what will transpire but I hope this coalition government distances itself from these crazy security terror alerts coming over from the Americans.

U.S. President Barack Obama is facing his mid-term elections this weekend… if either he or his team have resorted to the “terror threat” ploy so often used by his predecessor to try and win votes then shame on them.

Of course what better way to divert voters’ minds from Afghanistan, Iraq and Wikileaks than to create a fresh new bogeyman… Yemen.

Any government which uses security and fear to win votes does not deserve to be in power.

Yvonne Ridley is a presenter for Press TV's show The Agenda and co-presenter of the Rattansi & Ridley show.

US under pressure over WikiLeaks allegations

The founder of whistleblower, Wikileaks, has played down the US complaint over the disclosure of documents showing the " truth" behind the Iraq war. 
_____________________________________________________________________

Washington on Sunday came under increasing pressure to investigate the allegations in the leaked Iraq war documents published by WikiLeaks, which Britain's deputy premier called "shocking".

Governments and human rights organisations alike put the focus on answers to the allegations made against US, allied and Iraqi troops as the whistleblowing website released 400,000 classified US military documents.

The flood of material from 2004 to 2009 offers a grim snapshot of the conflict, especially of the abuse of Iraqi civilians by Iraqi security forces.

The heavily redacted logs appear to show that the US military turned a blind eye to evidence of torture and abuse of civilians by the Iraqi authorities.

WikiLeaks claim the documents reveal around 15,000 more civilian deaths than were previously known about.

British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg called the allegations "extremely serious" and said people would be wanting to hear "what the answer is".

"We can bemoan how these leaks occurred but I think the nature of the allegations made are extraordinarily serious. They are distressing to read about," he told BBC television.

"I'm assuming the US administration will want to provide its own answer. It's not for us to tell them how to do that.

"Anything that suggests that basic rules of war and conflict and of engagement have been broken or that torture has in any way been condoned are extremely serious and need to be looked at.

"People will want to hear what the answer is to what are very, very serious allegations of a nature which I think everybody will find quite shocking."

Australia joined Iraq war allies Britain and the United States in saying that the leaks could put troops' lives at risk.

Australian Defence Minister Stephen Smith vowed a "painstaking" review of the documents, while warning they could compromise operational security and threaten the safety of collaborators.

Smith said Australia was likely to be less affected than its larger partners in Iraq. Some 20,000 Australian troops served in the conflict.

The files published Friday contain graphic accounts of torture, civilian killings and Iran's hand in the Iraq war, documenting years of bloodshed and suffering following the 2003 US-led invasion to oust Saddam Hussein.

Other reports describe Iraqis beating prisoners and women being killed at US military checkpoints.

On Iran's role in the Iraq conflict, the latest files show Tehran waging a shadow war with US troops in Iraq and Tehran allegedly using militias to kill and kidnap US soldiers.

Human Rights Watch said Iraq should investigate reports that its forces systematically tortured and abused detainees.

"Iraq should prosecute those responsible for torture and other crimes," the rights ombudsman said in a statement.

"The US government should also investigate whether its forces breached international law by transferring thousands of Iraqi detainees from US to Iraqi custody despite the clear risk of torture."

Amnesty International called on Washington to investigate how much US officials knew about the alleged torture and other ill-treatment of detainees held by Iraqi security forces.

Spokesman Malcolm Smart said the leaks fuelled concerns that US authorities "committed a serious breach of international law when they summarily handed over thousands of detainees to Iraqi security forces who, they knew, were continuing to torture and abuse detainees on a truly shocking scale."

The rights ministry in Baghdad said the logs "did not contain any surprises".

WikiLeaks held a news conference in London on Saturday, at which the website's founder Julian Assange defended the unauthorised release, saying the documents revealed the "truth" about the conflict.

