Oil, Drugs & the Future of Afghanistan.

WASHINGTON, Sept 29: President Barack Obama and Uzbekistan’s leader Islam Karimov discussed on Thursday expanding US use of the Central Asian country as a supply route for troops in Afghanistan amid growing concern about the viability of Pakistan as a transit route. The White House said Mr Obama called President Karimov on Wednesday to congratulate the former Soviet republic on its 20th anniversary of independence and that the leaders talked about shared interests in a “secure and prosperous” Afghanistan. A senior Obama administration official said the use of Uzbek territory, which already serves as a key supply route for US war supplies, was an “important topic of discussion”. US senators have also made a clear push for improving ties with Uzbekistan so that more supplies can be moved to and from Afghanistan through the ‘Northern Distribution Network’. The Senate Appropriations Committee last week approved a bill that would allow the US to waive restrictions on aid to Uzbekistan if Secretary of State Hillary Clinton certifies this is needed to obtain access to Afghanistan. The restrictions had been placed over Uzbekistan’s human rights record. “We’re going to probably replace 50 per cent of what we ship into Afghanistan from Pakistan, to go through the northern route, Uzbekistan,” Senator Lindsey Graham said this week. — Reuters. REFERENCES: US discusses supply route with Uzbekistan From the Newspaper (14 hours ago) Today http://www.dawn.com/2011/09/30/us-discusses-supply-route-with-uzbekistan.html  James Montgomery Flagg (1877-1960) I Want You for the U.S. Army http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trm015.html 

Uzbekistan Human Rights - Human Rights Concerns - Uzbekistan's disastrous human rights record worsened further in 2005 after a government massacre of demonstrators in Andijan in May. The government committed major violations of the rights to freedom of religion, expression, association, and assembly, and such abuses only increased after the May massacre. Uzbekistan has no independent judiciary, and torture is widespread in both pre-trial and post-conviction facilities. The government continues its practice of controlling, intimidating, and arbitrarily suspending or interfering with the work of civil society groups, the media, human rights activists, and opposition political parties. In particular, repression against independent journalists, human rights defenders, and opposition members increased this year. Government declarations of human rights reform, such as an announcement that the government will abolish the death penalty and the president's declaration of support for habeas corpus had no practical impact. REFERENCE: Uzbekistan Human Rights Human Rights Concerns http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/europe/uzbekistan?id=1011265  Annual Report: Uzbekistan 2011 http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/annual-report-uzbekistan-2011# Obama cozies up to Central Asian dictator by Justin Elliott Published in: Salon.com September 17, 2011 http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/09/17/obama-cozies-central-asian-dictator  http://www.hrw.org/europecentral-asia/uzbekistan 

The presidential electoral campaign of Barack Obama in 2008, it was thought, “changed the political debate in a party and a country that desperately needed to take a new direction.”[1] Like most preceding presidential winners dating back at least to John F. Kennedy, what moved voters of all descriptions to back Obama was the hope he offered of significant change. Yet within a year Obama has taken decisive steps, not just to continue America’s engagement in Bush’s Afghan War, but significantly to enlarge it into Pakistan. If this was change of a sort, it was a change that few voters desired. Those of us convinced that a war machine prevails in Washington were not surprised. The situation was similar to the disappointment experienced with Jimmy Carter: Carter was elected in 1976 with a promise to cut the defense budget. Instead, he initiated both an expansion of the defense budget and also an expansion of U.S. influence into the Indian Ocean.[2]

As I wrote in The Road to 9/11, after Carter’s election

It appeared on the surface that with the blessing of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, the traditional U.S. search for unilateral domination would be abandoned. But…the 1970s were a period in which a major “intellectual counterrevolution” was mustered, to mobilize conservative opinion with the aid of vast amounts of money…. By the time SALT II was signed in 1979, Carter had consented to significant new weapons programs and arms budget increases (reversing his campaign pledge).[3] The complex strategy for reversing Carter’s promises was revived for a successful new mobilization in the 1990s during the Clinton presidency, in which a commission headed by Donald Rumsfeld was prominent. In this way the stage was set, even under Clinton, for the neocon triumph in the George W. Bush presidency. REFERENCE: Obama and Afghanistan: America’s Drug-Corrupted War by Prof Peter Dale Scott Global Research, January 1, 2010 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=16713&context=va  Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is a poet, writer, and researcher. http://www.peterdalescott.net/ 

