Occults Powers Decided to Punish Pakistan

8/6/2019 Occults Powers Decided to Punish Pakistan

1/34

Occults Powers decided to punish Pakistan(Punishing Pakistan and Challenging China)

MIA 1 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world

Highs an d low s of U.S.-Pakistan r elationsh ipThe two countries are allies but their relationship has been plagued by mistrust over the last 50

years.

SOURCE: The Washington Post; Council on Foreign Relations. GRAPHIC: Anup Kaphle and Sam Sanders - TheWashington


2/34


MIA 2 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1


3/34


MIA 3 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1


4/34


MIA 4 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1


5/34


MIA 5 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1


6/34


MIA 6 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1


7/34


MIA 7 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1


8/34


MIA 8 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1


9/34


MIA 9 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1


10/34


MIA 10 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1

Global Research, May 28, 2011

- 2011-05-27

Imperial Eye on Pakistan

Pakistan in Pieces, Part 1

by Andrew Gavin MarshallIntroduction

As the purported assassination of Osama bin Laden has placed the focus on Pakistan, it is vital to assess thechanging role of Pakistan in broad geostrategic terms, and in particular, of the changing American strategy towardPakistan. The recently reported assassination was a propaganda ploy aimed at targeting Pakistan. To understandthis, it is necessary to examine how America has, in recent years, altered its strategy in Pakistan in the direction ofdestabilization. In short, Pakistan is an American target. The reason: Pakistans growing military and strategic tiesto China, Americas primary global strategic rival. In the Great Game for global hegemony, any country that

impedes Americas world primacy even one as historically significant to America as Pakistan may besacrificed upon the altar of war.

Part 1 of Pakistan in Pieces examines the changing views of the American strategic community particularly themilitary and intelligence circles towards Pakistan. In particular, there is a general acknowledgement that Pakistanwill very likely continue to be destabilized and ultimately collapse. What is not mentioned in these assessments,however, is the role of the military and intelligence communities in making this a reality; a veritable self-fulfillingprophecy. This part also examines the active on the ground changes in American strategy in Pakistan, withincreasing military incursions into the country.

Imperial Eye on Pakistan

In December of 2000, the CIA released a report of global trends to the year 2015, which stated that by 2015,

Pakistan will be more fractious, isolated, and dependent on international financial assistance.[1] Further, it waspredicted, Pakistan:

Will not recover easily from decades of political and economic mismanagement, divisivepolitics, lawlessness, corruption and ethnic friction. Nascent democratic reforms will producelittle change in the face of opposition from an entrenched political elite and radical Islamicparties. Further domestic decline would benefit Islamic political activists, who maysignificantly increase their role in national politics and alter the makeup and cohesion of themilitary once Pakistans most capable institution. In a climate of continuing domesticturmoil, the central governments control probably will be reduced to the Punjabi heartland andthe economic hub of Karachi.[2]

The report further analyzed the trends developing in relation to the Pakistan-India standoff in the region:

The threat of major conflict between India and Pakistan will overshadow all other regionalissues during the next 15 years. Continued turmoil in Afghanistan and Pakistan will spill overinto Kashmir and other areas of the subcontinent, prompting Indian leaders to take moreaggressive preemptive and retaliatory actions. Indias conventional military advantage overPakistan will widen as a result of New Delhis superior economic position.[3]

In 2005, the Times of India reported on a US National Intelligence Council report, written in conjunction with theCIA, which predicted a Yugoslavia-like fate for Pakistan, saying that, by year 2015 Pakistan would be a failedstate, ripe with civil war, bloodshed, inter-provincial rivalries and a struggle for control of its nuclear weapons and


11/34


MIA 11 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1

complete Talibanisation.[4]

In November of 2008, the US National Intelligence Council released a report, Global Trends 2025, in which theyoutlined major trends in the world by the year 2025. When it came to Pakistan, the report stated that, Ongoinglow-intensity clashes between India and Pakistan continue to raise the specter that such events could escalate to a

broader conflict between those nuclear powers.[5] It stated that Pakistan will be at risk of state failure.[6] Inexamining potential failed states, the report stated that:

[Y]outh bulges, deeply rooted conflicts, and limited economic prospects are likely to keepPalestine, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and others in the high-risk category. Spillover fromturmoil in these states and potentially others increases the chance that moves elsewhere in theregion toward greater prosperity and political stability will be rocky.[7]

The report referred to Pakistan as a wildcard and stated that if it is unable to hold together until 2025, a broadercoalescence of Pashtun tribes is likely to emerge and act together to erase the Durand Line [separating Pakistanfrom Afghanistan], maximizing Pashtun space at the expense of Punjabis in Pakistan and Tajiks and others inAfghanistan.[8]

In January of 2009, a Pentagon report analyzing geopolitical trends of significance to the US military over the next25 years, reported that Pakistan could face a rapid and sudden collapse. It stated that, Some forms of collapse inPakistan would carry with it the likelihood of a sustained violent and bloody civil and sectarian war, an evenbigger haven for violent extremists, and the question of what would happen to its nuclear weapons, and as such,that perfect storm' of uncertainty alone might require the engagement of U.S. and coalition forces into a situationof immense complexity and danger.[9]

A top adviser to former President George Bush and current President Obama warned in April of 2009, thatPakistan could collapse within months, and that, We have to face the fact that if Pakistan collapses it will dwarfanything we have seen so far in whatever we're calling the war on terror now. The adviser and consultant, DavidKilcullen, explained that this would be unlike the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, which each had a population ofover 30 million, whereas Pakistan has [187] million people and 100 nuclear weapons, an army which is biggerthan the American army, and the headquarters of al-Qaeda sitting in two-thirds of the country which theGovernment does not control.[10]

Target: Pakistan

Going back to the later years of the Bush administration, it is apparent that the US strategy in Pakistan was alreadychanging in seeing it increasingly as a target for military operations as opposed to simply a conduit. In August of2007, newly uncovered documents revealed that the US military gave elite units broad authority in 2004, topursue suspected terrorists into Pakistan, with no mention of telling the Pakistanis in advance.[11]

In November of 2007, an op-ed in the New York Times stated categorically that, the United States simply couldnot stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss, and that, we need to think now aboutour feasible military options in Pakistan, should it really come to that. The authors, Frederick Kagan and MichaelOHanlon are both well-known strategists and scholars at the American Enterprise Institute and BrookingsInstitution, two of the most prominent and influential think tanks in the United States. While stating that Pakistans

leaders are still primarily moderate and friendly to the US, Americans felt similarly about the shahs regime inIran until it was too late, referring to the outbreak of the Iranian Revolution in 1979. They warn:

The most likely possible dangers are these: a complete collapse of Pakistani government rulethat allows an extreme Islamist movement to fill the vacuum; a total loss of federal controlover outlying provinces, which splinter along ethnic and tribal lines; or a struggle within thePakistani military in which the minority sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda try toestablish Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism.[12]


12/34


MIA 12 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1

They state that the military solutions are daunting as Pakistan is a nation of 187 million people, roughly fivetimes the size of Iraq. They wrote that, estimates suggest that a force of more than a million troops would berequired for a country of this size, which led them to conclude, Thus, if we have any hope of success, we wouldhave to act before a complete government collapse, and we would need the cooperation of moderate Pakistaniforces. They suggested one plan would be to deploy Special Forces with the limited goal of preventing

Pakistans nuclear materials and warheads from getting into the wrong hand. However, they admit that, evenpro-American Pakistanis would be unlikely to cooperate. Another option, they contend:

would involve supporting the core of the Pakistani armed forces as they sought to hold thecountry together in the face of an ineffective government, seceding border regions and AlQaeda and Taliban assassination attempts against the leadership. This would require a sizablecombat force not only from the United States, but ideally also other Western powers andmoderate Muslim nations.[13]

The authors concluded, saying that any state decline in Pakistan would likely be gradual, therefore allowing the USto have time to respond, and placed an emphasis on securing Pakistans nuclear arsenal and combating militants.They finished the article with the warning: Pakistan may be the next big test.[14]

In December of 2007, the Asia Times Online ran a story about the US plan to rid Pakistan of President Musharraf,and that the US and the West, more broadly, had begun a strategy aimed at toppling Pakistans military. As part ofthis, the US launched a media campaign aimed at demonizing Pakistans military establishment. At this time,Benazir Bhutto was criticizing the ISI, suggesting they needed a dramatic restructuring, and at the same time,reports were appearing in the US media blaming the ISI for funding and providing assistance to Al-Qaeda and theTaliban. While much of this is documented, the fact that it suddenly emerged as talking points with several westernofficials and in the media does suggest a turn-around against a long-time ally.[15]

Both Democratic and Republican politicians were making statements that Pakistan represented a greater threat thanIran, and then-Senator (now Vice President) Joseph Biden suggested that the United States needed to put soldierson the ground in Pakistan in cooperation with the international community. Biden said that, We should be inthere, and we should be supplying tens of millions of dollars to build new schools to compete with themadrassas. We should be in there building democratic institutions. We should be in there, and get the rest of theworld in there, giving some structure to the emergence of, hopefully, the reemergence of a democraticprocess.[16]

In American policy-strategy circles, officials openly began discussing the possibility of Pakistan breaking up intosmaller states, and increasing discussion that Musharraf was going to be removed, which obviously happened.As the Asia Times stated:

Another worrying thing is how US officials are publicly signaling to the Pakistanis that Bhuttohas their backing as the next leader of the country. Such signals from Washington are not onlya kiss of death for any public leader in Pakistan, but the Americans also know that their actionsare inviting potential assassins to target Bhutto.

