Emerging Pakistan-U.S. relations
Madhavi Bhasin September 17, 2008
#21 Posted by HP on September 18, 2008 5:14:34 pm
Bush Elected President Of Iraq
BAGHDAD—In a vast outpouring of gratitude to the man they call "Our Great Savior From The West," the people of Iraq flooded the polls during yesterday's first free elections, voting overwhelmingly for President George W. Bush as their first democratically elected leader.
Bush, who spent nearly half a trillion dollars of U.S. taxpayer money on his campaign, received a concession call from Abu Musaiya at 11:30 EST last night.
After the Bush landslide was announced on Al-Jazeera, ecstatic crowds chanted in the streets throughout the recently liberated nation: "Hail George Bush, the president of Iraq!"
"May Allah bless him and his children to the seventh generation!" shouted free Iraqi citizen Abdullah al-Hallasid, firing his gun into the air repeatedly and injuring seven U.S. soldiers. "At last, we are free!"
Bush, who surged in the polls after all of the other candidates were killed by either coalition forces or insurgents in the final week leading up to the election, characterized his victory as the dawn of democracy in the Middle East, and proof that the system works.
He will take over Iraqi Presidency on Jan 21, 2009. in the final phase of democracy in Iraq.
BAGHDAD—In a vast outpouring of gratitude to the man they call "Our Great Savior From The West," the people of Iraq flooded the polls during yesterday's first free elections, voting overwhelmingly for President George W. Bush as their first democratically elected leader.
Bush, who spent nearly half a trillion dollars of U.S. taxpayer money on his campaign, received a concession call from Abu Musaiya at 11:30 EST last night.
After the Bush landslide was announced on Al-Jazeera, ecstatic crowds chanted in the streets throughout the recently liberated nation: "Hail George Bush, the president of Iraq!"
"May Allah bless him and his children to the seventh generation!" shouted free Iraqi citizen Abdullah al-Hallasid, firing his gun into the air repeatedly and injuring seven U.S. soldiers. "At last, we are free!"
Bush, who surged in the polls after all of the other candidates were killed by either coalition forces or insurgents in the final week leading up to the election, characterized his victory as the dawn of democracy in the Middle East, and proof that the system works.
He will take over Iraqi Presidency on Jan 21, 2009. in the final phase of democracy in Iraq.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#20 Posted by HP on September 18, 2008 5:10:24 pm
Iraq War Recommendations
The Baker Study Group released their report on new Iraq strategies. Here are the some of the other options for Iraq currently on the table:
Implement phased withdrawal of all media access
Rapidly train Iraqi security forces in use of butterfly knives
Try to meet insurgents halfway by burning own effigies of Bush
Promote Smithfield Ham–sponsored "Hey, America, What's Your Exit Strategy?" contest
Spend a weekend researching the customs and history of the Iraqi people
Stop half-assing USO shows
Teach Iraqis about ultimate futility of sectarian violence by pointing out that, Shiite or Sunni, they all look alike anyway
Move operations over to another country that will embrace democracy more readily
The Baker Study Group released their report on new Iraq strategies. Here are the some of the other options for Iraq currently on the table:
Implement phased withdrawal of all media access
Rapidly train Iraqi security forces in use of butterfly knives
Try to meet insurgents halfway by burning own effigies of Bush
Promote Smithfield Ham–sponsored "Hey, America, What's Your Exit Strategy?" contest
Spend a weekend researching the customs and history of the Iraqi people
Stop half-assing USO shows
Teach Iraqis about ultimate futility of sectarian violence by pointing out that, Shiite or Sunni, they all look alike anyway
Move operations over to another country that will embrace democracy more readily
#19 Posted by _arjun22 on September 18, 2008 5:05:15 pm
Confusion of the lambs
Islamabad diary
Friday, September 19, 2008
Ayaz Amir
The United States has us in a vice and we are not even yelping. A dog in our position would yelp. Even a goat would bleat. But the Islamic Republic, with the sixth or seventh largest army in the world, possessor of umpteen nuclear bombs, is smitten by nameless fears and, consequently, reduced to the silence of the lambs.
The Yanks may not be triumphant in Afghanistan but, by God, they feel triumphant when they have to deal with our officials who have turned prostration into a superior art form. The Yanks have us in a double whammy. Our army, now more at home running defence housing authorities than in doing anything remotely connected with warfare, has been prodded and pushed into carrying out the most sustained operation yet undertaken in the tribal areas, the focus of this operation the Bajaur agency. Tens of thousands of people have been displaced from their homes, the 'collateral' baggage of a blind and indiscriminate war.
Yet even as the Pakistan army, helpless against American pressure, is carrying out this operation---very much in line with an American-dictated agenda---the Americans have taken to carrying out missile strikes from Predator drones against targets in the tribal areas. Osama bin Laden may be the leading symbol of terror for the US. But for the embattled people of FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) the leading symbol of terror is the Predator drone and the Hellfire missiles streaming from its side.
This is a strange war we are caught in. The US is losing in Afghanistan and the Taliban, as all the evidence suggests, are getting stronger by the day. What happened to the Soviet army in the 1980s is what is happening to the US military 20 odd years later. Yet instead of doing a rethink about how it is fighting its Afghan war, the US is taking its anger out on Pakistan. Two hundred years of history have made the Afghans into a tough target. Our birth 61 years ago and our subsequent history have condemned us to be a soft target. Perhaps it is safe to predict that the more the going gets tough for the Americans in Afghanistan, the more they will take their ire out on Pakistan.
Amidst this growing chaos some comic relief is provided---although the humour involved is bitter and grim---by steady references to our sovereignty and the imperatives of seeing that it is not violated. Even as the Yanks go about violating what remains of our sovereignty, Pakistani officials, from the prime minister downwards, say that sovereignty will be defended at all costs, a chant that no citizen of Pakistan, however ill-informed, no longer believes.
