Thread for the discussion of India and Pakistan.
Original thread found here - The India / Pakistan war thread
Printable View
Thread for the discussion of India and Pakistan.
Original thread found here - The India / Pakistan war thread
I guess it's a good thing this thread hasn't had any posts since I started it in 2005 but, here's some breaking news…
India-Pakistan Crossfire Continues Along Kashmir Border
Quote:
Indian and Pakistani soldiers traded fire across the heavily armed Kashmir frontier for more than 12 hours overnight and into Tuesday in what the Indian army called the worst violation of a 2003 cease-fire agreement between the nuclear-armed neighbors.
The night-long gunbattle came after one Indian soldier and four Pakistanis were killed Monday along the heavily armed frontier that divides Indian- and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, the Indian army said. Pakistan denied its soldiers were killed.
No further casualties were reported Tuesday.
India and Pakistan have fought two of their three wars over Kashmir. However, the frontier has been largely quiet since a 2003 cease-fire agreement, which has formed the cornerstone of a peace process between the two countries.
"This is the biggest violation of the cease-fire in the last five years," said Lt. Col. Anil Kumar Mathur, an army spokesman. "We've sought a meeting with the Pakistani army to protest the violation."
By noon the gunfire had ended, Mathur said.
The Indian army said the fighting Monday began when Pakistani troops crossed the frontier and opened fire.
But Pakistani army officials denied this Tuesday and blamed the incident on Indian soldiers trying to build a post on Pakistan's side.
Pakistan army's top spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, said the army has evidence of the Indian army crossing the Line of Control, the cease-fire line that serves as the de facto border.
"This will not in any way any help the confidence-building measures that are being taken but it will deteriorate the situation," he said on Pakistan's Geo TV.
Brig. Gopala Krishnan Murali, an Indian army officer, dismissed the Pakistani claims as "baseless allegations."
Indian and Pakistani commanders of the area where the shooting occurred met Tuesday to discuss how to ease the tension, said officials from both sides.
Indian officers proposed a joint inspection of the shooting site and are awaiting a response from their Pakistani counterparts, Murali said.
While the border has been largely quiet in recent years there have been an increase of incidents in recent months.
Both sides have blamed the other for violating the cease-fire and New Delhi has accused Islamabad of helping Islamic rebels sneak into its part of Kashmir, a charge Islamabad denies.
Nearly a dozen Islamic rebel groups have been fighting since 1989 for Kashmir's independence from India or its merger with Pakistan. More than 68,000 people, most of them civilians, have been killed in the conflict.
India, Pakistan: The Dynamics of Conflict
December 3, 2008 | 1727 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/mmf/128328/two_column
TAUSEEF MUSTAFA/AFP/Getty Images
Indian soldiers standing along the Indian side of the Line of Control in Kashmir
Summary
Judging from the manner in which India is building a case for military action against Islamist militant facilities in Pakistan in response to the Nov. 26 attacks in Mumbai, it is likely that the Indians will exercise their option to use force. If and when that happens, it is likely to begin with artillery fire and airstrikes against militant camps in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Given that this is a red line for the Pakistanis, Islamabad is likely to respond, and the resulting situation could easily create a bigger security problem for India.
Analysis
Although a military confrontation between India and Pakistan in the wake of the Nov. 26 militant attacks in Mumbai is not a foregone conclusion, the domestic situation within India and Islamabad’s likely inability to placate Indian concerns make such a confrontation a possibility. Furthermore, U.S. strikes against Islamist militant facilities in Pakistan’s northwestern tribal badlands and the North-West Frontier Province provide a precedent of sorts for India to take similar action across its northwestern border with Pakistan.
So what can be expected in the event of an outbreak of hostilities?
New Delhi is not interested in any major escalation and would likely prefer to limit the strikes to Pakistan-administered Kashmir, where groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba are based. The United States has argued that Islamabad’s writ is almost nonexistent in the Federally Administered Tribal Area; India can make a similar claim about Pakistan’s Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK). The Pakistanis consider the entire region of Kashmir disputed territory, while the Indians claim it as their own and consider AJK to be Pakistan-occupied.
http://www.stratfor.com/mmf/128347
(Click image to enlarge)
Even the border between the two countries in this region is referred to as the Line of Control (LoC) and is distinct from the international boundary between the two states that runs along the Pakistani provinces of Punjab and Sindh. But the problem is that any crossing of the LoC would likely trigger a Pakistani response that could escalate quickly into a full-blown war spreading beyond the LoC to the international boundary. While it can turn a blind eye to U.S. strikes in its northwestern Pashtun areas, Pakistan cannot afford to ignore similar moves on the part of India, which the Pakistanis view as the main threat to their security, especially considering the Pakistani state’s current significant weakness.
Complicating matters further is the fact that India and Pakistan are both nuclear powers. Neither side has any interest in creating a nuclear conflict, of course. But should India push too deeply and too aggressively, Pakistan might begin to perceive an existential threat to the state — and that is a very dangerous line to cross. Currently, a nuclear exchange still seems like a stretch, but it is a dynamic that cannot be ignored.
Though the last major war between the two countries was fought 37 years ago, India and Pakistan have engaged in limited combat in the Kashmir region more recently. In the 2001-2002 crisis, and much more significantly during the 1999 Kargil War, Indian and Pakistani forces traded fire along the LoC. However, Indian forces did not cross the LoC, even though Pakistani forces and a legion of irregular Kashmiri Islamist militant guerrillas had crossed into and occupied high-altitude positions in Indian territory during the Kargil War.
But while airstrikes and artillery barrages are one thing, fighting in some of the highest mountains in the world is something else entirely. Both Pakistan and India maintain troops in Kashmir and train in mountain warfare, and the two countries have fought pitched battles in the disputed territory. But it is not yet clear that India intends to put boots on the ground in Pakistani territory. Furthermore, India has only blunt instruments at its disposal. While the United States has armed unmanned aerial vehicles capable of precision strikes, India would have to use a greater number of less-precise munitions to engage any potential targets, and manned fighter aircraft would mark a much more overt intrusion into Pakistani airspace. The potential for collateral damage and escalation would be high.
Pakistan could respond with combat air patrols, artillery and airstrikes of its own — responses that could quickly escalate into a conventional ground war. Islamabad also has the option of unleashing Kashmiri and other irregulars that are still fully under its control, such as the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, which remains the mainstay of Kashmiri insurgents on both sides of the LoC. Because India’s interest in the use of force is related to satisfying domestic political concerns and trying to degrade the capabilities of the militant actors that pose a threat to its security, the threat of a counter-response is a major quandary.
Ultimately, militant Islamist elements go much deeper into Pakistani territory and the Pakistani population than Kashmir, and thus India cannot achieve security through military strikes in Pakistan-administered Kashmir alone. Indeed, it cannot solve the problem through military force alone. In fact, the danger is that a broader war could create Afghanistan-like conditions in Pakistan, which is not in New Delhi’s interest.
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/200...amics_conflict
Amid growing tensions between India and Pakistan following the 11/26 Mumbai terror attacks, Pakistani nuclear scientist Dr. Samar Mubarakmand spoke of the readiness of Pakistani missiles and of their capability to target Indian cities. Dr. Mubarakmand, who has steered the Pakistani nuclear program for the past several decades alongside disgraced nuclear scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, expressed his views during a talk show.December 4, 2008 No. 2138
Pakistani Nuclear Scientist: 'None Of India's Cities Can Remain Safe From Our Missiles'; 'Our Missile System… Can Be Fired in Only 10 Minutes – They Are On the Launchers'
Following are excerpts from the interview, as published in the Urdu-language Pakistani newspaper Roznama Express: (1)
"Pakistan's nuclear assets are in safe hands.
"Every Indian city is on the target of our missiles, and [Pakistan's] atomic technology is better than that of India. [We] can fire the missiles at only 10 minutes' notice...
"I am very satisfied with the defense preparedness. As long as [we] didn't have nuclear weapons, India had a three and a half advantage [over Pakistan]. But this advantage was levelled when we conducted the nuclear testing.
"Following the nuclear testing, we tested missiles like the Shaheen, the Ghaznavi, the Shaheen II, and the Ghauri. After this, India's tone and language [vis-à-vis Pakistan] changed...
"The nuclear tests carried out by India were of eight to 10 tons, whereas our [atomic tests] were of 25 to 30 tons, and the one we conducted in Kharan [Desert, in Baluchistan] were of 10 to 12 tons. This is why our weapons are better [than India's]...
"Our Shaheen missiles hit targets [during testing]; the world recognized their delivery system. None of India's cities can remain safe from our missiles... Pakistan's width is less than India's, which is 1,200 to 1,400 kilometers. Therefore, no corner of India is safe from the Shaheen II...
"We have also developed cruise missiles. And Pakistan is the fourth country in the world to have cruise missiles...
"We should talk to India strongly... Even while giving the message of friendship, we should make [Indians] realize that we are not weak...
"Being a small nation, if we abandon the option... to launch a nuclear attack, then there won't be any use of the second option. This way you end one advantage...
"Our missile system is ready, [and] can be fired in only 10 minutes – they are on the launchers..."
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD213808
Maybe this should go in the other thread - the one about India and Pakistan fighting.....
?
Can you squeeze it in for me? :)
Pakistan: We're ready for war with India
Pakistan warned it is ready for war with India if it is attacked following the strike by the Mumbai terrorists.
Last Updated: 12:13PM GMT 09 Dec 2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph...a_1202050c.jpg
A peace vigil in honour of those who died in the Mumbai attacks is held in the Indian city of Bhopal Photo: Reuters
The remarks by Pakistan's foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, who also insisted he would not hand over any suspects in the Mumbai attacks, come amid mounting tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbours.
India has said it is keeping all options open following last month's carnage by the Mumbai terrorists, who killed more than 170 people.
"We do not want to impose war, but we are fully prepared in case war is imposed on us," said Mr Qureshi.
"We are not oblivious to our responsibilities to defend our homeland. But it is our desire that there should be no war."
Indian officials say the hardline Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) group, which is based in Pakistan despite being banned by the government, is behind the bloodshed, and Indian media have suggested there could be Indian strikes on militant camps.
Mr Qureshi said he was sending "a very clear message" that his country did not want conflict with India.
"We want friendship, we want peace and we want stability - but our desire for peace should not be considered Pakistan's weakness."
The minister also said that India's demands for the extradition of suspects in the Mumbai attacks were out of the question and that Pakistan, which has arrested 16 people since Saturday, would keep them on home soil.
"The arrests are being made for our own investigations. Even if allegations are proved against any suspect, he will not be handed over to India,"
Qureshi said. "We will proceed against those arrested under Pakistani laws."
India and Pakistan have fought three wars since independence from Britain and nearly came to a fourth in 2001 after an attack on the Indian parliament that was blamed on LeT.
Under international pressure to act, Pakistan raided a camp run by a charity, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, that many believe has close links to LeT, and arrested 15 people.
The authorities are questioning Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, the alleged mastermind of the Mumbai attacks, who was among those arrested at the weekend.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ith-India.html
Got the threads merged...
Thanks!!! :)
Armed forces are put on war alert
Josy Joseph
Wednesday, December 10, 2008 04:02 IST
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafi...7E89F3C4AC.jpg
NEW DELHI: In the sort of “high alert” last seen during Operation Parakram, launched after the December 13, 2001, attack on Parliament, the armed forces, especially the air force and the navy, have been kept in a state of war readiness. There has been no massive mobilisation of troops on the border, though.
While Indian Air Force (IAF) fighters have been mounted with bombs and kept in a state of readiness to take off within minutes, almost the entire western naval fleet is aggressively patrolling the Arabian Sea.
The military was moved into this state of heightened alert within 24 hours of the terror attack on Mumbai, which began on November 26. When it became clear that the terrorists were Pakistanis, the government ordered the mobilisation.
According to a source, the IAF has recalled senior officers from leave, moved some of its missile formations forward, and armed its fighters with missiles. Pilots have been put on standby in operational rooms.
To justify the state of war readiness, the government spoke of the possibility of a 911-style attack on India. At a meeting with the three service chiefs, defence minister AK Antony cautioned them to take measures to thwart such an attack. But a source said the alert was a cover to justify India’s exceptional military mobilisation.
The forces have been put on high alert to back up India’s diplomatic efforts to get Pakistan to crack down on terrorists on its soil.
The IAF says it is in state of “passive air defence (PAD)”, which means it is geared to take any measure to defend the country’s assets. Under PAD, all platforms, including fighters, are kept operationally ready, armed with missiles, and pilots are prepared to fly at a moment’s notice.
During Operation Parakram, the air force was kept on “active air defence”, which means it was in a state of readiness to destroy enemy assets.
The source said the IAF has reduced the number of personnel on leave to just 10% from the average 30% of its total strength and recalled several key officers from leave. In the western and southwestern air commands, which cover the Pakistani border, all leave has been cancelled. The state of high alert extends to air stations in the South.
According to the source, besides fully arming fighters and placing pilots in operational rooms, the IAF has moved some missile units close to the Pakistan border. These are primarily surface-to-air missiles and other air-defence assets that can shoot down any incoming threat.
Meanwhile, the navy’s western command based in Mumbai has also been put on a state of high alert, with nearly two dozen warships patrolling the Arabian Sea.
A source said that drawing from the experience of Operation Parakram, it was decided not to carry out massive troop movements on the border. The mobilisation of ground forces, started after the 2001 attack, achieved little and was called off on October 16, 2002. This time the government has put in place a more “opaque” military mobilisation.
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?n...12788&pageid=0
Creating an "Arc of Crisis": The Destabilization of the Middle East and Central Asia
The Mumbai Attacks and the “Strategy of Tension”
by Andrew G. Marshall
http://www.globalresearch.ca/coverSt...ures/11313.jpg Global Research, December 7, 2008
Introduction
The recent attacks in Mumbai, while largely blamed on Pakistan’s state-sponsored militant groups, represent the latest phase in a far more complex and long-term “strategy of tension” in the region; being employed by the Anglo-American-Israeli Axis to ultimately divide and conquer the Middle East and Central Asia. The aim is destabilization of the region, subversion and acquiescence of the region’s countries, and control of its economies, all in the name of preserving the West’s hegemony over the “Arc of Crisis.”
The attacks in India are not an isolated event, unrelated to growing tensions in the region. They are part of a processof unfolding chaos that threatens to engulf an entire region, stretching from the Horn of Africa to India: the “Arc of Crisis,” as it has been known in the past.
The motives and modus operandi of the attackers must be examined and questioned, and before quickly asserting blame to Pakistan, it is necessary to step back and review:
Who benefits? Who had the means? Who had to motive? In whose interest is it to destabilize the region? Ultimately, the roles of the United States, Israel and Great Britain must be submitted to closer scrutiny.
The Mumbai Attacks: 11/26/08
On November 26, 2008, a number of coordinated terrorist attacks occurred across India’s main commercial city of Mumbai, which lasted until November 29. The attacks and three-day siege that ensued left hundreds dead, and roughly 295 others injured. Among the dead were a Briton, five Americans and six Israelis.[1]
http://www.globalresearch.ca/article...iliate_138.jpg
Asserting the Blame
The 60-hour siege that engulfed Mumbai was reportedly undertaken by just ten, well-trained “commando killers.” Most blame has fallen on the heels of the group known as Lashkar-e-Taiba.[2]
At first, a previously-unheard of organization, known as the Deccan Mujahideen, took responsibility for the terror attacks when it sent emails to several news outlets a mere six hours after the fighting began. However, much skepticism remained about whether the group actually even exists.[3]
British intelligence then claimed that the attacks had the “hallmarks” of Al-Qaeda as it was undertaken in an effort to target westerners, similar to the 2002 Bali Bombings. British intelligence officials suggested the attacks were in “retaliation” for the recent US air attacks of suspected Al-Qaeda camps in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region, and that India was chosen as the target because that is where Al-Qaeda has “sufficient resources to carry out an attack.”[4]
On November 28, India’s foreign minister said the attackers were coordinated “outside the country,” in a veiled reference to Pakistan.[5] India’s Prime Minister also blamed the attacks on militant groups based in Pakistan, which are supported by the Pakistani government.[6]
Then, the focus was put directly on the group, the Lashkar-e-Taiba, a militant Pakistani-based organization responsible for past attacks in India. American intelligence early on pointed the finger at this group, as well as identifying the Pakistani ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) as its supporter.[7]
The Lashkar-e Taiba (LeT)
It is important to identify what the LeT is and how it has operated historically. The group operates out of the disputed territories between India and Pakistan, Jammu and Kashmir. It has close ties with the Pakistani ISI, and is largely known for its use of suicide attacks. However, aside from its links to the ISI, it is also closely allied with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The LeT is even referred to as the “most visible manifestation” of Al-Qaeda in India. It has branches across much of India, Pakistan, and in Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, South East Asia, and the United Kingdom. It primarily gets its funding from Pakistani businessmen, the ISI and Saudi Arabia. The LeT also took part in the Bosnian campaign against the Serbs in the 1990s.[8]
All the above-mentioned connections make the LeT the most desirable outfit to blame for the Mumbai attacks, as its Al-Qaeda connections, international presence and historical precedents of terror attacks set it up as the perfect target. Much like with Al-Qaeda, the LeT’s international scope could serve as a basis for taking a “war against LeT” to the steps of many countries, thus further serving the interests of the Anglo-American “War on Terror.”