WikiLeaks exposes more lies about Iraq

A new set of secret US military records being released by WikiLeaks shows that the US kept records of civilian deaths, despite previously denying it. According to Press TV, the documents also suggest “hundreds” of civilians have been killed at US military checkpoints since the war began in 2003.
But US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has vehemently criticized the largest leak of classified documents in US history.
Earlier in the year, WikiLeaks began exposing the darker side of the Iraq conflict with the release of a cockpit video of an attack by a US helicopter in which a number of civilians were killed, including two journalists working for the Reuters news organization.
Then 75,000 documents, which shed new light on the conflict in Afghanistan, were released by the whistleblower website in July.
The Pentagon subsequently claimed terrorists had analyzed those documents, which put US troops' lives in jeopardy.
However, analysts say WikiLeaks provides a service needed to expose the truths behind the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Whistleblower website, Wikileaks once again made headlines by releasing new intelligence reports on the US atrocities in occupied Iraq. It has released 400,000 intelligence documents this time making it the biggest leak in US history. Wikileaks had previously disclosed tens of thousands of classified military documents of crimes committed by US occupation froces in Afghanistan.
Press TV news network annoucned in a report that the new Wikileaks documents show that the US had registred civilain death tolls in Iraq and this is while the US had earlier denied registering the number of civilian deaths in Iraq, which total almost 1.2 million over the past seven years.
US president, Barack Obama, Secretary of Defesne, Robert Gates and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, are angry at the release of classified documents, although they have feigned shock at their crimes in a bid to absolve the current administration of complicity in this organized massacre. At the same time, US officials have expressed concern over the disclosure of these reports while describing them as dangerous for the security of US and NATO occupation forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Wikileaks had also earlier released video footage of an American helicopter attack in Iran which a number of civilians including two local journalists working for Reuters' news bureau were killed.
AFP annoucned in a report from Washington that the founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has said the newly released documents present images of killings in iraq in a more transparent way.
Julian Assange told CNN reporter that documents relating to the war in Iraq show the killings of about 1,040,000 Iraqi people in the course of 7 years which is a five-fold amount of civilian deaths compared to the American killings of civilians in Afghanistan.
The released documents on the massacre of Iraqis not only show the number of those killed but also specifies the details of the massacres with geographic and operational details.
In reaction to this massive leak of military documents, NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said the disclosure of these reports could bring about negative security consequences.
Spokesman for the US Defense Department, Geoff Morell also announced that these documents include reports which military units have presented to their top officials.
Also, in order to defelct world public opinion and portary an unimportant image of these documents, US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates wrote in a letter to the Senate military services committee that the release of these documents has not disclosed any intelligence strategy.

US aid is not proportionate to Pakistan’s sacrifices

 Co- chaiiring the US-Pakistan Strategic Dialouge with Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi Clinton described relatinship between the two countries as deep broad and enduring . The security assistance commitment includes two billion in Foreign Military Financing and $29 million in International Military Education and Training funding.

___________________________________________________________________

By Asif Haroon Raja

Under the guise of global war on terror to rid the world from the scourge of terrorism, Pakistan was coerced and roped in and made to fight a proxy war against its own people. So-called temporary reprieve which Gen Musharraf bought from USA proved too costly. The nation is paying for his sins for over nine years and is still suffering due to America’s high-handed tactics and meddlesome role in our domestic affairs. By allowing US officials to micro-manage domestic affairs, Pakistan has been reduced to a status of a lackey of USA and made so helpless that it cannot even protest against drone attacks and ever-growing presence of US security personnel in federal and provincial capitals of Pakistan. Floods gave an added excuse to USA to smuggle in its special forces and to also maximise economic pressure.

Secretary of States Hilary Clinton’s diplomacy revolves around terrorism, al-Qaeda phobia, threat to homeland security and the remedy she has to these multiple threats is to push Pakistan to do more. This mantra is fixed for Pakistan only since it is the only country ever ready to do more even if it is sapped of energy and capacity. This hymn has never been applied on coalition troops in Afghanistan which are genuinely in need to do more. Their financial, arms and troop needs are met with promptitude, their personal security and comforts taken care of. The US has never felt the pinch of spending $5 billion every month since October 2001. With 30,000 additional troops, expenditure has further increased.

However, when it comes to Pakistan, the US becomes so tight fisted that it pales even Hindu banyas and Jews in miserliness. It gave only $10.5 billion to Pakistan for the period 2002-2009 but made so much of fuss as if it had opened gates of treasure stores of Qaroon. Over 50% of aid money was siphoned back to US treasury, while 30% was meant for repayment of services rendered. Practically only 20% of the much-hyped amount was spent on development works and for meeting the needs of over 100,000 troops employed on counter-terrorism duties. 

A mountain is now being made over $1.5 billion annual aid under Kerry Lugar Bill (KLB) tied to stringent conditions. Purpose is to keep releasing tiny amounts after watching progress made on the given dictates and to stop the flow if slackness or reluctance is noticed. Such are the ways of imperialist powers towards lackeys. Beneath her charming and ever-smiling face, Hillary is an iron lady. She disarms faint-hearted with her dazzling smiles, but starts frowning when someone tries to resist her charms. All our leaders who exchanged pleasantries or discussed official matters with her in Washington or in Islamabad, instead of fighting Pakistan’s case got tongue-tied and meekly acquiesced to all her demands.

