On Wed, 4/1/09, PakNationalists wrote:
A Simple Guide To Pakistan’s Friends And Enemies by SAFDAR ALI Wednesday, 1 April 2009. http://www.ahmedquraishi.com/
A famous and an honest Pakistani bureaucrat, QUDRATUALLAH SHAHAB, wrote the following in his autobiography, SHAHAB NAMA, in page 778. I have translated this from Urdu to English: 'Although Russia and America are enemies but on some issues they become friends.’ I was surprised and asked, ‘For example?’ He said, ‘For example, PAKISTAN.’
Dear Quraishi Sahab,
Reply is in two parts:
1 - Ayub Khan, US Spy Plane U2 Flights:
2 - More on so-called honest Pakistani bureaucrat, QUDRATUALLAH SHAHAB.
1 - Ayub Khan, US Spy Plane U2 Flights
One of the wonders of Internet and Information Technology that you cannot hide truth anymore because nowadays a simple google click can take you back to the Past History. By the way Late. Qudratullah Shahab, was Fraud and Cheater to the core and these plus points [Cheating and Fraud] become more detrimental, fatal, critical and aggravated when one is a Retired ICS Officer [always write a book after enjoying every perk and benefits to hoodwink the unsuspecting Pakistanis] and Sufi [Habitual, Pathological and Rampantly Liars to the core read in the paragraphs below, why?] as well which Qudratullah Shahab was.
By the way Qudratullah Shahab was and Information Secretary for Filed Martial [without fighting any war and I wonder why Jinnah reprimanded Ayub Khan when he was in Dhaka - East Pakistan now Bangladesh] Ayub Khan and Shahab served him very well. Please U2 Spy Plane and US Spy Gary Powers in the search option of The National Security Archive [www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/ Declassified US Government Document] and you will know the following [which happened under the very nose of the so-called honest Pakistani bureaucrat, QUDRATUALLAH SHAHAB:
Dear Quraishi Sahab,
General Ayub allowed US Spy Plane U2 Flights from A BASE IN BADABEER - NWFP - Pakistan to spy on USSR. I wonder why this crucial information was kept hidden from Pakistani people and by the way the so-called honest Pakistani bureaucrat, QUDRATUALLAH SHAHAB was very much in confidence of General Ayub. Now read
Ayub Khan frustrated with slow pace of negotiations with US during his visit to Washington went to Henry Byroad’s office and told him, ‘I didn’t come here to look at barracks. Our army can be your army if you want us. But let’s make a decision’. Once US decided about Pakistan’s role in the defence of the region and containment of Communism, it was the armed forces of Pakistan and not the political leadership, which was seen as potential partners. Ayub Khan obsessed with modernization of the armed forces in shortest possible time saw the relationship with US the only way to achieve his organizational and personal objectives. In meeting with US officials during his April 1958 visit, Ayub stressed that armed forces are the strongest element. He was of the view that if elections were held in the prevailing circumstances, the left wing politicians will come to power which will not only destabilize Pakistan but will affect US strategic interests.
Pakistan was seen by US in military terms which was quite natural as US national interest was related to security. In 1953, Pakistan was described as a country with many qualities, which were, “... a volunteer army of 3,000,000... it is not neutral but anti-communist... As a possible ally for US, Pakistan displays a tempting picture of power — potential and actual”.Pakistan army was seen as ‘a disciplined, well trained army whose morale and bravery are unquestionable’.Some events in Washington regarding Pakistan became comical. In 1953, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles while arguing for wheat aid to Pakistan told sub-committee on Agriculture and Forestry during hearings that, ‘the people of Pakistan had a splendid military tradition and that in Karachi he had been met by a guard of honour which was the ‘finest’ he had ever seen’.
Apparently, he did not tell the agriculture department what on earth the wheat aid has to do with the military. After the signing of first mutual defence treaty in May 1954, large-scale interaction between US and Pakistani military started. Pakistan became one of the seven members (other members included Thailand, South Vietnam, Taiwan, Philippines, Laos and Cambodia) of elite ‘Defence Support Countries” in South East Asia. A US Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) was established in Army Headquarters in Rawalpindi. A Military Assistance Programme (MAP) was started. Pakistan army was divided into MAP and Non-MAP units depending on their role. MAP units were oriented towards safeguarding US interests and non-MAP units along Indian border.
