Thursday, November 17, 2011

Memo to Mike Mullen - if true it is dangerous. Army is not going to like it.

This is an article from Washington Post. Thinker thinks that such messages if at all are given orally and not through a memo to have a record. Seems highly incredible. But if it has happened it shows how stupid the handlers have been...

In Pakistan, a deep civil-military divide

ARIF ALI/AFP/Getty Images - Pakistan’s powerful army has become enraged after a secret memo indicated President Asif Ali Zardari’s government asked for U.S. help to prevent a military coup following the Navy SEAL raid in May that killed Osama bin Laden.

LAHORE, Pakistan — A growing storm over a confidential memo is laying bare the profound division between Pakistan’s powerful army and its civilian government, and the nation’s relationship with the United States is again at the center of the gulf.

At issue are allegations that the government of President Asif Ali Zardari asked for U.S. help to prevent a military coup after the Navy SEAL raid in May that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. The claim is thought to have enraged Pakistan’s army, and the resulting controversy prompted Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington, Husain Haqqani, to offer his resignation this week.

Video

Following the mission to kill Osama bin Laden, tensions have increased between the United States and one of its top Middle Eastern allies, Pakistan. (Oct. 27)

Following the mission to kill Osama bin Laden, tensions have increased between the United States and one of its top Middle Eastern allies, Pakistan. (Oct. 27)

Graphic

Click Here to View Full Graphic Story

More On This Story

View all Items in this Story

Zardari’s government has nominally been leading Pakistan since 2008. But real power remains in the hands of the military, which has ruled the South Asian nation for half its 64-year existence and was livid after the U.S. operation against bin Laden. Though both the army and the civilian government receive billions of dollars in American assistance, the military views the United States, and its support for Zardari’s unpopular administration, with deep distrust.

That attitude is widespread in Pakistan, where patriotism is equated with support for the military and the United States is often seen more as bully than friend.

Against that backdrop, a column published last month in the Financial Times has proved explosive. In it, Pakistani American businessman Mansoor Ijaz asserted that a senior Pakistani diplomat — whom he identified Thursday as Haqqani — asked him to help relay a request to the then-chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, to stop the military from staging a coup.

The memo, a copy of which was provided by Ijaz to The Washington Post, warns that a military takeover would result in “potentially the platform for far more rapid spread of al Qaeda’s brand of fanaticism and terror.” The upheaval in the wake of the bin Laden killing, it said, provided “a unique window of opportunity” for “civilians to gain the upper hand over army and intelligence directorates.”

It said that in exchange for U.S. “direct intervention” to convey a strong no-coup message to Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, leader of Pakistan’s military, a newly appointed civilian national security team would shepherd an independent investigation of the bin Laden matter and terminate any “active service officers” found to have been complicit in concealing the al-Qaeda leader.

Pakistan, it said, would also move to hand over all remaining al-Qaeda leaders on its soil, as well as Taliban leader Mohammad Omar and Sirajuddin Haqqani of the Haqqani insurgent network. Alternatively, it could give “U.S. military forces a ‘green light’ to conduct the necessary operations to capture or kill them on Pakistani soil,” the memo said.

It said the civilian government would eliminate “Section S” of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, a unit that handles relations with insurgent groups; bring to justice the perpetrators of the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai; and implement new measures to secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Sarkozi, Obama and Netanyahu the liar...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kEnDcNojFg

Sarkozy tells Obama Netanyahu is a "liar"

Related Topics

France's President Nicolas Sarkozy gestures towards President Obama during the G20 Summit of major world economies in Cannes, November 3, 2011. REUTERS/Chris Ratcliffe/Pool

PARIS | Tue Nov 8, 2011 3:25pm EST

(Reuters) - French President Nicolas Sarkozy branded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "a liar" in a private conversation with U.S. President Barack Obama that was accidentally broadcast to journalists during last week's G20 summit in Cannes.

"I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar," Sarkozy told Obama, unaware that the microphones in their meeting room had been switched on, enabling reporters in a separate location to listen in to a simultaneous translation.

"You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you," Obama replied, according to the French interpreter.

The technical gaffe is likely to cause great embarrassment to all three leaders as they look to work together to intensify international pressure onIran over its nuclear ambitions.

The conversation was not initially reported by the small group of journalists who overheard it because it was considered private and off-the-record. But the comments have since emerged on French websites and can be confirmed by Reuters.

White House press secretary Jay Carney declined to comment on the conversation when asked by reporters traveling with Obama to an event in Philadelphia.