Pity the army, caught on the horns of a dilemma: not in a position to really defy the US---the army since its first defence treaty with the US in the early 1950s not genetically programmed to hoe an independent line---but also aware of growing public anger at US aggression in FATA. So in an attempt to resolve this dilemma it settles on a half-measure: a statement by the army chief, endorsed by the corps commanders, that US operations will not be allowed this side of the border.
By which, presumably, the top brass means that the US has no authorization to carry out ground assaults this side of the Durand Line, like the helicopter assault near Angoor Adda early September. A nation demoralized and confused because of lack of leadership and near-total silence on the part of the PPP government, is reduced to a position where it is ready to be comforted by any crumbs of comfort thrown its way. So General Ashfaq Kayani's statement is hailed as an act of near-Churchillian defiance.
Two days after this act of defiance, the US carries out another missile strike in Waziristan. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman US Joint Chiefs of Staff, arrives in Islamabad on a hurried visit, presumably to assuage ruffled Pakistani feathers. A statement by the US embassy has him reiterating the US commitment to "respect" Pakistan's sovereignty. A few hours after his departure from Islamabad there is another missile strike on a house in South Waziristan.
Constant provider of comic relief is Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani who to the mantra of no one being allowed to violate Pakistani sovereignty brings in a rather different-sounding variation: that Pakistan is in no position to fight the US. Where did this brainwave come from? Who's talking of fighting? Makhdoom Yusuf Raza Gilani as the articulator of the national interest is not the least of the wonders happening to emerge on the national scene these days.
Defiance and resistance can take many forms. Even in our diminished position we still have some cards up our sleeve. We can tell the Americans that if missile attacks on FATA continue the Pakistan army will cease its current operations in that area. This will be a real threat because with the Americans over-extended in Afghanistan sending US troops into FATA is easier said than done.
American and NATO supplies move through Pakistan. We have the option of cutting this umbilical cord. But this will need heart and spirit and at the moment the Pakistani leadership has neither.
Amidst all these turbulent events anyone would have expected President Asif Zardari to stay at home. But only a few days after his election he is off on a "private visit" to Dubai, where he has a home, and from there to London. Perhaps to justify his UK trip he holds talks with Prime Minister Gordon Brown whom no one takes seriously any more in the UK but whose intercession President Zardari seeks to ask the US not to violate that old chestnut: Pakistan's sovereignty.
President Zardari says (in answer to a question from media people) that the UK understands the subcontinent better than any other country, so it is in a better position to convey Pakistani concerns to the outside world. This is breathtaking stuff but it sheds a lurid if sad light on the sum of leadership currently available in Pakistan.
About Garibaldi, hero of Italian unity, I was reading the other day that shortly before his death, when all his triumphs were behind him, he wrote, "It was a very different Italy which I spent my life dreaming of, not the impoverished and humiliated country which we now see ruled by the dregs of the nation."
"Impoverished and humiliated country…" and then "…ruled by the dregs of the nation": says it all, doesn't it? For lack of leadership and no other reason Pakistan is demoralized, a nation psychologically drained and on its way to being psychologically traumatized.
Pervez Musharraf was an American pawn and satellite, selling Pakistan cheaply in Sep 2001 when the US, bent on vengeance, had decided to attack Afghanistan. As long as he remained a potent satellite, ready and able to deliver what the Americans wanted, he was feted and lionised by Washington. When he became a stricken figure, his weakening starting---and let us never forget this---by the lawyers' movement, Washington felt persuaded to shuffle the Pakistani deck to make way for a fresh leadership better able to serve American interests.
The people of Pakistan thought they were voting for change on Feb 18. How could they have known they were voting for an illusion? Liberation has not come Pakistan's way. It has been given a fresh set of chains which binds it more strongly than ever to America's war chariot---the same chariot Musharraf clambered aboard in 2001, to sell Pakistan cheaply and ensure his own survival in power.
This war will be the death of us for we are becoming its cannon fodder. If only the Taliban in Afghanistan were to fade away all would be well with us. But with their resistance growing stronger by the day---and for the Afghans this is as much a struggle against foreign occupation as their 'jihad' in the 1980s was a struggle against Soviet occupation---the US will force Pakistan and its army and air force more and more into this war, in order to lighten the burden of conflict for the US.
American financial markets are in turmoil. Russia, reversing the decline of the Yeltsin years, is beginning to reassert itself as a world power. China continues its upward climb. Yet we remain tied to the old forms, "ruled by the dregs of the nation", too psychologically broken to see the outlines of the new world order emerging in the distance.
Islamabad diary
Friday, September 19, 2008
Ayaz Amir
The United States has us in a vice and we are not even yelping. A dog in our position would yelp. Even a goat would bleat. But the Islamic Republic, with the sixth or seventh largest army in the world, possessor of umpteen nuclear bombs, is smitten by nameless fears and, consequently, reduced to the silence of the lambs.
The Yanks may not be triumphant in Afghanistan but, by God, they feel triumphant when they have to deal with our officials who have turned prostration into a superior art form. The Yanks have us in a double whammy. Our army, now more at home running defence housing authorities than in doing anything remotely connected with warfare, has been prodded and pushed into carrying out the most sustained operation yet undertaken in the tribal areas, the focus of this operation the Bajaur agency. Tens of thousands of people have been displaced from their homes, the 'collateral' baggage of a blind and indiscriminate war.
