Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

U.S. officials have pointed blame at Pakistan for the recent Times Square bomb scare. Examining these accusations in the context of drone attacks, use of Blackwater mercenaries, and increasing U.S. encroachment upon Pakistani sovereignty, we see ominous parallels to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Various media outlets reported on May 1st, the story of Faisal Shahzad who allegedly attempted to detonate a bomb-ladened SUV in New York's Times Square. The 30 year-old was arrested two days later at Kennedy Airport prior to boarding a plane heading to Dubai. The Associated Press reported that Federal investigators had told U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara that Shahzad had, "received weapons training in Pakistan." On May 12th, Reuters reported that, "U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Sunday evidence showed the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) helped direct the failed attack in New York's teeming Times Square and likely assisted in financing it." Secretary Hillary Clinton also spoke about the Times Square incident saying, "We've made it very clear that if, heaven forbid, an attack like this that we can trace back to Pakistan, were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences."

Since the Obama Administration has come to power, there has been a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy towards Pakistan. In order to understand the events unfolding in Pakistan, we need to revisit the events that led up to America's invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Afghanistan

Islam came to the region of Afghanistan in the year 654 and its inhabitants lived under the shade of Khilafah. From 1839 onwards, the occupation of Afghanistan changed hands from Britain to Russia, and today, to the United States.

Prior to the direct occupation of Afghanistan in 2001, America implemented indirect means to gain control of the region. In 1978, when Russia had inserted its puppet ruler as the President of Afghanistan, America responded by arranging a coup against him and installing their own puppet ruler. Russia's reply was the invasion of Afghanistan on December 27th, 1979. They killed the U.S. agent ruler and appointed a new Communist government. A violent resistance broke out throughout the country. In 1980, America began exploiting this new situation by supplying the Mujahideen with financial and military aid.

After the Soviet withdrawal in 1989 and with the defeat of the Communist government by the Mujahideen in 1992, Russian influence in the region ended completely. From 1992 to 1996, civil war ensued - with Iran and Tajikistan supporting Burhanuddin Rabbani who led the Islamic Association with funds, arms and political support, while Pakistan embraced Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, leader of Hezb-e-Islami.

In 1994, when Pakistan determined that Hikmatyar couldn't settle the struggle with Rabbani, Pakistani intelligence services, with approval of America, formed and supported the Taliban. In 1996, the Taliban successfully assumed control of Afghanistan. There were negotiations between the Taliban and Unocal -an American gas company- and Delta -a Saudi company- regarding a deal to build a pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan in order to transfer gas from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean.

However, some of the Muslims within the Taliban were against such co-operation with the United States and they prevented important oil and gas pipeline deals to go through. Consequently, the U.S. used the attacks of 9/11 as an excuse to invade Afghanistan which it continues to occupy until today.

Iraq

Muslims liberated Iraq at the time of Umar bin Al-Khattab (ra), in 634-644. Iraq is a country rich in vital resources necessary for any country that intends to extend its influence in the region. The Tigris and Euphrates cross its land, making its wide plains the most fertile and productive lands in the world. It is also a land endowed with the wealth of oil. Iraq remained a part of the Uthmani Khilafah until World War One. On October 8th, 1918 Iraq fell into the hands of the British and was placed under their dictatorship. America entered as a new player in the struggle over Iraq after World War Two and began competing with Britain for control of the Iraqi oil. Influence in Iraq fluctuated between the British and Americans until it finally settled for the advantage of the British by the coup of July 1968, where the Ba'thists loyal to the British took the reins of power. In ten years, Saddam Hussein managed to rally the Ba'th forces behind him to become President of Iraq.

In 1990, Saddam waged a new war against Kuwait, occupying it in the summer of that year. This war was a way to allow the British to fulfil their own agenda which was a means of pressure that would lead to negotiations over two matters: first, to promote its agent Saddam, the strong man in the region, which would strengthen its position in the region; second, for Britain to guarantee participation with America in the oil and influence in the Gulf. However, the U.S used the incident as an excuse to seize the Gulf, build military bases in it and gain control over its oil and rulers, under the pretext of liberating Kuwait. America considered this to be the opportunity that it had prepared for many years - which is to become the master of the Gulf. When Britain noticed U.S determination, it joined the war, but only agreeing to drive the Iraqi regime from Kuwait rather than dismantling it as this was the public reason for the war and both sides had agreed to this. Thus, the war started, where America led a coalition of thirty foreign and Arab countries to fight against Iraq and drive it out of Kuwait in 1991.