We can recall how imperiously she sat between the two pawns on 6 May in Washington and made our president sign the MoU on Pak-Afghan trade transit (PATT) without even reading it. India was quietly fitted into the scheme to allow it to transport its goods to and from Afghanistan via Wagah. This spectacle was repeated on 18 July in Kabul when she and Holbrooke stood behind heavy-eyed Amin Fahim to ensure that he signed the final PATT without understanding the contents of agreement. Once the damage was done and domestic pressure mounted, the rulers vainly tried to hide their ineptness by deceptively explaining that the agreement was still to be finalised. PATT, which has since been operationalised has serious ramifications on our security and economics. RAW already misusing Afghan soil to destabilise Pakistan, can make use of this access to transport armaments from India at a large scale. Moreover, there is no earthly reason to give one-way lucrative concession to India when it is choking Pakistan by blocking water in rivers and is unprepared to settle Kashmir dispute.

Another example was that of our Foreign Minister Qureshi joined by our ambassador in Washington Hussein Haqqani. In the presence of effervescent Hillary, both started to sing songs of praises in respect of KLB and kept humming till Gen Kayani put a stopper in their mouths reminding them that the so-called generous bill had inbuilt security repercussions. On her last visit to Pakistan, under heavy cover of security provided by Blackwater, which was over and above Pakistan’s security, Hillary moved about freely chatting with a cross-section of people and tried to give an impression that she was warm and friendly. When quizzed about harmful aspects of KLB, she haughtily retorted, ‘If you want it take it, if you don’t, reject it’. She brazenly accused leadership of Pakistan of being in the knowledge of al-Qaeda leadership based in FATA since 2002.

In the wake of Times Square incident, she flared up and adopted a bellicose stance, threatening Pakistan of dire consequences had a link been established. On 18 July after landing at Islamabad, she reiterated that ‘should an attack be traced to Pakistan, it would have a very devastating impact on Pak-US relations’. Bob Woodword has also reconfirmed thinking of higher leadership in his recently published book ‘Obama’s wars’. He reveals that there are military plans to hit 160 targets inside Pakistan in case any terrorist attack in USA linked with Pakistan took place.

Hillary presided over both PATT and KLB that were damaging for Pakistan. It is ironic that USA is so concerned about Afghanistan and Indian interests but where Pakistan’s interests are involved, it adopts a callous and unjust attitude. It is not even prepared to grant any concession by way of increase in export quota to US markets, which if granted will benefit Pakistan economically without causing any loss to USA. Economic losses have crossed $50 billion and civilian and security forces casualties are exceptionally high. Investment has dried up, stocks have crashed, business is down and energy crisis has become acute. All economic indicators have gone in negative.

Reconstruction Opportunity Zones programme for FATA envisaged exporting duty-free products to USA to create more employment opportunities and usher in prosperity. The bill was passed by Congress in June 2009, but so far no progress has been made because of which after clearing phase, holding phase in South Waziristan hasn’t progressed to building phase entailing development. Swat too is still to be rebuilt and Shariat courts under Nizam-e-Adl have not started working. Although Republicans and Congress are putting hurdles, Obama sitting in driving seat should have ensured its implementation.

Notwithstanding poor governance mismanagement and corruption, which have contributed a great deal towards Pakistan’s economic meltdown, fight against faceless enemy duly fanned by foreign agencies, devastation caused by floods, India’s hostile posturing and its water manipulation strategy are major causes of Pakistan’s ailments. Presence of three million Afghan refugees since 1980 is another huge economic burden. They are also causing social and security problems since foreign agencies are making good use of them to carry out sabotage and espionage activities. No steps have been taken by international community for their return.

Tall promises made by so-called Friends of Pakistan Forum to ease economic difficulties of Pakistan have so far proved illusive. Ongoing third round of strategic dialogue in Washington is also likely to meet similar fate. As opposed to what has been given to Pakistan, India has been rewarded handsomely without making any contribution towards war on terror. It will be further rewarded when President Obama visits India in November.