Yet even as the Pakistan army, helpless against American pressure, is carrying out this operation---very much in line with an American-dictated agenda---the Americans have taken to carrying out missile strikes from Predator drones against targets in the tribal areas. Osama bin Laden may be the leading symbol of terror for the US. But for the embattled people of FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) the leading symbol of terror is the Predator drone and the Hellfire missiles streaming from its side.
This is a strange war we are caught in. The US is losing in Afghanistan and the Taliban, as all the evidence suggests, are getting stronger by the day. What happened to the Soviet army in the 1980s is what is happening to the US military 20 odd years later. Yet instead of doing a rethink about how it is fighting its Afghan war, the US is taking its anger out on Pakistan. Two hundred years of history have made the Afghans into a tough target. Our birth 61 years ago and our subsequent history have condemned us to be a soft target. Perhaps it is safe to predict that the more the going gets tough for the Americans in Afghanistan, the more they will take their ire out on Pakistan.
Amidst this growing chaos some comic relief is provided---although the humour involved is bitter and grim---by steady references to our sovereignty and the imperatives of seeing that it is not violated. Even as the Yanks go about violating what remains of our sovereignty, Pakistani officials, from the prime minister downwards, say that sovereignty will be defended at all costs, a chant that no citizen of Pakistan, however ill-informed, no longer believes.
Pity the army, caught on the horns of a dilemma: not in a position to really defy the US---the army since its first defence treaty with the US in the early 1950s not genetically programmed to hoe an independent line---but also aware of growing public anger at US aggression in FATA. So in an attempt to resolve this dilemma it settles on a half-measure: a statement by the army chief, endorsed by the corps commanders, that US operations will not be allowed this side of the border.
By which, presumably, the top brass means that the US has no authorization to carry out ground assaults this side of the Durand Line, like the helicopter assault near Angoor Adda early September. A nation demoralized and confused because of lack of leadership and near-total silence on the part of the PPP government, is reduced to a position where it is ready to be comforted by any crumbs of comfort thrown its way. So General Ashfaq Kayani's statement is hailed as an act of near-Churchillian defiance.
Two days after this act of defiance, the US carries out another missile strike in Waziristan. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman US Joint Chiefs of Staff, arrives in Islamabad on a hurried visit, presumably to assuage ruffled Pakistani feathers. A statement by the US embassy has him reiterating the US commitment to "respect" Pakistan's sovereignty. A few hours after his departure from Islamabad there is another missile strike on a house in South Waziristan.
Constant provider of comic relief is Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani who to the mantra of no one being allowed to violate Pakistani sovereignty brings in a rather different-sounding variation: that Pakistan is in no position to fight the US. Where did this brainwave come from? Who's talking of fighting? Makhdoom Yusuf Raza Gilani as the articulator of the national interest is not the least of the wonders happening to emerge on the national scene these days.
Defiance and resistance can take many forms. Even in our diminished position we still have some cards up our sleeve. We can tell the Americans that if missile attacks on FATA continue the Pakistan army will cease its current operations in that area. This will be a real threat because with the Americans over-extended in Afghanistan sending US troops into FATA is easier said than done.
American and NATO supplies move through Pakistan. We have the option of cutting this umbilical cord. But this will need heart and spirit and at the moment the Pakistani leadership has neither.
Amidst all these turbulent events anyone would have expected President Asif Zardari to stay at home. But only a few days after his election he is off on a "private visit" to Dubai, where he has a home, and from there to London. Perhaps to justify his UK trip he holds talks with Prime Minister Gordon Brown whom no one takes seriously any more in the UK but whose intercession President Zardari seeks to ask the US not to violate that old chestnut: Pakistan's sovereignty.
President Zardari says (in answer to a question from media people) that the UK understands the subcontinent better than any other country, so it is in a better position to convey Pakistani concerns to the outside world. This is breathtaking stuff but it sheds a lurid if sad light on the sum of leadership currently available in Pakistan.
About Garibaldi, hero of Italian unity, I was reading the other day that shortly before his death, when all his triumphs were behind him, he wrote, "It was a very different Italy which I spent my life dreaming of, not the impoverished and humiliated country which we now see ruled by the dregs of the nation."
"Impoverished and humiliated country…" and then "…ruled by the dregs of the nation": says it all, doesn't it? For lack of leadership and no other reason Pakistan is demoralized, a nation psychologically drained and on its way to being psychologically traumatized.
Pervez Musharraf was an American pawn and satellite, selling Pakistan cheaply in Sep 2001 when the US, bent on vengeance, had decided to attack Afghanistan. As long as he remained a potent satellite, ready and able to deliver what the Americans wanted, he was feted and lionised by Washington. When he became a stricken figure, his weakening starting---and let us never forget this---by the lawyers' movement, Washington felt persuaded to shuffle the Pakistani deck to make way for a fresh leadership better able to serve American interests.
The people of Pakistan thought they were voting for change on Feb 18. How could they have known they were voting for an illusion? Liberation has not come Pakistan's way. It has been given a fresh set of chains which binds it more strongly than ever to America's war chariot---the same chariot Musharraf clambered aboard in 2001, to sell Pakistan cheaply and ensure his own survival in power.
This war will be the death of us for we are becoming its cannon fodder. If only the Taliban in Afghanistan were to fade away all would be well with us. But with their resistance growing stronger by the day---and for the Afghans this is as much a struggle against foreign occupation as their 'jihad' in the 1980s was a struggle against Soviet occupation---the US will force Pakistan and its army and air force more and more into this war, in order to lighten the burden of conflict for the US.
American financial markets are in turmoil. Russia, reversing the decline of the Yeltsin years, is beginning to reassert itself as a world power. China continues its upward climb. Yet we remain tied to the old forms, "ruled by the dregs of the nation", too psychologically broken to see the outlines of the new world order emerging in the distance.
