Reactions to story from The Washington Post
U.S. Steps Up Unilateral Strikes in Pakistan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2008/ 03/ 27/ AR2008032700007....
The United States has escalated its unilateral strikes against al-Qaeda members and fighters operating in Pakistan's tribal areas, partly because of anxieties that Pakistan's new leaders will insist on scaling back military operations in that country,
Reactions / posts that link to this article
View all reactions »-
The CIA - Pentagon arm business, with the Albanian Mafia
http://balkanblog.org/2008/04/06/1932/Ammunition supplied by an American contractor to Afghan forces. Some of it was in such poor shape that it was not used. March 27, 2008 Supplier Under Scrutiny on Arms for Afghans By C. J. CHIVERS This article was reported by C. J. Chivers, Eric Schmitt and Nicholas Wood and written by Mr. Chivers. Since 2006, when the insurgency in Afghanistan sharply intensified, the Afghan government has been dependent on American logistics and military support in the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But to arm the Afghan forces that it hopes will lead this fight, the American military has relied since early last year on a fledgling company led by a 22-year-old man whose vice president was a licensed masseur. With the award last January of a federal contract worth as much as nearly $300 million, the company, AEY Inc., which operates out of an unmarked office in Miami Beach, became the main supplier of munitions to Afghanistan’s army and police forces. Efraim Diveroli and David M.Packouz Since then, the company has provided ammunition that is more than 40 years old and in decomposing packaging, according to an examination of the munitions by The New York Times and interviews with American and Afghan officials. Much of the ammunition comes from the aging stockpiles of the old Communist bloc, including stockpiles that the State Department and NATO have determined to be unreliable and obsolete, and have spent millions of dollars to have destroyed. In purchasing munitions, the contractor has also worked with middlemen and a shell company on a federal list of entities suspected of illegal arms trafficking. Moreover, tens of millions of the rifle and machine-gun cartridges were manufactured in China, making their procurement a possible violation of American law. The company’s president, Efraim E. Diveroli, was also secretly recorded in a conversation that suggested corruption in his company’s purchase of more than 100 million aging rounds in Albania, according to audio files of the conversation……… http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/world House to investigate defense contract to firm that shipped Chinese-made ammo to Afghanistan Nick Juliano Published: Thursday March 27, 2008 http://rawstory.com/news/2008 Pentagon Gives 22 y/o $300 Million Arms Contract Efraim Diveroli talks with Kosta Trebicka “n the audio recording, Diveroli is speaking to Kosta Trebicka, an Albanian businessman, about Ylli Pinari, director of an Albanian agency in charge of arms exports. Diveroli says he “can’t play monkey business with the mafia … and all those fucking guys in Albania” because his contract is with the US government and “everyone is watching me.” Trebicka, who was acting as a middle man for the deal, said “Pinari and his mafia guys … will create lots of problems,” but he tried to calm the young AEY president. “Probably I will be invited in Washington DC from the CIA guys and from my friends over there,” Trebicka tells Diveroli in the conversation recorded June 11, 2007. “Two weeks from now I will come to Florida to shake hands with you and discuss future deals.”" ALBANIAN GERDEC EXPLODIMI MA E RE EXLUSIVE GERDEC TIRANA The head of the state-owned company MEICO, Ylli Pinari, and the head of Alba Demil, Mihal Delijorgji have both been detained along with Dritan Minxholi, the Alba Demil director at the depot in the village of Gerdec, outside the capital Tirana. Albanian Prosecutor-General Ina Rama, announced Sunday the start of an investigation into the incident. Rama announced in a press conference that a special investigative group headed by Tirana’s Chief Prosecutor Gerti Xholi, will shed light on any foul play in the blast, vowing not to spare any public official, no matter how high their position in government. …………. The investigators will also look into any errors by the directors or workers from the company Alba Demil, the Albanian subcontractor for United States’-based Southern Ammunitions Company, which was in charge of the programme to dismantle the huge arsenal of munitions being stored at the depot. Read more: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/8686/ UN helps Albania assess area around site of munitions blast 24/03/2008 TIRANA, Albania — A UN disaster and assessment co-ordination team (UNDAC) is evaluating the situation in Albania where explosions at an ammunition depot recently killed at least 22 people, the UN said in a statement Sunday (March 23rd). The seven-member team began an assessment of the affected area last week in collaboration with the Albanian government. Albanian authorities asked the UNDAC to help identify priority needs and co-ordinate their response to the March 15th blasts, triggered during efforts to destroy old military ordnance in the village of Gerdec. Helping to find the causes of the blasts will be a team of six FBI experts, who will arrive on Wednesday from the United States, following an official request by General Prosecutor Ina Rama. (Shqip, Xinhua, News24, Klan - 24/03/08; Focus, A1 - 23/03/08) Albanian, german press Zuständig im Pentagon ist fuer diese kriminellen Abwicklungen mit Jugendlichen von 19 und 22 Jahren Bryan Whiteman !!!! 28. März 2008, 11:58 UhrRÜSTUNGSAFFÄRE Alte Waffen für Afghanistan - Ausschuss prüft Pentagon-Deal Eine vom Pentagon beauftragte US-Firma hat über 40 Jahre lang alte Waffen und Munition nach Afghanistan geliefert. Der Untersuchungsausschuss des Repräsentantenhauses will jetzt die Hintergründe des 300-Millionen-Dollar-Deals aufklären. Washington - Der zentrale Untersuchungsausschuss schaltet sich um den Skandal um eine für das Pentagon tätige Waffenfirma aus Florida ein. In einer Anhörung am 17. April werde es darum gehen, wie es zu der Auftragsvergabe an das Unternehmen AEY kam, kündigte Ausschusssprecher Henry A. Waxman von den Demokraten an. Die “New York Times” hatte berichtet, das vom US-Verteidigungsministerium beauftragte Unternehmen habe über 40 Jahre alte Waffen und Munition aus dem Ostblock nach Afghanistan geliefert. Das Vertragsvolumen habe 300 Millionen Dollar (rund 190 Millionen Euro) betragen. Die Firma mit dem Namen AEY, die von dem 22-jährigen Efraim E. Diveroli in Miami geführt wurde, sei einer der Hauptlieferanten von Munition für die afghanische Armee und Polizei gewesen. Die US-Streitkräfte hätten die Zusammenarbeit mit dem Waffenhändler inzwischen aufgekündigt. Teile der Munition, die AEY Inc. aus Lagerbeständen ehemaliger Warschauer-Pakt-Staaten zusammengekauft hatte, waren bereits zur Vernichtung durch die Nato oder US-Stellen vorgesehen, da sie unzuverlässig und veraltet waren. Amerikanische und afghanische Kommandeure hätten sich über die Qualität der Munition beklagt, berichtet die “New York Times”. Der Chef des Unternehmens bestritt in einem Telefoninterview jegliches Fehlverhalten. Die afghanischen Sicherheitskräfte sind noch weitgehend mit Waffen aus sowjetischer Produktion ausgerüstet. Seit 2006, als die Kämpfe in Afghanistan gegen das Terrornetz al-Qaida und die radikal-islamischen Taliban an Intensität zugenommen haben, hängt das afghanische Militär immer mehr von US-Lieferungen ab. Die USA schalteten in den Waffenhandel zunehmend private Firmen ein. In diesem Zusammenhang trat auch die Firma AEY auf den Plan. Einige der Mittelsmänner und der Firmen, die für AEY Inc. arbeiteten, standen auf einer US- Regierungsliste über verdächtige illegale Waffenhändler. Zu der Anhörung will der Untersuchungsausschuss Firmenchef Diveroli und hohe Pentagon-Angehörige laden. als/dpa http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,543934,00.html Predators und Pfusch Thomas Pany 28.03.2008 Von kleinen und großen Kalibern im Kampf gegen Extremisten Während [IMG [extern] ]amerikanische Emissäre in Islamabad vorfühlten, ob sie für [IMG [extern] ]Predator-Abschüsse auf Al-Qaida-Zellen in Pakistan auch die Unterstützung der neu gewählten Regierung haben würden, zeigt sich laut New York Times, dass der andere Verbündete im Kampf gegen den Taliban-Terrorismus, die afghanische Armee, mit [IMG [extern] ]40 Jahre alter, funktionsschwacher Munition kämpfen muss - aus Beständen des früheren Ost-Blocks, die eigentlich zerstört werden sollten. Die Zulieferfirma: ein dubioses Unternehmen, das vom Pentagon Verträge in Höhe von mehr als 300 Millionen Dollars bekam. ……………… http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/27/27595/1.html wrong dokuments, false and fake firms and a big corruptions system between CIA and the Albanian Mafia! youtube in albanian news! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTbYBJhCmzE&feature=related The CIA and MEICO arm business for uncovered albanian (SHIK) - CIA secret operation is over 15 years old! Albanian Telegraphic Agency (ATA), 98-02-01 Albania’s Speaker Skender Gjinushi spoke of the undeclared budget of the SHIK, the daily Shekulli reports. He said that these are illegal financing, which are estimated at $40 million, what is a real financial scandal. To this end the parliamentary commission investigating March events have assumed the responsibility to throw light on the SHIK budget, and other finances obtained through mysterious sources. “All materials will be submitted to the Prosecutor’s office, despite the parliment,” the same daily quotes Gjinushi as saying. The daily Dita Informacion reports on the same issue under the title “SHIK runs contraband,” and quotes Pashko as saying “Gazidede’s service has been financed by money laundering.” s.sh./ak/ (more) Press Review (3) Under the title “Weapons’ traffic, ‘Meiko’ to pass through a sieve,” the daily Koha Jone, referring to annual meeting of the Albanian army, reports that the “arms’ trafficking is done contrary to the laws of the state.” This is the conclusion of an auditing team in the Defence ministry on “Meiko” firm, which handled the arms’ trafficking during ‘91-’96. “All the documentation is not kept in regular and that arms’ trafficking is done contrary to the procedures of the Defence Ministry and laws of the Albanian state,” Koçi Koçibelli, Director General on Economy in the Defence ministry, told the annual meeting. “I have nothing to add on this disputable issue of arms’ trafficking, because in 1994 I have denounced what is being uncovered today,” Perikli Teta, Secretary of State for Defence said to the daily. Koha Jone quotes Koçibelli as saying that “All this doubtful procedures of arms’s trafficking cast doubts on the then leaders of the Defence Ministry.” Reliable sources at the Defence Ministry confirmed that the remaining archive files from the time of Zhulali will be used in examining documentation on arms’ trafficking along with a possible cooperation with foreign firms, which have signed accords with the Albanian side on Albanian-produced weapons and ammunition, the same paper reports. ATA MEICO (Military Export Import Company) ADDRESS “MEICO” attached to the Ministry of Defense Rr “Dëshmorët e 4 Shkurtit” Nr 5 Tirana, Albania What is “MEICO” ? “MEICO”( Military Export Import Company ) is a public enterprise subordinate by the Albanian Ministry of Defense. It was established in 1991, with the Order of Council of Ministers Nr 366 date 05.10.1991 “For the creation of Import- Export Enterprise subordinate by the Ministry of Defense”. Since that year, it has exercised its activity to supply Albanian Armed Forces and other institutions, with specific import wares of military character and exports of new military wares and stocks of Albanian Army and productions of military industry. “MEICO” is made up of a specialized staff in the field of import- exports. Its General Director is Mr. Ylli PINARI. http://www.mod.gov.al/index.php?crd=0,0,0,0,0,1,Lng2
-
http://global-equality.org/news/blog/2008/03/whats-happening...
What’s Happening, Iraq: At least three Shiite factions contesting for power, as Sadr’s Madhi Army fights with the Badr Brigade which has al-Maliki’s support. Another faction, the Fadhila, is also in Basra. But that’s clearly too complex for most Americans. So, McCain is following the Bush lead in presenting ‘extremists’ or ‘al-Qaeda’ as the threat; the media often retreat to “insurgents.” Right-wing Talk Radio picks it up and calls the groups ‘The Bad Guys.’ Thousands of supporters of hard-line cleric Moqtada al-Sadr poured into the streets of the Iraqi capital Thursday to protest an ongoing security crackdown against Sadr's militia, as clashes continued in the southern city of Basra, new rocket attacks struck near the U.S. Embassy and a high-profile Iraqi security official was kidnapped. The United States ordered embassy personnel to stay in reinforced structures because of incoming fire that killed an American on Thursday, the second U.S. fatality this week in the heavily fortified Green Zone. The Iraqi military, meanwhile, clamped a three-day curfew on the capital in an effort to end fighting between Shiite Muslim militiamen and Iraqi security forces. The curfew order bans unauthorized vehicles and pedestrians from the streets of Baghdad from 11 p.m. Thursday to 5 a.m. Sunday. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki vowed to press ahead with the crackdown, aimed chiefly at sapping the strength of Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, which controls much of Basra. Maliki's pledge came as saboteurs blew up one of Iraq's two main oil export pipelines from Basra, the country's main oil hub, cutting at least a third of the exports from the southern oil fields, the Reuters news agency reported. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032700781_pf.html Sadr’s Power: However, the more immediate threat to Iraq's stability may stem not from al-Sadr's military might, but his political power to shut down the ministries and services essential to day-to-day life. At the Health Ministry, where the staff is dominated by officials loyal to al-Sadr, the hallways were nearly empty Wednesday. The doctors, bureaucrats and black-clad militia members who normally roam the corridors heeded al-Sadr's call to stay home to protest the government crackdown. The ministry controls about 3,000 hospitals and clinics throughout Iraq and an extended strike could severely impair their operations by restricting funds, drugs and other supplies. Al-Sadr loyalists "can stop all the daily affairs of government," says Hashem Hassan, a communications professor at Baghdad University. "They can stop services, schools, and bring the economy to a standstill." Sadrist officials also control Kimadia, the state-run company that distributes drugs to hospitals. "They can create chaos whenever they want," says Agron Ferati, country director for the International Medical Corps, a non-profit group.http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080327/1a_lede27_dom.art.htm U.S. Response: The Military joins the Administration in insisting that all are good signs, as the Iraqi government is actively engaging ‘the enemy’: [The United States is] providing air cover and embedded advisers" for the offensive -- as well as upbeat assessments and misleading information about who is being targeted. There also were ominous new threats. The "truth brigade," a group within the Mahdi Army, threatened to strike oil refineries, power stations, the port, oil pipelines and government institutions within 24 hours if Maliki didn't stop targeting Sadrists, a Sadr official told McClatchy. Although the Iraqi offensive's success remained unclear, the U.S. military and officials in Washington threw their support behind the operation and took partial credit for it. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said the Iraqi operation was a "byproduct of the success" of the year-old U.S. troop surge. Stephen Hadley, President Bush's national security adviser, called the operation a "sign of the increased maturation" of the Maliki government. Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner . . . said that the operation wasn't against the Mahdi Army, only against outlaws who didn't honor Sadr's freeze. . . . The situation on the ground suggested otherwise. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/31662.html In sum, we’re not getting out. Why? Because the gains made during the Surge need to be solidified. Previously, troops couldn’t leave because we were making gains. Before that, troops remained because the violence had escalated. Before that… Get it? It’s just like the Administration’s tax cuts: When they took over, they said the economy was healthy and needed the tax cuts; when the economy stalled, they said we needed those same tax cuts; when the economy began to partially revive, we needed the tax cuts, etc Shiites Aren’t Happy with the U.S. …many Shi'ites are seeing this not just as an example of the Shi'ite Maliki taking on other Shi'ites (including Sadrists) but of America backing the Prime Minister up in a de facto Shi'a civil war. . . . If the U.S. decides to actively go after the Shi'ite forces in the south, it would mean reopening a southern front where American forces once fought some of the Iraq war's fiercest battles against Sadr but now have only a shadow presence. That would involve draining the concentration of surge troops around Baghdad and the Sunni triangle. It might even require more troop extensions or additional deployments to hold ground and maintain modest gains. Moving against the Shi'ite strongholds could then open opportunities for the Sunni fighters of al-Qaeda to strike Iraqi and U.S. targets in the Sunni triangle as the American heat turns south. . . . http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1725265,00.html Pakistan: U.S. is Running out of time, as the Pakistanis seek relative autonomy, especially as to engaging al-Qaeda residents. Top diplomats John Negroponte and Richard Boucher travelled to a mountain fortress near the Afghan border yesterday as part of a hastily announced visit that has received a tepid reception. On Tuesday, senior coalition partner Nawaz Sharif gave the visiting Americans a public scolding for using Pakistan as a "killing field" and relying too much on Musharraf. Yesterday the new prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, said he warned President George Bush in a phone conversation that he would prioritise talking as well as shooting in the battle against Islamist extremism. "He said that a comprehensive approach is required in this regard, specially combining a political approach with development," a statement said. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/27/pakistan.usa That means that our military pursuit of bin Laden and friends could well be limited still further The United States has escalated its unilateral strikes against al-Qaeda members and fighters operating in Pakistan's tribal areas, partly because of anxieties that Pakistan's new leaders will insist on scaling back military operations in that country, according to U.S. officials. ....Thomas H. Johnson, a research professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., said: "People inside the Beltway are aware that Musharraf's days are numbered, and so they recognize they may only have a few months to do this. Musharraf has . . . very few friends in the world — he probably has more inside the Beltway than in his own country." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032700007.html?hpid=topnews Elsewhere: Rice Price Rise Rice prices jumped 30 per cent to an all-time high on Thursday, raising fears of fresh outbreaks of social unrest across Asia where the grain is a staple food for more than 2.5bn people. The increase came after Egypt, a leading exporter, imposed a formal ban on selling rice abroad to keep local prices down, and the Philippines announced plans for a major purchase of the grain in the international market to boost supplies. Global rice stocks are at their lowest since 1976. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d6f1cd74-fc29-11dc-9229-000077b07658.html West Bank: Hazardous Waste Dumping cited The West Bank has become a dumping site for hazardous waste - which is making residents sick, say Israeli and Palestinian environmental groups. Several weeks ago, villagers from Jima'in in the Nablus district complained that Israeli trucks were again dumping waste on Palestinian land. Ayman Abu Thaher, the deputy director-general of the Palestinian Authority's Environmental Awareness Directorate said such dumping has been going on for years. "The Israelis are using the West Bank as a cheap and easy alternative for dumping their waste at the expense of the health of Palestinians," he said. According to Friends of the Earth Middle East (FoEME), a joint Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian environmental group, improper dumping of contaminants and waste has over time become a threat to the region's drinking water. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6C49A57B-E230-4B7A-90D0-4153AA080C18.htm Detainee Rights: Case in Point A Justice Department lawyer on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to limit the legal rights of Americans abroad and rule that two men held by the U.S. military in Iraq cannot challenge their detention in a U.S. court. . . . The men's cases, being heard together, are the latest in a series of post-9/11 disputes before the high court testing detainees' rights to be heard by a federal judge. In prior cases, a majority of the justices have rejected the Bush administration's attempts to keep detainees of the U.S. military out of regular civilian courts. http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080326/a_iraqcourt26.art.htm Dahlia Lithwick comments: The Bush administration's main argument in this case is a simple one -- a variation of which you may remember from the golden days of lawlessness at Guantanamo: Sure, the military authority in Iraq might look like it's composed of U.S. soldiers, the prisons may appear to be U.S. military jails, the whole effort may seem to be led by the U.S. president, but really these 'enemy combatants' are not under U.S. jurisdiction. Why? Well, just as American troops are merely renting out Gitmo from the Cubans, the authorities that captured and held Omar and Munaf are actually just part of a U.N.-mandated international force. http://www.slate.com/id/2187385/ Supply Side Returns! Re-playing 1981, as the discredited economic idea makes a reappearance When Ronald Reagan ran for president in 1980, he promised to cut taxes in what seemed, at the time, a magical way. Tax revenue would go up, not down, he said, as the economy boomed in response to lower rates. Since then, supply-side economics, as it was called — first with derision but then as a label embraced by its supporters — has become a central tenet of Republican political and economic thinking. That’s despite the fact that the big supply-side tax cuts of the 1980s and the 2000s did not work out as advertised, as even most supporters acknowledge. But advocates see broader economic benefits from lowering tax rates, which is one of the reasons the concept has reappeared as a point of contention in this year’s election campaign, in an amended form. “What really happens is that the economy grows more vigorously when you lower tax rates,” said Kevin Hassett, an adviser to the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, and the director for economic policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “It is beyond the reach of economic science to explain precisely why that happens, but it does.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/business/26supply.html?_r=1&sq=supply%20side%20economics&st=nyt&oref=slogin&scp=2&pagewanted=print CAMPAIGN: Thursday found both candidates more dutifully sticking to issues. Both recognize that the long-term- Obama’s electability and Clinton’s reputation (and poll numbers)- were suffering. But prior to Thursday- and perhaps resuming today, Clinton’s hanging with the Far Right: She’s going to Right media, including the Pittsburgh paper owned by Richard Mellon Scaife, the funder of much of the Clinton Hating of the 90’s. This comes after making peace and more with Fox boss, Rupert Murdoch. Both pieces go back more than a year, Clinton’s version of ‘reaching across the aisle. From 2/16/07: Christopher Ruddy, who once worked full-time for Mr. Scaife investigating the Clintons and now runs a conservative online publication he co-owns with Mr. Scaife, said, "Both of us have had a rethinking." "Clinton wasn't such a bad president," Mr. Ruddy said. "In fact, he was a pretty good president in a lot of ways, and Dick feels that way today." As for the conservative response to Mrs. Clinton's campaign, Mr. Ruddy said, "The level of intensity and anger toward Hillary is not getting to the level that it was toward Bill Clinton when he was president." He added, "She has moderated and developed a separate image." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/us/politics/19clinton.html?ex=1329541200&en=d30d5826db47e539&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss The Clinton campaign has been pushing an article from the Right publication, American Spectator. Joining the Conspiracy from New Republic blogger Christopher Orr: Anyone reading this blog is presumably aware that, over the past several weeks, Hillary Clinton has gone out of her way to repeatedly compliment John McCain at Barack Obama's expense. But consider a few other data points: 1) Matt Drudge hyped a photo of Obama in Somali garb that he claimed (and the Clinton campaign declined to deny) Clinton staffers had been circulating. 2) Bill Clinton went on the Rush Limbaugh show on the day of the Texas primary--after Limbaugh had spent days urging GOP voters in the state to cross over and vote for Clinton in order "rig" the election and ensure that Democrats nominated the weaker of their two candidates. 