Obama's apparent failure to defend Netanyahu is likely to be leapt on by his Republican foes, who are looking to unseat him in next year's presidential election and have portrayed him as hostile to Israel, Washington's closest ally in the region.

Pushing Netanyahu risks alienating Israel's strong base of support among the U.S. public and in Congress.

Netanyahu's office declined to comment, but one of his deputies, Vice Premier Silvan Shalom, played down the episode.

"Everyone talks about everyone. Sometimes even good friends say things about each other, certainly in such competitive professions," Shalom, a former foreign minister and rival of Netanyahu in the rightist Likud party, told Israel's Army Radio.

"So you have to consider the main things. Is Obama a friend of Israel? Is Sarkozy a friend of Israel? Is their policy a consistent policy of support for Israel? The answer to all of these questions is affirmative and, as far as I'm concerned, that is what's important."

PALESTINIAN WORRIES

Obama and Netanyahu have had a rocky relationship as U.S. efforts to broker a Middle East peace deal have foundered, with the U.S. president openly criticizing Jewish settlement building in the occupied Palestinian territories.

It was unclear why exactly Sarkozy had criticized Netanyahu. However, European diplomats have largely blamed Israel for the breakdown in peace talks and have expressed anger over Netanyahu's approval of large-scale settlement building.

During their bilateral meeting on November 3, on the sidelines of the Cannes summit, Obama criticized Sarkozy's surprise decision to vote in favor of a Palestinian request for membership of the U.N. cultural heritage agency UNESCO.

"I didn't appreciate your way of presenting things over the Palestinian membership of UNESCO. It weakened us. You should have consulted us, but that is now behind us," Obama was quoted as saying.

The October 31 UNESCO vote marked a success for the Palestinians in their broader thrust for recognition as a sovereign state in the U.N. system -- a unilateral initiative fiercely opposed by Israel and the United States.

As a result of the vote, Washington was compelled to halt its funding for UNESCO under a 1990s law that prohibits Washington from giving money to any U.N. body that grants membership to groups that do not have full, legal statehood.

Obama told Sarkozy that he was worried about the impact if Washington had to pull funding from other U.N. bodies such as the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and the IAEA nuclear watchdog if the Palestinians gained membership there.

"You have to pass the message along to the Palestinians that they must stop this immediately," Obama said.

The day the conversation took place, the Palestinians announced that they would not seek membership of any other U.N. agency.

Sarkozy confirmed that France would not take any unilateral decisions when the U.N. Security Council discusses a Palestinian membership request, a debate expected later this month.

"I am with you on that," Obama replied.

(Writing by Crispian Balmer; Additional reporting by Dan Williams; Editing by Andrew Roche)

Allama Iqbal

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Sad day for Cricket...

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory exposed...
The entire spot fixing episode explains many things - how they used to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Kamran Akmal dropping catches in Australia, Afridi always failing to score when needed yet never dropped, Wasim Akram and Saeed Anwer throwing away the 1999 world cup final against Australia despite being the favorites. If PCB is serious in rooting out corruption in cricket which has been tolerated for far too long it will find many skeletons in the closets to deal with.
Yet I feel for Asif the great McGrath of Asia and Salman Butt - what a talented batsman.



Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Imran Khan - good show but where are the structural reforms...

Free the people of Pakistan by land reforms...
You have indeed gathered people. You put up an excellent show. Expectations are aroused. But where is the beef, where are the Structural Reforms? If you in your manifesto do not have Structural Reforms then you will find the same old faces in the parliament. You don't seem to have an idea how to change the status quo. Let me venture to guide you. Do not worry about winning or losing. If you are good in policies you will win.

Now that you have a chance consider what change can one make? That is possible with structural reforms. Where are they? No where. So first Imran Khan should make a good agenda for himself. The most important agenda is freedom that has so far not touched us - not at all.
People of India were not freed in 1947 but 1n1951/52 when land reforms were announced. These land reforms did not allow anybody to have more than 56 acres of land. The excess land was distributed among the landless poor.
The land lords, vaderas, choudhries and sardars were undone with one stroke. If Imran Khan should do something big he must do something like this. Start with land reforms, start with restricting unlimited land holdings. What is this patwari you were talking about? No that is not the right path. Bring in legislation for rural land ceiling and implement it.
You will free the people of Pakistan. Distribute the excess land among the landless poor. They want a leader who gives something to them. You be the one Imran Khan. Free them from the bondage of land lords be it in Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan, KPK or any where.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

The visionary passes away...