#18 Posted by _arjun22 on September 18, 2008 4:59:08 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#17 Posted by HP on September 18, 2008 3:18:49 pm
New Fox Reality Show To ELECT Ruler Of Iraq
LOS ANGELES–Fox executives Monday unveiled their latest reality-TV venture, Appointed By America, a new series in which contestants vie for the top spot in Iraq's post-war government.
Some of the Appointed By America hopefuls vying for the presidency of Iraq.
"Get ready, America, because you're about to choose the man–or woman–who will lead Iraq into an exciting democratic future," said Fox reality-programming chief Mike Darnell, introducing the show at a press conference. "Will it be Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the exiled Iraqi National Congress? Or General Tommy Franks, commander of the allied forces? Or maybe Roshumba Williams, the Macon, GA, waitress with big dreams and an even bigger voice? Tune in Tuesdays at 9 to see."
Describing the new show as "American Idol meets the reconstruction of Afghanistan," Darnell said Appointed By America will feature contestants squaring off in a variety of challenges, including a democracy quiz, a talent competition, and nation-building activities that will demonstrate their ability to lead a bombed-out, war-ravaged Mideast country.
A panel of celebrity judges will help eliminate two contestants each week, leaving one lucky winner the undisputed leader of Iraq at the end of the season. Viewers can participate by casting phone-in votes, although Darnell noted that voting is restricted to calls originating from within the continental U.S.
U.S. General Jay Garner (Ret.) will host the show under the auspices of the Pentagon. The three celebrity judges, Darnell said, will be choreographer and former Chrysalis recording artist Toni Basil, internationally renowned hairstylist Vidal Sassoon, and television star Kevin Sorbo.
Audience members eagerly await the start of a live taping of Appointed By America.
"They really get into it," Darnell said. "Just wait until you see the fur fly between Sassoon and Basil."
Fox entertainment president Gail Berman said the network was inspired to create the show after witnessing its news division's ratings success over the past few months.
"Fox did such huge numbers with its war coverage, we figured, 'Why not find a way to keep this good thing going?'" Berman said. "I'm confident that our loyal Fox News viewers will find that reconstruction can be just as thrilling as destruction."
The first episode has already been taped in front of a live studio audience, though results will remain classified until airtime. The winner of Appointed By America will be sworn in as president of Iraq on June 24 in a gala two-hour season finale broadcast live from Baghdad.
According to Berman, Fox received more than 3,000 applicants for the show during an open casting call. While most of the hopefuls were American or Iraqi, some 600 aspiring rulers from more than 100 nations auditioned for the coveted 20 finalist spots. Contestants included a San Diego interior decorator, a Philadelphia inner-city schoolteacher, and a peshmerga fighter from the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.
Contestant Kymbyrley Lake, a cashier from Garland, TX, said she has a "good feeling" about her chances.
"I just really believe I am going to win this show," Lake said. "I feel it in my heart that Jesus is going to grant me the chance to help all these people. Ever since I was a little girl, I've dreamed of doing something to help bring about a more peaceful world."
Lake just might get her chance. Inside sources say she was among the top five vote-getters in the first episode, with Kurdistan Democratic Party official Fawzi Hariri and pre-Saddam Iraqi minister Adnan al-Pachachi–both early odds-on favorites–scoring low points for stage presence.
At a Pentagon briefing Monday, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz gave his blessing to Appointed By America.
"It is great that Fox will play a vital role in post-war Iraq," Wolfowitz said. "Heck, we didn't really know what we were going to do."
#16 Posted by HP on September 18, 2008 3:13:54 pm
137 More Oil Wells Liberated For Democracy
RUMAILAH OIL FIELDS, IRAQ–The U.S. continued to make progress in its fight against totalitarianism Tuesday, when 137 more oil wells were liberated for democracy.
The U.S. flag flies high atop a newly liberated oil well.
"For decades, these oil wells have suffered untold misery under Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule," said U.S. Commander General Tommy Franks, speaking from southern Iraq's Rumailah oil fields, the site of the liberation. "With this victory, these long-oppressed wells will soon pump their first barrels of crude as free and equal wells in the global petroleum marketplace. They will join the ranks of the world's liberated oil wells, enjoying the same rights as their democratic brethren around the globe."
The Rumailah wells are the latest of nearly 900 to be freed from the yoke of oppression by coalition forces. As U.S. troops continue to advance deeper into Iraq–armed with constant standing orders to "Secure the oil wells; repeat, secure the oil wells"–an estimated 1,500 more wells are expected to be liberated in the coming weeks.
For months, U.S. officials have gone to great lengths to assure the public, both in America and abroad, that the Iraq invasion is not motivated by oil interests–a sentiment echoed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during a press conference Monday.
"This war is not about oil," Rumsfeld said. "Our decision to intercede against this dictator and not against the dozens of other ruthless dictators in the world is not about oil. France and Russia's opposition to this war is not about the purely coincidental fact that both countries have lucrative, pre-existing oil contracts with Iraq. Furthermore, the interest of many U.S. corporations in the war has nothing to do with oil, either. This war is about liberty. Oil wells deserve liberty, too."
Continued Rumsfeld: "These oppressed Iraqi oil wells deserve the right to pump oil as freely as any other oil well on God's Earth–be it in Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, or an Alaskan wildlife refuge. It is crass and cynical to view this operation as being motivated by greed, profit, or the second-largest oil reserves in the Middle East. This war is motivated by one thing: democracy. Our military action is meant to provide all of Iraq's oil wells–be they big or small, staggeringly lucrative or merely very lucrative–with their God-given right to pump under a democratic system of self-governance."