3) The Clinton campaign has been circulating an article in The American Spectator alleging that an Obama adviser, former Air Force chief Merrill McPeak, is an anti-semite and a drunk. 4) When Clinton attacked Obama on Jeremiah Wright yesterday, she did it at an editorial meeting of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the vanity publication of Richard Mellon Scaife, while sitting next to Scaife himself. Drudge. Limbaugh. The American Spectator. Richard Mellon Scaife. What exactly is it going to take before Clinton campaign staffers recognize that they are, in essence, now working for the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy? http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/26/joining-the-conspiracy.aspx A bit of the Spectator article: Obama has a Jewish problem and McPeak's bigoted views are emblematic of what they are. Obama can issue all the boilerplate statements supporting Israel's right to defend itself he wants. But until he accepts responsibility for allowing people like McPeak so close to his quest for the presidency, Obama's sincerity and judgment will remain open questions. http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12937 James Fallows conveys his upset: Watching from 12 time zones away, I've tried to stay out of campaign blow-by-blow. But if, as I assume is true based on Marc Ambinder's report, the Hillary Clinton campaign is circulating a hit job from the American Spectator, this is simply disgusting. (Marc has just confirmed to me that indeed the article came in an on-the-record email from Phil Singer, the Clinton campaign spokesman.) That the Clinton family would dignify the American Spectator, of all publications, is astonishing to anyone who was alive in the 1990s. That they would bless this attempt to paint Merrill McPeak as an anti-Semite is grotesque. I doubt that the author of the hit job ever bothered to speak with or interview McPeak. I have done so many times, during and after his days as Air Force chief of staff (which he was during the first Gulf War). People can agree or disagree with McPeak's foreign policy or his record at the Pentagon -- but that's not what we're talking about here. Any attempt to fish out a quote that will banish him as a bigot is exactly as fair and accurate as depicting Bill Clinton as being personally a racist based on his "fairy tale" and "Jesse Jackson" comments around the time of the South Carolina primary. I say this having heard McPeak lay out his views, starting while the Gulf War was underway 17 years ago, about how to maintain general stability, US interests, and Israeli security in the Middle East. McPeak may have gone too far in saying that Bill Clinton's earlier comments (that it would be "a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country" -- namely, Hillary Clinton and John McCain) amounted to "McCarthyism." But that's a pretty fair description of this latest round. I don't like attempts to stifle argument when they occur in China, and I don't like this in the United States. I can easily believe that the Spectator would publish such an article. That the Clinton team would circulate it I'm still trying to deal with. http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/this_is_disgusting_clintons_mc.php Clinton Fundraisers Pressure Pelosi-Chutzpah! Her major fundraisers warned The Speaker that her comments about super-delegates respecting the pledged delegate leader were contrary to their understanding of super-delegates’ function. Pelosi re-affirmed her statement/commitment. Capitol Hill Dems have expressed their Resentment of the Clinton wealthy. ABC News' Political Director David Chalian reports that a Democratic operative unaffiliated with either campaign and familiar with the reaction to the letter among Members of Congress says, "Members of Congress - who are superdelegates - make up the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee" or DCCC from which the donors seemed to be threatening to withhold funds. "Threatening the DCCC is equal to threatening the superdelegates Sen. Hillary Clinton's trying to court. The Clinton donor letter will just push undeclared superdelegates in Congress leaning toward Obama to endorse him sooner. It also reinforces the narrative that she'll destroy the party to win." http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/more-on-those-c.html Carl Bernstein: The author of a book on Hillary comments: Since her Arkansas years [I wrote], Hillary Rodham Clinton has always had a difficult relationship with the truth… [J]udged against the facts, she has often chosen to obfuscate, omit, and avoid. It is an understatement by now that she has been known to apprehend truths about herself and the events of her life that others do not exactly share. ” [italics added] As I noted: “Almost always, something holds her back from telling the whole story, as if she doesn’t trust the reader, listener, friend, interviewer, constituent—or perhaps herself—to understand the true significance of events…” The Bosnian episode is a watershed event, because it indelibly brings to mind so many examples of this tendency– from the White House years and, worse, from Hillary Clinton’s take-no-prisoners presidential campaign. Her record as a public person is replete with “misstatements” and elisions and retracted and redacted and revoked assertions… When the facts surrounding such characteristic episodes finally get sorted out — usually long after they have been challenged — the mysteries and contradictions are often dealt with by Hillary Clinton and her apparat in a blizzard of footnotes, addenda, revision, and disingenuous re-explanation: as occurred in regard to the draconian secrecy she imposed on her health-care task force (and its failed efforts in 1993-94); explanations of what could have been dutifully acknowledged, and deserved to be dismissed as a minor conflict of interest — once and for all — in Whitewater; or her recent Michigan-Florida migration from acceptance of the DNC’s refusal to recognize those states’ convention delegations (when it looked like she had the nomination sewn up) to her re-evaluation of the matter as a grave denial of basic human rights, after she fell impossibly behind in the delegate count. http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/26/hillary-clinton-truth-or-consequences/#more-470 28% of Clinton votes say they’d vote for McCain if Hillary doesn’t make it; 19% of Obama supporters say the same. It’s early and that percentage will dramatically shrink, but it’s a sign of where matters are now. http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx -R
-
Quotabull
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/04/04/quotabull-33/It’s a pleasure to watch Obama’s mastery of the technique. And Clinton — and I didn’t say “even Clinton” — uses it much better than McCain does. And just about everybody does it better than the capering loon who does soft-shoe in the White House while young Americans are dismembered and splattered in Iraq. Sometimes when he speaks I can forget who he is momentarily and find myself actually pulling for him; probably from misplaced performer empathy. His speechifying has a strong odor of remedial reading about it, combined with an apparent fear that there might be some hard words ahead. — from a New York Times commentary by Dick Cavett discussing President Bush’s public speaking skills; March 28. The president views the Olympics as a sporting event and an important opportunity to support America’s athletes. He has also made it very clear that the Olympics will shine a bright light on China regarding a variety of issues. — White House spokesman Tony Fratto, responding to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s urging that President Bush skip the opening Olympics ceremony to protest China’s actions in Tibet and its human rights record and trade policies; April 2. The drums of war are sounding, a decisive battle is at hand. For the sake of the Chinese nation’s image and for the honor of the People’s Armed Police, let us never forget our duty. — from an article in The People’s Armed Police News in China, regarding what it called a “political mobilization order” to security forces telling them to prepare for an arduous time ensuring order and control before and during the Olympic Games; April 2. Since our acquisition of DoubleClick closed on March 11, we have been working to match and align DoubleClick employees in the U.S. with our organizational plan for the business. As with many mergers, this review has resulted in a reduction in headcount at the acquired company. — a statement from Google on press reports it planned to cut about 300 jobs from the American operations of DoubleClick; April 