While dealing with Pakistan, the US behaves like a typical coquettish woman who promises a lot but bestows little. Since September 2001, the US leaders have been making tall promises but on ground delivered very little when compared with Pakistan’s sacrifices to protect US interests. Even now after passage of KLB followed by commencement of strategic dialogue, the US is resorting to its old tactics of promising a lot but at the end of the day offering peanuts. Reasons proffered for stingy response range from its dissatisfaction over progress achieved in war on terror, to alleged nuclear proliferation, to secret links with Taliban or Congress factor. The US Congress under the strong influence of American Jews has been traditionally anti-Pakistan and pro-India and has always sat over aid bills of Pakistan.

In case the US wants current efforts of negotiations with Taliban for a political settlement to succeed, it must stop mistrusting Pakistan and should make it a key component of future negotiations. The US should deliver economic, military and nuclear assistance proportionate to sacrifices rendered by Pakistan. It should seriously consider pulling out Pakistan from debt trap by writing off its foreign debt. These gestures will go a long way in cementing Pak-US relations on solid foundations. Pakistan’s economic prosperity will help in stabilising democracy and political and social structures and in defeating forces of obscurantism, thereby paving the way towards regional peace and stability.

Wikileaks, Afghanistan, and Pakistan

 The Pakistani government strongly rebutted the Wikileaks reports regarding the alleged double role of the ISI in the Afghan war.Interestingly, a Pakistani official revealed that days before the New York Times story , US defence officials had advised their Pakistani counterparts to disregard the Wikileaks documents release.
______________________________________________________________


Mohammad Abdullah Gul


ON 25 July 2010, the New York Times carried an explosive story by Mark Mazzetti, Jane Perlez, Eric Schmitt and Andrew W. Lehren about some 92,000 classified Pentagon documents which had passed into the hands of Wikileaks, a Sweden-based whistleblower website headed by Julian Assange. Ostensibly, the leak sent shock waves through the US Administration – not just for the sheer volume of the leaked material but also because the revelations could significantly affect the course of the war in Afghanistan. 
The documents comprised a host of field intelligence reports initiated by covert sources, combat units and the Afghan intelligence agency, the National Directorate of Security (NDS). Much of the plethora of documents is a compilation of assorted reports known as “collation” in the intelligence craft. Such stuff is not deemed to be intelligence until it is sifted, corroborated and analysed for its value, the authenticity of the source and the plausibility of the information. The documents cover the period from 2004 to 2009. The fact that that such a large array of reports remained unprocessed for this long is a poor reflection on the Pentagon’s efficiency.

Dubious Veracity


Wikileaks has, thus far, released 77,000 of the documents, of which 180 reports – mostly originating from Afghan intelligence – pertain to the dubious role of Pakistan, its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and, especially, of retired General Hamid Gul who headed the ISI in the crucial years of the Afghan jihad during the Soviet Union’s occupation of Afghanistan. Gul earned a reputation as the architect of the Soviet defeat and the ignominious withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. 
 Once a darling of US strategists and intelligence big-wigs, Gul later became a bitter critic of the post-Reagan policies of the US. He routinely charges America of betraying the Afghan nation and causing an airplane crash in which then-president of Pakistan, General Zia ul-Haq, and dozens of Pakistan’s top military brass died. Gul also claimed that the 9/11 events were an inside job and openly supported the Afghan resistance against what he described as the US-led occupation of Afghanistan which was not dissimilar to that of the Soviet Union. 
He has repeatedly refuted the charges against him on various international media channels such as Al Jazeera, CNN, and BBC (for example, on the 25, 26, 27 and 28 July 2010), and labelled the reports as “preposterous”, “fictional” and deliberate “disinformation” to demonise him and the ISI in an attempt to find a scapegoat for the US military’s failures in Afghanistan. In these interviews, Gul also offered to travel to the US to face charges in court or be heard by the US Senate or Congress. In 2008, the US proposed a motion at the United Nations 1267 Committee to have him placed on the UN’s international terrorist list. He was saved by China, which blocked the move by applying a technical hold for lack of evidence. 
 The Pakistani government also strongly rebutted the Wikileaks reports regarding the alleged double role of the ISI in the Afghan war. Interestingly, a Pakistani official revealed that days before the New York Times story, US defence officials had advised their Pakistani counterparts to disregard the Wikileaks documents release. 
Human rights and military discipline Apart from documents relating to Pakistan, the rest of the 77,000 documents cover a vast spectrum of excesses and human rights abuses committed by US and NATO forces, and narrate a harrowing tale of atrocities against innocent civilians. No less than 20,000 fatalities have been documented, painting a heart-rending picture of a callous disregard of Geneva Conventions and US laws. Task Force 373, a secret force, stands out as the most trigger-happy, ruthless bunch of soldiers who seem to have exceeded every limit. It is not clear whether this force was ever authorised by the US Congress. If not, it would cast a negative light on the Pentagon, raising questions as to whether the Pentagon (or a certain element within it) had turned into a “rogue” institution. 