In the weeks leading up to the war, the U.S. sought to make its intentions clear by air-dropping hundreds of thousands of pamphlets over Iraq assuring its people that the U.S. was not launching a war against them, but against Saddam Hussein. The pamphlets also gave Iraqi soldiers instructions on how to surrender properly, as well as a promise that they would be treated well if they did so. Most importantly, though, they included a stern admonition to all Iraqis not to burn any oil wells, warning that they would be hunted down and prosecuted as war criminals if they did.
U.S. officials hope that the pamphlets' message, especially the part about the oil wells, gets through.
"These valuable natural resources belong to the Iraqi people, who rely on their output for desperately needed food and medicine under the U.N.'s Oil-For-Food Program," Franks said. "But ultimately, we need to remember that these oil wells do not really belong to anybody. They, like any other free oil well, have the basic, inalienable right to independent representational government and self-determination under their own rule. Every oil well deserves to choose how and when it wishes to produce oil, and for whose economic benefit."
Aiding the wells in their transition to democracy will be Texaco, Mobil, and other U.S. businesses, each of which bring years of expertise in dealing with the problems and challenges that oil wells face in a free society. These private companies will be well-equipped to help manage the oil wells as they make the difficult adjustment to producing oil in freedom.
Despite the apparent inevitability of victory in Iraq, White House sources stress that the battle for oil-well liberty is far from over.
"We must remember that there are many, many oil wells living under oppression all across the world, not just in Iraq," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said. "Until every oil well enjoys the fruits of democracy, no oil well is truly free."
#15 Posted by HP on September 18, 2008 3:09:39 pm
In response to #14 the White House issued the following:
New Anti-Terrorism Strategy
The White House released an updated version of its anti-terrorism strategy, "National Strategy For Combating Terrorism." Here are its main new components:
Setting up decoy "pro-terrorism centers" around nation to capture terrorists
Staging, foiling series of attacks
Ignoring terrorists so they get frustrated and go away
Introducing new slogan: "If you see, hear, feel, smell, or taste something, say something"
Holding all Americans until they feel safe again
Increasing national wait times
Allocating $1.2 trillion for development of terror-seeking missiles
Stopping terrorism for real this time
#14 Posted by HP on September 18, 2008 3:03:19 pm
Al Qaida- The SWISH Report
September 13th, 2008
An eighth report from the South Waziristan Institute of Strategic Hermeneutics to the al-Qaida Strategic Planning Cell (SPC) on the progress of the campaign
Thank you for inviting us to deliver another report on the progress of your movement. You will recall that our work for your planning cell commenced with an initial assessment in July 2004, a follow-up in January 2005 and further reports in February 2006 and September 2006 and (in light of political developments in the United States) December 2006.
The next analysis was presented in November 2007; but the pace of events in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan – in the context of the evolving United States presidential-election campaign – led to the request for the next report only three months later, in February 2008. This last document clearly signaled to you that this might be the final occasion when our services might be required.
We are then particularly pleased that – even though our February 2008 assessment was somewhat blunt in terms of your movement’s overall prospect – you have invited us to deliver one more report. We understand that on this occasion you require a brief updating of our analysis on your main theaters of operation, together with an analysis of the impact of the possible outcomes of the US residential election in November 2008.
Pakistan and Afghanistan
In our last briefing we made three judgments about Pakistan. First. that the country’s then general-president Pervez Musharraf had been much weakened by the result of the country’s just-held parliamentary election, and that we were not convinced he would survive. Second, that it was doubtful that a stable parliamentary coalition would emerge. Third, that there would be we increased United States military activity within western Pakistan. In all three respects our analysis was accurate: Pervez Musharraf has gone, the domestic governing coalition is in disarray, and the US military is now conducting special-forces operations across the border with Afghanistan.
The assumption of the presidency by Asif Ali Zardari is also an indication that the feudal pattern of Pakistani politics is thriving; though civil-society elements and the legal profession may cause problems for the government. It is likely that President Zardari will be supportive of increased US military action, but this may cause deep unease in sections of the Pakistani military, as well as increasing the more general anti-American mood.
While our predictions seven months ago for Pakistan were reassuringly accurate, we must confess we were less effective in our analysis concerning Afghanistan. There, we were doubtful that the revitalized Taliban would extend their activities to major assaults on coalition forces – in the face of overwhelming firepower we instead expected to see an intense concentration on roadside bombs and martyr attacks. While these have indeed been increased, we also note the effective move towards the targeting of supply-routes, and a willingness, on occasions, to conduct substantial military operations. These have included a successful assault on the main prison in Kandahar and lethal attacks on US and French units.
One outcome of these developments is that the US military now puts a much greater emphasis on the war in Afghanistan and is looking to increase its own military deployments while seeking to persuade its Nato partners to be more supportive.
Iraq
In our February 2008 report, we anticipated that the George W Bush administration, along with neo-conservative commentators, would develop an overall narrative centred on a “probability of victory� in Iraq which would downgrade the significance of the war in that country during the latter months of the presidential campaign. This has indeed been what has happened, with the framers of the narrative placing a great emphasis on Iraq’s increased security. It is interesting in this context, however, that the United States military leadership is deeply reluctant to withdraw combat-troops to a level much below that of the pre-surge (that is, pre-February 2007) deployments. In spite of the pressing need for troops in Afghanistan, it now looks as though just one of the fifteen remaining US combat-brigades will be withdrawn in the September 2008 – March 2009 period.
We strongly suspect that many of the more astute military analysts in US Central Command (Centcom) and the Pentagon believe that security in Iraq is far more problematic than their political masters would like their citizens to believe. This is partly due to the hard line now being taken by the Nouri al-Maliki government, especially towards the integration of Sunni militias into the security forces, but also relates to strains in Shi’a / Kurdish relations and the growing influence of Iran.