The American siege continued under a UN mandate until 2003, where American forces swept over Iraq to occupy it once again. Britain joined in the effort to overthrow the regime of Saddam as it had no other option if it still wanted a share of Iraq's oil reserves. In the build up to this invasion, the Bush Administration attempted to use the sale of uranium to Iraq, Saddam's connection to Al-Qaeda, and the allegation that it had weapons of mass destruction to persuade the public that their case for war was legitimate. However, all these claims have been proven false. Despite this the U.S. was able to invade Iraq and continues to occupy it up until today. As such, Iraq has fallen yet again to direct colonial rule under American hegemony.

Pakistan

Recently, Pakistan has been put under the microscope. Almost 10 years ago, the U.S. had very warm relations with Pakistan as Musharraf - the President of Pakistan at that time - was an agent for the U.S. and was willing to do her bidding. Today, however, the tune has changed. Pakistan is now seen as impeding American efforts to strengthen its control over Afghanistan despite the fact that the current tyrant, Asif Zardari, has stooped to a level even lower than Musharraf in his attempts to please his American masters. There are a number of policies that the U.S has established that indicate a shift in the way they want to deal with Pakistan:

• Drone Attacks - unmanned aerial vehicles have been used since 2004 in FATA killing over 1,200 people - mostly civilians. The attacks are initiated from bases in Pakistan itself - one of many uses of Pakistan military bases by the U.S.

• Mercenaries - private military company Xe (formally known as Blackwater) has been operating in Pakistan since 2007. Working for the CIA, Xe operatives conduct house raids and border interdictions in Pakistan not to mention the terrorist activities it organizes against civilians whether in the masajid or markets.

• Permanent U.S. Presence - Last year, the U.S. initiated the construction of an embassy in Islamabad that will house 330 U.S. personnel. According to Kurshid Ahmad, Member of Parliament for Jamaat-e-Islami, "It's for the micro and macro management of Pakistan..."

Recently there have been discussions regarding U.S. military personnel assisting the Pakistani army. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, "We're willing to do as much ... as they are willing to accept. We are prepared to do training, and exercise with them. How big that operation becomes is really up to them." The U.S. views the tribal areas as a logistical base for the Muslims fighting the occupation in Afghanistan. It has tried to push the Pakistani army into a direct conflict with these tribes in order to try and stop their support for the resistance.

What is next for the U.S. if the Pakistani army is unable or unwilling to stop the tribes from helping the resistance in Afghanistan? Is the U.S. going to use the Times Square incident to put pressure on Pakistan and give the agent rulers of Pakistan an excuse to do more for their masters? Or is America going to simply occupy the tribal areas directly?

Until November 1992, pursuant to the 1947 Military Bases Agreement, the United States maintained and operated major facilities at Clark Air Base, Subic Bay Naval Complex, and several small subsidiary installations in the Philippines. In August 1991, negotiators from the two countries reached agreement on a draft treaty providing for use of Subic Bay Naval Base by U.S. forces for 10 years. The draft treaty did not include use of Clark Air Base, which had been so heavily damaged by the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo that the United States decided to abandon it.

In September 1991, the Philippine Senate rejected the bases treaty, and despite further efforts to salvage the situation, the two sides could not reach an agreement. As a result, the Philippine Government informed the United States on December 6, 1991, that it would have one year to complete withdrawal. That withdrawal went smoothly and was completed ahead of schedule, with the last U.S. forces departing on November 24, 1992. On departure, the U.S. Government turned over assets worth more than $1.3 billion to the Philippines, including an airport and ship-repair facility. Agencies formed by the Philippine Government have converted the former military bases for civilian commercial use, with Subic Bay serving as a flagship for that effort.

"This whole process of clearing areas, holding them securely with enough boots on the ground and then building a better life for the people, we can get it right," said the general. "It's got to be rolled out across the South of Afghanistan between the British army, the American Army and the U.S. Marine Corps."