If she is killed in this way, there won't be enough time to find the real culprit, but what's certainis that unprecedented international pressure will be placed on Islamabad while everyone will

use their local assets to create maximum internal chaos in the country.[17]

Of course, this subsequently happened in Pakistan. As the author of the article pointed out with startlingly accurateforesight, Getting Bhutto killed can generate the kind of pressure that could result in permanently putting thePakistani military on a back foot, giving Washington enough room to push for installing a new pliant leadership inIslamabad. He observed that, the US is very serious this time. They cannot let Pakistan get out of theirhands.[18]

Thus, it would appear that the new US strategic aim in Pakistan was focused on removing the Pakistani military


13/34


MIA 13 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1

from power, implying the need to replace Musharraf, and replace him with a new, compliant civilian leadership.This would have the effect of fracturing the Pakistani elite, threatening the Armys influence within Pakistanipolitics, and undertaking more direct control of Pakistans government.

As if on cue, in late December it was reported that, US special forces snatch squads are on standby to seize or

disable Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in the event of a collapse of government authority or the outbreak of civil warfollowing the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.[19]

The New York Times ran an article in early January 2008, which reported that, President Bushs senior nationalsecurity advisers are debating whether to expand the authority of the Central Intelligence Agency and the militaryto conduct far more aggressive covert operations in the tribal areas of Pakistan. The article stated that the newstrategy was purportedly in response to increased reports of Al-Qaeda and Taliban activity within Pakistan, whichare intensifying efforts there to destabilize the Pakistani government. Bushs National Security team supposedlyorganized this effort in response to Bhuttos assassination 10 days previously.[20]

Officials involved in the strategy discussions said that some options would probably involve the C.I.A. workingwith the militarys Special Operations forces, and one official said, After years of focusing on Afghanistan, wethink the extremists now see a chance for the big prize creating chaos in Pakistan itself. Of pivotal importance

to the strategy, as the Times reported: Critics said more direct American military action would be ineffective,anger the Pakistani Army and increase support for the militants.[21] Perhaps this is not simply a side-effect ofthe proposed strategy, but in fact, part of the strategy.

As one prominent Pakistani political and military analyst pointed out, raids into Pakistan would expand anger andprompt a powerful popular backlash against the Pakistani government, losing popular support.[22] However, as Ipreviously stated, this might be the intention, as this would ultimately make the government more dependent uponthe United States, and thus, more subservient.

On September 3, 2008, it was reported that a commando raid by US Special Forces was launched in Pakistan,which killed between 15 and 20 people, including women and children. The Special Forces were accompanied byfive U.S. helicopters for the duration of the operation.[23]

In February of 2009, it was reported that, More than 70 United States military advisers and technical specialistsare secretly working in Pakistan to help its armed forces battle Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the countrys lawlesstribal areas. So not only are U.S. Special Forces invading Pakistani territory; but now US military advisers aresecretly advising the Pakistani Army on its own operations, and the advisers are themselves primary made up ofSpecial Forces soldiers. They provide the Pakistani Army with intelligence and advising on combat tactics, andmake up a secret command run by US Central Command and Special Operations Command (presumably JSOC Joint Special Operations Command).[24]

In May of 2009, it was reported that, the U.S. is sending Special Forces teams into one of Pakistan's most violentregions as part of a push to accelerate the training of the Pakistani military and make it a more effective ally in thefight against insurgents there. The Special Forces were deploying to two training camps in the province ofBaluchistan, and will focus on training Pakistan's Frontier Corps, a paramilitary force responsible for battling theTaliban and al Qaeda fighters. Further, the project is a joint effort with the U.K., which helps fund the training,although it is unclear if British military personnel would take part in the initiative. British officials have been

pushing for such an effort for several years.[25]

In December of 2009 it was revealed that, American special forces have conducted multiple clandestine raids intoPakistan's tribal areas as part of a secret war in the border region where Washington is pressing to expand its droneassassination programme, which was revealed by a former NATO officer. He said these incursions had occurredbetween 2003 and 2008, indicating they go even further back than US military documents stipulate. The sourcefurther revealed that, the Pakistanis were kept entirely in the dark about it. It was one of those things we wouldn'tconfirm officially with them. Further, as the source noted, British SAS soldiers have been active in the provinceof Bolochistan in 2002 and 2003 and possibly beyond.[26]


14/34


MIA 14 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1

The Balkanization of Pakistan: Blaming the Pakistanis

Selig S. Harrison is a director of the Asia Program at the Center for International Policy, senior scholar of theWoodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, former senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for

International Peace, and former journalist and correspondent. His reputation for giving early warning of foreignpolicy crises was well established during his career as a foreign correspondent. In his study of foreign reporting,Between Two Worlds, John Hohenberg, former secretary of the Pulitzer Prize Board, cited Harrisons prediction ofthe 1965 Indo-Pakistan war eighteen months before it happened. Further, More than a year before the Russiansinvaded Afghanistan, Harrison warned of this possibility in one of his frequent contributions to the influential

journal Foreign Policy.[27]

On February 1, 2008, Selig Harrison threw his renowned predictive abilities on Pakistan in an op-ed for the NewYork Times in the run-up to the Pakistani elections. He started by stating that, Whatever the outcome of thePakistani elections, now scheduled for Feb. 18, the existing multiethnic Pakistani state is not likely to survive forlong unless it is radically restructured. Harrison then went on to explain that Pakistan would likely break up alongethnic lines; with the Pashtuns, concentrated in the northwestern tribal areas, the Sindhis in the southeast unitingwith the Baluch tribesmen in the southwest, with the Punjab rump state of Pakistan.[28]

The Pashtuns in the north, would join with their ethnic brethren across the Afghan border (some 40 million ofthem combined) to form an independent Pashtunistan, and the Sindhis numbering 23 million, would unite withthe six million Baluch tribesmen in the southwest to establish a federation along the Arabian Sea from India toIran, presumably named Baluchistan; while the rump state of Pakistan would remain Punjabi dominated and incontrol of the nuclear weapons. Selig Harrison explained that prior to partition from India, which led to thecreation of the Pakistani state in 1947, Pashtun, Sindhi and Baluch ethnicities had resist[ed] Punjabi dominationfor centuries, and suddenly:

they found themselves subjected to Punjabi-dominated military regimes that have appropriatedmany of the natural resources in the minority provinces particularly the natural gas depositsin the Baluch areas and siphoned off much of the Indus Rivers waters as they flow throughthe Punjab.

The resulting Punjabi-Pashtun animosity helps explain why the United States is failing to geteffective Pakistani cooperation in fighting terrorists. The Pashtuns living along the Afghanborder are happy to give sanctuary from Punjabi forces to the Taliban, which is composedprimarily of fellow Pashtuns, and to its Qaeda friends.

Pashtun civilian casualties resulting from Pakistani and American air strikes on both sides ofthe border are breeding a potent underground Pashtun nationalist movement. Its initialobjective is to unite all Pashtuns in Pakistan, now divided among political jurisdictions, into aunified province. In time, however, its leaders envisage full nationhood.

... The Baluch people, for their part, have been waging intermittent insurgencies since theirforced incorporation into Pakistan in 1947. In the current warfare Pakistani forces are widelyreported to be deploying American-supplied aircraft and intelligence equipment that was

intended for use in Afghan border areas. Their victims are forging military links with Sindhinationalist groups that have been galvanized into action by the death of Benazir Bhutto, aSindhi hero as was her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.[29]

This passage is very revealing of the processes and perceptions surrounding Balkanization and destabilization.What I mean by this, is that historically and presently, imperial powers would often use ethnic groups against eachother in a strategy of divide and conquer, in order to keep the barbarians from coming together and dominate theregion.