The objectives of US and Pakistan were different in this military alliance. For US the arrangement was to safeguard US interests in southwest Asia and Middle East and not against India. Pakistani military establishment saw the relationship as a short cut to modernization of its armed forces but failed to comprehend long-term strategic interest of Pakistan. One frequently hears the complaints of Pakistani officers from top to bottom about ‘betrayal’ and ‘abandoning’ by America. The fact that US was following her national interest while mediocre Pakistani military leadership were more in wishful thinking rather than planning for safeguarding their national interest. There was nothing secret about US policy. In several public statements and documents, US objectives have been clearly stated, if Pakistani generals could not see them, this was their own folly. The general principles of these security agreements were that United States will enter a security agreement when:
- There is a genuine threat to US interests.
- The mutual security pact will significantly contribute to preserve these interests.
- The final judgment of US troop commitment will be made by elected representatives.
- Allies will contribute their fair share in terms of personnel, weapons, resources and government support.
As early as 1962, Colonel Jordan wrote about US position as far as Pakistan was concerned, “... because of their deployment, the Pakistani forces in Eastern Pakistan and Kashmir (Non-MAP supported) are the ones most likely to become entangled with the Indian Army should an incident arise. US responsibility for such non-MAP Pakistani forces is no greater than for Indian Army units, which have indirectly benefited by the massive US economic aid given to India”. While Colonel Jordan wrote with precision and clarity, Major General Fazal Muqeem Khan was baffled. Muqeem wrote, “It would be interesting to know why the United States did not take over the responsibility of supporting the entire standing army at the time of the agreement. Those parts of the army, which are now in Kashmir and East Pakistan, and some other units, do not have military assistance. Similarly, no training establishments or static installations are supported”.These few words speak a volume about the intellectual level of senior leadership.
In July 1959, Pakistan agreed for establishment of US base near Peshawar to be operated by US officials. General Khalid M. Arif while commenting on U-2 incident (U-2 was a US spy plane operating from Badaber base near Peshawar. It was shot down by Soviet SA-2 missile and its pilot Gary Powers was captured. The incident severely compromised Pakistan security and brought the Soviet ire on Pakistan. Soviets paid back Pakistan within a decade during East Pakistan crisis) states that, ‘Pakistan felt deceived because the US had kept her in the dark about such clandestine spy operations launched from Pakistan’s territory’.Statements like these from such highly placed officers don’t speak well for Pakistan. As early as 1959, when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, as acting foreign minister wished to visit the facility, the American base commander replied that, ‘the minister would be welcome to visit the cafeteria where he would be served coffee and sandwiches’.
An American air force base located in the border area of Pakistan near Soviet territory where spy planes were parked, run by Americans where even the highest Pakistani officials could not enter was not suppose to bake cookies or train pilots for aerial aerobatics. Ayub Khan was fully aware of the operations. He was in London at the time of U-2 incident. When the CIA station chief gave Ayub the news, he shrugged his shoulders and said that he had expected this would happen at some point.In 50s there was increasing number of Pakistani officers who got training in United States. The military doctrine shifted from British to American. Fazal Muqeem points to the change of thought process of officer corps. “Such healthy and friendly contacts were bound to have a decisive influence on the ideas of the officer corps. They soon made their impact on the thinking of Pakistani commanders and staff. In the re-organization of the army, American ideas influenced the planners in a number of ways”.The influence was not limited to the knowledge of new weaponry and defence strategy and tactics. According to Colonel Jordan, the purpose of training of officers in US was not only to train them in particular fields but also to groom them for non-military activities (leadership, management and economics). In addition, MAAG officers were in agreement that the off-shore trained officer is more receptive to continued military advice and suggestions than his colleagues”.It is interesting to note that officers from different countries (Asia, Africa, Latin and South America) trained in US quite confident of their newly acquired skills took power in their own countries.
Tale of a love affair that never was: United States-Pakistan Defence Relations Columnist Hamid Hussain analyses an ON and OFF affair.