 Questions


Wikileaks is still holding back some 15,000 documents. There are tremendous efforts by the US administration to block the release of these documents or, at least, to expunge the identities of sources and other named figures lest their security be jeopardised. 
The whole sordid affair begs many a thorny question, and points to yawning cavities in the US systems of defence and intelligence. The more glaring of these questions, each of which warrants a separate query, are: 

1. Is the US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) overly dependent on security contractors and largely amateurish Afghan intelligence operatives? 

2. Is there an attitudinal conflict among American policy makers on Afghanistan? That is, is there a conflict between those advocating winning the hearts and minds of Afghan people and those operators on the ground who are bent on the systematic and wilful alienation of the Afghan people? 

3. Does a dichotomy really exist between the stated US position of Pakistan as a front-line ally without whose support victory cannot be perceived, and the real perception of its role as a double crosser playing both sides? Or is this dichotomy inspired by extraneous influences which wish to drive a wedge into US-Pakistan relations? 

4. How will the leaks impact on US-Pakistan and Pakistan-Karzai government relations? 

5. How will they affect the war in Afghanistan and determine its outcome? 

6. Were the leaks deliberate and purposeful a la My Lai in Vietnam, which set in motion the public demand for withdrawal? 

 US intelligence methodology


Over the years, the mammoth US intelligence establishment has shown deficiencies, fissures and failures. If glaring ones such as 9/11, Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, and the failure to capture the world’s most wanted terrorists are not enough evidence of its inherent flaws, Wikileaks has exposed it to the core. The human intelligence (humint) aspect of the US is well-known to have suffered from protracted neglect, poor funding, and the absence of a cogent cause to inspire enthusiasm. 
 As a consequence, the US substituted security contractors for regular and disciplined operatives. Most of these security contractors were former employees of the CIA, FBI and other agencies which thrived on old-buddy cronyism. Their only motivation was money. They are a tired and lacklustre group of people who rely mostly on “paper milling” – intelligence parlance for the production of make-believe reports. The bulk of the reports on Pakistan is the handiwork of Afghan intelligence agencies which are infested by communist die-hards looking to avenge their humiliation at the hands of Pakistan and the ISI. To top it off, the Indian external intelligence agency – the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) – has established a strong field intelligence network in Afghanistan. Its insidious influence on Afghan intelligence agencies in an effort to malign Pakistan is an open secret. 
Task Force 373 uses tactics and methods which run counter to the explicit purpose of the military high command. About 100,000 US security contractors have proven to be loose cannons. They disregard operational instructions, and are only in pursuit of quick results to earn more dollars. It was a disaster ab initio to mix mercenaries and burnt-out intelligence veterans with regular troops. The architects of this harebrained idea will realise the consequences of their folly. 

 Between policy and posture


The US and NATO official position on Pakistan as a front-line state in the war against terrorism is a euphemism. In reality, Pakistan has always been suspected either of doing less than it could, or, worse, of complicity with some Taliban factions fighting US and NATO troops. No wonder, then, that each category and tier of the US leadership – from the Bush to the Obama administrations – continued to press Pakistan to do more. 
While analysing the nature and extent of Pakistan’s cooperation, one must bear in mind the circumstances under which Pakistan was recruited into this war. It was literally forced on board the American warship. The Pakistan leadership wrongly assumed that the war would be a short, swift retribution which would end in a few months. They failed to fathom the latent and long-term intentions of the Bush administration’s war hawks. It was only after the Karzai government was foisted on Afghanistan, as a result of the Bonn dispensation and the induction of India, Pakistan’s arch-rival, into the Afghan game that Pakistani authorities realised their mistake in unconditionally giving in to US demands.They felt cheated but could do little to redress the situation. Then-President Pervez Musharraf’s quick surrender to US diktat had left the Pakistani nation and its institutions dazed and bewildered. They were torn between the demands of the US agenda and their national interests. The military and the ISI were hard put to maintain equilibrium. Drone attacks by the CIA in Pakistan’s tribal regions, and clandestine deployment of US Special Forces and security contractors inside Pakistan further exacerbated frayed sentiments. To the Pakistani masses, from where most of the soldiers are drawn, it was somebody else’s dirty war which Pakistan had to fight under duress. It reflects positively on the army and the ISI that there was no serious breach of discipline. But to expect an enthusiastic and wholesome participation under these conditions would be asking for too much. 