The al-Maliki government claims to want a total United States military withdrawal by 2010 or 2011, but oil geopolitics makes this nonsensical – the US is in Iraq for the long term. While your associates in Iraq have had major reversals, we suspect these are short-term. We stand by our assessment of seven months ago:
“Although circumstances will not always be as favorable as 2006-07, rest assured that your paramilitary combat-training zone in Iraq will remain viable and of great use to you for the foreseeable future.�
In this context, we note recent reports that some of your paramilitary associates from Iraq are now active in Somalia.
The American election campaign
In our last report to you it had become clear that John McCain was likely to be the Republican candidate and that Barack Obama might defeat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Our overall view was that:
“What is best for you is that the United States remains resolute in its support for Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt; fully addicted to oil and therefore determined to remain dominant in the Persian Gulf; and prepared to continue to pursue its war against you with the utmost vigor. In other words, eight more years for George W Bush would have been ideal. Sadly for your movement, that cannot be.�
As a whole, we considered McCain to be a far better prospect from your perspective; though we had some concerns that such rightwing incumbents can, on occasions, opt successfully for radical change.
Today, with the Obama/McCain contest fully underway, we indeed believe that a McCain presidency is – by a considerable margin – the more favorable to your movement; not least because the Republican ticket is now supplemented by a vice-presidential nominee who is a Christian fundamentalist as well as a climate-change skeptic from an oil-rich state.
It remains the case that if elected, Barack Obama could be very limited in his security options. His speech to the leading American pro-Israel organization AIPAC in June 2008 was markedly hardline; he supports military reinforcements for Afghanistan; and he has implied that he would be willing to order more direct US military action in Pakistan. Even so, part of the reason for taking such positions relates simply to the realities of electoral politics. What he says now and what he would do in office may be very different, especially if the Democrats have convincing majorities in both houses of Congress.
In any case, whatever his actual policies, we most certainly would expect under an Obama presidency a marked change in style towards a more listening, cooperative and multilaterally-engaged America. That must be of deep concern to you. A more “acceptable� America in global terms is the last thing you want.
In one sense, however, we can reassure you about the outcome; for our associates in our Washington office believe that John McCain will win by a relatively small margin, although Congress is likely to remain Democrat-controlled. Their assessment is based on a prediction that while polls may well give Obama a small margin even up to election-day, a small but significant portion of those voting will be sufficiently influenced by residual prejudice to opt for McCain in the privacy of the polling booth. Their point is that even if only one in fifty voters behaves in this manner, that should help ensure a victory for McCain.
We acknowledge that this is very tentative, and that American politics are currently volatile and unpredictable; and that, after all, our assessment in November 2007 was made in the context of a likely Rudy Giuliani / Hillary Clinton contest!
Your concern must still be with the prospect of an Obama victory, and a key question is whether you should engineer a major attack against US interests shortly before the election. We would advise against this. Whether or not you have the resources to mount a major attack (and we understand why you will not take us into your confidence), the result could be unpredictable.
In the immediate wake of a 9/11-scale attack within the continental United States, Obama’s advisers would know that this would benefit their opponent strongly. They might well then take the risk of going on the offensive against McCain, pointing to the folly of George W Bush’s policies and the manner in which they have made the United States unsafe. It would be a risky strategy but these would be desperate times for the Obama campaign and it might just come off. The risk to you is too great and for this reason alone we do not advocate such an attack.
Instead, we stand by our recommendation in February 2008 that you seek, in the weeks before the election, to make it known that you favor Barack Obama and believe he would be a president with whom you could do business. This would be combined with strong statements to the effect that you believe a John McCain presidency would be a disaster for the United States and that he would be a leader unto darkness and death. Such a strategy, we believe, would go a long way to ensure he was elected, this being the outcome you should most earnestly desire.
Wana
South Waziristan
10 September 2008
September 13th, 2008
An eighth report from the South Waziristan Institute of Strategic Hermeneutics to the al-Qaida Strategic Planning Cell (SPC) on the progress of the campaign
Thank you for inviting us to deliver another report on the progress of your movement. You will recall that our work for your planning cell commenced with an initial assessment in July 2004, a follow-up in January 2005 and further reports in February 2006 and September 2006 and (in light of political developments in the United States) December 2006.
The next analysis was presented in November 2007; but the pace of events in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan – in the context of the evolving United States presidential-election campaign – led to the request for the next report only three months later, in February 2008. This last document clearly signaled to you that this might be the final occasion when our services might be required.
We are then particularly pleased that – even though our February 2008 assessment was somewhat blunt in terms of your movement’s overall prospect – you have invited us to deliver one more report. We understand that on this occasion you require a brief updating of our analysis on your main theaters of operation, together with an analysis of the impact of the possible outcomes of the US residential election in November 2008.
Pakistan and Afghanistan
In our last briefing we made three judgments about Pakistan. First. that the country’s then general-president Pervez Musharraf had been much weakened by the result of the country’s just-held parliamentary election, and that we were not convinced he would survive. Second, that it was doubtful that a stable parliamentary coalition would emerge. Third, that there would be we increased United States military activity within western Pakistan. In all three respects our analysis was accurate: Pervez Musharraf has gone, the domestic governing coalition is in disarray, and the US military is now conducting special-forces operations across the border with Afghanistan.
The assumption of the presidency by Asif Ali Zardari is also an indication that the feudal pattern of Pakistani politics is thriving; though civil-society elements and the legal profession may cause problems for the government. It is likely that President Zardari will be supportive of increased US military action, but this may cause deep unease in sections of the Pakistani military, as well as increasing the more general anti-American mood.