Militant Islam and Western Intelligence – The Case of Yugoslavia:p> :p>
The LeT has not operated independently of Pakistani influence and finances. It’s close relationship with the ISI must be viewed in context: the ISI has a close relationship with Western intelligence agencies, primarily those of Great Britain and the United States. The ISI has effectively acted as a conduit for Anglo-American intelligence operations in the region since the late 1970s, when the Afghan Mujahedeen were created in collusion with the CIA. Out of this collusion, lasting throughout the 1980s until the end of the Soviet-Afghan War in 1989, Al-Qaeda was created, as well as a series of other militant Islamic organizations.
It is often stated that the CIA then discontinued its relationship with the ISI, and in turn, that the militant Islamic organizations broke off from their Western intelligence sponsors to declare war against the West. However, the facts do not support this. The ties remained, but the strategy changed. What changed was that in the early 1990s, the Cold War ended, and Russia no longer was the “Evil Empire,” and thus the excuse for an exacerbated defence budget and imperialist foreign policy receded. As George H.W. Bush declared, it was during this time that we would see the formation of the “New World Order.” And with that, there was a need for a new, elusive enemy, not in the form of a nation, but a seemingly invisible enemy, international in scale, thus taking the war to an international arena.
So in the early 1990s, Western intelligence maintained its ties to these Islamic terrorist groups. Yugoslavia is a very important case to analyze in relation to current events. The break-up of Yugoslavia was a process undertaken by Anglo-American covert interests with the aim of serving their imperial ambitions in the region. In the early 1980s, the IMF set the stage in Yugoslavia with its Structural Adjustment Programs, which had the effect of creating an economic crisis, which in turn created a political crisis. This exacerbated ethnic rivalries, and in 1991, the CIA supported the Croat move for independence.
In 1992, with the start of the Bosnian War, Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists began operating with the ethnic Bosnian Muslim minority in fighting the Serbs. In turn, these Al-Qaeda affiliated groups were supported with training, arming, and finances by German, Turkish, Iranian and US intelligence agencies; with additional financial support from Saudi Arabia. In 1997, the Kosovo War began, in which the militant-terrorist-drug trafficking Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) began fighting against Serbia, with training, arms and financial support from the US and other NATO countries. The CIA, German intelligence, the DIA, MI6 and British Special Forces (SAS) all provided training and support to the KLA.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/article...ugo_416fix.gif
Yugoslavia - Before and After Balkanization
The aim was in breaking up Yugoslavia, using ethnic rivalries as the trigger for regional conflict and ultimately war, leading to the dissolution of Yugoslavia into several countries, justifying a permanent US and NATO military presence in the region. [See: Breaking Yugoslavia, by Andrew G. Marshall, Geopolitical Monitor, July 21, 2008]
The Lashkar-e Taiba’s participation in the Bosnian War against Serbia would have in turn been financed and supported by these various Western intelligence agencies, thus serving the interests of Western Imperialist states; primarily those of Great Britain and the United States.
The LeT and Western Intelligence
The LeT has a sordid history of involvement with Western intelligence agencies, primarily those of Great Britain.
With the London 7/7 bombings [July 7, 2005] in which three underground stations and a double-decker bus had bombs explode on them; many of the suspected terrorists had interesting connections to Pakistan. For example, one of the suspects, Shehzad Tanweer, had apparently “attended a religious school run by the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT)” while in Pakistan. Due to the LeT’s ties with Al-Qaeda, this allowed for the conclusion to be drawn that Al-Qaeda may have played a part in the London bombings, which were initially blamed on the international terrorist organization. The LeT also has close ties with the Jemaah Islamiyyah (JI),[9] an Indonesian terrorist organization, which was blamed for the 2002 Bali bombings, which also targeted tourists in Indonesia.
The Bali Bombings
Interesting to note, however, is that in the early 1990’s, when the Jemaah Islamiyyah (JI) was officially formed into a terrorist organization, it developed close ties with Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Further, the organizations founders and leaders played a significant role in recruiting Muslims to join the Afghan Mujahideen in the war against the Soviets during the 1980’s, which was covertly directed and supported by US, British and various other Western intelligence agencies. The JI wouldn’t exist “without the CIA’s dirty operations in Afghanistan.” A former Indonesian President stated that one of JI’s key individuals was also a spy for the Indonesian intelligence agency, and that Indonesian intelligence played a more central role in the Bali bombings than the JI itself.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/article...8636_45953.jpg
Bali Bombings
The JI itself, had reportedly been infiltrated by the CIA, Israeli Mossad, and that “the CIA and the Mossad, assisted by the Australian Special Action Police (SAP) and the M15 of England, are all working towards undermining Muslim organizations in an attempt to weaken the Muslims globally.” Further, one of JI’s key planners of the Bali bombings, Omar al-Faruq, was reportedly a CIA asset, and even senior Indonesian intelligence officials believed the CIA was behind the Bali bombings. The CIA subsequently “guided” Indonesia’s investigation into the bombings, which found the JI, and the JI alone, responsible for the attacks. [See: Andrew G. Marshall, The Bali Bombings. Geopolitical Monitor, November 15, 2008]
London 7/7
Much of the focus of the London bombings of July 7, 2005 (7/7), was focused on the “Pakistani connection.” The suspected bombers had all visited Pakistan, and apparently developed contacts with groups such as Jaish-e-Mohammed and the Lashkar-e Taiba. However, a less known and less publicized connection yields some very interesting information. The suspected mastermind of the London bombings, Haroon Rashid Aswat, had visited all the suspected bombers leading up to the attacks. Phone records revealed that there were “around 20 calls between him and the 7/7 gang, leading right up to those attacks.” Why is this significant? Because Haroon Rashid Aswat, apart from being an Al-Qaeda operative, also happened to be an MI6 agent, working for the British intelligence. Haroon also made his appearance on the scene of Islamic terrorism when he was in Kosovo in the 1990’s, where he “worked for British intelligence.”[10]
http://www.globalresearch.ca/article...donbusbomb.jpg
The Liquid Bomb Plot
Another event which brought to the forefront a “Pakistani connection” was the August 2006 London liquid bomb plot, in which terrorists supposedly were plotting to blow up nearly a dozen Atlantic airliners bound for major US cities.
The Pakistani ISI apparently helped in “uncovering” the liquid bomb plot, aiding the British in their roundup of suspects, and “tipped-off MI5.” One of the Pakistani groups accused of some involvement in the liquid bomb plot was the Lashkar-e Taiba.[11]
However, again, the suspected terrorists had been “infiltrated” and spied on by British intelligence for over a year. Further, the supposed ringleader of the bomb plot, Rashid Rauf, a dual British-Pakistani citizen, was pinpointed as the ringleader by both British and Pakistani intelligence, and was the link between the plot and Al-Qaeda. Rauf also has close ties with the ISI, and apparently had the plot approved by Al-Qaeda’s number two in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who formerly worked for the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan war. The ISI had arrested Rashid Rauf following the “exposure” of the liquid bomb plot, yet, in 2006, the charges against him were dropped, and in 2007, he amazingly escaped Pakistani custody, having “managed to open his handcuffs and evade two police guards.” [See: Andrew G. Marshall, Liquid Bomb Plot. Geopolitical Monitor: October 27, 2008]
Clearly, if the LeT is discovered to be responsible for the Mumbai attacks, its connections to Western intelligence agencies should be more closely examined and subject to investigation. The ISI, throughout its history, has not been the key player in supporting various terrorist organizations, rather, it can be more accurately described as a conduit for Western intelligence agencies to covertly fund and support terrorist organizations in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Terrorizing India
We must examine the current attacks with a backdrop of reviewing recent terror attacks in India.
1993 Bombay Bombings
March 12, 1993, Bombay (today, Mumbai) experienced a coordinated attack of 13 explosions, which killed over 250 people. A man with close connections to Osama bin laden and Al-Qaeda, Dawood Ibrahim, was believed to have been the mastermind of the attacks. He has also financed several operations of the Lashkar-e Taiba, and was believed to be hiding out in Pakistan, and receiving protection and support from the Pakistani ISI, which in 2007, reportedly arrested him. [See: Andrew G. Marshall, Political Destabilization in South and Central Asia: The Role of the CIA-ISI Terror Network. Global Research: September 17, 2008]
Mumbai Bombings, July 11, 2006: 7/11
Over 200 people were killed in Mumbai when seven bombs exploded within 11 minutes of one another on several trains. Blame for the attacks was placed with the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and the Lashkar-e Taiba (LeT), both of which have close ties with the ISI. The ISI was subsequently blamed for organizing the attacks, which were then carried out by the LeT and SIMI. The bombings led to the postponement of India-Pakistan peace talks, which were set to take place the next week. [Ibid]
Indian Embassy Bombing in Kabul, Afghanistan: July 7, 2008
On July 7, 2008, a bomb exploded at the Indian embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, killing over 50 people, and injuring over 100 others. The Afghan government and the Indian intelligence agency immediately blamed the ISI, in collaboration with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, of planning and executing the attack. Reports on the bombing suggested that the aim was to “increase the distrust between Pakistan and Afghanistan and undermine Pakistan's relations with India, despite recent signs that a peace process between Islamabad and New Delhi was making some headway.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/article...7_07_Kabul.jpg
Indian Embassy in Kabul
In early August, American intelligence agencies supported the claim that members of the ISI helped plan the attack, which they based upon “intercepted communications,” and that, “American officials said that the communications were intercepted before the July 7 bombing, and that the C.I.A. emissary, Stephen R. Kappes, the agency’s deputy director, had been ordered to Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital, even before the attack.” Interestingly, “a top Central Intelligence Agency official traveled to Pakistan [in August] to confront senior Pakistani officials with information about support provided by members of the ISI to militant groups.” However, the CIA knows of these connections, as it has actively supported and financed these covert ISI connections with terrorist organizations. So, what was the real purpose of this top CIA official’s visit to Pakistan?
Days after the CIA released this information to the New York Times, the US accused Pakistan of undermining NATO’s efforts in Afghanistan by supporting Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and further, “Mike Mc-Connell, the director of national intelligence, and [CIA director] Hayden asked Musharraf to allow the CIA greater freedom to operate in the tribal areas,” and was threatened with “retaliation” if he did not comply. [See: Andrew G. Marshall, Political Destabilization in South and Central Asia: The Role of the CIA-ISI Terror Network. Global Research: September 17, 2008]
The ISI and the CIA
Again, if the ISI is to be blamed for the recent Mumbai attacks, as it has played a part in several attacks and support of terrorism throughout its history, it is important to identify its relationship with the CIA.
The CIA developed close ties with the ISI in the late 1970s, as the CIA used the ISI as a “go-between” for CIA support of the Afghan Mujahideen. This relationship was also pivotal in supporting the Afghan narcotics trade, which again is rampant. The relationship between the two agencies continued throughout the 1990s, in areas such as Chechnya, Yugoslavia and India. [See: Michel Chossudovsky, Al Qaeda and the "War on Terrorism". Global Research: January 20, 2008]
A week prior to the 9/11 attacks, the head of Pakistan’s ISI was on a visit to Washington, D.C., where he met with several key policy figures, such as Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage; Senator Joseph Biden, who is going to be Obama’s Vice President; and with his counterparts in the CIA and Pentagon, and several other officials. He was in Washington right up to and after the 9/11 attacks, and was engaged in several key consultations with US officials, pledging support for the US War on Terror instantly. However, the very same Chief of the ISI also happened to have previously approved of wiring $100,000 to the lead 9/11 hijacker, Mohammed Atta, which was also confirmed by the FBI. Thus, the ISI suddenly became a financier of the 9/11 attacks. Yet, no action was taken against the ISI or Pakistan, apart from the ISI Chief being fired upon this revelation making it into the media.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/article...81722-8810.jpg
ISI Chief Lt.-General Mahmoud Ahmad
Of significance is that this ISI Chief, Lt.-General Mahmoud Ahmad, was approved as head of the ISI by the US in 1999. From then, he was in close contact and liaison with top officials of the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the Pentagon. [See: Michel Chossudovsky, Cover-up or Complicity of the Bush Administration? Global Research: November 2, 2001]
Collaboration between the ISI and CIA did not end with these disturbing revelations. In 2007, it was reported that the CIA was arming and funding a terrorist organization named Jundullah, based in Pakistan’s tribal areas, with the goal of “sowing chaos” in Iran. Jundullah not only is funded and armed by the CIA, but has extensive ties to Al-Qaeda, and the ISI, as the CIA’s financial support for the group is funneled through the ISI, so as to make it more difficult to establish a link between the CIA and the terrorist outfit. [See: Andrew G. Marshall, Political Destabilization in South and Central Asia, op cit ]
As Michel Chossudovsky pointed out in his article, India’s 9/11, “In September, Washington pressured Islamabad, using the "war on terrorism" as a pretext to fire the ISI chief Lieutenant General Nadeem Taj,” and Pakistani “President Asif Ali Zardari had meetings in New York in late September with CIA Director Michael Hayden.” Following these meetings, “a new US approved ISI chief Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha was appointed by the Chief of the Army, General Kayani, on behalf of Washington.”
Anglo-American-Israeli Intelligence and India
In mid-October, American intelligence agencies warned Indian intelligence warned India about an attack “from the sea against hotels and business centers in Mumbai.” Even the Taj Hotel, which became the key area of fighting, was listed as a specific target.[12] In late November, “India’s intelligence services had delivered at least three precise warnings that a major terrorist attack on Mumbai was imminent.”[13]
Immediately following the attacks, it was reported that, “Unprecedented intelligence cooperation involving investigating agencies and spy outfits of India, United States, United Kingdom and Israel has got underway to crack the method and motive behind the Mumbai terrorist massacre, now widely blamed on Islamist radicals who appeared to have all four countries on their hit list when they arrived on the shores of India.” Specifically, “Investigators, forensic analysts, counter-terrorism experts and spymasters from agencies the four countries are converging in New Delhi and Mumbai to put their heads, resources, and skills together to understand the evolving nature of the beast.”
Further, “Washington suggested sending US Special Forces for on-the-ground operations in Mumbai but New Delhi declined the offer, saying its own forces could take care of the situation.” This unprecedented intelligence cooperation was based upon the understanding that, “the manner in which the terrorists who attacked Mumbai are reported to have singled out Americans and Britons, besides pointedly occupying a Jewish center, has revealed that their agenda was wider than just domestic discontent or the Kashmir issue.”[14]
Shortly after the attacks began, it was reported that FBI agents were quickly flown to Mumbai to help in investigating the Mumbai attacks.[15] Israel also offered to send in its “crack commandos to Mumbai to rescue Israeli hostages held in a Jewish centre,” which was refused by India, which led to Israeli media criticizing India’s response to the attacks as “slow, confused and inefficient.”[16]
The Terrorists
Hours after the attacks began on November 26, it was reported that two terrorists were killed and two others were arrested.[17] Later on, reports surfaced in which Indian police had killed four of the Mumbai terrorists and arrested nine of them.[18] The international media was full of this reported capture of nine terrorists.
Interestingly, by November 29, the story had changed. All of a sudden, Mumbai cops had only “nabbed” one terrorist. This person has effectively become the nail-in-the-coffin for laying the blame at Pakistan’s door. As soon as this person was caught, he began to sing like a canary, and said that, “all [the] terrorists were trained in marine warfare along with the special course Daura-e-Shifa conducted by the Lashkar-e-Taiba in what at once transforms the nature of the planning from a routine terror strike and into a specialized raid by commandos.” He also stated that the terrorists “were made to believe by their Lashkar bosses that they were not being sent on a suicide mission and that they would be coming back alive.” He also revealed the names of his fellow terrorists, all of them Pakistani citizens.[19]
Along the same lines, another very interesting mystery of the Mumbai massacre is the early reports of British involvement. Shortly following the outbreak of violence, Indian authorities stated that, “Seven of the Mumbai terrorists were British Pakistanis,” and that, “two Brits had been arrested and another five suspects were from the UK.” Further, Blackberry phones found on the suspects contained “a lot of content” connecting them with the UK.[20] The Chief Minister of Mumbai had early on reported that, “two British-born Pakistanis were among eight gunmen seized by Indian commandos who stormed buildings to free hostages.”[21]
On December 1, the Daily Mail reported that, “As many as seven of the terrorists may have British connections and some could be from Leeds and Bradford where London's July 7 bombers lived.” As a result of these revelations, Scotland Yard anti-terrorist detectives were sent to Mumbai “to assist in the investigation.” There was also speculation that one particular British Al-Qaeda suspect may have helped plan the assault, and just happened to be killed a week earlier in Pakistan by the CIA. That person was Rashid Rauf.[22] This is the same Rashid Rauf who was at first declared the mastermind of the London liquid bomb plot, who had close ties with the ISI and Al-Qaeda, who was subsequently arrested by the ISI, and then miraculously “escaped” from Pakistani custody. Barely a week before the Mumbai Massacre, Rauf was reportedly killed by a CIA drone attack on a militant Islamic base in Pakistan’s tribal region.