15/34


MIA 15 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1

Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard, that, Geopolitics has moved from theregional to the global dimension, with preponderance over the entire Eurasian continent serving as the central basisfor global primacy.[30] Brzezinski then gave a masterful explanation of the American global strategy, whichplaced it into a firm imperialistic context:

To put it in a terminology that hearkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, thethree grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain securitydependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep thebarbarians from coming together.[31]

While imperial powers manipulate, and historically, even create the ethnic groups within regions and nations, theWest portrays conflict in such regions as being the product of these ethnic or tribal rivalries. This perception ofthe East (Asia and the Middle East) as well as Africa is referred to as Orientalism or Eurocentrism: meaning itgenerally portrays the East (and/or Africa) as the Other: inherently different and often barbaric. This prejudicedperspective is prevalent in Western academic, media, and policy circles. This perspective serves a major purpose:dehumanizing a people in a region that an imperial power seeks to dominate, which allows the hegemon tomanipulate the people and divide them against each other, while framing them as backwards and barbaric,which in turn, justifies the Western imperial power exerting hegemony and control over the region; to protect the

people from themselves.

Historically and presently, Western empires have divided people against each other, blamed the resulting conflicton the people themselves, and thus justified their control over both the people, and the region they occupy. Thiswas the strategy employed in major recent geopolitical conflicts such as the breakup of Yugoslavia and theRwandan genocide. In both cases, Western imperial ambitions were met through exacerbating ethnic rivalries,providing financial, technical, and military aid and training to various factions; thus, spreading violent conflict,war, and genocide. In both cases, Western, and primarily American strategic interests were met through anincreased presence militarily, pushing out other major imperial and powerful rivals, as well as increasing Westernaccess to key economics resources.

This is the lens through which we must view the unfolding situation in Pakistan. However, the situation in Pakistanpresents a far greater potential for conflict and devastation than either Yugoslavia or Rwanda. In short, thepotential strategy of Balkanization and destabilization of Pakistan could dwarf any major global conflict in thepast few decades. Its sheer population of 187 million people, proximity to two major regional wars in Iraq andAfghanistan, its strategic location as neighbor to India, China, and Iran with access to the Indian Ocean, and itsnuclear arsenal, combine to make Pakistan the potential trigger for a much wider regional and possibly global war.The destabilization of Pakistan has the potential to be the greatest geopolitical catastrophe since World War II.

Thus, Selig Harrisons op-ed in the New York Times in which he describes the likely breakup of Pakistan alongethnic lines as a result of ethnic differences must be viewed in the wider context of geopolitical ambitions. Hisarticle lays the foundation both for the explanation of a potential breakup, and thus the justification for Westernintervention in the conflict. His predictive capacities as a seasoned journalist can be alternatively viewed as pre-emptive imperial propaganda.

Fracturing Pakistan

The war in Afghanistan is inherently related to the situation in Pakistan. From the days of the Afghan-Soviet warin the 1980s, arms and money were flowing through Pakistan to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. During the civilwar that followed, Pakistan armed and financed the Taliban, which eventually took power. When the U.S. andNATO initially attacked Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, this was primarily achieved through cooperation withPakistan. When the war theatre was re-named AfPak, the role of Pakistan, however, was formally altered. Whilethe previous few years had seen the implementation of a strategy of destabilizing Pakistan, once the AfPak wartheatre was established, Pakistan ceased to be as much of a conduit or proxy state and became a target.

In September of 2008, the editor of Indian Defence Review wrote an article explaining that a stable Pakistan is not


16/34


MIA 16 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1

in Indias interests: With Pakistan on the brink of collapse due to massive internal as well as internationalcontradictions, it is matter of time before it ceases to exist. He explained that Pakistans collapse would bringmultiple benefits to India, including preventing China from gaining a major port in the Indian Ocean, which is inthe mutual interest of the United States. The author explained that this would be a severe jolt to Chinasexpansionist aims, and further, Indias access to Central Asian energy routes will open up.[32]

In August of 2009, Foreign Policy Journal published a report of an exclusive interview they held with formerPakistani ISI chief Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, who was Director General of the powerful intelligence services(ISI) between 1987 and 1989, at a time in which it was working closely with the CIA to fund and arm theMujahideen. Once a close ally of the US, he is now considered extremely controversial and the US evenrecommended the UN to put him on the international terrorist list. Gul explained that he felt that the Americanpeople have not been told the truth about 9/11, and that the 9/11 Commission was a cover up, pointing out that,They [the American government] havent even proved the case that 9/11 was done by Osama bin Laden and alQaeda. He said that the real reasons for the war on Afghanistan were that:

the U.S. wanted to reach out to the Central Asian oilfields and open the door there, whichwas a requirement of corporate America, because the Taliban had not complied with theirdesire to allow an oil and gas pipeline to pass through Afghanistan. UNOCAL is a case in

point. They wanted to keep the Chinese out. They wanted to give a wider security shield to thestate of Israel, and they wanted to include this region into that shield. And thats why they weretalking at that time very hotly about greater Middle East. They were redrawing the map.[33]

He also stated that part of the reason for going into Afghanistan was to go for Pakistans nuclear capability, asthe U.S. signed this strategic deal with India, and this was brokered by Israel. So there is a nexus now betweenWashington, Tel Aviv, and New Delhi. When he was asked about the Pakistani Taliban, which the Pakistanigovernment was being pressured to fight, and where the financing for that group came from; Gul stated:

Yeah, of course they are getting it from across the Durand line, from Afghanistan. And theMossad is sitting there, RAW is sitting there the Indian intelligence agency they have theumbrella of the U.S. And now they have created another organization which is called RAMA.It may be news to you that very soon this intelligence agency of course, they have decidedto keep it covert but it is Research and Analysis Milli Afghanistan. Thats the name. TheIndians have helped create this organization, and its job is mainly to destabilize Pakistan.[34]

He explained that the Chief of Staff of the Afghan Army had told him that he had gone to India to offer the Indiansfive bases in Afghanistan, three of which are along the Pakistani border. Gul was asked a question as to why, if theWest was supporting the TTP (Pakistani Taliban), would a CIA drone have killed the leader of the TTP. Gulexplained that while Pakistan was fighting directly against the TTP leader, Baitullah Mehsud, the Pakistanigovernment would provide the Americans where Mehsud was, three times the Pakistan intelligence tipped offAmerica, but they did not attack him. So why all of a sudden did they attack?

Because there were some secret talks going on between Baitullah Mehsud and the Pakistanimilitary establishment. They wanted to reach a peace agreement, and if you recall there is along history of our tribal areas, whenever a tribal militant has reached a peace agreement withthe government of Pakistan, Americans have without any hesitation struck that target.

... there was some kind of a deal which was about to be arrived at they may have already cuta deal. I dont know. I dont have enough information on that. But this is my hunch, thatBaitullah was killed because now he was trying to reach an agreement with the Pakistan army.And thats why there were no suicide attacks inside Pakistan for the past six or sevenmonths.[35]

An article in one of Canadas national magazines, Macleans, reported on an interview with a Pakistani ISI spy,who claimed that Indias intelligence services, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), have tens of thousands of


17/34


MIA 17 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1

RAW agents in Pakistan. Many officials inside Pakistan were convinced that, Indias endgame is nothing lessthan the breakup of Pakistan. And the RAW is no novice in that area. In the 1960s, it was actively involved insupporting separatists in Bangladesh, at the time East Pakistan. The eventual victory of Bangladeshi nationalism in1971 was in large part credited to the support the RAW gave the secessionists.[36]

Further, there were Indian consulates set up in Kandahar, the area of Afghanistan where Canadian troops arelocated, and which is strategically located next to the Pakistani province of Baluchistan, which is home to avirulent separatist movement, of which Pakistan claims is being supported by India. Macleans reported on theconclusions by Michel Chossudovsky, economics professor at University of Ottawa, that, the regions massivegas and oil reserves are of strategic interest to the U.S. and India. A gas pipeline slated to be built from Iran toIndia, two countries that already enjoy close ties, would run through Baluchistan. The Baluch separatist movement,which is also active in Iran, offers an ideal proxy for both the U.S. and India to ensure their interests are met.[37]