3. This report is telling us that the recession started awhile back, in December. It is not like we are starting this month. We’re in it; we’ve been in it. — Nigel Gault, the chief United States economist at Global Insight, a research firm, on the April 4 Labor Department jobs report that said the economy lost 80,000 jobs in March, the third consecutive month of rising unemployment. Ben Bernanke, the Fed chief, with photographers before testifying to the Joint Economic Committee. Clearly, we’re looking at asset quality and capital. We’re looking at liquidity. We’re trying to make judgments about risk management, earnings quality — a variety of things that we look at to try to ascertain whether a financial institution is sound or not. And if not, you know, we need to push them to improve their processes, to raise capital, improve their liquidity. — testimony of Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke at a hearing of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress; April 3. Hope Now is a failure. It’s industry-dominated. — Michael Shea, the executive director of the Acorn Housing Corporation, a large counseling agency that is part of the Hope Now alliance designed to assign homeowners with mortgage problems, on reports that “the financial powers behind Hope Now — mortgage lenders, loan servicers and big investors — are reluctant to change loan terms substantially if doing so hurts them“; “Home Now,” reports The New York Times, “is run out of the Housing Policy Council, which in turn is part of the Financial Services Roundtable, the influential financial services lobby“; April 2; emphasis added. Today, the New York Times criticized President Bush for failing to generate headlines for his visit to Novadebt counseling center in Freehold, N.J. to meet with mortgage counselors and discuss the housing market, asserting “the papers were awash with the news that Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania had endorsed Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for president.” The “newspaper of record” further claims “Mr. Bush has sometimes seemed invisible during the housing and credit crunch.” … The New York Times neglects to mention that it failed to send a reporter to cover the President’s housing event in Freehold, N.J. – a town inside its own circulation area. — from an April 3 White House press release titled “Setting the Record Straight: The New York Times Mistakes Its Own Blindness for Presidential ‘Invisibility’”; emphasis added. In this case, we have an employee, Mr. Skilling, acting in pursuit of Enron’s interests at all times. Skilling urged risky transactions that were unwise but violated no rules. — Daniel M. Petrocelli, lawyer for former Enron chief Jeffrey Skilling, in asking the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to overturn Mr. Skilling’s conviction “on 19 counts of fraud, conspiracy, insider trading and lying to auditors for his role in the collapse of Enron, once the nation’s seventh-largest company”; April 3; emphasis added. I told him that the American forces are withdrawing from Iraq and that George Bush is going to apologize to the Iraqi people for causing destruction and he will pay one million Iraqi dinars to every Iraqi for compensation within two days. My friend didn’t believe me. — Ahmed Ali, the owner of a Baghdad shoe store, on the April Fools Day joke he tried to play on a friend; April 2. We value the need for public input on any potential impact of our border infrastructure plans on the environment, and we will continue to solicit it. — Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff after using, for the fourth time, his waiver authority to bypass environmental regulations to meet a December deadline to construction nearly 700 miles of fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border; April 2. If you fail to stop the Germans getting our oil, you will be shot. And when we have thrown the invader out, if we cannot restart production, we will shoot you again. — Joseph Stalin, as remembered by Nikolai K. Baibakov, “who oversaw Russian oil production during World War II and went on to become one of the Soviet Union’s top economic officials“; Baibakov died Monday in Moscow at age 97; April 2. Q: Did the President — our President — speak at all during this meeting? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: He did. He did. Q: And what did he say? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It was positive, informal, as you’d expect from our President. He welcomed President Putin, thanked him for coming, indicated he was going to Sochi; said, you know, we’re too old warhorses and we’re both getting ready to step down from our positions; that he emphasized some themes he’s made before, of course, that the Cold War is over and Russia is not the enemy, and that he believes that NATO is a force for good and building democracies is a good thing because democracies and strong democratic states are really the only way to deal with the challenges we have today. And he hopes that these efforts to build democracies of course will continue into the future. — exchange from a press briefing aboard Air Force One en route to Zagreb, Croatia; April 4. Some of these people still believe the woman should be home taking care of the baby, and they are not going to vote for a black. That’s just what they believe. There’s prejudice in this country that’s never going to go away completely. My stepdaughter’s with a black man and went and had a baby by him. I’m okay with it, but that’s me. I was raised around black people. If they vote Obama in, I won’t lose a wink of sleep because of his color or his policies, but I’m voting for Hillary. — Gary Lampke, 53, sitting at the bar of American Legion Post 420 in Harrisburg, Pa., discussing race in presidential politics; March 23. It’s not a blitz to close this chapter. If we find the [al-Qaeda] leadership, then we’ll go after it. But nothing can be done to put al-Qaeda away in the next nine or 10 months. In the long haul, it’s an issue that extends beyond this administration. — a senior Bush administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of ongoing operations, discussing the likelihood of unilateral strikes inside Pakistan; April 1. We have always said that as for strikes, that is for Pakistani forces to do and for the Pakistani government to decide. … We do not envision a situation in which foreigners will enter Pakistan and chase targets. This war on terror is our war. — Farhatullah Babar, a top spokesman for the Pakistan People’s Party, whose leader, Yousaf Raza Gillani, is the new prime minister of Pakistan; April 1; emphasis added. WASHINGTON (CNN) — North Carolina Republican Sen. Jesse Helms said Tuesday that the United States would soon release some $582 million to the United Nations, as the U.S. moves to incrementally make good on nearly $1 billion in back dues to the world body. — from a Jan. 9, 2001, story on CNN.com; emphasis added. U.N. administrative costs have more than doubled, to about $2.5 billion a year, since Bush took office, while peacekeeping expenses have increased threefold, with nearly 110,000 peacekeepers in 20 overseas missions at a 2008 cost of about $7 billion. — from a March 21 Washington Post story reporting that “[d]espite long-standing efforts by successive U.S. administrations to rein in U.N. spending, the United Nations this month presented its top donors with a request for nearly $1.1 billion in additional funds over the next two years — boosting current U.N. expenses by 25 percent and marking the global body’s highest-ever administrative budget”; emphasis added. MS. PERINO: I’m sorry; I made the mistake of not actually saying that you wanted to be on background. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: On background. MS. [DANA] PERINO: It was a private meeting, it was on background. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Ever since “hello.” Q: Senior admin official? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Senior admin official. MS. PERINO: Sorry, guys. Q: It’s okay. — exchange from a press briefing aboard Air Force One en route to Zagreb, Croatia; April 4. There seemed to be two of me. One, onstage, undressing. The other saying, ‘What are you doing, taking your clothes off for those morons?’ — Sherry Britton, “whose hour-glass figure, jet-black hair and rambunctious presence made her one of the queens of the burlesque stage in the 1930s and ’40s” on her internal monologue while stripping; she died April 1 at 89; April 3. photo credits: President Bush: Shealah Craighead, The White House Ben Bernanke: Brendan Smialowski, The New York Times Sherry Britton: Movie Star News Quotabull is a weekly feature of Scholars & Rogues.