While our predictions seven months ago for Pakistan were reassuringly accurate, we must confess we were less effective in our analysis concerning Afghanistan. There, we were doubtful that the revitalized Taliban would extend their activities to major assaults on coalition forces – in the face of overwhelming firepower we instead expected to see an intense concentration on roadside bombs and martyr attacks. While these have indeed been increased, we also note the effective move towards the targeting of supply-routes, and a willingness, on occasions, to conduct substantial military operations. These have included a successful assault on the main prison in Kandahar and lethal attacks on US and French units.
One outcome of these developments is that the US military now puts a much greater emphasis on the war in Afghanistan and is looking to increase its own military deployments while seeking to persuade its Nato partners to be more supportive.
Iraq
In our February 2008 report, we anticipated that the George W Bush administration, along with neo-conservative commentators, would develop an overall narrative centred on a “probability of victory� in Iraq which would downgrade the significance of the war in that country during the latter months of the presidential campaign. This has indeed been what has happened, with the framers of the narrative placing a great emphasis on Iraq’s increased security. It is interesting in this context, however, that the United States military leadership is deeply reluctant to withdraw combat-troops to a level much below that of the pre-surge (that is, pre-February 2007) deployments. In spite of the pressing need for troops in Afghanistan, it now looks as though just one of the fifteen remaining US combat-brigades will be withdrawn in the September 2008 – March 2009 period.
We strongly suspect that many of the more astute military analysts in US Central Command (Centcom) and the Pentagon believe that security in Iraq is far more problematic than their political masters would like their citizens to believe. This is partly due to the hard line now being taken by the Nouri al-Maliki government, especially towards the integration of Sunni militias into the security forces, but also relates to strains in Shi’a / Kurdish relations and the growing influence of Iran.
The al-Maliki government claims to want a total United States military withdrawal by 2010 or 2011, but oil geopolitics makes this nonsensical – the US is in Iraq for the long term. While your associates in Iraq have had major reversals, we suspect these are short-term. We stand by our assessment of seven months ago:
“Although circumstances will not always be as favorable as 2006-07, rest assured that your paramilitary combat-training zone in Iraq will remain viable and of great use to you for the foreseeable future.�
In this context, we note recent reports that some of your paramilitary associates from Iraq are now active in Somalia.
The American election campaign
In our last report to you it had become clear that John McCain was likely to be the Republican candidate and that Barack Obama might defeat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Our overall view was that:
“What is best for you is that the United States remains resolute in its support for Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt; fully addicted to oil and therefore determined to remain dominant in the Persian Gulf; and prepared to continue to pursue its war against you with the utmost vigor. In other words, eight more years for George W Bush would have been ideal. Sadly for your movement, that cannot be.�
As a whole, we considered McCain to be a far better prospect from your perspective; though we had some concerns that such rightwing incumbents can, on occasions, opt successfully for radical change.
Today, with the Obama/McCain contest fully underway, we indeed believe that a McCain presidency is – by a considerable margin – the more favorable to your movement; not least because the Republican ticket is now supplemented by a vice-presidential nominee who is a Christian fundamentalist as well as a climate-change skeptic from an oil-rich state.
It remains the case that if elected, Barack Obama could be very limited in his security options. His speech to the leading American pro-Israel organization AIPAC in June 2008 was markedly hardline; he supports military reinforcements for Afghanistan; and he has implied that he would be willing to order more direct US military action in Pakistan. Even so, part of the reason for taking such positions relates simply to the realities of electoral politics. What he says now and what he would do in office may be very different, especially if the Democrats have convincing majorities in both houses of Congress.
In any case, whatever his actual policies, we most certainly would expect under an Obama presidency a marked change in style towards a more listening, cooperative and multilaterally-engaged America. That must be of deep concern to you. A more “acceptable� America in global terms is the last thing you want.
In one sense, however, we can reassure you about the outcome; for our associates in our Washington office believe that John McCain will win by a relatively small margin, although Congress is likely to remain Democrat-controlled. Their assessment is based on a prediction that while polls may well give Obama a small margin even up to election-day, a small but significant portion of those voting will be sufficiently influenced by residual prejudice to opt for McCain in the privacy of the polling booth. Their point is that even if only one in fifty voters behaves in this manner, that should help ensure a victory for McCain.
We acknowledge that this is very tentative, and that American politics are currently volatile and unpredictable; and that, after all, our assessment in November 2007 was made in the context of a likely Rudy Giuliani / Hillary Clinton contest!
Your concern must still be with the prospect of an Obama victory, and a key question is whether you should engineer a major attack against US interests shortly before the election. We would advise against this. Whether or not you have the resources to mount a major attack (and we understand why you will not take us into your confidence), the result could be unpredictable.
In the immediate wake of a 9/11-scale attack within the continental United States, Obama’s advisers would know that this would benefit their opponent strongly. They might well then take the risk of going on the offensive against McCain, pointing to the folly of George W Bush’s policies and the manner in which they have made the United States unsafe. It would be a risky strategy but these would be desperate times for the Obama campaign and it might just come off. The risk to you is too great and for this reason alone we do not advocate such an attack.
Instead, we stand by our recommendation in February 2008 that you seek, in the weeks before the election, to make it known that you favor Barack Obama and believe he would be a president with whom you could do business. This would be combined with strong statements to the effect that you believe a John McCain presidency would be a disaster for the United States and that he would be a leader unto darkness and death. Such a strategy, we believe, would go a long way to ensure he was elected, this being the outcome you should most earnestly desire.