 Impact on US-Pakistan relation


That the invaders would fail in Afghanistan was axiomatic for even elementary students of Afghan affairs; and no one is better educated on this subject than the ISI. Should the ISI not have maintained liaison with the real soul of the Afghan people, which is manifested in the national resistance symbolised by the Taliban? Let no one be duped into believing otherwise! But material support to the resistance is quite another matter. With US spies all over Pakistan, having logged deep into its systems, such an audacity cannot even be imagined, save by Pentagon stalwarts. 
The US policy towards Pakistan was described aptly – though insultingly – by Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton as a “carrot and stick” doctrine that would keep Pakistan on the leash and aligned to US objectives. This policy seems to have worked reasonably well for America. Pakistan has been held to the course by the US promoting a dictator, and then imposing a truncated democracy through an externally-brokered deal called the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO). America’s whip hand, however, began to test the limits of national tolerance after the Mumbai attacks, when the US started openly to promote India’s brow-beating tactics against Pakistan on unsubstantiated charges. Following Obama’s 1 December 2009 policy speech, the US attitude began to change. It is now less belligerent, and often placatory, towards Pakistan. 
There is also a perceptible shift in the policy from dealing with government to addressing the people of Pakistan. This is a healthy change indicative of a possible focus on an exit strategy. 
The recent floods in Pakistan have enhanced the need for a fresh approach. Currently, there seem to be two overriding American concerns. Firstly, to create an environment for the graceful exit of the US from Afghanistan, while safeguarding its core interests and making room for India in a post-withdrawal Afghanistan. Secondly, to thwart a populist –inevitably anti-American ground-swell – in the wake of the catastrophic deluge in Pakistan. How these can objectives be achieved with the help of a tottering and largely dysfunctional democracy in Pakistan will be a daunting challenge for American policy makers. 
Pakistan and the US need each other for their own good reasons, but India is the obstacle, and it will remain so until the Kashmir issue is dealt with. 
Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai began to lean towards Pakistan after Obama’s 1 December 2009 speech. To show his altered preferences, he fired his Pakistan-hating intelligence czar, Amrullah Saleh. After the Wikileaks affair, however, Karzai revealed his true intentions when he demanded that the US bomb Pakistan. But that simmered down rather quickly. Perhaps the Americans whispered the same gospel in his ears as they did for Pakistan: “Don’t take it too seriously.” 

 Outcomes and purposes


It is too early to pass judgment, but there are unerring similarities between My Lai and the Wikileaks affair. Lieutenant William Calley and Captain Ernest L. Medina’s misconduct then, and the TF-373’s misdemeanour now reflect the same propensity for frustration spawned by failures. How close are the parallels of General Westmoreland’s demand for more troops and General Stanley McChrystal’s urge for the surge, intelligence failures, and search for scapegoats – Cambodia then and Pakistan now? It’s an uncanny match of the scenarios, a rebirth of the tragedy that was Vietnam. 
Afghanistan is a wrong war at a wrong place against a wrong enemy. Not a single Afghan has been found involved in terrorism outside the war zone. “Reversing Taliban’s momentum” was not the original aim of the NATO war. At this stage, it would be like defeating the Afghan nation; it would be mission impossible. The initial goal was to disperse Al-Qaeda and capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. All western intelligence sources believe Osama Bin Laden is not in Afghanistan, or, at least, not in the southern part of Afghanistan where much of the US and NATO forces are committed. Leon E. Panetta said there were no more than 60 to 100 Al-Qaeda operatives in that part of the world. 
That many may be present in any European country. The reality is that Al-Qaeda has long since migrated to the Red Sea area to be in closer proximity to its strategic “centre of gravity” – the Middle East. 