-
Permanent Link to Americans start asking about Predators in Pakistan
http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2008/03/27/americans-start...Americans start asking about Predators in Pakistan Comments (12) Posted by: Myra MacDonald Tags: Uncategorized A story in the Washington Post "U.S. Steps Up Unilateral Strikes in Pakistan has attracted attention worldwide. It says the United States has escalated its unilateral strikes against al-Qaeda members and fighters operating in Pakistan's tribal areas, partly because of anxieties that Pakistan's new leaders will insist on scaling back military operations there. "Over the past two months, U.S.-controlled Predator aircraft are known to have struck at least three sites used by al-Qaeda operatives," it says. "The moves followed a tacit understanding with (President Pervez) Musharraf and Army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani that allows U.S. strikes on foreign fighters operating in Pakistan, but not against the Pakistani Taliban." Stories of missile attacks by unmanned CIA-operated Predator drones in Pakistan are not new, and nor indeed is Pakistani anger at what it sees as a violation of its sovereignty. In early February I highlighted a story by the Pakistani journalist Rahimullah Yusufzai in The News saying that the American policy of hitting targets inside Pakistan had now become "the norm than the exception". Neither U.S. nor Pakistani authorities officially confirm U.S. missile attacks on Pakistani territory. What is new is the amount of attention the missile attacks are now gaining, particularly in the United States. It's worth reading the comments on the Washington Post article -- 161 of them when I last looked -- to see how many people are learning about them for the first time. Some comments give credit to Senator Barack Obama for suggesting targeted attacks on Al Qaeda militants in Pakistan -- an idea he repeated this month, as I noted in a previous entry on this subject. As far as I know, the Predator attacks -- including one in Bajaur Agency in January 2006 that was reported to have killed up to 18 people, including women and children -- started before Obama suggested the idea. But he does seem to have got people talking about them. So here is the question. If the American public is now waking up to the notion that the United States is launching missile attacks in Pakistan, will that affect U.S. policy? Will it become a U.S. election issue? And what does it mean for Pakistan and its new government?
-
America: What part of "NO" don't you understand?
http://moinansari.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!13E83389ABB46AB9!...We wrote an article with the above title last year and also several years ago. This sort of advice fell on deaf ears in Washington. Now the chickens have come home to roost. There are hundreds of opinions about every aspect of policy, strategy and tactics, however there is near consensus on one aspect of Pakistani Foreign policy. 1) The Global War on Terror (GWOT) is America's war and not Pakistans war 2) It is not in the interest of Pakistanis to keep on killing Pakistanis. The Senate, the opposition, the government and the army are of the firm opinion that Pakistan should negotiate with the Taliban and bring peace to Pakistan. Boucher on his visit heard it loud and clear from the politicians. The press also has taken the government to task on why it is taking order from "low level officers of the US administration". If this is news to the American administration then the $80 Billion Think Tank industry has simply been plagiarizing the current paradigm and the CIA should be fired, because it has been unable to see the volcanic activity in the Pakistani media and the Pakistani hearts and minds. If immediate corrective actions are not taken immediately, Pakistan is headed for a divorce with the US and no amount of threats "to bomb them back to the stone age" will work. Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO By Karl F. Inderfurth Tuesday, April 1, 2008 The NATO summit meeting in Bucharest this week comes at a critical time for the 26-member alliance and its mission in Afghanistan. It also comes at a critical time for the one country that can make or break that mission: Pakistan. NATO is collectively holding its breath as the Musharraf era comes to a close, replaced by a new and uncertain civilian political leadership and accompanied by a continuing rise in extremist violence. A month-long surge in suicide bombings has put the country on edge. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO's secretary general, said during his recent visit to Washington that as soon as the new Pakistan government is in place, he will travel to Islamabad. After Bucharest there is no better destination to reinforce NATO's Afghan mission. Afghanistan and Pakistan are inextricably linked. There can be no successful outcome for Afghanistan if Pakistan is not a part of the solution. The future stability of both depends on the development of an effective regional strategy to counter and uproot the Taliban/Al Qaeda sanctuary in Pakistan's tribal border areas. Despite Pakistan's counterinsurgency efforts over the last four years (or lack thereof according to the critics), the Taliban and Al Qaeda have developed a stronghold in this region that bolsters the Taliban's capabilities against coalition forces in Afghanistan, poses a direct threat to the Pakistani state itself, and facilitates Al Qaeda planning and execution of global terrorist plots, including those directed against the United States. What can be done about this interconnected set of problems? Countering cross border infiltration is the immediate priority. The Trilateral Afghanistan-Pakistan-NATO Military Commission is an important mechanism in this regard. So is the strengthening of the U.S. military presence along the Afghan side of the border, which the latest U.S. Marine contingent now arriving in Afghanistan will assist as will the opening of the first of six joint U.S.-Afghan-Pakistan military intelligence centers along the border. Washington also needs to work more closely with Pakistan in joint counter-terrorism operations. The possibility for collaboration exists, as evidenced by the missile strike in North Waziristan earlier this year that killed the senior Al Qaeda operative Abu Laith al-Libi. But these operations are highly sensitive and politically charged in the tribal areas and must be pursued through quiet, behind the scenes efforts with Pakistan political and military leaders. In addition, any large-scale outside military intervention in Pakistan's tribal areas would be disastrous for the Pakistani state and U.S. interests and would not provide a lasting solution to the problem. A more effective strategy involves working cooperatively with Pakistan's new leadership to integrate these areas into the Pakistani political system and, once they are secure, provide substantial assistance (along with the European Union, the World Bank and other donors) to build up their economy and social infrastructure. As Pakistan's ambassador, Mahmud Duranni, says, what is needed in these areas is a "multipronged strategy. That is, military force, development and empowerment of the people. Using force alone is not the answer." Over the longer term, the region requires a new compact that addresses Afghanistan and Pakistan's political, economic and security concerns and seeks to neutralize regional and great power rivalries. To accomplish this the UN should convene an international conference attended by all Afghanistan's neighbors and other concerned major powers, a task that should be added to the agenda of the newly appointed UN envoy for Afghanistan, the Norwegian diplomat