Early on, there was an incident in which a taxicab was blown up in Mumbai, with the driver and passenger killed. The taxi started moving through a red light when the car bomb exploded, which ended up saving the lives of “hundreds,” as opposed to if the car had moved when the light was green and intersection was full. This ensured that the only ones who died were those in the taxi.[23] This sparked an investigation into whether the driver “was aware that his car was loaded with explosives.”[24]
Why is this significant? Because this closely resembles tactics used in Iraq since the Anglo-American occupation of the country, employed by both US and British intelligence and special forces in an effort to sow chaos and create civil strife and war. [See: Andrew G. Marshall, State-Sponsored Terror: British and American Black Ops in Iraq. Global Research, June 25, 2008]
Means, Modus Operandi and Motive
Means
While the possibility that Pakistan and the ISI (or Lashkar-e Taiba) are responsible for the Mumbai attacks should be taken into consideration, given precedence and means, we must allow ourselves to contemplate other possibilities.
While India and the west are placing the blame for the attacks on Pakistan’s ISI and the Lashkar-e Taiba, the Pakistani press is reporting on another possibility.
On November 29, the Pakistan Daily reported that, with a stiff side of anti-Israel rhetoric, that the Mumbai attack would be used “as justification for a US invasion of Pakistan.” It reported that the Israeli Mossad “has mobilized since 2000 in the Jammu and Kashmir areas of India, where the Indian government has been pursuing a ‘security’ issue with regard to the Kashmiri people.” It quoted a Times of India article that reported, “Israeli counter-terrorism experts are now touring Jammu and Kashmir and several other states in India at the invitation of Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani to make an assessment of New Delhi’s security needs. The Israeli team, headed by Eli Katzir of the Israel Counter-Terrorism Combat Unit, includes Israeli military intelligence officials and a senior police official.” There was also a reported agreement on “closer India-Israeli cooperation on all security matters.”[25]
Modus Operandi
Shortly after the start of the attacks in Mumbai, a Russia counter-terrorism presidential envoy stated that, “The terrorists in the Indian city of Mumbai, who killed more than 150 people and injured over 300, used the same tactics that Chechen field militants employed in the Northern Caucasus.” He elaborated, “These tactics were used during raids by militant Chechen field commanders Shamil Basayev and Salman Raduyev against the towns of Buddyonnovsk and Pervomaiskoye. For the first time in history the entire towns were terrorized, with homes and hospitals seized. The Mumbai terrorists have learned these tactics well.”[26]
Shamil Basayev, one of the Chechen rebel leaders, as well as many of the other Chechen leaders, were trained by the CIA and ISI in Afghanistan, in CIA-run training camps during the Soviet-Afghan war of the 1980s.[27]
Motive
On December 2, former ISI Chief Hameed Gul, said that the “Mumbai incident is an international based conspiracy to deprive Pakistan of its atomic power. Talking to a private TV channel on Friday, he said that to involve Pakistan in the incident reflected that some forces wanted to declare Pakistan a fail[ed] state as somehow it had become necessary to make Pakistan kneel down in order to snatch its atomic power away.” He elaborated that the method of attacks, and how the militants executed them, “seemed impossible without internal support.” He continued in stating that the “US wanted to see [the] Indian army in Afghanistan to disintegrate the country,” and referred to recent US maps showing a divided Pakistan in four parts, and that making Pakistan “kneel down” before the IMF was “part of a pre-planned trick.”[28]
As astonishing and outlandish as these claims may seem, the US has a long history of turning on its allies when they seek to become self-sufficient and developed, such as with Saddam Hussein and Iraq in the early 1990s. Also, it is vital to note the role of the IMF and World Bank in creating economic crises, and thus, political-social-ethnic instability, which invariably has led to all out ethnic war, genocides and “international interventions,” in countries such as Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
The International Financial Institutions (IFIs) often create the conditions for political instability, while covert Western intelligence support to disaffected and radical groups creates the means for rebellion; which then becomes the excuse for foreign military intervention; which then secures an imperial military presence in the region, thus gaining control over the particular region’s resources and strategic position. This is the age-old conquest of empire: divide and conquer.
Interesting to note is that in 2008, “Pakistan was again seeking IMF help. On Nov. 25, it won final approval on a $7.6 billion loan package after foreign reserves shrank 74 percent to $3.5 billion in the 12 months ended on Nov. 8.”[29] This loan was approved a day before the Mumbai attacks began. On December 4, it was reported that, “Tough conditions of International Monetary Fund (IMF) have now started surfacing as IMF and the Government of Pakistan (GoP) agreed to discontinue oil import support, eliminate power subsidies and budgetary support of the government, public and private entities. IMF and GoP have agreed to phase out the State Bank of Pakistan’s (SBPs) provision of foreign exchange for oil imports.” On top of this, “further steps will be taken during the remainder of the fiscal year to strengthen tax enforcement. Moreover, fuel prices will continue to be adjusted to pass through changes in international prices.” Further, “The programme envisages a significant tightening of monetary policy.”[30]
http://www.globalresearch.ca/article...kistan_IMF.jpg
The results of these conditionalities are predictable: Pakistan will lose all subsidies; fuel prices will drastically rise, as will food and other necessary commodity prices. At the same time, a tightening of monetary policy and World Bank/IMF control over Pakistan’s central bank will prevent Pakistan from taking measures to curb inflation, and the cost of living will skyrocket as the currency value plummets. All this is going on while taxes are increased and expanded greatly, and public jobs such as bureaucratic positions, education, etc., are downsized or altogether disbanded. Money will likely continue to flow to the ISI and Army, which will create discontent among Pakistan’s deprived and disillusioned. A military coup would be likely, followed by rebellion en masse, which would in turn pit the various ethnicities against one another. This could lead to either a war against India, ultimately ending with a consolidated national security state to act as a conduit for Anglo-American imperial ambitions, such as in Rwanda; or, it could result in ethnic conflict and wars, ultimately ending up in the break-up of Pakistan into smaller states divided among ethnic lines, such as in Yugoslavia. Or, it could end with a combination of the two, a divided, warring, region engulfed in crisis.
The break up of Pakistan is not a far-fetched idea in terms of Anglo-American strategy. In fact, the plan for the destabilization and ultimately, balkanization of Pakistan has originated in Anglo-American-Israeli military strategic circles. As I previously documented in Divide and Conquer: The Anglo-American Imperial Project [Global Research, July 10, 2008], the destabilization and balkanization of the near-entire Middle East and Central Asia has been a long-held strategy for the Anglo-America-Israeli Axis since the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Divide and Conquer
This concept evolved in strategic planning circles in the late 1970s in response to regional nationalist tendencies in the Middle East and Central Asia, as well as a perceived threat of growing Soviet influence in the region. The central aim of these strategic thinkers was to secure Middle Eastern oil and Central Asian gas reserves and pipeline routes under the control of the Anglo-Americans. Control over these vital energy reserves is a strategic as much as economic concern, as most of the world gets its energy from this area; so those who control the energy, control who gets it, and thus, control much of the world. The economic benefits of Anglo-Americans controlling the regions energy reserves cannot be analyzed separately from strategic interests, as they are one and the same. Anglo-American oil companies gain control of the oil and gas, while the British and American governments install puppet regimes to look after their interests; and to act as proxies in creating conflicts and wars with countries of the region who act in their own national interest, as opposed to acting under the guidance of and submission to the Anglo-Americans.
Arc of Crisis
After the 1973 oil shocks, which were, in fact, promoted and covertly orchestrated by Anglo-American banking and oil interests, the oil producing nations grew very wealthy, such as Iran. As well as this, countries like Afghanistan were becoming increasingly leftist and progressive. Fearing possible alliances developing between Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries with the Soviet Union, as well as the even greater threat of these countries becoming truly independent, taking control of their own resources for the good of their own people; Anglo-American strategists turned to what is called the “Arc of Crisis.”
The “Arc of Crisis” describes the “nations that stretch across the southern flank of the Soviet Union from the Indian subcontinent to Turkey, and southward through the Arabian Peninsula to the Horn of Africa.” Further, the “center of gravity of this arc is Iran.” In 1978, Zbigniew Brzezinski gave a speech in which he stated, “An arc of crisis stretches along the shores of the Indian Ocean, with fragile social and political structures in a region of vital importance to us threatened with fragmentation. The resulting political chaos could well be filled by elements hostile to our values and sympathetic to our adversaries.”[36]
Anglo-American strategy in the region thus developed and changed at this time, as “There was this idea that the Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets. It was a Brzezinski concept.”[37] Bilderberg member, Bernard Lewis, presented a British-American strategy to the Bilderberg Group during the 1979 meeting, which, “endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an ‘Arc of Crisis,’ which would spill over into the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.”[38] Since the Soviet Union was viewed as a secular and atheist regime, having oppressed religion within its sphere of influence, the rise of radical Islamic influence and governments in the Middle East and Central Asia would ensure that Soviet influence would not enter into the region, as radical Muslims would view the Soviets with more distrust than the Americans. The Anglo-Americans positioned themselves as the lesser of two evils.
Bernard Lewis was a former British intelligence officer and historian who is infamous for explaining Arab discontent towards the West as not being rooted in a reaction toward imperialism, but rather that it is rooted in Islam; in that Islam is incompatible with the West, and that they are destined to clash, using the term, "Clash of Civilizations." For decades, "Lewis played a critical role as professor, mentor, and guru to two generations of Orientalists, academics, U.S. and British intelligence specialists, think tank denizens, and assorted neoconservatives." In the 1980s, Lewis "was hobnobbing with top Department of Defense officials."[39] Lewis wrote a 1992 article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, titled, "Rethinking the Middle East." In this article, Lewis raised the prospect of another policy towards the Middle East in the wake of the end of the Cold War and beginnings of the New World Order, "which could even be precipitated by fundamentalism, is what has of late become fashionable to call 'Lebanonization.' Most of the states of the Middle East - Egypt is an obvious exception - are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a proc ess. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common national identity or overriding allegiance to the nation-state. The state then disintegrates - as happened in Lebanon - into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties."[40]
http://www.globalresearch.ca/article...rdLewisMap.jpg
Bernard Lewis' Redrawn Map of the "Arc of Crisis"
A Foreign Affairs article of 1979, the journal put out by the powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), discussed the Arc of Crisis: “The Middle East constitutes its central core. Its strategic position is unequalled: it is the last major region of the Free World directly adjacent to the Soviet Union, it holds in its subsoil about three-fourths of the proven and estimated world oil reserves, and it is the locus of one of the most intractable conflicts of the twentieth century: that of Zionism versus Arab nationalism.” It explained that US strategy in the region was focused with “containment” of the Soviet Union as well as access to the regions oil. [41]
It was in this context that in 1979, as Zbigniew Brzezinski later admitted, “According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.” He claimed that, “We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.” What a perfect example of what George Orwell would call “double-speak,” saying that the Americans “didn’t push the Russians to intervene” but rather, “increased the probability that they would.” In other words, they “pushed” them to intervene.[42]
This is when the Mujahideen were created, and through this, Al-Qaeda, and a variety of other radical Islamic groups which have come to plague global geopolitics since this era. Terrorism cannot be viewed, as it often is, in such a simple manner as “non-state actors” reacting to geopolitics of nations and corporations. In fact, many terrorist groups, particularly the largest, most well organized, extremist and violent ones, are “proxy state actors,” receiving covert support – through arms and training – by various state intelligence agencies. They are not simply “reacting” to geopolitics, but are important players in the geopolitical chessboard. They represent the perfect excuse for foreign militaristic adventurism and war; domestic tyranny in the form of developing police states to control populations, stifle dissent and create a totalitarian base of control.
As the San Francisco Chronicle wrote in September of 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, “The map of terrorist sanctuaries and targets in the Middle East and Central Asia is also, to an extraordinary degree, a map of the world's principal energy sources in the 21st century. The defense of these energy resources -- rather than a simple confrontation between Islam and the West -- will be the primary flash point of global conflict for decades to come.” Further, it stated: “It is inevitable that the war against terrorism will be seen by many as a war on behalf of America's Chevron, ExxonMobil and Arco; France's TotalFinaElf; British Petroleum; Royal Dutch Shell and other multinational giants, which have hundreds of billions of dollars of investment in the region.”[43] Indeed, where Al-Qaeda is present, the US military follows, and behind the military, the oil companies wait and push; and behind the oil companies, the banks cash in.
Balkanizing the Middle East
In 1982, Oded Yinon, an Israeli journalist wrote a report for a publication of the World Zionist Organization in which he advocated, “The dissolution of Syria and Iraq into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon [which] is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front. Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run, it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel.”
In 1996, an Israeli think tank with many prominent American neo-conservatives, issued a report in which they advocated for Israel to “Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats,” among them, to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
In 2000, the Project for the New American Century, an American neo-conservative think tank, published a report called Rebuilding America’s Defenses, in which they openly advocated for an American empire in the Middle East, focusing on removing the “threats” of Iraq and Iran.
Shortly after the US invasion of Iraq, prominent members of the Council on Foreign Relations had begun advocating the break-up of Iraq into at least three smaller states, using Yugoslavia as an example of how to achieve this.
In 2006, the Armed Force Journal published an article by retired Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters, which called for the redrawing of the borders of the Middle East. He first advocated the breakup of Iraq, and that, “Saudi Arabia would suffer as great a dismantling as Pakistan,” and that, “Iran, a state with madcap boundaries, would lose a great deal of territory to Unified Azerbaijan, Free Kurdistan, the Arab Shia State and Free Baluchistan, but would gain the provinces around Herat in today’s Afghanistan.”
Describing Pakistan as “an unnatural state,” he said, “Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier tribes would be reunited with their Afghan brethren,” and that it “would also lose its Baluch territory to Free Baluchistan. The remaining “natural” Pakistan would lie entirely east of the Indus, except for a westward spur near Karachi.” He even made up a helpful little list of “losers” and “winners” in this new great game: as in, who gains territory, and who loses territory. Among the losers are Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, the West Bank and Pakistan. And Peters made the startling statement that redrawing borders is often only achieved through war and violence, and that “one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works.”
[See: Andrew G. Marshall, Divide and Conquer: The Anglo-American Imperial Project. Global Research, July 10, 2008]
http://www.globalresearch.ca/article...ast_medium.jpg
Ralph Peters' Map of a Redrawn Middle East - Note similarity to Bernard Lewis' Map of a Redrawn Middle East
Conclusion
Ultimately, the aims of the Mumbai attacks are to target Pakistan for balkanization. The question of who is responsible – either the ISI, largely rogue of Pakistan’s civilian government and under the authority of Anglo-American intelligence; or separate Indian terrorists, likely supported by the same Anglo-American intelligence community – while important, is ultimately a secondary consideration in comparison to the question of Why?
The Who, What, Where, and When is a show for public consumption; masked in confusion and half-truths, designed to confuse and ultimately frustrate the observer – creating a sense of unease and fear of the unknown. The WHY, on the other hand, is the most important question; once you discover the why, the who, where, what, and when begin to fall into place, and create a full picture.
If the Mumbai attacks were designed to be blamed on Pakistan – as they likely were – and thus, to possibly start a war between Pakistan and India – which is now a growing reality – what is the ultimate significance of knowing if it was the ISI or Indian elements responsible? Albeit, this is important to know, however, when it comes to understanding the motives behind the attacks, it pales in comparison.
Pakistan is a strategic lynch-point in the region. Pakistan borders Iran, Afghanistan, India and China. It lies directly below the Central Asian republics of the Former Soviet Union, which are rich in natural gas resources. With NATO’s war in Afghanistan, and the Anglo-Americans in Iraq, and American forces in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, the occupation of Pakistan would position Western imperial militaries around Iran, the central Middle Eastern target. With the balkanization of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, destabilizing forces would cross the borders into Iran, ultimately creating the conditions for political and social collapse within the country.
A conflict between Pakistan and India would not only have the effect of dismantling Pakistan, but would also greatly deter India’s rapid economic and social development as the world’s largest democracy, and would force it to come under the influence or “protection” of Western military might and International Financial Institutions. The same is likely for China, as destabilization would cross Pakistan’s borders into the most populated country on earth, exacerbating ethnic differences and social disparities.
A large Anglo-American military presence in Pakistan, or, alternatively, a NATO or UN force, combined with the already present NATO force in Afghanistan, would be a massive military strategic position against advancement of China, Russia or India into the region. With China’s massively increasing influence in Africa threatening Anglo-American and European domination of the continent, a massive military presence on the border of China could act as a powerful warning.