Steve jobs who gave us Mac, Apple, PowerBook, G3, G4, G5, iPod, iPhone, iPad is no more. The world is truely poorer by departure.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Pakistan Spat Highlights Bitter Truths Facing the U.S. in Afghanistan

Pakistan Spat Highlights Bitter Truths Facing the U.S. in Afghanistan

Click here to find out more!

A NATO helicopter flies next to the building taken over by insurgents during an attack near the U.S. embassy in Kabul on Sept. 13, 2011

Ahmad Masood / Reuters

What does Pakistan really want in Afghanistan? That question has become all the more urgent since Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, accused Pakistan of being indirectly responsible for last week's attack on our embassy in Kabul. Reports of a second possible attack, on Sunday, on the building alleged to house the local CIA station will, no doubt, fuel further speculation. Assessing Pakistan's interests in Afghanistan through the prism of honesty and realpolitik rather than wishful thinking may be the only way we're going to get out of this messy war.

For a start, we need to understand that Pakistan intends to bring down the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, even if that means taking on its sometime U.S. ally. Pakistan hates Karzai out of a conviction that he has made common cause with Pakistan's strategic nemesis, India, and a suspicion that the Afghan leader intends to harm Pakistan's strategic interests in other ways. And, of course, the hatred is mutual. Rightly or wrongly, Karzai believes that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) assassinated his father, and would do the same to him given half a chance.(Read what Pakistan really envisions as an endgame for Afghanistan.)

A second misunderstanding we need to dispense with is that the ISI is somehow a rogue organization outside of Pakistan's chain of command and is pursuing a pro-Taliban agenda all its own. The Pakistani army can remove the ISI director, General Ahmad Shuja Pasha — or any other officer of the organization — at a moment's notice. So, if the ISI did indeed sponsor an attack on the U.S. embassy in Kabul, such a step should be assumed to have been taken with the consent of the power that be in Pakistan, i.e. the military establishment. The idea that to make our Pakistan problem go away, the ISI needs to be "cleaned up" is naive. The Pakistani actions that make life difficult for the U.S. in Afghanistan are driven by a clear-sighted strategic agenda.

As for the Pakistani proxy accused of carrying out the embassy attack, the Haqqani network, we need to understand why Pakistan won't give it up or act against it as the U.S. demands. With up to 15,000 fighters and effective control of large parts of eastern Afghanistan and Pakistan's North Waziristan, the Haqqanis are an indispensible party to a peace settlement in Afghanistan — and a vehicle for securing Pakistan's interests in that country after the U.S. withdraws. To sever relations with the Haqqanis now would mean Pakistan giving up a large degree of influence in Afghanistan after the war is over.

The U.S. has for years demanded that Pakistan mount a sweeping military offensive in North Waziristan to destroy the Haqqanis, but even if they were so inclined, the fact is that the Pakistani military has only ever been able to control the main roads in North Waziristan. The Pakistani army is incapable of occupying and holding this territory, no matter how much money we offer or how dire the threats we make.(See whether Pakistan really wants a stable Afghanistan.)

At the core of the problem stands a simple proposition: Pakistan doesn't trust us with Afghanistan — and from Islamabad's perspective, not without cause. We took a strategic decision to invade a country central to their national-security doctrine without seriously consulting them, preferring to think in terms of an Afghanistan of our dreams. Nor did we take into account their strategic interests and the proxies through which they have pursued them. The Soviet Union made the same mistake when it invaded Afghanistan in 1979.

Having failed to prevail a decade later, we now have two choices, neither of them particularly attractive to Washington. We can attempt to destroy the Haqqani base in North Waziristan by invading Pakistan. But to do that effectively would require more troops than we currently have in Afghanistan. Doing so would obviously destroy whatever relations we still have with Pakistan, with profoundly dangerous consequences in Afghanistan and far beyond.

Alternatively, we could hash out a settlement with Pakistan, which would inevitably mean accepting the Haqqanis and easing out Karzai in any political settlement to the conflict. Such a deal would also potentially bring in Afghanistan's other neighbor with real strategic interests in the country — Iran. Iran can be unpredictable, but it's by no means certain it would accept true Pakistani-American collusion in Afghanistan. In the mid-'90s, Iran was all but at war with the Taliban, and if Iran isn't consulted on a settlement, it could play the spoiler.

Accepting Pakistan's postconflict agenda and backing off on the Haqqanis at Karzai's expense is too bitter a pill for Washington to swallow in an election year, so we'll muddle through for another year. But when the U.S. finally leaves, don't be surprised to see the Haqqanis in Kabul.

Baer, a former Middle East CIA field officer, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower.



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2094844,00.html#ixzz1ZAYHZaVh