Kai Eide. The goal would be a multilateral accord that recognizes Afghanistan's borders with Pakistan (the Durand Line of 1893 is still in dispute); pledges noninterference in Afghanistan's internal affairs; affirms that, like the Congress of Vienna accord for Switzerland, Afghanistan should be internationally accepted as a permanently neutral state; and establishes a comprehensive international regime to remove obstacles to the flow of trade across Afghanistan, the key to establishing a vibrant commercial network that would benefit the entire region. And such an agreement would have another positive corollary - it would provide the basis for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. and NATO military forces from a stable and secure Afghanistan. Karl F. Inderfurth, a professor at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University, served as U.S. assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs from 1997 to 2001. Notes: Copyright © 2008 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com A Balancing Act in Pakistan March 31, 2008 Author: Jayshree Bajoria Pakistani paramilitary officials examine confiscated weapons along the Afghan border. (AP/Shah Khalid) The new government in Islamabad has wasted little time making clear its disapproval of Washington’s policy toward Pakistan and its strategy on counterterrorism. The visit by two top U.S. State Department officials on the same day the new Pakistani prime minister was sworn in was widely criticized (CNN) in Pakistan. New York Times correspondent Jane Perlez writes that the three-day trip by Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte “turned out to be [a] series of indignities and chilly, almost hostile, receptions,” signaling challenges ahead in engaging Pakistan’s newly elected government. Islamabad’s new leaders have asserted the decision-making process will now involve more than one man (Guardian), implying Washington will have to broaden its regular contacts within Pakistan beyond President Pervez Musharraf. The new government has also made it clear that it will no longer tolerate the death of civilians in anti-militant operations, and further, it prefers negotiating with militants as a strategy to counter extremism. Yet while the Bush administration’s official statements stressed cooperation, the Washington Post reported it continued to step up unilateral strikes against suspected militant hideouts inside Pakistan’s tribal areas. The Post report says Washington wants to inflict as much damage as it can to al-Qaeda’s network inside Pakistan before the new government puts a stop to U.S. air strikes. CFR’s Daniel Markey says Pakistan’s government needs to come to grips with the threat posed by internal militants but he also cautions against any heavy-handed U.S. approach to the threat. “The last thing we ultimately want to do is alienate the Pakistanis for short-term benefits,” he says. “Killing another top-level [extremist] leader is probably not worth losing the relationship with Pakistan as a partner.” Experts say a shift in Pakistan’s counterterrorism strategy could be worrisome for Washington at a time when militants from Pakistan’s tribal areas continue to feed instability across the border, posing challenges to the NATO alliance in Afghanistan (NPR). Some have questioned Pakistan’s willingness to fight this war. Matthew Cole, writing in Salon, revisits charges that Pakistani security forces have been abusing U.S. aid by double-dealing and assisting Taliban forces, allegations denied by Pakistani officials. For much of the Bush administration, U.S. policy toward Pakistan has hinged on supporting Musharraf. “One of the chief drivers of Bush’s foreign policy has been the president’s own tendency to personalize diplomacy,” writes Joshua Kurlantzick in the New Republic. This approach is drawing some critics in Washington and has been singled out by front-runners in the U.S. presidential campaign. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) have both been critical of Bush’s policy and have advocated moving away from Musharraf. They have also said that future U.S. policy toward Pakistan must focus on economic aid that extends beyond counterterrorism efforts. The presumptive Republican nominee for president, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), has also pressed for economic development and education in Pakistan. While this may signal a more comprehensive strategy for a future Pakistan policy, experts say Washington has to walk a bit of a tightrope in the country. No matter who calls the shots in Islamabad, the Pakistani army and its intelligence services remain important players in the U.S.-led “war on terror.” Pakistani journalist Ayaz Amir writes in Pakistan-based The News that the “rethinking of the American alliance will have to come as much from General Headquarters as from the new National Assembly.” The U.S. government has a long-standing relationship with Pakistan’s military, as this timeline shows, and experts say it’s unlikely the Pakistani army will be willing to cut these ties or forego U.S aid. Pakistan rethinks US policy on militants By Barbara Plett, BBC News, Islamabad There is a buzz of excitement in the wood-panelled assembly hall of Pakistan's parliament. After eight years of military rule, the new legislators feel empowered by an enormous popular mandate. And they are ready to tackle unpopular policies, especially Pakistan's participation in what is called the War on Terror. "We've gone through enough problems because of following different agendas of different countries - we need to follow our own agenda," said one parliamentarian from the governing coalition, speaking to a crush of reporters outside. "Pakistan must get out of America's fatal embrace," said another. Out of the loop Comments like these alarm the Americans, because Pakistan is crucial to their Afghan policy. Since 9/11 they have relied on President Pervez Musharraf and the army for cooperation against al-Qaeda and the Taleban, in exchange for billions of dollars. Until now parliament was out of the loop. "No one in this country knows what General Musharraf has agreed with the Americans or anyone else!" says Ahsan Iqbal, a minister in the new cabinet. The president apparently agreed to an increase in US air strikes in the Taleban strongholds near the Afghan border. These have killed around 50 people this year, including militants. Like everyone else, Mr Iqbal read about the tacit understanding in the newspaper. Such heavy handed tactics "give a cause for these militants to fight for", he says, "so therefore I think whatever strategy we work out, the sovereignty of Pakistan must be respected and we should not give more fuel to these militants". Security Pakistanis believe a deadly bombing campaign in the country is the price they are paying for missile strikes and large scale army operations against the militants. Nearly a thousand people were killed in suicide attacks last year. And massive injections of American aid have made little difference to their security. "The general perception in Pakistan is that the deal over the War on Terror was favourable only to one party and unfavourable to Pakistan," says Aseff Ahmad Ali, a member of the governing Pakistan Peoples' Party and a former foreign minister. If the armed force is withdrawn, there may be a resurgence Retired General Shujaat Ali Khan "The Americans give us a billion dollars a year for the War on Terror. But where has the money gone? We don't know, maybe to the army. "But we do know there's been no trickle-down effect - there is neither internal (security) nor food security nor development. "To the common man the US-Pakistan deal looks absolutely awful. It has to be renegotiated." Negotiation In a speech outlining the government's policies, Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gillani emphasized social and political reforms to address the causes of militancy. He also said the government would negotiate with those who laid down their arms. Some of his coalition partners go further, like the Pashtun Awami National Party (ANP), which has gained power in the North West Frontier Province near the Afghan border. "This problem is not going to be solved by my going to talk to the tribal elders only," the provincial chief minister, Amir Haider Khan Hoti, told the Dawn newspaper. "Unless we somehow approach the one who has taken up arms, or is involved in suicide bombing or has gone to the other extreme, and reach an understanding with him, the problem would not be solved." 