Wana
South Waziristan
10 September 2008
#13 Posted by thinkingstorm on September 18, 2008 2:30:02 pm
The author writes "the United States has tirelessly sought to promote the cause of democracy across the world"
hahahahahahahahhaah....ahahahahahahhaha
that reminds me of this song:
political science by Randy Newman
No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us
We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too
Boom goes London and boom Paris
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me
They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now
with much respect,
thinking storm
hahahahahahahahhaah....ahahahahahahhaha
that reminds me of this song:
political science by Randy Newman
No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us
We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too
Boom goes London and boom Paris
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me
They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now
with much respect,
thinking storm
#11 Posted by masadi on September 18, 2008 2:05:19 pm
The author writes "the United States has tirelessly sought to promote the cause of democracy across the world"
Which land are you living in? The land of OZ. The US elite are not concerned about democracy and have done everything in their power to ensure that the only thing democratic that remains in the world, including their own country (remember the patriot act) is their often used though meaningless slogan.
At home they ensure that a strict vetting process determines which candidate goes to the top, that the party system is reduced to Tweedledee (democrats) and Tweedledumb (republicans)camp (not much different from a one party dictatorship), that money determines campaigns, that issues are preselected and coverage pushed through the major corporate media and all alternative anti-system voices are shut out, and the easy flow of the corporate elite into the political directorate, not to mention the military elite into top corporate jobs and then their floating into the state and so on determines that the anti democratic structure of relationships where the people don't matter at all (except for voting on the method through which they will be deprived, lethal injection of electrocution). This is not how democracy works or can work. Regarding Pakistan we know how they hobnob with dictators, and then bring the civilians after a thorough vetting process into the power equation, when the people get too restless with the military.
The Kiyani statement was for public consumption in Pakistan, for the masses who are sick and tired of US bs in the region. Kiyani knows very well where he fits in the hierarchy of worth, even as he was talking with the US commander, a drone was killing more civilians in Waziristan with as they say Pakistani help (another coverup excuse, the Pakistanis had no clue about the drone).
The purpose of the US is to escalate the WOT and Pakistan is the next point of unconnected escalation, and then to surround Iran, that way the war will go well into the next decade. It is called planning to perpetuate a war decade to decade, one decade is coming to an end after having achieved nothing for either peace or democracy but having achieved quite a bit as far as corporate profits go, the next decade preparations are underway to trash a few other countires and kill their people by the hundreds of thousands (as is the best tradition of the US~ the only thing it works relentlessly towards) and rescue the crisis it capitalism goes through every now and then, while lining the pockets of its super rich....
Have a nice day, and keep it moral, though you CIA types will not understand what that means....
TNI Masadi
Which land are you living in? The land of OZ. The US elite are not concerned about democracy and have done everything in their power to ensure that the only thing democratic that remains in the world, including their own country (remember the patriot act) is their often used though meaningless slogan.
At home they ensure that a strict vetting process determines which candidate goes to the top, that the party system is reduced to Tweedledee (democrats) and Tweedledumb (republicans)camp (not much different from a one party dictatorship), that money determines campaigns, that issues are preselected and coverage pushed through the major corporate media and all alternative anti-system voices are shut out, and the easy flow of the corporate elite into the political directorate, not to mention the military elite into top corporate jobs and then their floating into the state and so on determines that the anti democratic structure of relationships where the people don't matter at all (except for voting on the method through which they will be deprived, lethal injection of electrocution). This is not how democracy works or can work. Regarding Pakistan we know how they hobnob with dictators, and then bring the civilians after a thorough vetting process into the power equation, when the people get too restless with the military.
The Kiyani statement was for public consumption in Pakistan, for the masses who are sick and tired of US bs in the region. Kiyani knows very well where he fits in the hierarchy of worth, even as he was talking with the US commander, a drone was killing more civilians in Waziristan with as they say Pakistani help (another coverup excuse, the Pakistanis had no clue about the drone).
The purpose of the US is to escalate the WOT and Pakistan is the next point of unconnected escalation, and then to surround Iran, that way the war will go well into the next decade. It is called planning to perpetuate a war decade to decade, one decade is coming to an end after having achieved nothing for either peace or democracy but having achieved quite a bit as far as corporate profits go, the next decade preparations are underway to trash a few other countires and kill their people by the hundreds of thousands (as is the best tradition of the US~ the only thing it works relentlessly towards) and rescue the crisis it capitalism goes through every now and then, while lining the pockets of its super rich....
Have a nice day, and keep it moral, though you CIA types will not understand what that means....
TNI Masadi
#10 Posted by pinku on September 18, 2008 10:17:19 am
US supports everything that gives it money and help remain it in controlling position. They don't have fixed ideas, they are neither for democracy nor against it.
So if a dictator is not helping them they will support democracy, if democracy is not helping them they will support dictator.
#9 Posted by Naqshbandi on September 18, 2008 9:47:29 am
very naive article by a naif! the US only supports democracy when it suits its own strategic and geopolitical interests otherwise it doesn't give a damn about it. Its record in the Mid East and in Pakistan is proof of that. This is not some rabid conspiracy theory. Just read Chomsky or watch John Pilger's War on Democracy or read something other than by right-wing conservatives or watch something other than Fox News!
#7 Posted by CoolAL on September 18, 2008 8:41:30 am
Folks,
Can someone tell me how to embed a youtube news clip?
Thanks in advance
Can someone tell me how to embed a youtube news clip?
Thanks in advance
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- CreateAlpha: Oh and one other... Uneven Democracy : The
- Skeptical: I really do not... Morality of Lawyers' Movement
- tahmed32: So the lawyer's movement... Morality of Lawyers' Movement
- CreateAlpha: I think Romair has... Uneven Democracy : The
- muqaddam: A simplistic view of... Crowning of a Crony
- nemesis3: #38 Posted by Pardesi... Uneven Democracy : The
- bulleya: anil#: ...can you define... Uneven Democracy : The
- harish_hyd: Today's Pakistan IS Jinnah's... I Want Jinnah's Pakistan