The Mumbai attacks do not aid India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or any nation within the region. The beneficiaries of the Mumbai Massacre are in London and New York, in the boardrooms and shareholders of the largest international banks; which seek total control of the world. Having dominated North America and Europe for much of recent history, these bankers, primarily Anglo-American, but also European, seek to exert their total control over the world’s resources, currencies, and populations. There are many concurrent strategies they are employing to achieve this end: among them, the global financial crisis, to reign in and control the world economy; and a “total war” in the Middle East, likely escalating into a World War with Russia and China, is the perfect tool to strike enough fear into the world population to accept an over-arching supranational governance structure – to ensure no future wars occur, to ensure stability of the global economy – a utopian vision of a single world order.
The problem with utopias is that they are “ultimate ideals,” and if humanity has learned anything in its history on this planet; it is that perfection is impossible, be it in the form of an “ideal person” or an “ideal government;” humanity is plagued by imperfections and emotion. Accepting our imperfections as a species is what can make us great, and understanding that a utopian ideal is impossible to achieve is what can allow us to create the “best possible” society we can have. All utopias attempted throughout history have always turned into dystopias. We must learn from humanity’s history of sordid flaws; and only when we accept that we are not perfect, and cannot ever become perfect, in person or in politics, are we free to become humanity at it’s most advanced and at its most noble.
Andrew G. Marshall is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Andrew G. Marshall
For Notes: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=11313
U.S. drone fire missiles into Pakistan, seven killed
11 Dec 2008 18:11:55 GMT
Source: Reuters
http://streamingbits.com/wp-content/...59-300x155.jpg
ISLAMABAD, Dec 11 (Reuters) - A suspected U.S. drone fired a missile into South Waziristan on Thursday, a Pakistani region seen as a major sanctuary for al Qaeda militants, and killed seven militants, two intelligence officials said. One of intelligence officials said there may be foreigners among the dead but that he did not know their nationalities. (Writing by Zeeshan Haider)
http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/ima..._mainimage.jpg
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL87429.htm
Civil War Or Nuclear War?
December 10, 2008: The capture of one of the ten Mumbai terrorists has been a disaster for Pakistan. The captured terrorist talked, and his information checked out, and made it clear that Pakistan was tolerating Islamic terrorist groups operating openly inside Pakistan. This is nothing new, but such dramatic proof is. The U.S., the UN and most other major countries put the pressure on Pakistan to do something about this, or risk being officially branded a pro-terrorist state. Pakistan responded to that pressure in the last week by arresting several senior terrorist leaders known to be operating in Pakistan. But Pakistan refused to allow India to take these terrorists. That's because if these guys began talking, they would confirm Pakistan's long term support of Islamic terrorist activities. These are admissions that Pakistan does not want to deal with. Nevertheless, Pakistan has long been known as a supporter of Islamic terrorists, even though some of these terrorist organizations are trying to kill Pakistani leaders. That is a rather recent development, which came about after September 11, 2001, when the Pakistani leadership were forced to decide between backing the war on terror, or siding with the terrorists. At that point, some Islamic terrorists began attacking Pakistani leaders. But others, like those responsible for the Mumbai attacks (Lashkar e Toiba) did not support the overthrow of the Pakistani government (at least not right away), and continued to be protected by the government.
But Lashkar e Toiba continued to plan attacks inside India, which India has warned could lead to nuclear war. But Pakistan did not want to enrage another bunch of Islamic terrorists. Now they have no choice, or do they? India and the United States are watching closely exactly what Pakistan does to the "Kashmir (dedicated to taking Kashmir from Indian control) terrorists" like Lashkar e Toiba. Pakistan has made a few arrests, and everyone is waiting to see if, or when, Pakistan will do some real damage to these groups. So far, Pakistan has not. Groups like Lashkar e Toiba are very popular in Pakistan, because getting control of Kashmir is very popular. The government fears that going after the Kashmir terrorists would cause a civil war inside Pakistan. That has always been a risk, which even India acknowledged. But now the Indian government has a population enraged about the activities (like Mumbai, and similar attacks earlier) of the Pakistani Kashmir terror groups, and wants something done. Pakistan is being forced into a corner, where the choices come down to civil war with their Islamic conservatives and radicals (about a third of the population), or war with India, which could escalate into a nuclear conflict that Pakistan would lose. The civil war would be messy, but the government would almost certainly win it. Pakistani politicians, being risk averse, are looking for some way out of this mess. There doesn't seem to be one.
Meanwhile, the battle against the Taliban continues on the Afghan border. The Taliban are now trying to threaten truck traffic into Afghanistan. As a landlocked country with no railroads, most imports travel into Afghanistan via truck, along only a few roads that cross the border. This trucking business is very lucrative for Pakistani transportation companies, and vital for the economy of Afghanistan. These attacks will force the Pakistanis to assign more troops and police to protecting the trucking operations. Not so much to protect U.S. and NATO supply lines, but to protect a major economic asset for political and economic big shots on both sides of the border. You do not want to be messing with the money in this part of the world.
December 5, 2008: Two large bombs went off in Peshawar (the largest city in the Pakistani tribal territories along the Afghan border) killing 27 people.December 2, 2008: Ethnic clashes in Karachi, Pakistan continue, leaving four more dead. Pakistan is a patchwork of religious and ethnic groups, which tend to form militias for self-defense, or for going after real or imagined rivals. Bloodshed between these groups has been a constant in Pakistani life for over half a century, and for centuries before that.
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/indi.../20081210.aspx
Pakistan, China to boost military ties
http://www.dawn.com/2008/12/16/images/top03.jpg
ISLAMABAD, Dec 15: Pakistan and China on Monday signed an agreement for military cooperation, pledging to take existing bilateral military ties to new heights.
The signing of the agreement took place in Beijing between the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, Gen Tariq Majid, and his Chinese counterpart at the end of the sixth round of Pakistan-China defence and security talks — a forum to spearhead strategic and defence relations between the two countries. Gen Tariq Majid, leading a high-powered delegation, was greeted on arrival at Ba’ yi Building (People’s Liberation Army headquarters) by Gen Chen Bingde, Chief of General Staff, People’s Liberation Army.
The talks covered a wide range of regional and international issues and a review of the military to military cooperation, including measures to bolster existing relations. There was unanimity on all issues.
The two sides agreed to take forward their strategic partnership to new heights and to augment military to military
cooperation.—APP
http://www.dawn.com/2008/12/16/top7.htm
Pakistan, China agree to take military cooperation to new heights
http://english.people.com.cn/200612/...s/1224_C68.jpg
ISLAMABAD Dec 15 (APP): Pakistan and China on Monday signed an agreement for military cooperation as a landmark to take existing bilateral military ties to new heights.The signing of the agreement took place in Beijing between Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC) Gen.
Tariq Majid and his Chinese counterpart at the conclusion of sixth Round of Pakistan‑China Defence and Security Talks ‑ a forum to spearhead the strategic and defence relations between the two friendly and brotherly countries.
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC) General Tariq Majid along with a high powered delegation had earlier arrived in Beijing to hold talks, said an ISPR news release issued here. On arrival at Ba’ yi Building (Peoples Liberation Army Headquarters), CJCSC was received by General Chen Bingde, Chief of General Staff, Peoples Liberation Army followed by a guard of honour.
The 6th Round of Defence and Security Talks was held in a very cordial and friendly atmosphere between the high level defence officials from both sides headed by General Bingde and General Tariq.
The dialogue covered a wide range of regional and international issues and a review of the ongoing military to military cooperation including measures to bolster the existing ties.
There was complete unanimity of views on all issues. The two sides agreed to take forward their strategic partnership to new heights and agreed to augment the existing military to military cooperation.
While reviewing the growth of China‑Pakistan relations over the past 57 years, two leaders expressed satisfaction that the friendship between China and Pakistan has withstood the test of time, notwithstanding changes in the international, regional and domestic environment and has matured into a comprehensive partnership.
Both sides were opposed to all forms of terrorism, extremism and militancy and resolved to cooperate with each other to fight these forces. China conveyed its complete support to Pakistan’s efforts to fight terrorism and appreciated the sacrifices made by the Government and people of Pakistan in this regard.
Beside the dialogue, CJCSC is scheduled to meet with high level civil and military leadership of Peoples Republic of China. He will also visit HuDong Shipyard in Shanghai to see the progress on construction of F û 22 P Frigates for Pakistan Navy and JF‑17 Thunder Aircraft project in Cheng Fei Company in Chengdu.
The Defence and Security Talks were instituted during 2002 and have since been held regularly, alternatively, in Pakistan and China and have matured into an extremely useful bilateral forum. Under the framework of this forum, the relations between the two Armed Forces have now reached a strategic dimension. The dialogue now covers military to military cooperation, collaboration between the defence industries and global / strategic issues.
Later in the evening, a banquet was hosted by General Bindge, CGS PLA in honour of the CJCSC, which was attended by senior Chinese officials.
http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?...62088&Itemid=2
* OPINION
* DECEMBER 16, 2008, 12:09 P.M. ET
China's Pakistan Test
Beijing can help itself by pressuring Pakistan.
By PRATAP BHANU MEHTA | From today's Wall Street Journal Asia
China's economic and military rise has generated a lot of speculation about whether it will become a responsible stakeholder in international politics. It can either cooperate with other powers, especially the United States, to solve common problems. Or it can work at cross-purposes to those other efforts. Pakistan is shaping up to be one of the first big tests of which way China will go.
Pakistan has the distinction of being central to the global strategies of not one but two major powers, the U.S. and China. From Washington's perspective, Islamabad's support is important for the war in Afghanistan, and the war on terror. Pakistan is also home to radical Islamists who, if left unchecked, could destabilize the wider region -- as can be seen from the recent Mumbai attacks. This problem is especially pressing given Pakistan's status as a nuclear state.
Beijing has its own interests in encouraging stability in Pakistan. China has cultivated the country as a counterweight to India, with which Beijing has ongoing border disputes. Pakistan can also serve as a "conduit" or stepping-stone from which Beijing could try to expand its influence in West and Central Asia.
Because of such strategic considerations, both Washington and Beijing have too long turned a blind eye to the political situation within Pakistan. They have been willing to countenance corrupt or authoritarian governments in the name of short-term stability. They have failed to insist on the kinds of political and economic reforms that would make the country more stable over the long-run. Now, however, both sides should be able to see that this strategy hasn't worked. As a result, both Washington and Beijing are struggling with the question of how to continue to exercise leverage over Pakistan while also nudging Islamabad toward better behavior. Neither can do it alone.
Washington's approach has been to press Islamabad to crack down on terror and cooperate more enthusiastically in Afghanistan. It has racked up some successes. Following the Mumbai attacks, America pushed Pakistan into shutting down some alleged terror camps and placing the leaders of Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group allegedly responsible for the attacks, under house arrest. But there is little evidence the U.S. has been able to dent the influence of core structures within Pakistan, such as the security services, that have long been willing to countenance terrorism for their own political aims.
To make genuine progress, the U.S. will need to bring multilateral pressure to bear on Pakistan. This will defuse claims that only the U.S. cares about such issues and that elements in Islamabad can play various world powers against each other. It is hard to imagine that such pressure will bear fruit without the active cooperation of China. Beijing has considerable leverage given its history of support for Pakistan, with which it has an "all-weather relationship." It has invested heavily in infrastructure over the years, and just last year gave Pakistan $500 million in concessional loans to help with its balance of payments crisis. More significantly, China has transferred nuclear and missile technologies.
But China is reluctant to put pressure on the Pakistani establishment to reform. Part of this reluctance has deep roots: China's calculations in the region, unlike America's, are not influenced by the fact that India is a democracy. Beijing is also extremely wary of humiliating an all-weather friend.
So far China has justified its hands-off approach with three arguments. Beijing, like others, has worried that exerting too much pressure would strengthen the hands of hardliners. China also has seemed willing to buy into the idea that the root cause of the problem is Kashmir, meaning that international pressure would be largely irrelevant in resolving Pakistan's political turmoil until the Kashmir issue is solved. And more broadly, China has at times evinced a belief that Pakistan's problems stem from Western meddling in the region, so the West should be responsible for fixing it.
All of these are rather short-sighted, but none more so than the last. China has as big a stake as anyone else in Pakistan's future. Regardless of how Pakistan's problems started, China can't afford to sit back and wait for a solution.
Beijing has taken some steps recently to make itself part of the solution. China declined to extend a $6 billion bailout to cover Pakistan's deepening current-account balance problem; by not coming through with that aid, China pushed Islamabad into the arms of the International Monetary Fund and its policy strictures. While Beijing continues active nuclear cooperation with Pakistan, it has resisted offering a full-blown agreement of the kind India has negotiated with the U.S.
Now it must expand on those efforts. A consistent message from China that Pakistan cannot count on its support in the U.N. Security Council will put great pressure on Islamabad. China has made a modest course reversal by not vetoing a resolution to ban the Jammat-ud-Dawa, widely believed to be front organization for Lashkar-e-Taiba. China can make military and economic cooperation conditional upon reform of the Pakistani state. It can also lend its support to a regional conference of all countries affected by instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In the coming years, China will have to play a major role on issues vital to global security, whether it is Iran or Pakistan. The test of Beijing's commitment to being a responsible power is only beginning.
Mr. Mehta is president of the Center for Policy Research in Delhi.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122944722843910903.html
A lot will depend on India's creative strategy
17 Dec 2008, 0452 hrs IST
Ajay D Behera
Associate Professor*,
Jamia Millia Islamia
Even though Pakistan is under intense pressure, the seriousness of Pakistan's political leaders to tackle terrorism is still not evident. While Pakistan is faced with difficult choices, the political will is clearly missing. There are fundamental reasons to believe that the cooperation is more likely to be posturing in the hope that the pressures will fizzle out over a period of time.
Whatever action Pakistan has taken so far, it has also made it clear that this action is not due to the pressures from India. No government in Pakistan can be seen to be succumbing to its traditional rival. To what extent Pakistan is going to cooperate, will also be dependent on what the expectations of the international community are. If it is to clamp down on some terrorist groups, there can be the pretence of doing that. If it is to hand over a few terrorists and fugitives, they might also agree to that. But if it is to permanently dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism in Pakistan, as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has demanded, then it cannot be. For, unfortunately the Pakistani ruling elite, including the army, is in no position to do that.
The foundations of the terrorist infrastructure are so deep-rooted that it would require years of political and social engineering to make a dent on it. A political culture of violence, spawned by an intolerant interpretation of Islam and a distorted view of history, lies at the foundation of this terrorist infrastructure. Opportunistic use of religion and politics by successive governments and political groups has created a state that is no longer in control of society. The "non-state actors", which the Pakistani establishment created to pursue its strategic objectives in Afghanistan and India, have gained their own dynamism and autonomy. It will be impossible to excise them without Pakistan itself undergoing serious destabilisation.
But Pakistan is also vulnerable; it can be made to act under pressure. To make Pakistan cooperate in the fight against terrorism, whether through persuasion or coercion, is going to be a long haul. It has to be seen whether India has a creative strategy and the resilience to carry it through.
(*Academy of Third World Studies)
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ow/3848904.cms
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/images/shim.gif Pakistan struck a $278m AWACS deal with China
Thursday, December 18, 2008
By Rauf Klasra
http://img011.photo.21cn.com/photos/.../m/8568215.jpg
http://img011.photo.21cn.com/photos/.../m/8568307.jpg
http://img011.photo.21cn.com/photos/.../m/8568263.jpg
http://img011.photo.21cn.com/photos/.../m/8568262.jpg
ISLAMABAD: In an effort to help the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) boost its air defence capability, Islamabad has struck a $278 million deal with Beijing to purchase a modern Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), legislators were informed here on Wednesday.
Pakistan is said to be the first country in the region to buy the Chinese AWACS system, which Beijing started developing in 2004 after the Americans stopped the Israeli government from selling the system worth $1billion to Beijing.
Under mounting pressure from Washington, Tel Aviv scrapped the contract to the disappointment of the Chinese, who badly needed the system for possible use against Taiwan. The details of the contract between Pakistan and China were placed before the National Assembly on Wednesday by Minister for Defence Production Abdul Qayyum Khan Jatoi.
The documents placed before the National Assembly reveal that under the multi-million dollar deal, China will provide the system to Pakistan in the next four years. The most important thing from Pakistan’s perspective is that China has agreed to supply the system on “deferred” payment. The contract has been awarded to MS CETC China.
The story of China starting the development of its own airborne warning and control system is interesting. Until 2004, Beijing had not even thought of making its own AWACS system. Just like Pakistan, China was heavily dependent on foreign countries in improving the performance of its air force.
Information gathered from various sources revealed China launched work on its own system after the US blocked its move to develop radar surveillance aircraft. Washington even vetoed the sale of such systems China wanted to deploy in the Taiwan Strait. Military specialists said the Chinese system used domestically-produced advanced radar mounted on a Russian-made Il-76 transport aircraft.
Chinese military technicians have been struggling to acquire AWACS-type equipment ever since the United States coerced Israel in 2000 into backing out of a $1 billion agreement on selling to China four of its Phalcon phased-array radar systems.
The systems would have used Il-76 aircraft as a platform, but the main US concern in blocking the sale was that China would gain a military advantage over Taiwan. Moreover, under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, the US government pledged to help Taiwan defend itself against a possible Chinese attack, meaning the US forces could become involved, should fighting erupt.