Even an Afghan government adviser told the media that India was using Afghan territory to destabilizePakistan.[38] In September of 2009, the Pakistan Daily reported that captured members and leaders of thePakistani Taliban have admitted to being trained and armed by India through RAW or RAMA in Afghanistan inorder to fight the Pakistani Army.[39]

Foreign Policy magazine in February of 2009 quoted a former intelligence official as saying, The Indians are upto their necks in supporting the Taliban against the Pakistani government in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that,the same anti-Pakistani forces in Afghanistan also shooting at American soldiers are getting support from India.India should close its diplomatic establishments in Afghanistan and get the Christ out of there.[40]

The Council on Foreign Relations published a backgrounder report on RAW, Indias intelligence agency, foundedin 1968 primarily to counter China's influence, [however] over time it has shifted its focus to India's othertraditional rival, Pakistan. For over three decades both Indian and Pakistani intelligence agencies have beeninvolved in covert operations against one another. One of RAWs main successes was its covert operations in EastPakistan, now known as Bangladesh, which aimed at fomenting independence sentiment and ultimately led tothe separation of Bangladesh by directly funding, arming and training the Pakistani separatists. Further, as theCouncil on Foreign Relations noted, From the early days, RAW had a secret liaison relationship with the Mossad,Israel's external intelligence agency.[41]

Since RAW was founded in 1968, it had developed close ties with the Afghan intelligence agency, KHAD,primarily to do with intelligence sharing on Pakistan. In the 1980s, while Pakistan was funding, arming andtraining the Afghan Mujahideen with the support of Saudi Arabia and the CIA, India was funding two covertgroups which orchestrated terrorist attacks inside Pakistan, which included a low-grade but steady campaign ofbombings in major Pakistani cities, notably Karachi and Lahore. RAW has also had a close relationship with theCIA, as even six years before RAW was created, in 1962, the CIA created a covert organization made up ofTibetan refugees, which aimed to execute deep-penetration terror operations in China. The CIA subsequentlyplayed a part in the creation of RAW. In the 1980s, while the CIA was working closely with the ISI in Pakistan,RAW, while wary of their relationship, continued to get counterterrorism training from the CIA.[42]

In October of 2009, the New York Times reported that the US strategy to vastly expand its aid to Pakistan, as wellas the footprint of its embassy and private security contractors here, are aggravating an already volatile anti-American mood as Washington pushes for greater action by the government against the Taliban. The U.S. gave

Pakistan an aid deal of $1.5 billion per year for the next five years, under the stipulation of Pakistan to ceasesupporting terrorist groups on its soil and to ensure that the military does not interfere with civilian politics.President Zaradari accepted the proposal, making him even more unpopular in Pakistan, and further angeringPakistans powerful military, which sees the deal as interfering in the internal affairs of the country.[43]

America is thus expanding its embassy and security presence within the country, as the Embassy has publicizedplans for a vast new building in Islamabad for about 1,000 people, with security for some diplomats providedthrough a Washington-based private contracting company, DynCorp. The NYT article referred to how relationswere becoming increasingly strained between Pakistan and the US, and tensions were growing within the country


18/34


MIA 18 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1

exponentially, as the American presence was fueling a sense of occupation among Pakistani politicians andsecurity officials, and several Pakistani officials stated that, the United States was now seen as behaving inPakistan much as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Futher:

In particular, the Pakistani military and the intelligence agencies are concerned that DynCorp is

being used by Washington to develop a parallel network of security and intelligence personnelwithin Pakistan, officials and politicians close to the army said.

The concerns are serious enough that last month a local company hired by DynCorp to providePakistani men to be trained as security guards for American diplomats was raided by theIslamabad police. The owner of the company, the Inter-Risk Security Company, Capt. Syed AliJa Zaidi, was later arrested.

The action against Inter-Risk, apparently intended to cripple the DynCorp program, was takenon orders from the senior levels of the Pakistani government, said an official familiar with theraid, who was not authorized to speak on the record.

The entire workings of DynCorp within Pakistan are now under review by the Pakistani

government.[44]

As revealed in the Wikileaks diplomatic cables, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson wrote in Septemberof 2009 that the U.S. strategy of unilateral strikes inside Pakistan risk destabilizing the Pakistani state, alienatingboth the civilian government and military leadership, and provoking a broader governance crisis in Pakistanwithout finally achieving the goal.[45]

In an interview with Press TV, Hamid Gul, former Inter-Services Intelligence chief revealed more of what he seesas the US strategy in Pakistan. He explained that with the massive expansion of the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan, andalongside that, the increased security staff, the Chinese are becoming increasingly concerned with the sovereigntyand security of Pakistan. He claimed that the money that the US government offered (with heavy conditions) toPakistan, $1.5 billion every year for five years, will be spent under the direction of the Americans, and that theyare going to set up a large intelligence network inside Pakistan, and ultimately they really want to go forPakistan's nuclear assets. He further claimed that the Indians are trying to destabilize Pakistan; however, heexplained, this does not necessarily mean disintegrate, but rather:

they are trying to destabilize Pakistan at the moment so that it feels weak and economically hasto go begging on its knees to Americans and ask for succor and help. And in that process theywill want to expect certain concessions with regards to nuclear power and also with regards tosetting up their facilities here in Pakistan.[46]

When he was asked what Americas long-term goal was in regards to Pakistan, Gul responded that the goal:

for America is that they want to keep Pakistan destabilized; perhaps create a way forBaluchistan as a separate state and then create problems for Iran so that this new state will talkabout greater Baluchistan... So it appears that the long-term objectives are really to fragment allthese countries to an extent that they can establish a strip that would be pro-America, pro-India,

pro-Israel. So this seems to be their long-term objective apart from denuclearizing Pakistan andblocking Iran's progress in the nuclear field.[47]

In Part 2 of Pakistan in Pieces, I will examine the specific ways in which the American strategy of destabilizationis being undertaken in Pakistan, including the waging of a secret war and the expansion of the Afghan war intoPakistani territory. In short, the military and intelligence projections for Pakistan over the next several years(discussed in the beginning of Part 1 above) are a self-fulfilling prophecy, as those very same military andintelligence agencies that predict a destabilized Pakistan and potential collapse are now undertaking strategiesaimed at achieving those outcomes.


19/34


MIA 19 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1

Notes

[1] NIC, Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue About the Future With Nongovernment Experts. The Central

Intelligence Agency: December 2000: page 64http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2015.html[2] Ibid, page 66.[3] Ibid.[4] PTI, Pak will be failed state by 2015: CIA. The Times of India: February 13,2005: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Pak-will-be-failed-state-by-2015-CIA/articleshow/1019516.cms[5] NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National Intelligence Council: November 2008:page xhttp://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html[6] Ibid, page 45.[7] Ibid, page 65.[8] Ibid, page 72.[9] Peter Goodspeed, Mexico, Pakistan face 'rapid and sudden' collapse: Pentagon. The National Post: January

15, 2009:http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=1181621[10] PAUL MCGEOUGH, Warning that Pakistan is in danger of collapse within months. The Sydney MorningHerald: April 13, 2009:http://www.smh.com.au/world/warning-that-pakistan-is-in-danger-of-collapse-within-months-20090412-a40u.html[11] Scott Lindlaw, AP: U.S. gave troops OK to enter Pakistan. USA Today: August 23,2007: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-08-23-pakistan-engagement_N.htm[12] Frederick Kagan and Michael OHanlon, Pakistans Collapse, Our Problem. November 18,2007: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18kagan.html[13] Ibid.[14] Ibid.[15] Ahmed Quraishi, The plan to topple Pakistan's military. Asia Times Online: December 6,2007: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IL06Df03.html[16] Ibid.[17] Ibid.[18] Ibid.[19] Ian Bruce, Special forces on standby over nuclear threat. The Sunday Herald: December 31,2007: http://www.heraldscotland.com/special-forces-on-standby-over-nuclear-threat-1.871766[20] Steven Lee Myers, David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt, U.S. Considers New Covert Push Within Pakistan.The New York Times: January 6, 2008:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/washington/06terror.html[21] Ibid.[22] Ibid.[23] Farhan Bokhari, Sami Yousafzai, and Tucker Reals, U.S. Special Forces Strike In Pakistan. CBS News:September 3, 2008:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/03/terror/main4409288.shtml[24] Eric Schmitt and Jane Perlez, U.S. Unit Secretly in Pakistan Lends Ally Support. The New York Times:February 22, 2009:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/world/asia/23terror.html[25] YOCHI J. DREAZEN and SIOBHAN GORMAN, U.S. Special Forces Sent to Train Pakistanis. The WallStreet Journal: May 16, 2009:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124241541672724767.html

[26] Declan Walsh, US forces mounted secret Pakistan raids in hunt for al-Qaida. The Guardian: December 21,2009:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/us-forces-secret-pakistan-raids[27] CIP, SELIG S. HARRISON. Center for International Policy: http://www.ciponline.org/asia/Seligbio.html[28] Selig S. Harriosn, Drawn and Quartered. The New York Times: February 1,2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/opinion/01harrison.html[29] Ibid.[30] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. (NewYork: Perseus, 1997), page 39[31] Ibid, page 40.