General Dannatt adds that part of that roll out includes the impending offensive in Kandahar for obvious reasons.

"Kandahar is effectively the power base for the Taliban and the Taliban if they want to control the country, first of all they have to control Kandahar, and then they've opened up the access to Kabul." Confronting the Taliban is critical, he said.

"The fact of the matter is that the Taliban is effectively a front for al- Qaida, al-Qaida is the expression of the militant Islamist agenda which if we don't oppose it and face it off in Southern Afghanistan or Afghanistan or in South Asia, then frankly that influence will grow."At the heart of the strategy in Afghanistan is winning over the Afghan population. Andy Bearpark heads the British Association of Private Security Companies. Many of them work in Afghanistan. Bearpark believes carrying out a military operation without alienating the people is challenging

What could be better than turning the Muslim world into a theocratic !@#$hole?

Berrin, I'm totally for the Taliban taking over Afghanistan and Pakistan.

event horizon wrote:Uh-huh.

Berrin, I'm totally for the Taliban taking over Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I'm also rooting for al-Shabaab to take over Somalia, AQI to take over Diyala, Anbar and Salauddin provinces in Iraq and for al-Qaeda affiliated tribesmen to take over swathes of Yemen and a popular Islamist revolt toppling the Saudi regime.

What could be better than turning the Muslim world into a theocratic !@#$hole?

Oh, I mean more so than it is today.

Tribal elders have been killed by the Taliban across the south and east of the country; in recent months, elders in Kandahar Province have been especially hard hit. At least 13 have been shot since February.

In the mid-1990s the killings were common practice in Khost as well when the Taliban were seeking to take over Afghanistan, said Arsala Jamal, the former governor of Khost, who is now the acting minister of Borders and Tribal Affairs. By killing just a few elders, the Taliban were able to terrify the others and thus found it easier to gain dominance, he said.

The elders who were attacked earlier this week were from villages that had received grants worth just a few thousand dollars from Afghanistan’s National Solidarity program, which is one of the government’s most successful efforts to spur grass-roots development projects. The Taliban, hearing of the awards, demanded the money, said General Ishaqzai.

“The last time, the Taliban did the same thing in this place and they took all the money, which was given to the village elders,” General Ishaqzai said. “This time the elders did not want to give the Taliban the money. That is why they took them from their houses and killed them.”

Like FD said, better a yank in my garden than a commie in my kitchen. lol, good one FD
Is that the way to t(h)reat your own people? Common mate, those guys deserve to get droned properly.

I was just saying, that some sick militia groups are raping the local village heads of the funding the West provides for their loyalty, information and to compensate them for reconstruction of villages.

Afghan anger at US casualty payments

KABUL - An ad hoc system of payments by the United States military primarily to victims of its Helmand operations has enraged Afghans who feel a price has been put on their lives.

The existence of payment guidelines for commanders in the field regarding civilian casualties was first reported by Western media in February and quickly picked up by their Afghan counterparts.

According to the original Associated Press report, the death of a child or adult is worth US$1,500 to $2,500, loss of limb and other injuries $600 to $1,500, a damaged or destroyed vehicle $500 to $2,500, and damage to a farmer's fields $50 to $250.

While these are sizeable amounts in a country where the average daily wage is under $5, the reported measure has stirred outrage among politicians, rights groups and ordinary citizens, who view it as simple blood money.

"Afghans must seem like animals to the Americans if they can put prices on them," said Ismail, a 55-year-old Afghan businessman in Kabul, shaking with anger as he spoke.

"If someone killed an American and offered to pay $10,000, would they accept it? They destroy a complete village if one of their soldiers is killed, but set a price of $2,500 for an Afghan's life," he added.

"They do not respect the traditions, customs and laws of the Afghan people," a member of the Afghan parliament, Haidar Jan Nayimzoi, told the Institute for War and Peace Reporting. "An Afghan never sells his blood for money ... By paying money the Americans will not receive support but rather turn people against them."

The payment guidelines were reportedly used during recent operations in Helmand against the Taliban by the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, which incorporates most US units deployed in southern Afghanistan.

Insisting that such "solatia" or "ex-gratia payments" are made from a unit's own funds on a purely discretionary basis, the ISAF says the spirit of the measure has been misinterpreted. It did not confirm the figures in the Associated Press report.