The hard truth is that the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause for America. The problem is how to convince the Pentagon and the self-indulgent, bigoted neo-cons who would not let reason get the better of their unrealistic ambitions. Obama’s heart is in the right place. He knows he came into the Oval Office on the promise of change, and he was aware of the stumbling blocks on his way to change. As a master chess player, he let the Pentagon have its say (two surges since his inauguration) but asked for results. The Pentagon merely reinforced failure and could not deliver. 
Operation Moshtarak, in February 2010, was an unmitigated disaster, and the Kandahar operation is a non-starter. One obstacle in Obama’s march towards his objective has been removed. If allowed to operate with freedom, Wikileaks will remove the other. Its publication of the remaining 15,000 documents is bound to whip up a public debate reminiscent of the Nixon years. Already, the antiwar opinion has climbed to 62 percent. A “moratorium” – as in the case of Vietnam – may well be in the offing, thanks to Wikileaks. Is Obama playing Nixon? If yes, Wikileaks is a gift to him. Or, did he manage the gift? Whatever the case, the draw-down from Afghanistan is likely to begin as per schedule, if not earlier. Conventional wisdom commands that losses be cut. 

CIA's Red Cell ‘exporter of terrorism’

Latest exposé by Wikileaks comprising a classified three-page classified paper produced in February by the CIA's Red Cell, a think tank set up after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by then-CIA Director George J. Tenet to provide "out-of-the-box" analyses on "a full range of analytic issues" discloses that the US has long been an exporter of terrorism. The secret CIA analysis is so explosive that it could damage relations between the US and its so called allies in the Global War against Terror. Titled "What If Foreigners See the United States as an 'Incubator and Exporter of Terrorism'?", the analysis could spoil relations with foreign allies and diminish their willingness to cooperate in "extrajudicial" activities, such as the rendition and interrogation of terrorism suspects. The report cautions that this may lead to formal inquiries concerning US citizens by foreign intelligence agencies who may "even request the rendition of US citizens." Renditions involve the transfer of suspected terrorists from one state to another where torture is used to extract information. The report warns that US failure to cooperate with these requests, "might lead some governments to consider secretly extracting US citizens suspected of foreign terrorism from US soil."In the case of Pakistan, the paper cites Pakistani American David Headley, among others, to make its case that America is a terrorism exporter. This year Headley, who was an US agent of the Drug Enforcement Agency, pleaded guilty to conducting surveillance in support of the 2008 Lashkar-i-Taiba attacks in Mumbai, which killed more than 160 people. The Wikileaks exposé reveals that the US was aware that Pakistan was not involved in the Mumbai attack, yet it supported the Indian version, although it nearly brought the two erstwhile hostile neighbours to the brink of war and has been used as a plea for India to derail the peace talks with Pakistan. The Indians got emboldened by the US instance of covering its own tracks and involvement in the carnage and the role of CIA and tried to pressurize Pakistan.An extremely explosive revelation is the existence of the US operated “Schools of Americas” in Georgia. The school offers training in counterinsurgency, interrogation, and anti terror tactics and strategies. Thousands of Latin American military personnel have trained there over the years. Graduates include some of the worst dictators in that region including those behind the deadly Operation Condor in the 1980s. Some of the worst atrocities in the region were committed by school graduates. The school's level of responsibility for the behavior of its graduate can't be quantified in precise terms. However, for some graduates, the training failed to instill a respect for humanity and taught tactics that were employed against the citizens that the military leaders were to protect. The US has held the leadership position in NATO since its inception in 1949. In 1990, the European Parliament passed a resolution condemning Operation Gladio and US involvement (European Parliament resolution on Gladio, Nov. 22, 1990, Clause G. 2). This involved paramilitary groups in NATO member nations and France. The groups were created by US and British intelligence after World War II. The original goal was to provide resistance in case of a takeover by the Soviet Union. Long after that was a viable concern, the groups continued by staging false-flag terror attacks against their own citizens. The incidents, which killed thousands, were committed by the Gladio groups and falsely attributed to Communists and Soviet sympathizers. These are just two examples of the unrestrained and counterproductive use of power exported by successive US administrations. It's no accident that this information is kept from the world as well as US citizens. It brings to the fore that the CIA is oblivious to loss of human lives and explains the US callousness in the drone attacks in Pakistan and elsewhere in the region. The Daily Mail opines that that the Wikileaks provide food for thought for Pakistan to rethink its level of cooperation with US in the prevailing war against terror. Since Pakistan is itself now a major victim of the terror attacks, it cannot pack up the antiterror operations, but must execute them according to its own requirement and not US diktats.

Tags:

CIA

Wikileaks

Julian Assange

Central Intelligence Agency

Terrorism

US Crime