20/34


MIA 20 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1

[32] Bharat Verma, Stable Pakistan not in Indias interest. Indian Defence Review: September 11,2008:http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2008/09/stable-pakistan-not-in-indias-interest.html[33] Jeremy R. Hammond, Ex-ISI Chief Says Purpose of New Afghan Intelligence Agency RAMA Is todestabilize Pakistan. Foreign Policy Journal: August 12,2009: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/08/12/ex-isi-chief-says-purpose-of-new-afghan-intelligence-

agency-rama-is-%E2%80%98to-destabilize-pakistan%E2%80%99/[34] Ibid.[35] Ibid.[36] Adnan R. Khan, New Delhis endgame? Macleans: August 23,2009: http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/23/new-delhi%E2%80%99s-endgame/[37] Ibid. See also Michel Chossudovsky, The Destabilization of Pakistan, Global Research, December 30,2007[38] Imtiaz Indher, Afgan MPs call for early withdrawal of foreign troop. Associated Press of Pakistan: April 1,2009: http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72423&Itemid=2[39] Moin Ansari, Proof: Captured TTP terrorists admit to being Indian RAW agents. Pakistan Daily:September 20, 2009: http://www.daily.pk/proof-captured-ttp-terrorists-admit-to-being-indian-raw-agents-11015/[40] Laura Rozen, Can the intel community defuse India-Pakistan tensions? Foreign Policy: February 16, 2009:http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/16/can_the_intel_community_defuse_india_pakistan_tensions

[41] Jayshree Bajoria, RAW: India's External Intelligence Agency. The Council on Foreign Relations:November 7, 2008: http://www.cfr.org/publication/17707/[42] Ibid.[43] Jane Perlez, U.S. Push to Expand in Pakistan Meets Resistance. The New York Times: October 5,2009:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/world/asia/06islamabad.html[44] Ibid.[45] US embassy cables, Reviewing our Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, The Guardian, 30 November2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/226531[46] US military bases 'will destabilize Pakistan'. Press TV: September 13,2009: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=106106&sectionid=3510302[47] Ibid.

Andrew Gavin Marshall is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Andrew GavinMarshall


21/34


MIA 21 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1

The AfPak War Theatre: Establishing the New Strategy

Punishing Pakistan and Challenging China

Pakistan in Pieces, Part 2

As Senator Obama became the President-elect Obama, his foreign policy strategy on Afghanistan was already beingformed. In 2007, Obama took on veteran geostrategist and Jimmy Carters former National Security AdviserZbigniew Brzezinski as one of his top foreign policy advisers,[1] and he remained his foreign policy adviserthroughout 2008.[2] On Obamas campaign, he announced that as President, he would scale down the war in Iraq,and focus the War on Terror on Afghanistan, promising to send in about 10,000 more troops and to strike next-door Pakistan, if top terrorists are spotted there.[3]

In October of 2008, before the Presidential elections, senior Bush administration officials gathered in secret withAfghanistan experts from NATO and the United Nations, to deliver a message to advisers of McCain and Obama to

tell them that, the situation in Afghanistan is getting worse, and that the next president needed to have a plan forAfghanistan before he took office, or else, it could be too late.[4] Both McCain and Obama had agreed to a troopincrease for Afghanistan, essentially ensuring the continuity of empire from one administration to the next.

A week after winning the election, Obama invited one of Hillary Clintons top supporters and advisers to meet withhim. Richard Holbrooke, who had worked in every Democratic administration since John F. Kennedy, whichextended from the Vietnam War, in the sixties, to the Balkan conflicts of the nineties, was Clintons Ambassador tothe United Nations for the last year and a half of the Clinton administration. Obama had decided that Holbrookeshould take on the hardest foreign-policy problem that the Administration faced: Afghanistan and Pakistan.Holbrooke wrote in March of 2008, before Obama won the Presidency, that, The conflict in Afghanistan will be farmore costly and much, much longer than Americans realize, and it will eventually become the longest inAmerican history.[5]

The position Holbrooke was to receive in the Obama administration was one created specifically for him. He was tobecome a special representative to the region of Afghanistan and Pakistan:

[I]n addition to being an emissary to the region, Holbrooke would run operations on the civilianside of American policy. He would create a rump regional bureau within the State Department,carved out of the Bureau of South and Central Asia, whose Afghanistan and Pakistan deskswould report directly to him. He would assemble outside experts and officials from variousgovernment agencies to work for him, and he would report to the President through HillaryClinton. Clinton told Holbrooke that he would be the civilian counterpart to General DavidPetraeus, the military head of Central Command.[6]

Holbrooke was thus placed in charge of Af-Pak, a term of his own creation, to make the point that the twocountries could not be dealt with separately, which was then adopted into official parlance.[7]

In November of 2008, the Washington Post reported that while Obama was considering giving the position ofSecretary of State (which he then did), he was also discussing giving General James L. Jones the position ofNational Security Adviser, which he subsequently did. The article stated that, Obama is considering expanding thescope of the job to give the adviser the kind of authority once wielded by powerful figures such as Henry A.Kissinger. James Jones was a former NATO commander and Marine Corps commandant.[8]

Jones as NATO commander was pivotal in assembling troops for the war in Afghanistan, and at the time of hisnomination as NSA (National Security Adviser), he headed the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21stCentury Energy.[9] The official statement of purpose for the Institute for 21st Century Energy is:


22/34


MIA 22 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1

to unify energy policymakers, regulators, business leaders, and the American public behind acommon sense strategy that ensures affordable, reliable, and diverse energy supplies, improvesenvironmental stewardship, promotes economic growth, and strengthens national security.[10]

Jones earned $900,000 in salary from the Chamber of Commerce, and got $330,000 from serving on the board ofBoeing and $290,000 for serving on the board of Chevron upon his resignations of those positions to becomeNational Security Adviser.[11] In October of 2010, Jones was replaced as National Security Advisor by TomDonilon.

On February 8, 2009, within weeks of being installed as NSA, Jones gave a speech at the 45th Munich Conferenceon Security Policy, in which he stated:

As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders fromDr. [Henry] Kissinger, filtered down through Generaal Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, whois also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.[12]

He then elaborated on the purpose and restructuring of the National Security Council under the Obama

administration. He stated that the NSC must be strategic in that, we wont effectively advance the priorities if wespend our time reacting to events, instead of shaping them. And that requires strategic thinking. He further statedthat:

the NSC today works very closely with President Obamas National Economic Council, which isled by Mr. Larry Summers, so that our response to the economic crisis is coordinated with ourglobal partners and our national security needs.[13]

Shortly after taking office, Obama set up a two-month White House strategic review of Afghanistan and Pakistan, tobe headed by Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official and scholar at the Brookings Institution, and Riedel will report toObama and to retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones Jr., the national security advisor, and was to work very closelywith Richard Holbrooke in drafting the policy review.[14]

In February of 2009, Henry Kissinger wrote an article for the Washington Post describing the strategy America

should undertake in Afghanistan and Pakistan, emphasizing the role of security over the aim of reform of theAfghan government, stating that, Reform will require decades; it should occur as a result of, and even side by sidewith, the attainment of security -- but it cannot be the precondition for it. Militarily, Kissinger recommended thecontrol of Kabul and the Pashtun area, which stretches from Afghanistan to the North-West Frontier Province andBalochistan province in Pakistan. When it came to the issue of Pakistan, Kissinger wrote:

The conduct of Pakistan will be crucial. Pakistan's leaders must face the fact that continuedtoleration of the sanctuaries -- or continued impotence with respect to them -- will draw theircountry ever deeper into an international maelstrom.[15]

Following the policy review, on March 27, Obama announced the administrations new strategy for Afghanistan andPakistan, decidedly to make it a dual strategy: the AfPak strategy. Obama promised to send lawyers andagricultural experts to Afghanistan to reform its government and economy, and to offer seven and a half billion

dollars in new aid for schools, roads, and democracy in Pakistan.[16]