2 - More on so-called honest Pakistani bureaucrat, QUDRATUALLAH SHAHAB:
Qudratullah Sahab (later became Sufis and used to tell as to how he witness the separation of his soul from his body [while alive in a Chapter of his biography Shahabnama)- but he was the very persons who is the reason of the Collapse of Independent and Vibran Print Media and Journalism in Pakistan way back in 60s.
The Press and Publications Ordinance, 1960, was promulgated when Qudratullah Shahab, a super-bureaucrat, was Ayub’s Information Secretary. During his tenure as the Secretary, Ministry of Information, the Progressive Papers Limited had been taken over. The day these papers “turned a new leaf”, the editorial was written by himself claiming that “distant orbits and alien horizons- far from territorial and ideological boundaries of Pakistan- exercised a progressively increasing charm on the tone and policies of this newspaper (Pakistan Times). Which gradually began to look like a stranger in the house….”.
The decision to establish the National Press Trust had been taken, which was implemented by his successor. Shahab’s masterstroke was the creation of the Writers’ Guild. He himself was its first Secretary-General, while another Intellectual- Bureaucrat, Jamiluddin Aali (another Darbari Gawayya, not in the book my words) was appointed the Secretary. Three leading business houses of Karachi- Adamjees, Dawoods and Habibs-were marshalled to award “cash prizes” to “deserving writers” in order to “buy and corrupt their loyalties”.
Good old days of General Ayub: [The Press in Chains by late. Zamir Niazi]:
On April 22, 1968, Chattan and its editor were once again in trouble. The paper was closed down under the Defence of Pakistan Rules, his press confiscated and Agha Abdul Karim Shorish Kashmiri sent to jail. During the trial, the two High Court judges, Justice Bashiruddin and Justice Shaukat Ali, were under constant pressure. Both the judges were informed of the West Pakistan Governor, General Muhammad Musa’s strong reaction over the acceptance of Begum Shorish’s petition. They were told that “the Government was quite strong and could harass the judges.” Justice Shaukat Ali was informed that the Chief Secretary, Sheikh Ikramul Haque, was in rage, and “used harsh language” against him. According to Justice Shaukat Ali, Haque was “giving direction to the Bench at the instance of the Provincial Government”. Justice Shaukat Ali made representations to the Law Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Justice Muhammad Gul, and the Chief Justice of the West Pakistan High Court stating:
“Never before in the history of the judiciary – not ever during foreign domination judges were shabbily treated as was done in the case of the Bench entrusted with the hearing of the writ petition challenging the detention of Agha Abdul Karim Shorish Kashmiri under the DPR. There were visible attempts from the very outset of the hearing of the petition to influence the Bench. When the members of the bench did not succumb to such influences then there were threats communicated to the effect that the judges could also be harassed? When threats had gone unheeded investigations was held into the assets of the members of the Bench. [The Press in Chains by Late. Zamir Niazi published by Royal Book Company, Karachi.]
ULTIMATE RESULT OF PAKISTAN USA RELATIONSHIP [THIS IS JUST A GLIMPSE]
To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal” Henry Kissinger.
Petraeus Warns About Militants’ Threat to Pakistan By ELISABETH BUMILLER Published: April 1, 2009
WASHINGTON — Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander for Iraq and Afghanistan, warned a Senate panel on Wednesday that militant extremists in Pakistan “could literally take down their state” if left unchallenged, as he and two other top officials presented a grim picture of growing dangers in the region.
Michele A. Flournoy, a top Defense Department official, told the panel that there would be “higher human costs” for the United States in Afghanistan this year, while the chief of the military’s Special Operations commandos, Adm. Eric T. Olson, called the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan “increasingly dire.”
The trio testified jointly before occasionally skeptical members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who had their first chance to question in public some of the officials who helped formulate President Obama’s new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, which was announced at the White House last week.
The panel pressed the officials on two major issues: how the Obama administration will measure progress in the region and whether Pakistan and its spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, can be trusted. Mr. Obama has promised more aid to Pakistan and called on its leaders to crack down on Al Qaeda and other militant groups that operate within its borders.
Under sharp questioning from Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, Ms. Flournoy, the under secretary of defense for policy, acknowledged the administration’s concerns about a wing of the ISI, which American intelligence officials say is providing money and military assistance to the Taliban across the border in Afghanistan.
“I think ISI is a — or parts of ISI — are certainly a problem to be dealt with,” Ms. Flournoy said.