Oil, Drugs & the Future of Afghanistan by Peter Dale Scott - Part 1 of 6


URL: http://youtu.be/M8z4348MYYA

Zalmay Khalilzad Maulavi Younus Khalis & Ronald Reagan - Trans-Afghan pipeline woes - The US is also very much implicated in the resuscitation of the Trans-Afghan gas pipeline, TAP - despite the endless political mess in Afghanistan. Halliburton - after making a killing in Iraq - would be expected to be on board in Afghanistan. The Japanese-dominated Asian Development Bank (ADB) is also very much interested. Unocal still officially maintains that it has lost interest in the Trans-Afghan gas pipeline it abandoned in 1998. But it wouldn't say no to an oil pipeline following the same route. In a predictable move, the Bush administration appointed its pet Afghan, oil man Zalmay Khalilzad, as Washington's ambassador to Kabul. Khalilzad, born in Mazar-i-Sharif in northern Afghanistan but also pure University of Chicago right-wing material, has already worked with grand chess board master Zbigniew Brzezinski, former US national security advisor, and under Pentagon number two Paul Wolfowitz. It was Khalilzad - when he was a huge Taliban fan - who conducted the risk analysis for Unocal (Union Oil Company of California) for the infamous proposed $2 billion, 1,500 kilometer-long Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan,TAP, gas pipeline. While Russian President Vladimir Putin has demonstrated keen interest in an Eurasian gas alliance, Turkmenistan's main concern is to free itself from dependence on the Center Trunkline which connects the whole Central Asian gas network to the Russian system. Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai, for his part, needs money from gas transit, and Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf needs to keep strategic ties with Afghanistan. Once again, this is Pipelineistan as power politics. But TAP may reveal itself to be a hugely impractical proposition - basically because Afghanistan remains a country at war. Nobody for the moment wants to invest in TAP. Niyazov, Turkmenistan's unpredictable president, even had to court Russian gas giant Gazprom, which showed no interest. To top it all, nobody trusts Niyazov. Gazprom calculated that importing Turkmen gas is cheaper than developing remote Arctic and Siberian fields. So it looks for the moment that Russia's gas OPEC may be emerging as the winner. REFERENCE: Pipelineistan revisited By Pepe Escobar Central Asia Dec 25, 2003 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/EL25Ag02.html 

Oil, Drugs & the Future of Afghanistan by Peter Dale Scott - Part 2 of 6

URL: http://youtu.be/KrOxDpCdJNc

Dec. 15, 1997 A Taliban delegation has visited Washington and was received by some State Department officials. The Talib delegation's meeting with U.S. Undersecretary of State for South Asia Karl Inderforth was arranged by the Unocal, which is eager to build a pipeline to pump gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghan territory. "We made our position clear, namely that the pipeline could be useful for Afghanistan's rehabilitation, but only if the situation was settled there by political means", a State Department official said on condition of anonymity. He stated that the Taliban representatives were told that they should form "a broadly-based government together with their rivals before the ambitious project to build an oil and gas pipeline is launched". According to Taliban assessments, only one pipeline could yield almost $ 300 mm for rehabilitating the war-ravaged Afghanistan. The Taliban delegation included Acting Minister for Mines and Industry Ahmed Jan, Acting Minister for Culture and Information Amir Muttaqi, Acting Minister for Planning Din Muhammad, and recently appointed Taliban Permanent Delegate on the United Nations Mujahid. A State Department official described the talks as "open and useful". He said that they also touched on the production of opium and open poppy on the Taliban-controlled territory, human rights, treatment of women, and on America's attitude to the projected pipeline. Asked whether there could be problems for the U.S. government if it backed the commercial investments into a country, which is ruled by Islamic fundamentalists, who, according to western standards, are oppressing women, the State Department official said that any real "political settlement" would resolve this problem. In the meantime, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright described the Talib government only a month ago as something quite disgusting due to its policy of oppressing women. FOR FURTHER READING: Taliban visit Washington Volume 3, issue #6 - 25-02-1998 http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn80956.htm Read this US Government Declassified Documents. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB97/tal40.pdf UN lifts sanctions on five former Taliban officials Wednesday, 27 Jan, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/04-un-sanctions-list-taliban-qs-07 Taliban leaders may join Afghan govt: US By Anwar Iqbal Tuesday, 26 Jan, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/13+taliban-leaders-may-join-afghan-govt-us-610-za-08 Mullah Omar open to talks: Colonel Imam Tuesday, 26 Jan, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/04-omar-talks-col-imam-qs-05