For the same reason, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) air force leaders were determined to acquire such planes. After the 2000 Israeli fiasco, the PLA made it a matter of pride to prove to the Americans they could not be denied AWACS.
Initially, China turned to Russia, its traditional source of military equipment. Beijing concluded a deal to buy four Beriev A-50 Mainstay radar planes, which are roughly the Russian equivalent of the US Air Force’s E-3 Sentry AWACS. The purchase was believed to be the first phase of an agreement for eight Russian aircraft.
At the same time, Chinese scientists were working on their own radar equipment. It is not known whether the Russian aircraft were ever delivered, which would have provided a look at the technology, or whether the technicians obtained help from Israeli or Russian counterparts.
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story...l.asp?Id=19041
Friday, December 19, 2008
THE GREAT GAME IN CENTRAL ASIA
The world needs energy and hence we have the term “energy security”. For the longest time, energy meant OIL. Well, that is changing now – to OIL & GAS, and then onto Renewable energy, Solar energy, Wind energy et al.
Today we are the initial cusp, where we are moving from OIL based energy dependence to a Gas based energy dependence. A few countries have made the leap, but globally we are at the inflexion point.
Why this shift ?
Oil has a finite supply and that supply is on the verge of coming to an end. According to the Energy Bible : BP Statistical Review, at current levels of production, Oil reserves of -
1. Saudi Arabia is projected to last only 66 years
2. Iraq & Kuwait is projected to last 100 years
3. India, Australia, Italy, Brazil is projected to last 21 years.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rJE5EoUKGU...serves_560.gif
In contrast to the dipping oil reserves, the gas reserves are growing as new findings are being made. Cars which are running on gasoline (petrol) and diesel will be run on Auto LPG, CNG etc and these are all gas derived. Subsequently these cars will run on hydrogen and even on Compressed Air (Our very own TATA NANO). Industry, home etc will make this shift as pipeline infrastructures are put in place.
And most of this Gas is located in a place called Central Asia. The access to this by major global powers has been romantically called “THE GREAT GAME” - to get a toehold to the supply lines of Central Asia Gas.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rJE5EoUKGU..._pipelines.gif
Currently the largest gas reserves are in Russia with 48 TCM, followed by Iran with 28 TCM. However, all this is changing and will continue to change. With the discovery of Yolotan Osman gas field in Turkmenistan in October 2008, the gas equation and dynamics have changed. Preliminary indications are the gas reserves in Turkmenistan is around 38.4 TCM – far more than Iran and just 20% lower than Russia. And this means immense geopolitical movements around this neighbourhood.
It is to be understood, gas needs to be extracted and then moved over pipelines, some running over thousands of kilometres to reach its ultimate destination. Mostly the end destinations are ports – from where super tankers carry their cargoes around the world. Getting hold of gas fields in not enough. Hence, it is also a game of getting hold of “warm water ports”. The major players in Central Asia are Russia, USA and China.
Let us look at the map of Central & South Asia.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rJE5EoUKGU...south-asia.jpg
Turkmenistan is atop Afghanistan & Iran and this Yolotan Osman gas field is just near the Afghanistan – Turkmenistan border. Other than this, for other gas fields too, Afghanistan is of extreme importance – pipeline infrastructure to warm ports – hence USA will be embedded in Afghanistan for “generations".
Central Asian nations were part of Soviet Union and the breakup of Soviet Union was the handiwork of USA where MICHAEL VICKERS played a sterling part in arming and training the Mujahideen from bases in Pakistan. The goal – Access to Central Asian gas reserves, maintaining its superpower status etc etc.
The other major concern for USA is to keep both Russia and China out of the gas reserves of Central Asia. And also ensure that India and Russia do not join hands with Iran (USA remembers Northern Alliance).
BTC PIPELINE:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rJE5EoUKGU...C_pipeline.gif
Azerbaijan was the true success story of US oil diplomacy. Clinton literally snatched it from Russian orbit in the 1990s by pushing through the Baku – Tbilsi – Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline against seemingly impossible odds. The pipeline meanders from Baku (capital of Azerbaian) to Tbilsi in Georgian and then onto the Turkish port of Ceyhan. From here gas is filled in super tankers and shipped to Europe for consumption.
BTC completely bypasses Russia and this was the main purpose of this line.
NABUCCO PIPELINE:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rJE5EoUKGU...00/nabucco.jpg
The other important pipeline for the USA is the Nabucco pipeline. However, question marks have appeared regarding the future of the Nabucco gas pipeline, which, if constructed, would bypass Russian territory and bring Caspian gas from Azerbaijan via Georgia and Turkey to the European market. What if Azerbaijan accepts the Russian offer to buy gas at "European prices"? Has the Caucasus conflict fatally hurt Nabucco's prospects? It seems, for the present, it has.
Europe has pinned its hopes on Nabucco, but it can only be implemented with Russian participation and also Iran. Nabucco is a serious threat to the Russian “South Stream pipelines” that feed Europe.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TlX8EZcNml...ck-sea-map.gif
BLACK SEA TO A NATO LAKE:
USA was planning and plotting and came to the conclusion that it has to make BLACK SEA into a NATO LAKE. If you look at the map of Central Asia, notice that other than Russia the other 2 countries of ex-Soviet Union that skirt the Black Sea are Ukraine and Georgia. And guess, who have been offered NATO memberships – you guessed it right – Ukraine and Georgia.
However, Russia remains vehemently against this NATO intrusion into its former republics and has made its opposition very clear. USA overplayed its hands in Georgia and gave Russia the chance to kill two birds with one stone.
Georgia has two breakaway provinces – Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It has majority Russian population. The Georgian maverick President Mikhail Shakashvili, under direction from his US experts, started bombing these two provinces to take them over by force.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rJE5EoUKGU...00/georgia.jpg
Russia just drove in and in deft military manoeuvres took control of these provinces. Russia annexed these two provinces, and thus took de-facto control of two major Black Sea ports of Sukhumi & Poti. This was a great tactical blow to USA, because with this single Russian manoeuvre, the US dream of making BLACK SEA into A NATO LAKE was LOST - probably FOREVER.
There were reports that Israel wanted to use bases in Georgia to attack Iran and one of Russia’s aim was to pre-empt that. Interesting to note – Israel got wind of the Russian attack a week before the attacks and left Georgia with its advisers (note: USA stayed behind). The Israelis went to Russia and admitted that arming Georgia was a mistake and implored Russia NOT to arm Hezbollah and Iran with sophisticated armaments and missiles.
Germany came running to Russia and told them that they will block Ukraine’s and Georgia’s entry into NATO and this is exactly what they did – together with France. Germany, scarred from WWII memories of Russia and currently dependant on gas sales from Russia is in no position to take on Russia, nor is there any inclination to anger the Russian bear.
Condoleeza Rice came out defeated and admitted, “Georgia and Ukraine are not ready for (NATO) membership. That is very clear”. Russia won through coercive diplomacy.
Russia also sent a message through this military move to all its former republics, to take cognizance of Russian interests while plotting their gas sales – which have all been duly noted.
Central Asian republics all saw that USA is actually in NO position to militarily help them – Georgia was a case in point.
Russia deftly followed this by meeting Syrian President Assad and getting the port of Tartus as a resting place for its Black Sea maintenance quarters.
With a series of further moves, Russia has made USA nearly redundant in the Caspian region. Russia is flush with funds, and the economic might of USA has taken a serious beating in the economic crisis.
Russia has re-negotiated to buy gas from Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan at prevailing “European prices” thus raising the bar.
The four Russian oil majors had asked Putin for $ 80 billion package to pay off their foreign debts and finance strategic projects. Putin responded by saying that the government will disburse upto $ 50 billion.
How many Western governments can match Russia providing such backing of sovereign wealth funds to its oil majors at the present time of global credit crunch?
Moscow offered $4 billion loan to Ukraine for establishing two nuclear power plant in its western region. This is despite the pro-US stance of Ukranian Victor Yushchenko.
Also, there is huge political symbolism when Iceland expresses “dissapointment” with the Western world and turns to Moscow for a 4 billion Euro ($ 5.5 billion) loan to salvage its economy from imminent bankruptcy.
Such images make a lasting impression on the Central Asian steppes.
Russia with its vast deposits of oil and gas is already an energy superpower. And unlike Iran and Venezuela, it does not subsidize its economy from the oil proceeds – hence with the oil price down, its economy is still strong unlike those that of Iran and Venezuela. The EU is heavily dependant on Russia for gas imports and this dependence is expected to increase further as a result of declining offshore production of North Sea.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rJE5EoUKGU...p_pipe_map.gif
Azerbaijan is negotiating with Russia to increase the annual capacity of the Baku – Nvorossiisk pipeline. At the same time Azerbaijanis reducing its commitment to the US sponsored Baku – Supsa and BTC pipelines and this is a major breakthrough for the Russians. Azerbaijan understands the Russian resurgence in southern Caucasus and Baku’s new interest in the Russian pipeline stems from a desire to protect its relationship with Moscow.
The implications are very serious for Washington. Any reduction in the Baku export through BTC could impact the viability of the pipeline which has been the cornerstone of US diplomacy in the region, pumping nearly 1 million barrels of oil / day from Azerbaijan to Turkey’s coast from where it is shipped to Europe. BTC, though secure now, has come under the watch of the Russians.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TlX8EZcNml...cpc-map-en.gif
In September 2008, Uzbekistan and Russia agreed to build a new pipeline with a capacity of 26 to 30 billion cubic meters (bcm) annually to pump Uzbek and Trukmen gas to Europe. Such a pipeline will again undermine the US efforts to pump trans-Caspian energy routes bypassing Russia.
On top of this, neither Azerbaijan nor Kazakhstan appears interested in US entreaties to re-route energy exports bypassing Russia. Both hope to maintain good relations with USA but that cannot be done by picking a quarrel with Russia.
It seems the US phrase – “either you are with us or against us” is not finding any takers in Central Asia. Central Asian countries would do business with both but not at the expense of Russia and this rankles the USA as it has clearly fallen from the high “horse” they thought it was in.
CHINA:
At the same time China is anxious to get its act together and bind its energy security in this region. It has formed SCO to cement its energy needs in this region which the US is vehemently trying to push out. China knows that it cannot match US power for at least the next 15 years and its naval forces are no match to the US fleet and even the Japanese fleet. Hence it is going out of its way to get to the Central Asian gas reserves through land routes, even though many of them look unviable at the present time.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rJE5EoUKGU.../s400/ESPO.gif
One of the better tieups will be to tag along the Russian ESPO pipeline. Russia is expected to complete this East Siberia to Pacific (ESPO) by 2012 for routing oil to Asian markets. Kazakhstan’s state oil pipeline operator KazTransOil is interested in transporting Kazakh oil through the ESPO. To note – Astana has shown no hurry to commit Kashagan oil to the US sponsored BTC pipeline but has committed to the Russian ESPO pipelines. US influence has truly reached its nadir in this region.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rJE5EoUKGU...hina_pipes.gif
Unlike the USA or Russians, the Chinese have their own method of doing business overseas. Being a mercantilist and free of moral and political constraints, it hopes that it will continue doing what it loves best – making money. Chinese hope to sell cheap DVD players and exotic Chinese prostitutes, built roads and docks and in the bargain – gobble up Central Asian energy.
Washington is clearly nervous that Kazakhstan is showing alarming signs of shifting towards Moscow. All early investments by the USA in this region has come to naught. Astana supported Russian action in the Caucasus and cut down its investment in Georgia.
Clearly the Russians and Chinese have outmanoeuvred the American in Central Asia stakes.
TURKMENISTAN:
We had touched earlier on the fact : Preliminary indications are the gas reserves in Turkmenistan is around 38.4 TCM – far more than Iran and just 20% lower than Russia (largest gas reserves in the world). The British consultancy company Gaffney, Cline & Associates (GCA) presented the first results of its audit of Turkmen gas reserves.
The biggest gas field discovery was in October 2008 – called the Yoloten Osman deposits. It is located near the Afghan – Turkmenistan border.
Turkmenistan has contracts to supply Russia with 50 bcm annually, China with 40 bcm and Iran with 8 bcm annually. The Russian energy giant GAZPROM requires this Turkmen gas to meet its export obligations in the European market, which accounts for 70% of the its total revenue. Gazprom sells 2/3 of Russia’s 550 bcm annual gas production in the rapidly growing domestic market. This compels it to secure Turkmen supplies to meet contracted European demands.
Looks like Russia is all set to gobble up gas supplies from Turkmenistan – but look again. Gazprom’s agreement with Turkmengaz DOES NOT INVOLVE YOLOTEN – OSMAN reserves.
Russia thought it held in its hand a chimera when it fancied that the July 25th Agreement put GAZPROM in charge of all of Turkmenistan’s exports. Surely, this is proving to be a misconception of Himalayan proportions.
USA has deftly moved in to claim its stakes on the Yoloten-Osman gas reserves and for Russia the game starts again.
Take a look at the map. USA is well places in Afghanistan and can easily draw pipelines from Yoloten-Osman gas reserves through Afghanistan. And after that, it needs a warm water port to load it on super tankers.
The only viable ports are Karachi in Pakistan and also Gwadar port in Baluchistan area of Pakistan. Pakistan has built Gwadar with Chinese help to serve several purpose and one of them was access to Central Asian oil. USA is in no mood to see that this happens. Gwadar may well become the Chinese naval base in future and have eyeball to eyeball confrontation with the US naval fleet.
The other port is Chabahar in Iran. This has been built by India. Look how close the ports of Gwadar and Chabahar are.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rJE5EoUKGU...har_gwadar.gif
We must not forget this part :
When Afghanistan was under the control of Taliban, USA was willing to shake hands with the devil – just to get access to pipelines through Afghanistan. UNOCAL the US company in the thick of pipeline planning through Afghanistan, was acting as the unofficial lobby for the Taliban and they were regularly briefed by CIA and Pakistan’s ISI.
The then US Assistant Secy of State for South Asian Affairs, ROBIN RAPHAEL went on to state – “The Taliban capture of Kabul is a POSITIVE STEP.”
Another senior US Diplomat stated : “The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did. There will be Aramco, pipelines, an Emir, no parliament and lots of shari’a law. We can live with that.”
We must not lose sight of these statements. These are not statements of two individuals - they represent the USA mindset.
The USA will have tolerated Taliban and Shari’a just to get gas pipelines and this approach has not changed. USA tolerates the Saudi emirs. It may be a democracy itself, but in matters of business, it follows only one policy – “ANYTHING GOES” as long as its interests are met.
USA is looking for any stable partner that will guarantee it “peace” to “do business” in Afghanistan. Hence, for India, this becomes very important – Who will guarantee this “Peaceful business environment in Afghanistan”?
Will it again be Taliban + Pakistan or will it be Pushtuns + Balochis through independent countries created out of parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan?
If the USA game plan is the former – Taliban + Pakistan, we must ensure that this never comes into being. This will be disastrous for India. The latter, we can deal with and we will come to this part in the next article.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rJE5EoUKGU..._pipelines.gif
The Central Asia as it will look in the future. Afghanistan will play a pivotal pipeline role.
India too has legitimate energy concerns but USA will see to it that the Iranian – Indian gas pipeline or even the TAPI (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India) does not come into being.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rJE5EoUKGU...-India+Map.gif
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rJE5EoUKGU...I-pipeline.gif
The US with its dipping wealth and high levels of corruption is unable to stake claim of any sort in Central Asia. It is clutching at the straws with BTC and Nabucco pipelines. It will surely seek to leverage its presence in Afghanistan on the Yolotan-Osman gas fields to salvage pride and standing in the region.
My brain is numb with information, thanks vector 7.;)
I had forgotten how many countries end in -stan. Must be the Arabic ending for land? Here in Missouristan we still feel that the United States would be allied more with India than Pakistan when the big one starts.
The Pakistan/Afghanistan border has been described to me as the United States when we had Indian Territory. I still think one of the two countries should send in the cavalry. It may result in Custer like outcome in the begining, but he who makes the first move will eventually win the war.
You know this article could have gone into several different threads. I actually linked it in crude oil prices as it goes into a detailed overview of the global oil supply chessboard with all the diverse super powers competing for these resources.
I'm sure the strategic competition for energy resources is a serious game in global government. If Mr. O has been deemed to invade Pakistan like we did Iraq the Axis is actively fortifying the assets there to make that operation more difficult.
If the the next event comes from that area it could continue to draw America out like Saladin did during the Crusades.
http://piling.canalblog.com/images/t-saladin1.jpg
The Axis is actively partnering with the Islamic Oil States to undermine the West.
v7
Lashkar-e-Jhangvi involved in Marriott blast
Monday, 22 Dec, 2008 | 07:02 PM PST
http://www.dawn.net/wps/wcm/connect/...pg?MOD=AJPERES
The Marriott hotel in Islamabad was attack
by militants on September 20
ISLAMABAD: Adviser to Prime Minister on Interior Rehman Malik said on Monday that the banned militant outfit Lashkar-e-Jhangvi was involved in blast on Islamabad’s Marriott hotel on September 20. The interior ministry official was presenting a report on the findings of the blast in a session of the National Assembly today. ‘The entire matter has been solved... Basically it was assisted by Lashkar-e-Jhangvi,’ Malik told federal lawmakers in parliament.