Mr. McCain, an early proponent of the buildup of American forces in Iraq, also questioned whether the United States now had enough troops in Afghanistan. Gen. David D. McKiernan, the commander of NATO and American forces in Afghanistan, has asked for 30,000 more American troops, and Mr. Obama has so far committed about 21,000 of those. The president will make a decision this fall on whether 10,000 or so more troops will be sent.
“I think it would be far, far better to announce that we will have the additional 10,000 troops dispatched and they will clearly be needed,” Mr. McCain told Ms. Flournoy. He added: “It’s a big country. We know that was a vital element to our success in Iraq. To dribble out these decisions, I think, can create an impression of incrementalism.”
Ms. Flournoy did not react immediately to Mr. McCain’s comment, but much later in the hearing she said that “I would never have used the phrase incrementalism” to describe what she called a “very strong commitment” of American troops that are to increase to 68,000 from 38,000 by the end of this year.
Senators on the panel expressed some impatience with the Obama administration’s failure so far to articulate benchmarks for judging progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan, although Ms. Flournoy promised that they would be ready soon.
“How does this end?” asked Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, echoing comments that General Petraeus once made when he was the commander in Iraq.
Ms. Flournoy responded that “a key point of defining success is when both the Afghans and the Pakistanis have both the capability and the will to deal with the remaining threat themselves.”
General Petraeus said that he would “echo” Ms. Flournoy and that “the task will be for them to shoulder the responsibilities of their own security.”
The general also said that the government was doing a “deep dive” of investigation into claims made Tuesday by the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud, that his group was planning an attack on Washington. American intelligence officials were dismissive of Mr. Mehsud’s claim, but General Petraeus told the panel that “any time there is any threat that could be against the homeland, I think you have to take it seriously.”
He added, “Obviously everyone is quite riveted on analyzing that and seeing what further we can find out about that.”
CIA launches recruitment drive on internet and TV From Times Online March 31, 2009 by Tim Reid in Washington
The CIA is attempting to recruit more spies by advertising on the internet, radio and television, and by holding meetings with American Muslims to make up a severe shortage of Arabic speakers.
In a bid to fulfil a pledge by George W. Bush, the former President, to expand the agency's clandestine arm, advertisements have been placed on websites such as Career Builder, and on the online versions of The Economist and The Washington Post.
Leon Panetta, the new CIA director, will meet Muslim groups in cities such as Detroit to spearhead personally the new drive to recruit Arabic speakers. He recently lamented the fact that only 13 per cent of CIA officers speak a foreign language, and just 22 per cent come from minorities.
"In order to accomplish our vital intelligence mission we want to market our employment opportunities to speakers of Arabic, Russian, Korean, Pashtu and Urdu," George Little, a CIA spokesman, told The Times.
"We want to emphasise to those communities that we welcome first-generation Americans to apply. They bring critical language skills and a knowledge of culture to support our intelligence mission."
A typical recruiting advertisement recently posted on the Chronicle of Higher Education's website is headlined "Central Intelligence Agency, National Clandestine Service Careers, Linguists. You Can Make a World of Difference. Are you up to the challenge of achieving our mission abroad?"
It adds: "This career track offers rewarding, fast-paced, and high-impact challenges." The CIA is also advertising on the social networking site Facebook and YouTube.
Earlier this month Scott White, third in command at the CIA, held meetings with Arab-American and Chaldean-American representatives in Detroit, which has heavily populated American Muslim suburbs. He told the groups that he would bring Mr Panetta to a future meeting.
Mr Little said that the CIA holds about 2,000 recruiting events a year, often at universities across the country. It also advertises for recruits on billboards at airports. Last year, the agency received about 120,000 applications. This year it is on course to receive at least 180,000.
The CIA is still recovering from morale problems and an exodus of senior officials during a series of bruising battles with the Bush White House about the intelligence used to justify the Iraq war.
As the US focuses its attention on Afghanistan and Pakistan, senior members of President Obama's Administration are conceding that their on-the-ground knowledge of Afghanistan in particular is minimal.
Dennis Blair, Mr Obama's Director of National Intelligence, told reporters last week that the US lacks a deep understanding of local power structures in Afghanistan and of the militants operating along that country's border with Pakistan.