Holbrooke had a staff of 30 in the State Department, and nine government agencies, including the C.I.A., theF.B.I., the Defense and Treasury Departments, and two foreign countries, Britain and Canada, [were] represented inthe office. General David Patraeus, then Commander of U.S. CENTCOM (the Pentagons Central Command withauthority over the Middle East, Egypt and Central Asia), along with then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs AdmiralMike Mullen, and Richard Holbrooke worked together and pressured General Ashfaq Kayani, the head of thePakistani Army, to push back against the Taliban in Swat, which had the effect of precipitating the internaldisplacement of more than 2 million people.[17]


23/34


MIA 23 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1

Changing Strategy, Changing Command

In January of 2009, shortly after Obama took office, he announced that his administration picked Lt. Gen. Karl W.Eikenberry, a former top military commander in Afghanistan, to be the next United States ambassador to Kabul, of

which the New York Times said:

Tapping a career Army officer who will soon retire from the service to fill one of the countrysmost sensitive diplomatic jobs is a highly unusual choice.[18]

Further, the General had repeatedly warned that the United States could not prevail in Afghanistan and defeatglobal terrorism without addressing the havens that fighters with Al Qaeda had established in neighboring Pakistan,which is parallel to the new strategy in Afghanistan. His appointment has the backing of Richard C. Holbrooke,President Obamas special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.[19]

On May 11, Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired General David D. McKiernan, Commander of the InternationalSecurity Assistance Force (ISAF), which commands all NATO forces in Afghanistan. Gates stated that, It's timefor new leadership and fresh eyes, and that it was the Pentagon command which recommended the White House

fire McKiernan, including Gates, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mullen and McKiernans military boss, GeneralPatraeus, Commander of CENTCOM.[20]

There has been much speculation as to the reasons for his firing, and it is a significant question to ask, as the firingof a General in the field is a rarity in the American experience. The general view pushed by the Pentagon was that itwas due to a matter of consistency, as in changing strategies and changing ambassadors, it was also necessary tochange Generals. While McKiernan was focused on military means and tactics, the strategy required counter-insurgency tactics. It was reported that, McKiernan was overly cautious in creating U.S.-backed local militias, atactic that Petraeus had employed when he was the top commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.[21]

One Washington Post article made the claim that the push to fire McKiernan came initially and most forcefully fromthe Chairman of the JCS Mullen, and that Gates agreed and lobbied Obama to fire him. The reasoning was thatMcKiernan was too deferential to NATO in that he wasnt able to properly manage the NATO forces inAfghanistan, and lacked the political fortitude to manage both military and political affairs.[22]

The official reason for the firing was mostly to facilitate alignment with the new strategy requiring a new militarycommander, which is likely true. However, it requires an understanding of the new strategy as well as a look at whowas sent in to replace McKiernan where you realize the true nature of his being fired. [Note: McChrystal himselfwas later fired in 2010 after publicly speaking out against top administration officials].

McKiernan was replaced with Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, former Commander of the Pentagons Joint SpecialOperations Command (JSOC), the highly secretive command of U.S. Special Forces operations. As the WashingtonPost pointed out, his appointment marks the continued ascendancy of officers who have pressed for the use ofcounterinsurgency tactics, in Iraq and Afghanistan, that are markedly different from the Army's traditionaldoctrine.[23]

The new AfPak strategy, which McChrystal would oversee, relies on the kind of special forces and

counterinsurgency tactics McChrystal knows well, as well as nonmilitary approaches to confronting the Taliban. Itwould hinge success in the seven-year-old war to political and other conditions across the border in Pakistan.[24]

In March of 2009, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed that the U.S. military was running an executiveassassination ring during the Bush years, and that the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) was running it,and that, It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently, and that, They donot report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office... Congress hasno oversight of it. He elaborated:


24/34


MIA 24 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1

Under President Bushs authority, theyve been going into countries, not talking to theambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them andleaving. Thats been going on, in the name of all of us.[25]

Hersh appeared on Amy Goodmans program, Democracy Now, to further discuss the program, of which he stated:

Theres moreat least a dozen countries and perhaps more. The President has authorized thesekinds of actions in the Middle East and also in Latin America, I will tell you, Central America,some countries. Theyve beenour boys have been told they can go and take the kind ofexecutive action they need, and thats simplytheres no legal basis for it.[26]

At the time this news story broke, it was reported that the JSOC commander at the time, ordered a halt to mostcommando missions in Afghanistan, reflecting a growing concern that civilian deaths caused by American firepowerare jeopardizing broader goals there. The halt lasted a total of two weeks, and came after a series of nighttimeraids by Special Operations troops in recent months killed women and children.[27]

All of this is very concerning, considering that the new Commander of NATO operations in Afghanistan, was theformer head of the executive assassination ring. Having run JSOC between 2003 and 2008, McChrystal built a

sophisticated network of soldiers and intelligence operatives, which conducted operations and assassinations inIraq, Afghanistan, as well as Pakistan.[28]

In June it was reported that McChrystal was given carte blanche to handpick a dream team of subordinates,including many Special Operations veterans, as he moves to carry out an ambitious new strategy. He was reportedto be assembling a corps of 400 officers and soldiers who will rotate between the United States and Afghanistan fora minimum of three years. The New York Times referred to this strategy as unknown in the military today outsideSpecial Operations. The Times further reported that McChrystal:

picked the senior intelligence adviser to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Maj. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, tojoin him in Kabul as director of intelligence there. In Washington, Brig. Gen. Scott Miller, alongtime Special Operations officer now assigned to the Joint Chiefs of Staff but who hadserved previously under General McChrystal, is now organizing a new Pakistan-AfghanistanCoordination Cell.[29]

In June of 2006, Newsweek referred to McChrystals JSOC as being a part of what Vice President Dick Cheneywas referring to when he said America would have to work the dark side after 9/11. McChrystal also happened tobe a Fellow at Harvard and the Council on Foreign Relations.[30]

As it was later revealed, the CIA had been running from 2002 onwards a force of roughly 3,000 eliteparamilitary Afghans, purportedly to hunt al-Qaeda and the Taliban for the CIA. Used for reconnaissance,surveillance, and actual operations, many in the force have been trained by the CIA in the United States, and theiroperations and numbers have expanded since the new strategy involving Pakistan was put in place. The paramilitaryforce or terrorists, depending upon ones perspective are undertaking covert operations inside Pakistan, oftenworking directly with U.S. Special Forces.[31] It must be remembered that during the Afghan-Soviet war in the1980s when the CIA was funding, arming and training the Afghan Mujahideen to fight the Soviets late to becomeknown as al-Qaeda they were, at the time, referred to as freedom fighters, just as the terrorist death squads

were referred to in Nicaragua. Thus, the nomenclature of paramilitary force must be viewed with suspicion as towhat the group is actually doing: covert operations, surveillance, assassinations, etc., which by many definitionswould make them a terrorist outfit.

In May of 2009, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was reported as saying that a US military offensive insouthern Afghanistan could have the effect of pushing militants and Taliban into Pakistan, whose troops are alreadystruggling to combat militants. Chairman Mike Mullen stated that this means that Pakistan could face even greaterturmoil in the months ahead. This was based off of a US surge of troops in Afghanistan. Senator Russ Feingoldsaid that, We may end up further destabilizing Pakistan without providing substantial lasting improvements in


25/34


MIA 25 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1

Afghanistan, and that, Weak civilian governments, an increased number of militants and an expanded U.S. trooppresence could be a recipe for disaster for those nations in the region as well as our own nation's security. Mullenresponded to the Senators concerns by stating, Can I... (be) 100 percent certain that won't destabilize Pakistan? Idon't know the answer to that.[32]

But of course, the answer is in fact, certain; and its an unequivocal yes. These remarks were made following thesurge of an additional 21,000 US troops to Afghanistan in March. In the beginning of May, Pakistan launched amilitary offensive against the Taliban in Swat and other areas of the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), after apeace deal broke down between them, forcing more than two million people from their homes.[33] It was furtherreported that:

Pakistani military chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani has told U.S. officials he's worried not only aboutTaliban moving across the border, but also the possibility that U.S. forces could prompt anexodus of refugees from southern Afghanistan.[34]