Malik said two teenage boys had been arrested in Toba Tek Singh in connection with the attack, which was carried out by a suicide bomber in a dump truck packed with 600 kilograms of high explosives. ‘The car which was used, the dumper which was used – we have full information about it,’ Malik said, explaining that the truck bomb was prepared in Jhang and then driven into the capital. ‘We have got the details of telephone calls. Two boys who assisted were arrested.’
Malik said the banned militant organisation was involved in planning the attack and that the truck used by the attackers was ‘loaded with ammunition in Jhang.’ The truck entered Islamabad through Rawat, a town near Murree, he added. Malik said a complete report had been prepared based on the investigations carried out after the attack and will be presented to the parliament soon. Four men had already been remanded in custody pending trial. No one has claimed responsibility for the September 20 attack, which killed at least 60 people and wounded more than 260.
Pakistan scrambles fighter jets over major cities
Rediff ^ | 22 Dec. 2008 | Rediff
Pakistan scrambled fighter jets over several major cities on Monday, including the federal capital, as it said it had stepped up "vigilance" in view of the "current environment".
The aircraft roared over Islamabad, the nearby garrison city of Rawalpindi and other cities this afternoon as Air Force spokesman Air Commodore Humayun Viqar Zephyr said in a statement: "in view of the current environment, PAF has enhanced its vigilance."
The brief statement from the air force did not give any more details. Residents in the capital made panic calls to media stations to ask about the low-flying aircrafts.
The air sorties by the PAF came a day after External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said India is keeping "all options open" to deal with the aftermath of the Mumbai terror attacks.
India has blamed Pakistan-based elements, including the Lashkar-e-Tayiba terror group, for the attacks and asked Pakistan to take action against them.
Congress party chief Sonia Gandhi too has said that India could give a "befitting reply" to those involved in the Mumbai attacks.
The two countries were involved in a spat last week over alleged violations of Pakistani airspace by Indian warplanes.
Pakistan lodged a formal protest that Indian jets had violated an agreement on airspace violations in the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Lahore sectors, a charge flatly denied by India.
Indian High Commissioner Satyabrata Pal is in Delhi to attend a meeting of all Indian envoys and Pakistani High Commissioner Shahid Malik is in Islamabad for consultations.
Rumours of war create panic in Pakistan
22 Dec, 2008, 1901 hrs IST, IANS
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Air Force has increased its vigilance flights creating panic and sparking war rumours, as Defence Minister Ahmad Mukhtar Chau dhry on Monday warned that the country had the potential and right to defend itself if forced to war.
"If India tried to thrust war, then the armed forces of Pakistan have all the potential and right to defend (the country)," Chaudhry told reporters, as he said the defence of Pakistan was in strong hands.
Chaudhry said India would never want war because "if it breaks out, then god forbid the situation might develop into a nuclear war."
He said Congress president Sonia Gandhi's statement relating to war with Pakistan was nothing but an election stunt.
Meanwhile, PAF jet flights over Lahore and Rawalpindi created panic sparking rumours that India had launched attack to target Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and offices of other jihadi organisations.
Mobile phone messages that have now become major source of information started circulating that PAF jets were flying to counter Indian attacks. However, television channels quoting officials were quick to dispel the rumours.
GEO TV quoting an official spokesman said PAF has increased vigilance and the flights over Rawalpindi and Lahore were inside Pakistan. The PAF is on high alert since reports of any possible attack by India.
"In the current environment, the PAF has enhanced its vigilance," PAF spokesman Air Commodore Humaun Viqar was quoted as saying. Other channels also quoted different officials that Pakistan forces were on alert but dispelled rumours of any attack.
However, residents in Islamabad and other cities came out of their homes and offices and started calling media organisations.
Reports said all airports of the country were also put on high alert. Flights bound for Dubai from Lahore and another from Quetta were halted while all entry passes at Lahore airport have been cancelled.
Sources said that such measures were taken for landing of the PAF aircraft in case of any emergency while they flew over Lahore and Rawalpindi.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ow/3875617.cms
Military Rivalry in Central Asia
Stephen Blank | 22 Dec 2008
World Politics Review
The attacks of 9/11 and the ensuing war in Afghanistan did not start the new "Great Game" in Central Asia. Local governments had already grasped the Islamist threat, as well as Russia's neo-imperial longings to dominate the region. Central Asia's great energy stakes, meanwhile, had already determined American resistance to Moscow's policy.
However those events undoubtedly imparted a pronounced military aspect to the great power rivalry for political influence and energy access there. Since 2001, the U.S., Russia, Germany, France and India have all acquired local military bases, and their uses or potential missions have grown in importance (although France's presence at Dushanbe airport and Germany's base at Termez in Uzbekistan remain small operations). China, too, has sought bases in Central Asia, expressing interest in a Kyrgyzstan base in 2005, soon after that country's "tulip Revolution," with the clear intention of forestalling any further upheavals. And when Uzbekistan evicted the U.S. from its base at Karshi Khanabad in July 2005, China sought that base as well, although the move was ultimately blocked by Russia.[1]
The U.S. military presence in Central Asia could conceivably grow further, due to the Obama administration's declared emphasis upon winning the war in Afghanistan. The redoubled effort there could be used to justify moving U.S. supply lines from Pakistan, where they are exposed to great risk from terrorists and their supporters, to other locations in Central Asia.[2] Already, Kazakhstan has recently allowed the U.S. to use the aerodrome at Almaty for emergency landings of coalition air forces.[3] And Uzbekistan also granted the U.S. limited use of the base at Termez, which it had allowed Germany to use as a "friendship bridge" from which to deliver non-military supplies to Afghanistan. Now, "Individual Americans attached to the NATO International Staff can use the German air-bridge from Termez to Afghanistan on a case-by-case basis."[4] However, even an expanded U.S. military presence in Central Asia would not change the fact that the U.S. and Franco-German military presence there is confined to prosecuting the war in Afghanistan.
Other cases of foreign military bases reflect different considerations. India's base at Ayni in Tajikistan, for instance, owes more to the Indo-Pakistani rivalry than to anything else. While India formally eschews offensive military projections to intervene unilaterally in other countries, it had sought an air base in Central Asia -- to defend its flights and to gain a capability to threaten Pakistan from the rear -- after Pakistan closed its air space to Indian commercial flights to Europe in 2002. While little is known about the air base (India didn't announce that it had been operational until 2006), it could conceivably be used for operations against Central Asian insurgents, Pakistan, or to support a friendly government.[5]
The base may not be India's last in the region, or remain small. Indeed, it could become the spearhead of a deepening Indian involvement in Central Asian defense, as India also hopes to improve military logistics in Iran, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan.[6] India's ties with Tajikistan led to joint Tajik-Indian military exercises in 2003, involving the air, airborne, and ground forces of both sides.[7] Tajikistan has subsequently appealed to India to deepen existing military ties and provide arms sales since its forces lack modern, effective weapons and equipment.[8]
Today, this base is surprisingly collocated with a Russian air base at Farkhor, Tajikistan -- surprisingly, because Russian officials have frequently and publicly opposed any foreign bases in Central Asia.[9] Specifically, in 2004, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Vyacheslav Trubnikov, now ambassador to India, stated publicly that Russia opposes any foreign bases in Central Asia, making specific mention of Chinese bases. Subsequent official statements reiterated this point.[10]
Russia's Military Presence
Despite these modest inroads, however, the most far-reaching and comprehensive defense presence in the region remains Russia's, whose Central Asian policy is openly and frankly neocolonialist. Indeed, Putin's tenure in office since 2000 has been accompanied by a heightened interest and attention to ensuring that Central Asia remains firmly under exclusive Russian influence.[11] Even if one argues that Russia's primary goal is to stabilize the status quo, Russia approaches that objective in ways reflecting its fundamental denial of Central Asian governments' full sovereignty. Russia's "tutelage" aims not just to forestall all significant change but also to ensure that local political change does not then trigger a crisis within Russia. In other words, its regional policies are in some respects a domestic stability operation. Indeed, Russian strategists openly assume that no other power will take responsibility for providing Central Asian security.[12]
By 2003, Russia had already claimed the right to intervene in Central Asia against a threat to existing regimes there or to its vital interests as it alone defined them.[13] Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov subsequently reiterated that Russia regarded any attempt to disturb the "existing constitutional order" there as its greatest security threat.[14] Despite Russia's public support for America's bases and military presence in Central Asia, immediately after these bases were built, Moscow announced that it regarded them as temporary ones that would be removed after the end of hostilities in Afghanistan. Indeed, by 2003, Ivanov was reportedly opposing the continuation of those bases.[15] Moscow also lost no time in persuading Kyrgyzstan to grant it a different base at Kant. Since 2002, it has steadily reinforced that base and sought and obtained others, most recently the base at Giesar in Tajikistan.[16]
Russia cheered the Uzbek eviction of the U.S. from Karshi Khanabad in 2005, and then promptly negotiated a new accord with Uzbekistan, obtaining access to a base at Navoi in December 2006. While that agreement indicates that both Tashkent's and Moscow's anxieties transcend terrorist attacks, it also registered Uzbekistan's wariness of Russian intentions. Compared to an earlier, November 2005 bilateral treaty between them, which contained language enabling Moscow to aid Uzbekistan's government, the new agreement limited such aid, as well as Russian access to Navoi, to the case of emergencies or what some reports called "force majeure" contingencies.
It's likely that Russia wanted more access to the base than this, as Uzbekistan will probably become the regional headquarters for a unified air defense for Russia and several Central Asian governments, as it was in Soviet times. This regional system will become a component of the CIS Unified Air Defense system based upon pre-existing Soviet facilities and structures. Thus the deal represented a "reanimation" of the Soviet defense structure. Meanwhile Uzbek SU-27 and MiG-29s will be posted there as a regular peacetime deployment.
Moscow's need for the base, with its air defense capability, was evidently driven by Russia's interests in Uzbek uranium production and enrichment, which now take place at the Navoi Mining and Smelting plant. The new capability will allegedly help protect those works from air attacks -- the Taliban had its own aircraft and combat pilots -- and international terrorism.[17] Nevertheless, the idea that Afghan-based terrorists could launch air strikes in Central Asia anytime soon is far-fetched, and neither Moscow nor Tashkent is sending forces to fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Which suggests that Moscow and Tashkent had other enemies in mind.
Access to Navoi enhances Russia's capability to project air and air defense assets in and to Central Asia against potential domestic insurgencies, a reflection of both the considerable Russo-Chinese anxiety over their inability to intervene in Kyrgyzstan in 2005's Tulip Revolution, and the subsequent efforts both made to achieve that power projection capability. The Navoi base is also part of Russia's broader efforts to encompass all of Central Asia in a single defense organization whose aims are both counterrevolutionary and anti-democratic. Moscow is clearly the gendarme here, on the lookout against any domestic unrest lest another "color revolution" break out, a contingency openly discussed by Russian planners with regards to Central Asia.
Some Russian military analysts consider that if Kyrgyzstan were overtaken by a complete political collapse, Russia and Kazakhstan could impose some kind of protectorate until stability could be reestablished and new elections held. In this scenario, the United States would allow Moscow to take action in Kyrgyzstan, because most of its own resources would already be mobilized in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and probably in Iran and Syria. Russian help would then be welcomed, because much preferred to that of China. Indeed, if Russia did not dare to put itself forward as a stabilizing force, China might use Uyghur separatism to do so.[18]
A second objective relates to Russian fears of U.S. air strikes originating from Central Asia or the Indian Ocean, including carrier-based air strikes against Iran. The Russian military clearly regards the United States and NATO's forces as its main enemy and largely expects any first strike to come from long-range air strikes. Since 1991, much of Russia's air defenses and early warning systems were disrupted to the point where Russia was actually often "blind" to potential attacks. To remedy this situation, "reanimating" the old Soviet air defense system is crucial, as is exclusion of U.S. forces from Central Asia. Furthermore, Russia is building an integrated land, sea and air force to project power throughout the Caspian basin, while excluding all foreign rivals by expanding existing bases or building new ones. A unified air defense is critical to the protection of all those forces. [19] Russia now has bases in 12 of the former Soviet republics.[20] This process of building an integrated power projection force possesses multiple dimensions.
Russia also champions its Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) as an umbrella defense pact of all Central Asian states (except Turkmenistan) to defend against terrorism and insurgency, not to say invasion. Russia supplies the members with subsidized weapons, attempting thereby to restore the "All-Union" defense industry system. Russia also leads the CSTO in conducting exercises, building headquarters and staffs, planning for forces to man them, and in securing bases for itself in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. By 2006, Russia had begun building its integrated land, sea and air force that could be stationed in the Caspian Sea and at local airbases, while also developing a rapid power projection capability.
Efforts to integrate the region into a Russian-dominated defense architecture include a proposed Caspian naval force (CASFOR) to exclude non-littoral states, and attempts to tie local defense industries to its own. Moscow also intends to preclude Central Asian states' ability to defend themselves without -- or against -- Russia, to collaborate on their own in regional security organizations, or to be attached in some way to NATO and is utilizing its organizational resources particularly within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the CSTO, to advance its aims.[21]
Next page: Regional security arrangements. . .
Continue: 1 | 2 | Next Page >>
Sabre-rattling by India as military chiefs brief PM
NEW DELHI: India stepped up the pressure on Pakistan on Saturday with a strong signal that it was keeping its military options open. The message came loud and clear from a four-hour-long meeting in the evening that began at Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s residence and later shifted to the war room in the defence ministry.
At the meeting, the three service chiefs briefed the Prime Minister and his senior cabinet colleagues on the state of military preparedness.
Sources said Dr Manmohan Singh, defence minister AK Antony, external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee and home minister P Chidambaram were among those present. The meeting in the war room lasted about two hours with the chiefs briefing those present about the state of high alert being maintained by the Army, Air Force and
Navy.
The briefing in the war room is rare and signals the fact that the military option is still very much on the table. It was preceded by a meeting of the core committee of the ruling United Progressive Alliance front in the 7 Race Course Road residence of the Prime Minister.
In the wake of the Mumbai attacks, the Indian military has gone into a state of high alert, but has not yet taken an offensive posture. In the meanwhile, there has also been a steady stream of intelligence warnings, from both Indian agencies and foreign countries, about several threats. Among them are aerial threats to key installations and the possibility of yet another sea-borne attack.
Sources told DNA that home minister Chidambaram has reviewed with the intelligence chiefs and National Security Advisor details of terrorist camps in Pakistan.
Indian agencies are believed to have the exact coordinates of over a dozen of the major terrorist training camps.
As part of the ongoing state of military preparedness, the non-static Army units have been issued over the past couple of days instructions for the highest state of alert within their present locations, asking them to be ready for mobilization. The units have also been informally instructed to minimize leave during the period. These units, mostly infantry, artillery and armoured battalions, have started carrying out intensive checks of their mobilisation preparedness.
Simultaneously, India has also summoned all its 120 ambassadorshigh commissioners and other heads of missions from all foreign nations. They are to be briefed about the Mumbai attacks and its fallouts and the government’s coercive diplomacy efforts.
- http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?n...15694&pageid=2
India steps up vigil along Rajasthan border
22 Dec 2008, 0302 hrs IST, Vimal Bhatia, TNN
JAISALMER: Even as India refused to take the military option off the table while asking Pakistan to rein in the terrorists, the Indian Army’s and
IAF’s quick reaction teams (QRTs) were deployed along the borders in the Western Sector.
QRTs are also keeping a close watch on air space with the help of additional defence equipment. Security in and around defence air strips has been tightened.
These measures were taken following reports that Pakistan has deployed its forces along its border. IAF sources said security around places of strategic importance has been stepped up. They said more radars and QRTs have been deployed along the India-Pakistan border.
IAF had initiated these measures to strengthen its air defence to face any eventuality at a short notice. Additional hangars and runways have been prepared and all the radars have been put on high alert. Sources said tight radar surveillance is being maintained to keep a watch on any suspected movements along the border.
Air commandos have been deployed to ward off any possible retaliatory attack, they said, adding the entire border and its adjoining areas have been sanitised and the security situation reviewed. The commandos have also been deployed at borders (mainly at air-strips) in Jaisalmer, Uttarlai (Barmer) and Bhuj (Gujarat).
“Runways, hangars, main roads, ammunition stores and other sensitive places have been provided with additional cover. Sophisticated radars are installed at a few air bases and we are keeping watch on each and every cross-border activity,” said an IAF personnel.
“Entry of unauthorised persons in defence areas has been prohibited and people’s movement in the surrounding areas is being watched,” he said.
Confirming extra deployment of Pakistan Rangers, DID, Rajasthan Frontier of BSF R C Sayani said, “We have inputs about Pakisan army officers frequently visiting the border areas.”