Oil, Drugs & the Future of Afghanistan by Peter Dale Scott - Part 3 of 6

URL: http://youtu.be/O7KOVPPlNN8

President George Bush recently boasted: "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive." President Bush should know that there are no targets in Afghanistan that will give his missiles their money's worth. Perhaps, if only to balance his books, he should develop some cheaper missiles to use on cheaper targets and cheaper lives in the poor countries of the world. But then, that may not make good business sense to the Coalition's weapons manufacturers. It wouldn't make any sense at all, for example, to the Carlyle Group—described by the Industry Standard as 'the world's largest private equity firm', with $12 billion under management. Carlyle invests in the defence sector and makes its money from military conflicts and weapons spending. Carlyle is run by men with impeccable credentials. Former US defence secretary Frank Carlucci is Carlyle's chairman and managing director (he was a college roommate of Donald Rumsfeld's). Carlyle's other partners include former US secretary of state James A. Baker III, George Soros, Fred Malek (George Bush Sr's campaign manager). An American paper—the Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel—says that former President George Bush Sr is reported to be seeking investments for the Carlyle Group from Asian markets. He is reportedly paid not inconsiderable sums of money to make 'presentations' to potential government-clients. Ho Hum. As the tired saying goes, it's all in the family. Then there's that other branch of traditional family business—oil. Remember, President George Bush (Jr) and Vice-President Dick Cheney both made their fortunes working in the US oil industry. Turkmenistan, which borders the northwest of Afghanistan, holds the world's third largest gas reserves and an estimated six billion barrels of oil reserves. Enough, experts say, to meet American energy needs for the next 30 years (or a developing country's energy requirements for a couple of centuries.) America has always viewed oil as a security consideration, and protected it by any means it deems necessary. Few of us doubt that its military presence in the Gulf has little to do with its concern for human rights and almost entirely to do with its strategic interest in oil. Oil and gas from the Caspian region currently moves northward to European markets. Geographically and politically, Iran and Russia are major impediments to American interests. In 1998, Dick Cheney—then CEO of Halliburton, a major player in the oil industry—said: "I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian. It's almost as if the opportunities have arisen overnight." True enough. For some years now, an American oil giant called Unocal has been negotiating with the Taliban for permission to construct an oil pipeline through Afghanistan to Pakistan and out to the Arabian Sea. From here, Unocal hopes to access the lucrative 'emerging markets' in South and Southeast Asia. In December 1997, a delegation of Taliban mullahs travelled to America and even met US State Department officials and Unocal executives in Houston.At that time the Taliban's taste for public executions and its treatment of Afghan women were not made out to be the crimes against humanity that they are now. Over the next six months, pressure from hundreds of outraged American feminist groups was brought to bear on the Clinton administration. Fortunately, they managed to scuttle the deal. And now comes the US oil industry's big chance. REFERENCE: FRONTLINES War Is Peace The world doesn't have to choose between the Taliban and the US government. All the beauty of the world—literature, music, art—lies between these two fundamentalist poles. Arundhati Roy Magazine | Oct 29, 2001 http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?213547  http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?213547-2 