'Clear and present danger' This is a long term solution, but does America have the patience to wait? The head of its Central Intelligence Agency is sounding very impatient. "The situation on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border presents a clear and present danger to... the West in general and the United States in particular," Michael Hayden said during a recent interview on NBC television. "It's very clear to us that al-Qaeda has been able for the past 18 months or so to establish a safe haven along the border area that they have not enjoyed before. "Operationally, we are turning every effort to capture or kill that leadership from the top to the bottom." Tanvir Ahmed Khan, a former Pakistani ambassador to Afghanistan argues that "the Americans have leverage (in Pakistan), but not the same degree as before". "There would be a restive parliament. There is no strong opinion in parliament for reversing the policy, but there is a strong opinion for moderating it, for a better mix between military and diplomatic measures." Military wary But will Pakistan's powerful army agree? President Musharraf's attempts at peace deals only strengthened the militants and put the military on the back-foot, says retired General Shujaat Ali Khan. The military would be wary of going down the same path again. "There may be an (initial) agreement on the part of the militants, to sort of pull back their punches", he says, "but during this two or three month period there is a danger that they may regroup. "And if the armed force is withdrawn, there may be a resurgence, and they'll strike again." Many here also believe that peace inside Pakistan will be difficult, as long as American and Nato troops remain in Afghanistan. On Sunday the Pakistan Taleban Movement (Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan) responded to the government's overtures. It said it was ready to end attacks inside Pakistan if the authorities showed flexibility, but the 'jihad' against America would continue in Afghanistan. "Our war is with America", local Taleban leader Maulvi Faqir Muhammed told a rally. "Whenever Pakistan will work for American interests as its ally, we will oppose it." Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/7323982.stm Published: 2008/04/01 10:59:19 GMT © BBC MMVIII
-
Weekend in review
http://civicalert.org/2008/03/31/weekend-in-review/Here are some of the stories that caught the attention of your writers this weekend. 1. The United States is increasing its unilateral airstrikes in the tribal regions of Pakistan before its new government changes its policy on American missions, according to U.S. officials. The increase reflects the Bush administration’s concern that Pakistan’s new majority will be less welcoming of such attacks than the former majority government of President Pervez Musharraf, a key U.S. ally. “U.S. Steps Up Unilateral Strikes in Pakistan” - [Washington Post] 2. Protesting monks disrupted a cadre of foreign journalists’ government-guided tour of Lhasa last Thursday. The journalists were the first allowed entry to Tibet since protests triggered a violent reaction from the Chinese government eighteen days ago. President Bush spoke with Chinese President Hu Jintao by telephone the day before, encouraging the government to talk with exiled Tibetan leader the Dalai Lama. ”Monks disrupt Tibet media visit“ - [BBC News] 3. Puerto Rican Governor Anibal Acevedo Vila was charged Thursday with 19 counts of campaign finance violations in a federal investigation. Acevedo, a Democratic Superdelegate and supporter of Senator Barack Obama, denied the charges and called the investigations politically motivated. He could serve more than 20 years in federal prison if convicted. “Puerto Rico governor charged with corruption” - [MSNBC] 4. Senator Barack Obama delivered a key speech that outlined his plans to modernize regulation of financial markets and provide relief for homeowners harmed by the housing crisis; he also proposed a $30 billion economic stimulus package to fuel growth and help protect families from potential recession. “Obama Casts Wide Blame for Financial Crisis and Proposes Homeowner Aid” - [New York Times] 5. The controversial comments of Senator Barack Obama’s former pastor had little negative impact on his presidential bid, according to a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released last Wednesday. Several pundits had predicted a fallout of white voters from Obama’s campaign after video clips from Jeremiah Wright’s sermons surfaced on the internet; the most popular video showed Wright yelling “God damn America” in a tirade condemning government policies toward blacks. 47 percent of voters who said they saw Obama’s popular speech on race said Obama has sufficiently addressed the comments made by Wright while 37 percent said he needs to address it further. Obama experienced a two percent decrease in favorablility ratings from polls conducted in early March; Senator Hillary Clinton experienced an eight percent drop during the same period, marking her lowest ratings since her 2001 election to the U.S. Senate. “First Thoughts: Myth buster” - [First Read, MSNBC political blog] *Full poll results available here.
-
Afghanistan: cinq questions à Nicolas Sarkozy
http://globe.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2008/03/27/afghanis...Alors qu'il avait fait du retrait des troupes françaises en Afghanistan l'un des thèmes de sa campagne, Nicolas Sakozy vient d'annoncer - devant le Parlement britannique et non devant la représentation nationale - que Paris allait accroitre sensiblement son effort militaire dans cette région. Pourquoi pas? L'affaire afghane est d'importance, capitale sans doute pour l'avenir de l'Otan, pour la crédibilité des démocraties face à l'islamisme radical, pour la stabilité de l'Asie centrale, zone hautement stratégique. Mais, avant d'engager la France plus avant dans un conflit qui a fait, selon l'Onu, 8000 morts en 2007 (oui, 8000!), l'Elysée doit répondre à cinq questions, au moins. 1/ Quelle est aujourd'hui l'action quotidienne des forces françaises sur place et en particulier celle de ses six avions de combat (trois Mirage 2000 et trois Rafale) basés à Kandahar. Pour l'instant, seule l'US Air force fournit, tous les jours, quelques informations sur les sorties des appareils français (ici). (C'est Jean-Dominique Merchet de "Libération" qui a révélé cette grave anomalie dans son blog "secret défense".) 2/ Où envisage-t-il d'envoyer les 1000 soldats supplémentaires dont on parle. Au sud, pour soulager les Canadiens, qui menacent de se retirer de Kandahar, si on ne les soutient pas davantage? A l'est, près de la frontière pakistanaise par laquelle les Talibans et Al Qaida s'infiltrent? Et quelles seront les règles d'engagement des forces françaises? Pourront-elles "taper" jusqu'au Pakistan, comme le fait désormais l'US Air Force (voir le "Washington Post" d'aujourd'hui)?