Indian forces were on regular firing exercises at locations like Lathi Firing Range in Jaisalmer, Mahsan in Bikaner, Suratgarh and Ganganagar.
- http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/I...ow/3871982.cms
Indian Coast Guard seizes Pakistan boat off Gujarat coast,8 held
By our correspondent
Bhuj, DeshGujarat, 22 December, 2008
Extra vigilant after Pakistan based Islamic terrorists attacked Mumbai using sea rout, the India Coast Guard on Monday detained a Pakistani fishing vessel ‘Al-Janab’ off the Gujarat coast and took into custody eight Pakistani nationals.
Sources told DeshGujarat, “The men in the trawler have custom passes issued at Karachi. The boat was 5 to 6 nautical miles within Indian waters when spotted by the Coast Guard patrolling ship ‘Mirabai’ . The boat had left Karachi port before ten days. When quizzed, Pakistani Fishermen told that due to strong winds, their boat had crossed the limit. It’s engine too created problem later on which brought them in a helpless and stand still condition inside the Indian waters as the engine was no more in working condition.”
The fishing boat was detained from near creek area by Coast Guard ship ‘Mirabai’ and brought to the Coast Guard’s forward operating post at Jakhau port by Coast Guard boat C-136. Those held have told Coast Guard officials that they hail from Karachi in Pakistan’s Sindh province. They had migrated from Bangladesh to Pakistan before a decade. The security forces concerned have been intimated in this regard,” sources said, adding that the arrested men will be taken to Bhuj for further interrogation.
Kutch district collector R.R.Varsani congratulated Indian Coast Guard for consequently forth success in nabbing Pakistan boat inside the Indian waters during current fishing season.
http://deshgujarat.com/2008/12/22/in...t-coast8-held/
Does history repeat itself?
Evidence at Mohenjo-DaroWhen excavations of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro reached the street level, they discovered skeletons scattered about the cities, many holding hands and sprawling in the streets as if some instant, horrible doom had taken place. People were just lying, unburied, in the streets of the city.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/im...a_Harappa1.jpg
And these skeletons are thousands of years old, even by traditional archaeological standards. What could cause such a thing? Why did the bodies not decay or get eaten by wild animals? Furthermore, there is no apparent cause of a physically violent death. These skeletons are among the most radioactive ever found, on par with those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
At one site, Soviet scholars found a skeleton which had a radioactive level 50 times greater than normal. Other cities have been found in northern India that show indications of explosions of great magnitude. One such city, found between the Ganges and the mountains of Rajmahal, seems to have been subjected to intense heat. Huge masses of walls and foundations of the ancient city are fused together, literally vitrified! And since there is no indication of a volcanic eruption at Mohenjo-Daro or at the other cities, the intense heat to melt clay vessels can only be explained by an atomic blast or some other unknown weapon. The cities were wiped out entirely.
While the skeletons have been carbon-dated to 2500 BC, we must keep in mind that carbon-dating involves measuring the amount of radiation left. When atomic explosions are involved, that makes then seem much younger.
Giant Unexplained Crater Near Bombayby David Hatcher ChildressNexus Magazine
Another curious sign of an ancient nuclear war in India is a giant crater near Bombay. The nearly circular 2,154-metre-diameter Lonar crater, located 400 kilometers northeast of Bombay and aged at less than 50,000 years old, could be related to nuclear warfare of antiquity. No trace of any meteoric material, etc., has been found at the site or in the vicinity, and this is the world's only known "impact" crater in basalt. Indications of great shock (from a pressure exceeding 600,000 atmospheres) and intense, abrupt heat (indicated by basalt glass spherules) can be ascertained from the site.
A Nuclear Catastrophe in Paleoindian Times?by Richard B.Firestone and William ToppingTerrestrial Evidence of a Nuclear Catastrophe in Paleoindian Times
The Mammoth Trumpet, 16:9, March 2001. Cr. C. Davant III.This off-mainstream journal is published by the Center for the Study of the First Americans, 355 Weniger Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-6510.
IntroductionWe introduce here a remarkable theory of terrestrial catastrophism that seems to be supported by evidence that is equally remarkable. One of the authors of this theory (RBF) is identified as a nuclear scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley Nuclear Laboratory.
The second author (WT) is a consultant. The authors' credentials seem so good that we must take a close look at their extraordinary claims concerning a natural phenomenon that they believe reset radiocarbon clocks in north-central North America and - potentially - elsewhere on the planet.
The claimsIn the authors' words: Our research indicates that the entire Great Lakes region (and beyond) was subjected to particle bombardment and a catastrophic nuclear irradiation that produced secondary thermal neutrons from cosmic ray interactions. The neutrons produced unusually large quantities of ^239 Pu and substantially altered the natural uranium abundances (^235 U/^238 U) in artifacts and in other exposed materials including cherts, sediments, and the entire landscape.
These neutrons necessarily transmuted residual nitrogen (^ N) in the dated charcoals to radiocarbon, thus explaining anomalous dates. Some North American dates may in consequence be as much as 10,000 years too young. So, we are not dealing with a trivial phenomenon!
Supporting evidence
Four main categories of supporting evidence are claimed and presented in varying degrees of detail.
Anomalously young radiocarbon dates in north-central North America. Example: the Gainey site in Michigan. [Other map sites include Thedford & Zander, Ont.; Potts, NY; Shoop, Penn.; Alton, Ind.; Taylor, Il.; Butler & Leavitt, Mich.; and far to the north Grant Lake, Nunavut; and in the far southwest Baker, N.M. - TWC] Physical evidence of particle bombardment. Example: chert artifacts with high densities of particle-entrance wounds Anomalous uranium and plutonium abundance ratios in the affected area Tree-ring and marine sediment data
The authors claim that the burst of radiation from a nearby supernova, circa 12,500 years ago, not only reset radiocarbon clocks but also heated the planet's atmosphere, melted ice sheets, and led to biological extinctions. If verified, the claimed phenomenon would also "reset" archeological models of the settlement of North and South America. To illustrate, we may have to add as many as 10,000 years to site dates in much of North America!
Rajasthan: Evidence of Ancient Atomic Explosion
Radiation still so intense, the area is highly dangerous. A heavy layer of radioactive ash in Rajasthan, India, covers a three-square mile area, ten miles west of Jodhpur. Scientists are investigating the site, where a housing development was being built. For some time it has been established that there is a very high rate of birth defects and cancer in the area under construction. The levels of radiation there have registered so high on investigators' gauges that the Indian government has now cordoned off the region.
Scientists have unearthed an ancient city where evidence shows an atomic blast dating back thousands of years, from 8,000 to 12,000 years, destroyed most of the buildings and probably a half-million people. One researcher estimates that the nuclear bomb used was about the size of the ones dropped on Japan in 1945.
A Historian Comments
Historian Kisari Mohan Ganguli says that "Indian sacred writings" are full of such descriptions, which sound like an atomic blast as experienced in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He says references mention fighting sky chariots and final weapons.
An ancient battle is described in the Drona Parva, a section of the Mahabharata."The passage tells of combat where explosions of final weapons decimate entire armies, causing crowds of warriors with steeds and elephants and weapons to be carried away as if they were dry leaves of trees," says Ganguli.Archeological Investigation provides information
"Instead of mushroom clouds, the writer describes a perpendicular explosion with its billowing smoke clouds as consecutive openings of giant parasols. There are comments about the contamination of food and people's hair falling out."
Archeologist Francis Taylor says that etchings in some nearby temples he has managed to translate suggest that they prayed to be spared from the great light that was coming to lay ruin to the city."It's so mid-boggling to imagine that some civilization had nuclear technology before we did. The radioactive ash adds credibility to the ancient Indian records that describe atomic warfare."Construction has halted while the five member team conducts the investigation. The foreman of the project is Lee Hundley, who pioneered the investigation after the high level of radiation was discovered.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/an...ncient%20india
Report: Saudis seek nuclear weapons
Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:07:05 GMT
Saudi Arabia has sought Pakistan's help as part of its long-term plan to attain nuclear weapons for regional dominance, says a report.
http://www.presstv.ir/photo/20081222...2135409250.jpg
"Reports have circulated for years that the Saudis have pursued a secret nuclear program with help from Pakistan, though the Saudis deny this," said a Wall Street Journal article titled 'A Middle East Arms Race'.
For years now, media outlets have alleged that Saudi officials are interested in nuclear proliferation, citing comments by former Saudi diplomat Mohammed Khilewi -- who defected to the US in 1994.
Khilewi reportedly handed over documents to US officials, which revealed that the Saudi government was interested in nuclear proliferation.
According to the diplomat, who now lives undercover in the New York City area, Saudi officials have had a covert nuclear weapons research effort since 1975.
Khilewi says Saudi Arabia wants bombs to counter the threat posed by Israel -- which already has Arab territory under occupation.
An article published by The Guardian in 2003, made similar claims, suggesting that Riyadh was considering nuclear proliferation. According to the article, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were engaged in secret nuclear cooperation.
A 2006 report printed by a British global business magazine, also alleged that Saudi Arabia had financed the Pakistani nuclear drive.
"Western intelligence services are now convinced that Saudi Arabia played a large role in financing Pakistan's nuclear bomb project. Riyadh's aim was to guarantee it immediate access to a nuclear arsenal… British Intelligence (MI6) already regards Saudi Arabia as a surrogate nuclear power, able to join the club whenever it chooses," reported The Business.
The Wall Street Journal report comes as the global economic crisis continues to plague Pakistan.
According to October comments by Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, the country is in desperate need of a $100 billion bailout from the international community to survive the financial crisis and fight terrorism at the same time.
MJ/AA/DT
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...onid=351020205
Former DIA Analyst: Saudi Arabia Bankrolled Pak Nukes
Former US Defense Intelligence Agency analyst Thomas Woodrow writing in a publication of the Jamestown Foundation claims that Saudi Arabia may have funded Pakistan's nuclear weapons development program:
Beijing is rapidly becoming a major player in world oil markets, and increasingly sees access to energy resources as a critical component of its national security and long-term military strategy. It has assiduously cultivated ties with Riyadh since the mid-1980s, when it sold CSS-2 nuclear-capable intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) to Saudi Arabia. Some reports indicate that Saudi Arabia has been involved in funding Pakistan's missile and nuclear program purchases from China, which has resulted in Pakistan becoming a nuclear weapons-producing and -proliferating state.
China maintains a very close relationship with Saudi Arabia as a key component of its strategy to guarantee access to oil resources in the Persian Gulf. Until 1995, China was a net exporter of oil. In 2001, it imported over 60 million tons.
Its need for imported oil to maintain its GNP growth will at least double over the next decade. It will very soon become a major influence in the global oil market, a development that will have immense ramifications on resource competition and international security ties.
Is India alone in this fight?
Seema Guha
Tuesday, December 23, 2008 02:15 IST
NEW DELHI: For the first time since the Mumbai carnage, India publicly declared that the response of the international community to the terror attacks was inadequate.
After the attacks, world leaders offered their sympathies and asked Pakistan to crack down on terror outfits in that country. US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice flew down to India and expressed solidarity with the people of the country. The UN Security Council declared the Jamaat-ud-Dawa a proscribed outfit. But that was about it. No concrete step was taken to permanently root out the problem.
Islamabad has been playing a cat-and-mouse game, moving one step forward and two steps backwards. This has angered the government because it now realises that Islamabad is doing what it has always done — claiming that no proof of Pakistan’s hand in the Mumbai attacks has so far been given to them.
Foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee, who has kept up the pressure on President Asif Zardari, voiced India’s disappointment again on Monday. “There has been some effort so far by the international community but it’s not enough. Much more needs to be done and the actions should be pursued to their logical conclusion,” the minister said. “We need effective steps not only to bring those responsible for the Mumbai attacks to justice, but also to ensure that such acts of terrorism do not recur,” Mukherjee said while speaking to a gathering of Indian ambassadors in the capital. A three-day conference of heads of missions began here on Monday morning.
Mukherjee clearly laid down what India expects from Islamabad. Those responsible for the Mumbai attacks must be punished and the authorities must make sure there is not another Pak-sponsored terror attack in India, he said. This will be the message that Indian ambassadors will carry back to the host governments. “While we continue to persuade the international community and Pakistan, we are also clear that ultimately it is we who have to deal with this problem. We will take all measures as we deem fit to deal with the situation,’’ Mukherjee said.
A similar sentiment was echoed by senior officials in the South Block. “We are not relying on the US or any other power to do our job. We know every country has its own interests at heart. But we are trying to see how we can work with countries which have common interests with us in getting Pakistan to co operate,’’ the officials said.
After the conference, reporters asked Mukherjee if a military response to the attacks was being considered. “We will explore all options,” said the external affairs minister.
“This terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan is the greatest danger to peace and security of the entire civilised world,’’ the minister said.
‘All options’ are really non-options
Josy Joseph
Tuesday, December 23, 2008 04:03 IST
NEW DELHI: External affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee has talked of India “exploring all options” to get Pakistan to rein in its terrorist groups, but a closer examination of some of these “options” suggests that they are either not options at all, or they serve limited political objectives at best.
Many experts that DNA spoke to said the government had to take some kind of coercive action to show that it meant business, but beyond appeasing domestic political opinion, it may not have any major impact on Pakistan’s terror shops.
The experts essentially talked of four major options: One, limited air strikes on about a dozen prominent terrorist camps located mostly in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK); two, covert action within Pakistan; three, a limited naval blockade of Karachi to pressure the Pakistan economy; and four, a limited border war at a location of India’s choice.
Ajay Sahni, director, Institute for Conflict Management, said India doesn’t have any immediate military option: “Any overt action will be counter-productive, and it will also not succeed in causing any damage to the terror infrastructure. The only realistic option is covert operations, for which we will have to develop capabilities.”
The first option - limited air strikes on terror camps in PoK - is considered the most feasible. Several intelligence and military officers said India should immediately look at limited air strikes on prominent terror camps inside PoK to let Pakistan know India can retaliate. A former senior intelligence officer said limited air strikes are the best option: “Though they may retaliate with missiles or air violations, it wouldn’t escalate into a nuclear scenario.”
Retired air marshal Vinod Patney, who headed the western air command during the Kargil conflict and oversaw the air operations then, said: “Terrorism cannot be finished overnight, but it can be controlled to an extent by exhibiting to them [Pakistan] that they will be punished.”
Patney said a “punitive air strike is very feasible and I recommend it”. Besides such an attack on terrorist infrastructure, India should develop “covert action capabilities”, he said.
But a military strike can’t just be one-off action. It has to be combined with diplomatic and political action and reforms in internal security and intelligence gathering, Patney said. “We do have military capabilities without a doubt,” he said, but such action would lead to collateral damage - like killing civilians in Pakistan, too. “It won’t be intentional, but what can we do if Pakistan is not willing to put an end to this menace?” he said.
“Pakistan’s estimate that India’s tolerance threshold has been raised infinitely because of its nuclear capability is wrong,” said Ajit Doval, a former head of the Intelligence Bureau. “India is capable of disproving this doctrine.” Doval, a prominent advocate of aggressive covert action against Pakistan who mooted several such plans while in service, did not discuss any specific action.
But there are some who differ. A senior serving intelligence officer said that by now most of the terror camps may have been vacated. “Any limited strike may not achieve much,” he said.
Sahni of the Institute of Conflict Management said covert operations need not be violent. “There are a whole range of covert instruments that can be deployed to cause long-term damage to the terror infrastructure and the support enjoyed by terror groups from within the Pakistani establishment. These instruments can be economic, social, or political.”
Pakistan militants 'threat to the world'
Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:21:00 GMT
India's Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee says terrorists based in Pakistan are 'the biggest threat to the world's stability and security'.
"This terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan is the greatest terrorist danger to the peace and security of the entire civilized world," Mukherjee said on Monday.
Mukherjee was addressing the gathering of Indian ambassadors and heads of 120 missions from across the world in New Delhi.
The foreign minister said the international community had not done enough to exert pressure on Pakistan, which denies any involvement in the Mumbai terror spree that killed around 170 people.
"We continue to persuade the international community and Pakistan, we are also clear that ultimately, it is we who have to deal with this problem. We will take all measures necessary as we deem fit to deal with the situation," he said.
"We expect the civilian government of Pakistan to take effective steps to deal with elements within Pakistan who still continue the use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy," he noted.
Mukherjee's statement is the latest in a series of strongly worded diplomatic warnings from India. US, Indian and British officials claim to have clear evidence suggesting that the attacks on India originated in terrorist training camps inside Pakistan.
New Delhi has blamed a Pakistan based militant group named Lashkar-e-Taiba for being behind the Nov. 26-29 attack on Mumbai that killed 173 people.
Pakistan, however, says that India has failed to provide Islamabad with concrete evidence supporting its claim.
Geopolitical Diary: Countdown to a Crisis on the Subcontinent
December 23, 2008 | 0255 GMT
Geopolitical Diary icon
The week began with a series of signals from New Delhi that Indian restraint in taking military action against Pakistan is no longer guaranteed. In fact, such action could very well be imminent.