In May, Holbrooke and the American military establishment had pressured the Pakistani government to undertakethe offensive against the Taliban in the Swat Valley, which led to the displacement of more than 2 million people.As the New Yorker put it, Holbrooke was mapping out a new vision for American interests in a volatile region, as

his old friend Henry Kissinger had done in Southeast Asia. And he was positioning himself to be a mediator in aninternational conflict, as he had done in the Balkans.[35]

In September of 2009 a classified report written by General McChrystal was leaked, in which he had concluded,that a successful counterinsurgency strategy will require 500,000 troops over five years.[36] It was furtherreported in September that, the CIA is deploying teams of spies, analysts and paramilitary operatives toAfghanistan, part of a broad intelligence surge that will make its station there among the largest in the agency'shistory, rivaling its stations in Iraq and Vietnam at the height of those wars. The initiative began under pressurefrom Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, and the extra personnel are being employed in a number of ways,including teaming up with Special Forces troops in pursuing high-value targets. Further:

The intelligence expansion goes beyond the CIA to involve every major spy service, officialssaid, including the National Security Agency, which intercepts calls and e-mails, as well as theDefense Intelligence Agency, which tracks military threats.[37]

In October of 2009, it was reported by the Washington Post that although Obama announced a troop surge inAfghanistan of 21,000 additional troops, in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized -- and thePentagon is deploying -- at least 13,000 troops beyond that number. It was reported that these additional forceswere primarily made up of support forces, including engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts and militarypolice. Thus, it brings the total 2009 surge in Afghanistan to 34,000 US troops. Thus as of October 2009, therewere 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan (more than double the amount of when Bush left office), and 124,000 UStroops in Iraq.[38]

In early October, Henry Kissinger wrote an article for Newsweek in which he proposed a strategy for the US inAfghanistan, in which he initially made it clear that he supported General McChrystals proposal of sending anadditional 40,000 troops to Afghanistan. Kissinger proclaimed that calls for an exit strategy were a metaphor forwithdrawal, which is tantamount to abandonment. Clearly, Kissinger favours a long-term presence. He stated that

even a victory may not permit troop withdrawals, citing the case of South Korea. Kissinger further wrote on theoptions for Afghan strategy, stating:

A negotiation with the [Taliban] might isolate Al Qaeda and lead to its defeat, in return for notchallenging the Taliban in the governance of Afghanistan. After all, it was the Taliban whichprovided bases for Al Qaeda in the first place.

This theory seems to me to be too clever by half. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are unlikely to beable to be separated so neatly geographically. It would also imply the partition of Afghanistan


26/34


MIA 26 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1

along functional lines, for it is highly improbable that the civic actions on which our policies arebased could be carried out in areas controlled by the Taliban. Even so-called realistslike mewould gag at a tacit U.S. cooperation with the Taliban in the governance of Afghanistan.[39]

Kissinger further claimed that a reduction of forces in Afghanistan would fundamentally affect domestic stability in

Pakistan by freeing the Qaeda forces along the Afghan border for even deeper incursions into Pakistan, threateningdomestic chaos, and that, the prospects of world order will be greatly affected by whether our strategy comes to beperceived as a retreat from the region, or a more effective way to sustain it.[40]

He further explained that any attempts to endow the central government with overriding authority could produceresistance, which would be ironic if, by following the received counterinsurgency playbook too literally, weproduced another motive for civil war. Kissinger thus proposed a strategy not aimed at control from Kabul, butrather, emphasis needs to be given to regional efforts and regional militia. Kissinger explained the regionalimportance of Afghanistan, and thus, the challenge of American strategy:

The special aspect of Afghanistan is that it has powerful neighbors or near neighborsPakistan,India, China, Russia, Iran. Each is threatened in one way or another and, in many respects, morethan we are by the emergence of a base for international terrorism: Pakistan by Al Qaeda; India

by general jihadism and specific terror groups; China by fundamentalist Shiite jihadists inXinjiang; Russia by unrest in the Muslim south; even Iran by the fundamentalist Sunni Taliban.Each has substantial capacities for defending its interests. Each has chosen, so far, to stand moreor less aloof.[41]

In November of 2009, Malalai Joya, a former Afghan MP and one of the few female political leaders inAfghanistan, said that:

Eight years ago, the U.S. and NATOunder the banner of women's rights, human rights, anddemocracyoccupied my country and pushed us from the frying pan into the fire . . . Eightyears is enough to know better about the corrupt, mafia system of [President] Hamid Karzai . . .My people are crushed between two powerful enemies . . . From the sky, occupation forcesbomb and kill civilians... and on the ground, the Taliban and warlords continue their crimes . . .It is better that they leave my country; my people are that fed up . . . Occupation will never bring

liberation, and it is impossible to bring democracy by war.[42]

In late November, Pakistani Premier Yousuf Raza Gilani warned that the US's decision to send thousands of extratroops to Afghanistan may destabilize his country, as it would likely lead to a spill over of militants insidePakistan. In particular, it could force militants and Taliban to migrate into Pakistans southern province ofBalochistan.[43]

On December 1, President Obama announced that the U.S. would send an additional 30,000 US troops toAfghanistan by summer 2010, and with a plan to purportedly withdraw by July 2011. As the Washington Postreported, adding 30,000 U.S. troops to the roughly 70,000 that are in Afghanistan now amounts to most of whatGen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces there, requested at the end of August.Obama stated that the chief objective was to destroy al-Qaeda, and a senior administration official said that, thegoal for the Afghan army, for example, is to increase its ranks from 90,000 to 134,000 by the end of 2010.[44]

President Karzai said in early December that, Afghanistan's security forces will need U.S. support for another 15 to20 years, and that, it would take five years for his forces to assume responsibility for security throughout thecountry.[45] This statement supports the conclusions set out in McChrystals classified report, which stated that theUS would need to remain for at least 5 years.

Seth Jones, a civilian adviser to the U.S. military and senior political scientist at RAND Corporation, one ofAmericas top defense think tanks, wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in December titled, Take the War toPakistan. He stated that the U.S. is repeating the same mistakes of the Soviets when they occupied Afghanistan in


27/34


MIA 27 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1

the 1980s by not attacking the Taliban sanctuary in Pakistans Baluchistan province. He stated that, Thissanctuary is critical because the Afghan war is organized and run out of Baluchistan. He then proclaimed that, theUnited States and Pakistan must target Taliban leaders in Baluchistan, which could include conducting raids intoPakistani territory or hit Taliban leaders with drone strikes.[46]

As Jeremy Scahill reported in June 2009, more than 240,000 contractor employees, about 80 percent of themforeign nationals, are working in Iraq and Afghanistan to support operations and projects of the U.S. military, theDepartment of State, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Scahill reported on the findings of aDefense Department report on contracting work in the war zones, stating that, there has been a 23% increase in thenumber of Private Security Contractors working for the Department of Defense in Iraq in the second quarter of2009 and a 29% increase in Afghanistan, which correlates to the build up of forces in the country. Whilecontractors outnumbered forces in Afghanistan, in Iraq they were roughly equal to the US forces occupying thecountry, at 130,000.[47]

It was reported that as Obama ordered more troops to Afghanistan in December of 2009, a new surge of contractorswould follow suit. As of June 2009, the number of contractors in Afghanistan outweighed the US military presenceitself, with 73,968 contractors and 55,107 troops. According to different estimates, Between 7% and 16% of thetotal are Blackwater-style private security contractors. As of December 2009, the number of contractors in

Afghanistan was reported to be 104,100.[48]

In January of 2010, as Obamas announced 30,000 extra troops began to be deployed to Afghanistan, Pakistaniofficials became increasingly fearful that a stepped-up war just over the border could worsen the increasinglybloody struggle with militancy within Pakistan itself, ultimately further destabilizing Pakistans southwesternborder and the already volatile tribal areas in the northwest. On top of sending militants into Pakistan, there werefears that it would exacerbate the flow of Afghan refugees into Pakistani territory.[49]

Blackwater and the Secret War in Pakistan

In November of 2009, investigative journalist and best-selling author Jeremy Scahill wrote an exclusive report onthe secret war of the United States in Pakistan. The story sheds light on the American strategy in the region aimed atthe destabilization and ultimately the implosion of Pakistan. The chief architects and administrators of this policy inPakistan are none other than the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), previously run as an executive

assassination ring by General McChrystal, and the infamous mercenary organization, Blackwater, now known asXe Services. JSOC and Blackwater work together covertly in undertaking a covert war in yet another nation in theregion, adding to the list of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Scahill described the covert operations as targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, aswell as other sensitive action inside and outside Pakistan. Further, the Blackwater operatives also assist ingathering intelligence and help direct a secret US military drone bombing campaign that runs parallel to the well-documented CIA predator strikes. The sources for the report are drawn heavily from individuals within the USmilitary intelligence apparatus. One source revealed that the program is so compartmentalized that senior figureswithin the Obama administration and the US military chain of command may not be aware of its existence. Thisprogram is also separate from the CIAs own programs, including both drone attacks and assassinations, of whichthe CIA assassination program was said to be cancelled in June of 2009.