These are "payments of money or donations in kind made to a victim or victim's family as an expression of sympathy", ISAF joint command spokesman, Lieutenant Colonel Todd Vician, said in written comments to IWPR.

"There is no official 'price list' to cover payments to people or families who have suffered loss or injury as a result of action by ISAF forces."

Commanders are not legally obliged to make the payments, receipt of which does not prevent victims from making additional formal claims for compensation, Vician added.

The issue has intensified the debate around the rise in numbers of civilian casualties as foreign troop levels climb in Afghanistan. This year, 30,000 more US troops and several thousand from other North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries will bring the total to more than 150,000.

Last year, the United Nations estimated that 2,412 civilians died in the conflict, the highest number since the Taliban were driven from power in 2001. It attributed two-thirds of these deaths to insurgent actions and around a quarter to international forces.

Incidents that year prompted Afghan President Hamid Karzai to demand an end to aerial bombardments, the main cause of most of the casualties blamed on foreign forces. The ISAF rejected the demand.

Caught between the wrath of the Afghan people and the need to support its overseas partners, the Kabul government played down the controversy over the cash payments.

Presidential spokesman Siamak Herawi told IWPR that the money paid out was a form of humanitarian aid, and that the US and Afghan presidents recently discussed the need to better support victims of the conflict.

"President Barack Obama and President Karzai have accepted this issue in principle and hope action will be taken soon and that the assistance will be increased," Herawi said.

Critics said that even if well intentioned, the informal cash system sends the wrong message and clashes with traditional Afghan values.

But the ISAF insists that following an incident, payments are usually only made after consultation between the commander and local Afghan elders, and involve nominal amounts to cover victims' immediate needs.

As well as US forces, other countries with troops in Afghanistan have paid reparations through a combination of livestock, food products and money.

In 2007, Polish troops in Paktika province opened fire on the village of Nangarkhel, killing six civilians and wounding three. After conciliatory talks that also involved US forces, families of victims received $2,500, and some sheep and flour in accordance with the local Pashtunwali code of tribal conduct.

But direct donation of money by foreign troops for injury or loss of life and the low amounts by world standards make matters worse, critics say.

"If the Americans really want to provide such assistance they should do it through the Afghan government," said Lalgol, the head of the Afghan Human Rights Organization, who like many Afghans goes by one name.

"And if they really want to help the victims' families, it should be as much as the Americans pay for the lives of nationals of other countries."

Again, the ISAF notes that victims are entitled to file for greater sums if they feel this is justified.

"Guidelines on condolence or compensation payments vary from nation to nation, but the broad underlying principle is that, where death, injury or damage to property is caused by ISAF, affected persons may submit a claim for compensation which will be considered by the nation involved," ISAF spokesman Vician said.

Abdol Ghani, a 27-year-old resident of Kandahar, said his brother died in Wardak province while riding on a bus that came under US fire. He was neither an insurgent nor a criminal, just someone trying to get home to Kandahar from Kabul, Ghani says.

"The Americans came to our home three days later and wanted to pay us money but my father forced them out of the house with their dollars. Afghans don't sell the blood of their martyrs, they either take swift revenge or bide their time," he said.

Unsurprisingly, the sensitivity of the matter has not been lost on the Taliban, who say the payments are evidence of a broader failure.

"The Americans want to hide their defeat by resorting to such things. They will try anything," a Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mojahed, said.

Military Readies Pakistan Strike Plan
Less than a month after it emerged that the alleged Times Square bomber had ties to the Pakistani Taliban, the U.S. military is dusting off its plans for a unilateral strike in Pakistan—just in case. If a successful terrorist attack were to take place on American soil, and it became clear that Pakistani Taliban elements were responsible, the United States wants to have its military retaliation options ready. “If, heaven forbid, an attack like this that we can trace back to Pakistan were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had warned after the Times Square plot was foiled. Military officials stressed that a strike would be a last resort and that the president would only turn to it if he lost confidence in the CIA drone campaign.

Berrin wrote:and I just can see why you have to keep parroting when everthing else is so clearly evidenced here..
You too can't control your haughty self..can you?