In a press conference Monday, Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee said that while India “has so far acted with utmost restraint” it will “explore all options” in pressuring Pakistan to give up its support for Islamist militancy. The same day, Indian media reported that Indian army troops and the Indian air force’s Quick Reaction Teams had deployed along the Indian-Pakistani border, with commandos reinforced at Indian air strips in Jaisalmer and Uttarlai in Rajasthan and Bhuj in Gujarat. The Pakistani military, meanwhile, reportedly went on a heightened state of alert, with reports of Pakistan air force jets scrambling in Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore and Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
Over the past few weeks, India has played a complex diplomatic game, issuing a series of statements that seemingly downplayed military action against Pakistan in response to the Nov. 26 Mumbai attacks, while making it a point to stress in the public sphere that New Delhi was focused on using diplomatic tools to pressure Islamabad. While New Delhi’s behavior led many to believe that the threat of war on the Indian subcontinent had subsided, Stratfor maintained that Indian military operations were in preparation, and that New Delhi’s plan was first to exhaust its diplomatic options before engaging in any kind of military action. India’s restraint, in large part, was attributed to its talks with the United States, who would much rather not see the two nuclear-armed rivals come to blows when it is already fighting an uphill battle against al Qaeda and Taliban forces in the region.
But time is running out for Pakistan.
Reliable sources — whose information on this issue cannot be verified at this time — have told Stratfor that in the wake of the Mumbai attacks, the Indians relayed a message to Pakistan via the United States that they would be given 30 days to carry out significant actions in cracking down on Islamist militant proxies operating on Pakistani soil that continue to threaten India. While India used the time to prep its military forces, the United States came down hard on Pakistan behind the scenes, making clear that Islamabad will have to deliver on India’s demands, or else Washington will not be able to stand in New Delhi’s way if and when the time comes for India to act. The Pakistanis made a few arrests and raids targeting militant leaders and Pakistani intelligence operatives, but nothing that substantially reduced the militant threat to India from New Delhi’s point of view. And even if Pakistan were prepared to swallow the bitter pill of conceding to its main rival by cutting its militant ties, it can only go so far to placate India before it creates a domestic crisis in trying to avoid an international one.
Pakistan’s deadline, as far as we know, is Dec. 26, making Indian military action against Pakistan a very real and near possibility. The Indians have had a month to prepare their military operations against Pakistan, and Indian defense sources have revealed that these plans are ready to go into effect. With no one in New Delhi really expecting that Pakistan has either the political will — or perhaps even the capability — to meet Indian and U.S. demands, we now need to examine how far India will take this military campaign, and to what extent U.S. operations in Afghanistan will be affected.
The answer to these questions is still unclear. Discussions are taking place inside Indian defense circles over an escalatory military campaign, beginning with largely symbolic strikes in Pakistan-administered Kashmir against militant training camps and offices. Depending on Pakistan’s ability to respond, pressure could then be ratcheted up with precision air strikes in Pakistan’s urban areas — to include the capital — against intelligence facilities and militant leadership hideouts. The option of a naval blockade, which would cut off the United States’ main supply line into Afghanistan, has also been tossed around. While a blockade would put the already cash-strapped Pakistan in an economic chokehold, doing so would inevitably cause friction in India’s relationship with Washington.
But the United States knows the limits to its relationship with New Delhi and is already preparing for a worst-case scenario. For the past month, the U.S. military has been feverishly stockpiling supplies for its forces in Afghanistan in anticipation of a major interruption. The trick for the United States, however, is to find an alternate supply route that avoids the problem of having to deal with a resurgent Russia, who would relish the thought of making U.S. military operations dependent on its good graces. There really are no good options, but the United States is working on solving this issue by devising an alternate, albeit much longer, supply arrangement from Turkey to Central Asia through the Caucasus that would help backfill supplies that have already been stockpiled.
Pakistan’s best defense at this point is to continue pinning blame on Islamist militants that have escaped Islamabad’s control while making the case that further destabilization in Pakistan would only exacerbate the U.S.-jihadist war. But with the United States already coming up with alternate supply routes and India under the impression that Pakistan has more control over these militants than it claims, Pakistan’s defense is growing weaker by the day. From where we stand, the window for diplomacy is closing and a crisis on the Indian subcontinent is rapidly approaching.
Pakistani Jets Scramble as India Hardens Tone
All Options Open, Minister Says in New Delhi
By Rama Lakshmi
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, December 23, 2008; A12
http://static.ibnlive.com/pix/sitepi...fighter248.jpg
NEW DELHI, Dec. 22 -- In signs of growing regional tension since the Mumbai attacks last month, Pakistan scrambled fighter jets over several of its larger cities Monday, and India's foreign minister told a gathering of Indian diplomats in New Delhi that the country is keeping all its options open to bring the perpetrators of the attacks to justice.
"We have so far acted with utmost restraint," Pranab Mukherjee told the more than 120 envoys from posts around the world, according to news reports. But he added, "We will take all measures necessary as we deem fit to deal with the situation."
A senior government official later called Mukherjee's tough talk "an expression of political will that India will not take this lying down." He added that the option of "precision airstrikes" on terrorist training camps in Pakistan would remain on the table if Islamabad did not act effectively against groups fomenting terrorism against India.
Pakistan has denied involvement in the Mumbai attacks, which killed more than 170 people and wounded more than 230.
On Monday, Pakistan put its air force on high alert, with several fighter jets conducting exercises over the capital, Islamabad, as well as Rawalpindi, Lahore and Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. Offices of newspapers and television channels were inundated with calls from people asking whether the exercises, which caused delays in some civilian flights, were a response to airstrikes by India.
A Pakistani air force spokesman, Commodore Humayun Viqar, said in a statement, "In view of the current environment, PAF has enhanced its vigilance."
The air force's action coincided with the arrival in Islamabad of the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, who met with Pakistan's army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, and the head of its Inter-Services Intelligence agency, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha.
Mullen thanked both men for their efforts, and the efforts of the Pakistani government, to arrest members of the outlawed Islamist group Lashkar-i-Taiba and other extremist organizations suspected of involvement in the Mumbai attacks, according to his spokesman, Navy Capt. John Kirby. Mullen also reportedly urged them to support judicial efforts to prosecute the cases fully and transparently.
A Pakistani official who spoke on the condition of anonymity said Kiyani told Mullen that Pakistan was trying its best to defuse tension with India.
"We want peace with India, but any aggression will be matched by a befitting response," the official quoted Kiyani as saying.
An Indian official in New Delhi said that the three-day meeting of diplomats had been scheduled before the attacks occurred but that it provided an opportunity for India to work out a diplomatic strategy for pressuring Islamabad to act against terrorist groups.
"Unfortunately, Pakistan's response so far has demonstrated their earlier tendency to resort to a policy of denial and to seek to deflect and shift the blame and responsibility," Mukherjee told the envoys in his opening address. "We have highlighted that the infrastructure of terrorism in Pakistan has to be dismantled permanently," he added.
Pakistan's government has offered to help in the investigation into the Mumbai attacks but has said that India has not shared any hard evidence about the alleged involvement of Pakistani citizens.
On Monday, however, India's Ministry of External Affairs handed over to Pakistan's acting high commissioner in New Delhi a letter that it said was written by the only surviving Mumbai gunman, Ajmal Amir Kasab, who was captured by Indian police.
"In his letter addressed to the Pakistan High Commission, Kasab has stated that he and the other terrorists killed in the attack were from Pakistan and has sought a meeting with the Pakistan High Commission," according to a written statement from the ministry.
In a background briefing, a senior government official said India is tired of the conflicting signals from Pakistan.
"We hear different voices from different places in Pakistan. Every day, different stories are floated. First we heard that Masood Azhar is arrested, then they say they do not know where he is," he said, referring to one of the fugitives India has demanded that Pakistan hand over. "If Lashkar-i-Taiba and Jamaat-ud-Dawa have been proscribed, then why is their Web site active and operational?" the official added.
An Interpol team also reached Mumbai on Monday. The team has begun seeking information about Kasab and the unclaimed bodies of the nine other gunmen, thought to be of Pakistani origin, who died in the three-day Mumbai siege.
India and Pakistan, longtime nuclear rivals, have fought three wars since the British partitioned the Indian subcontinent in 1947, creating both independent nations. An attack on India's Parliament in 2001 that India blamed on a Pakistan-based Islamist militant group brought the two nations to the brink of war.
Staff writer Ann Scott Tyson in Washington and special correspondent Shaiq Hussain in Islamabad contributed to this report.
India threatens to act if world doesn’t
By Jawed Naqvi
December 23, 2008 Tuesday Zilhaj 24, 1429
http://www.defense-update.com/newsca...phoon_su30.jpg
NEW DELHI, Dec 22: India urged the international community on Monday to press Pakistan to weed out from its soil runaway terrorists who it says were behind the recent massacre in Mumbai and posed a great threat to global security.
Briefing Indian ambassadors from different world capitals, Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee said New Delhi was also aware that eventually it might have to deal with the problem on its own and it was keeping all options open for this.
“We have so far acted with utmost restraint and are hopeful that the international community will use its influence to urge Pakistani government to take effective action,” Mr Mukherjee said. “While we continue to persuade the international community and Pakistan, we are also clear that ultimately it is we who have to deal with this problem. We will take all measures necessary, as we deem fit, to deal with the situation.”
In a rare reference to the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (Saarc), usually relegated to the backseat in moments of crisis like the current one triggered by the Mumbai attacks, Mr Mukherjee claimed credit for helping the group make its transition from rhetoric to action. But even in this Pakistan was not up to the mark, he said.
“In our neighbourhood we have continued with our efforts to deepen engagement, either bilaterally or multilaterally and even by assuming a built-in asymmetry in responsibilities. An objective assessment shows that this policy has yielded results except with Pakistan,” he said.
“The recent terrorist attack on Mumbai was unprecedented both in terms of its scale and audacity,” the minister said. “This and the series of terrorist incidents preceding it, including the attack on our embassy in Kabul where we lost our colleagues, indicate that terrorism emanating out of Pakistan is acquiring an increasingly dangerous dimension and continues to threaten peace and stability in this region and beyond.”
India had so far worked at several levels, he said. “At the international level we have sought the support of the international community to put pressure on Pakistan to deal effectively with terrorism. We have highlighted that the infrastructure of terrorism in Pakistan has to be dismantled permanently.”
India was not saying this just because it was affected but because it believed that it would be good for the entire world and also for Pakistani people and society, he said.
“This terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan is the greatest terrorist danger to peace and security of the entire civilised world,” Mr Mukherjee said. There had been some effort so far by the international community but this was not enough, he said.
“Much more needs to be done and the actions should be pursued to their logical conclusion. We need effective steps not only to bring those responsible for the Mumbai attacks to justice, but also to ensure that such acts of terrorism do not recur,” Mr Mukherjee said.
“Unfortunately, Pakistan’s response so far has demonstrated their earlier tendency to resort to a policy of denial and to seek to deflect and shift the blame and responsibility. We expect the civilian government of Pakistan to take effective steps to deal with elements within Pakistan who still continue to use terrorism as an instrument of state policy.”
Dec 23, 2008
India to take military route?
NEW DELHI - INDIA'S refusal to rule out a military response to the Mumbai attacks is a diplomatic strategy that hides the limited options open to the government, analysts say.
Under intense domestic pressure to take decisive and forceful action over the attacks - which it blames on Pakistan-based militants - India faces numerous problems in formulating a proportionate plan of action.
Topping the list is the knowledge that a cross-border strike of any nature runs the risk of a swift and highly dangerous military escalation between the nuclear-armed neighbours.
Another key question is who would be the target of any such operation.
There is a growing international consensus that the Islamist gunmen who killed 163 people in Mumbai came from Pakistan, but there are fewer takers for the charge that the government in Islamabad played a direct role.
For the moment at least, India seems to favour a policy of 'coercive diplomacy' - aggressively mobilising world opinion against Pakistan for providing a safe haven for militant groups.
But on Monday, Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee made it clear that New Delhi's patience had limits.
Noting that India had so far acted with the 'utmost restraint', Mr Mukherjee said it could not afford to just stand back and rely on others.
'While we continue to persuade the international community and Pakistan, we are also clear that ultimately it is we who have to deal with this problem,' he said.
Asked whether a military response was being considered, he stuck to the line that India was exploring 'all options'. Despite the threat implicit in that statement, analysts including retired Indian army general Afsir Karim doubt that 'unilateral military action' is either a realistic or productive option.
It could, on the contrary, 'provide a fillip to insurgency' Mr Karim said, pointing to the example of US military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.
'Any military action has to be deliberate, its political goals and objectives clear,' Mr Karim said, arguing that India's 'best bet' was to forge a global coalition that could pressure Pakistan 'to dismantle the infrastructure of terror'. Analyst C. Uday Bhaskar agreed that India's options were restricted.
'Concerted global diplomatic action is the only way to defeat terrorism. No one country has the answer to it,' he said.
The pressure on the government to do something is compounded by looming general elections in which the national security issue is sure to figure prominently.
Former foreign secretary Lalit Mansingh said the government had 'lost a lot of credibility' for its failure to prevent a series of attacks on Indian soil this year that have claimed more than 400 lives.
A government source, meanwhile, told AFP that India's response to Mumbai 'will be a carefully calibrated one' with investigations into the Nov 26-29 siege yet to be completed.
New Delhi has been sharing communication intercepts and information gleaned from the lone surviving gunmen with the United States and Britain.
India has demanded stern action against Islamist groups based in Pakistan, as well as the arrest and extradition of individuals it accuses of planning attacks on Indian soil.
So far, however, the only concrete consequence of the attacks has been to freeze the peace dialogue that India and Pakistan launched in 2004 - a process that was making only limited progress before the carnage in Mumbai. -- AFP
PAF secures N-sites after tip-off
Fighter jets sent to counter possible strike | Vigilance enhanced
Agencies
http://www.alternativenews.org/image...aeli_f-151.jpg
ISLAMABAD: After confirmation of a report that Indian and Israeli air forces have planned an attack on Pakistan's nuclear installations, Pakistan Air Force sprang into action by sending its fighter jets into the air to thwart a possible air strike on Monday, according to reliable sources.
Pakistan's Nuclear Control and Command Authority was directed to take necessary measures to deal with any emergency situation.
It has also been learnt that anti-aircraft guns and missiles are being installed at the country's nuclear installations. PAF has been directed to remain on high alert until further orders. After reports of a likely attack, passenger flights to Dubai, India and Lahore were stopped for some time.
Sources said a secret meeting of Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, CIA, FBI, RAW and MI 5 was held in which a possible attack on Pakistan's nuclear installation s was discussed. Fighter jets flew over big cities in Punjab Monday as the armed forces were placed on red alert amid mounting tensions between Pakistan and India after the Mumbai attacks.
Sources in the Defense Ministry said PAF fighter planes flew over Lahore, the twin cities of Rawalpini and Islambad and along the Line of Control with a view to thwarting any airspace violation and checking operational preparedness.
PAF Spokesman Humayun Waqar Zafar said PAF fighter planes were involved in routine flights, so there was no need for any sort of panic or fear.
"In view of the current environment, PAF has enhanced its vigilance," he said.
He said PAF was fully committed and determined to give a befitting response to the enemy.
On the other hand, a high-level meeting under Joint Chief of Staff Committee General Tariq Majeed was held here on Monday.
Sources say that during the meeting a host of issues concerning national security came under discussion.
Gen Tariq Majeed took in confidence the military leadership on various matters including his recent visit to China, sources said.
www.thepost.com
Pak to give equal response if India strikes: Kayani
Tuesday, 23 December , 2008, 13:04
Last Updated: Tuesday, 23 December , 2008, 14:24
Islamabad: Pakistan's armed forces would give an equal response within a few minutes if India carried out any surgical strike inside the country, army chief General Parvez Kayani said here.
In a meeting here on Monday with President Asif Ali Zardari, Kayani told him of operational preparedness of the armed forces. The meeting was held in the backdrop of the growing tension between India and Pakistan following the Mumbai terror attacks.
"The armed forces are fully prepared to meet any eventuality, as the men are ready to sacrifice for their country," The News daily reported quoting Kayani.
Zardari said Pakistan wanted peaceful and cordial relations with all its neighbours, but the "threatening statements of the Indian leadership were creating an atmosphere of aggression and harming the regional environment". The meeting lasted 60 minutes.
The media report stated the crux of the meeting was that any further buckling under mounting Indian pressure would prove counter-productive in the sense that it would further encourage New Delhi to build up more pressure on Islamabad.
Zardari said: “We are keeping a close watch on all the latest developments and threatening tones of Indian leadership.”
He said all the national security agencies, the army, political leadership and public were completely united to meet any aggression against Pakistan. He said Islamabad was in touch with all friendly countries, which were being briefed about "Pakistan's peace efforts and the hostility shown by India".
“We do not want any war with India, as that would prove detrimental to both our nations,” the president was quoted as saying. Zardari, however, expressed his satisfaction over the preparedness of the army and said all necessary resources would be provided to the armed forces. He said: “We have the right to defend our borders in case of any aggression.”