It was in 2006 that JSOC reached an agreement with the Pakistani government to run operations within the country,back when Stanley McChrystal was running it in close cooperation with Vice President Dick Cheney as anexecutive assassination ring. A former Blackwater executive confirmed that Blackwater was operating in Pakistanin cooperation with both the CIA and JSOC, as well as being on a subcontract for the Pakistani government itself, aswell as working for the Pakistani government on a subcontract with an Islamabad-based security firm that puts USBlackwater operatives on the ground with Pakistani forces in counter-terrorism operations, including house raids andborder interdictions, in the North-West Frontier Province and elsewhere in Pakistan.

JSOCs covert program in liaison with Blackwater in Pakistan dates back to 2007, and the operations are


28/34


MIA 28 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1

coordinated out of the US Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, and that Blackwater operates at an ultra-exclusive levelabove top secret. The contracts are all kept secret, and therefore shielded from public oversight. On top ofcarrying out operations for JSOC and the CIA inside Pakistan, Blackwater further conducts operations inUzbekistan.

In regards to the drone strikes within Pakistan, while largely reported as being a part of the CIA drone program,many are, in fact, undertaken under a covert parallel JSOC program. One intelligence source told Jeremy Scahillthat, when you see some of these hits, especially the ones with high civilian casualties, those are almost alwaysJSOC strikes. Further, Blackwater is involved in the drone strike program with JSOC, Contractors and especiallyJSOC personnel working under a classified mandate are not [overseen by Congress], so they just don't care. If there'sone person they're going after and there's thirty-four people in the building, thirty-five people are going to die. That'sthe mentality. Blackwater further provides security for many secret US drone bases, as well as JSOC camps andDefense Intelligence Agency (DIA) camps within Pakistan.

With General McChrystals rise from JSOC Commander to Commander of the Afghan war theatre (which inmilitary-strategic terms now includes Pakistan under the umbrella of AfPak), there is a concomitant rise inJSOC's power and influence within the military structure. McChrystal had overseen JSOC during the majority ofthe Bush years, where he worked very closely and directly with Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense

Donald Rumsfeld. As Seymour Hersh had exposed, JSOC operated as an executive assassination ring and hadcaused many problematic diplomatic situations for the United States, as even the State Department wasnt informedabout their operations. One high-level State Department official was quoted as saying:

The only way we found out about it is our ambassadors started to call us and say, 'Who the hellare these six-foot-four white males with eighteen-inch biceps walking around our capital cities?'So we discovered this, we discovered one in South America, for example, because he actuallymurdered a taxi driver, and we had to get him out of there real quick. We rendered him--werendered him home.[50]

Blackwater is also involved in providing security for a US-backed aid project in a region of Pakistan, whichimplies that even some aid projects are connected with military and intelligence operations, often using them as acover for covert operations. Blackwater still operates in Afghanistan working for the US military, the StateDepartment and the CIA. As one military-intelligence official stated:

Having learned its lessons after the private security contracting fiasco in Iraq, Blackwater hasshifted its operational focus to two venues: protecting things that are in danger and anticipatingother places we're going to go as a nation that are dangerous.[51]

Mmuch of Scahills information has been supported by other mainstream news sources. In August of 2009, the NewYork Times reported that in 2004, the CIA hired outside contractors from the private security contractorBlackwater USA as part of a secret program to locate and assassinate top operatives of Al Qaeda. The CIA hadheld high-level meetings with Blackwater founder and former Navy SEAL Erik Prince. The article also revealed thatin 2002, Blackwater had been awarded the contract to handle security for the CIA station in Afghanistan, and thecompany maintains other classified contracts with the C.I.A. Blackwater has hired several former CIA officials,including Cofer Black, who ran the C.I.A. counterterrorism center immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks.[52]

On December 10, 2009, the New York Times reported that in both Afghanistan and Iraq, Blackwater participatedin some of the C.I.A.s most sensitive activities clandestine raids with agency officers against people suspected ofbeing insurgents. These raids, referred to as snatch and grab operations, occurred almost nightly between 2004and 2006, and that, involvement in the operations became so routine that the lines supposedly dividing the CentralIntelligence Agency, the military and Blackwater became blurred. One former CIA official was quoted as saying,There was a feeling that Blackwater eventually became an extension of the agency. Further, Blackwater wasreported to have provided security not only for the CIA station in Afghanistan, but also in Iraq; and in bothcountries, Blackwater personnel accompanied the [CIA] officers even on offensive operations sometimes begun inconjunction with Delta Force or Navy Seals teams.[53]


29/34


MIA 29 | P a g e J u l y 2 , 2 0 1 1

In late August it was reported that Blackwater had a CIA contract to operate the remotely piloted drones, carried outat hidden bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as provide security at the bases.[54] In December, the NewYork Times ran a story reporting that the CIA had terminated its contract with Blackwater that allowed thecompany to load bombs on C.I.A. drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan. However, while the CIA claimed that all

Blackwater contracts were under review, a CIA spokesperson said that, At this time, Blackwater is not involved inany C.I.A. operations other than in a security or support role,[55] which is still a very wide role, considering howthe roles have been blurred between providing security and actively taking part in missions.

As the Guardian reported in December of 2009, Blackwater had a contract in Pakistan to manage the constructionof a training facility for the paramilitary Frontier Corps, just outside Peshawar, which is the Pakistani Armysparamilitary force.[56] Despite a continual official denial of Blackwater involvement in Pakistan, in December, theCIA admitted Blackwater operates in Pakistan under CIA contracts,[57] and in January of 2010, US DefenseSecretary Robert Gates confirmed that both Blackwater (now known as Xe Services) and DynCorp have beenoperating in Pakistan.[58]

However, some reports indicate that Blackwater may be involved in even more nefarious activities inside Pakistan.A former head of Pakistanis intelligence services, the ISI, stated in an interview that apart from simply taking part

in drone attacks, Blackwater may be involved in actions that destabilize the country. Elaborating, he said, Myassessment is that they [Blackwater agents] either themselves or most probably through others, through the locals do carry out some of the explosions, and that, the idea is to carry out such actions, like carrying attacks in thecivilian areas to make the others look bad in the eyes of the public. In other words, according to the former head ofthe ISI, Blackwater may be involved in committing false flag terrorist attacks inside Pakistan.[59]

In November of 2009, Al-Jazeera reported that while many attacks occurring across Pakistan are blamed on theTehreek e-Taliban, Pakistans Taliban, the group has issued its first video statement denying involvement intargeting civilians and has blamed external forces for at least two recent blasts. The denial stated that the attacks arebeing used as an excuse to prepare for military operations in various tribal regions of Pakistan, including SouthWaziristan. The denial also stated that the Pakistani Taliban had no role in the bomb blast in a Peshawar marketthat killed at least 100 people as well as an attack in Charsada, a town located in Pakistan's North West FrontierProvince. The spokesperson claimed that the Pakistani Taliban does not target civilians, and that the bombingswere linked to Blackwater activities in the country. Even when the bombings initially occurred the Taliban denied

involvement, and the local media was blaming Blackwater and other American agencies.[60]

The head of the Pakistani Taliban had previously stated that, if Taliban can carry out attacks in Islamabad andtarget Pakistan army's headquarters, then why should they target general public, and proceeded to blame the bombblast in Peshawar that killed 108 people on Blackwater and Pakistani agencies [that] are involved in attacks inpublic places to blame the militants. He was further quoted as saying, Our war is against the government and thesecurity forces and not against the people. We are not involved in blasts.[61]

In January of 2010, it was reported that Blackwater is in the running for a Pentagon contract potentially worth $1billion to train Afghanistan's troubled national police force, as Blackwater already trains the Afghan border police an arm of the national police and drug interdiction units in volatile southern Afghanistan.[62]

As Jeremy Scahill reported in August of 2009 on a legal case against Blackwater, where a former Blackwater

mercenary and an ex-US Marine have made a series of explosive allegations in sworn statements filed on August 3in federal court in Virginia. Among the claims:

The two men claim that the company's owner,

Documents

Occults Powers Decided to Punish Pakistan