Oil, Drugs & the Future of Afghanistan by Peter Dale Scott - Part 4 of 6

URL: http://youtu.be/guIJHwSnbrI

America’s Addiction to Drug-Assisted War: Afghanistan the 1980s - It is hard to demonstrate the CIA, when unilaterally initiating a military conflict in Laos in 1959, foresaw the resulting huge increase in Laotian opium production. But two decades later this experience did not deter Brzezinski, Carter’s national security adviser, from unilaterally initiating contact with drug-trafficking Afghans in 1978 and 1979. It is clear that this time the Carter White House foresaw the drug consequences. In 1980 White House drug advisor David Musto told the White House Strategy Council on Drug Abuse that “we were going into Afghanistan to support the opium growers…. Shouldn’t we try to avoid what we had done in Laos?”[28] Denied access by the CIA to data to which he was legally entitled, Musto took his concerns public in May 1980, noting in a New York Times Op Ed that Golden Crescent heroin was already (and for the first time) causing a medical crisis in New York. And he warned, presciently, that “this crisis is bound to worsen.”[29] The CIA, in conjunction with its creation the Iranian intelligence agency SAVAK, was initially trying to move to the right the regime of Afghan president Mohammed Daoud Khan, whose objectionable policy (like that of Souvanna Phouma before him) was to maintain good relations with both the Soviet Union and the west. In 1978 SAVAK- and CIA-supported Islamist agents soon arrived from Iran “with bulging bankrolls,” trying to mobilize a purge of left-wing officers in the army and a clamp-down on their party the PDPA. The result of this provocative polarization was the same as in Laos: a confrontation in which the left, and not the right, soon prevailed.[30] In a coup that was at least partly defensive, left-wing officers overthrew and killed Daoud; they installed in his place a left-wing regime so extreme and unpopular that by 1980 the USSR (as Brzezinski had predicted) intervened to install a more moderate faction.[31] By May 1979 the CIA was in touch with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the mujahedin warlord with perhaps the smallest following inside Afghanistan, and also the leading mujahedin drug-trafficker.[32] Hekmatyar, famous for throwing acid in the faces of women not wearing burkas, was not the choice of the Afghan resistance, but of the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI), perhaps because he was the only Afghan leader willing to accept the British-drawn Durand Line as the Afghan-Pakistan boundary. As an Afghan leader in 1994 told Tim Weiner of the New York Times:

“We didn't choose these leaders. The United States made Hekmatyar by giving him his weapons. Now we want the United States to shake these leaders and make them stop the killing, to save us from them.”[33]

Robert D. Kaplan reported his personal experience that Hekmatyar was “loathed by all the other party leaders, fundamentalist and moderate alike.”[34] This decision by ISI and CIA belies the usual American rhetoric that the US was assisting an Afghan liberation movement.[35] In the next decade of anti-Soviet resistance, more than half of America’s aid went to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who soon became “one of Afghanistan’s leading drug lords.” Brzezinski was also soon in contact with Pakistan’s emissary Fazle ul-Haq, a man who by 1982 would be listed by Interpol as an international narcotics trafficker.[36] The consequences were swiftly felt in America, where heroin from the Golden Crescent, negligible before 1979, amounted in 1980 to 60 percent of the U.S. market.[37] And by 1986, for the first time, the region supplied 70 percent of the high-grade heroin in the world, and supplied a new army of 650,000 addicts in Pakistan itself. Witnesses confirmed that the drug was shipped out of the area on the same Pakistan Army trucks which shipped in "covert" US military aid.[38] Yet before 1986 the only high-level heroin bust in Pakistan was made at the insistence of a single Norwegian prosecutor; none were instigated by the seventeen narcotics officers in the U.S. Embassy. Eight tons of Afghan-Pakistani morphine base from a single Pakistani source supplied the Sicilian mafia "Pizza Connection" in New York, said by the FBI supervisor on the case to have been responsible for 80% of the heroin reaching the United States between 1978 and 1984.[39] Meanwhile, CIA Director William Casey appears to have promoted a plan suggested to him in 1980 by the former French intelligence chief Alexandre de Marenches, that the CIA supply drugs on the sly to Soviet troops.[40] Although de Marenches subsequently denied that the plan, Operation Mosquito, went forward, there are reports that heroin, hashish, and even cocaine from Latin America soon reached Soviet troops; and that along with the CIA-ISI-linked bank BCCI, "a few American intelligence operatives were deeply enmeshed in the drug trade" before the war was over.[41] Maureen Orth heard from Mathea Falco, head of International Narcotics Control for the State Department under Jimmy Carter, that the CIA and ISI together encouraged the mujahedin to addict the Soviet troops.[42] REFERENCE: Obama and Afghanistan: America’s Drug-Corrupted War by Prof Peter Dale Scott Global Research, January 1, 2010 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=16713&context=va  Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is a poet, writer, and researcher. http://www.peterdalescott.net/

Oil, Drugs & the Future of Afghanistan by Peter Dale Scott - Part 5 of 6

URL: http://youtu.be/aPL8u-HN0wk

Oil, Drugs & the Future of Afghanistan by Peter Dale Scott - Part 6 of 6

URL: http://youtu.be/RjK-GeS9aZ8

America’s Return in 2001, Again With the Support of Drug-Traffickers - The social costs of this drug-assisted war are still with us: there are said, for example, to be now five million heroin addicts in Pakistan alone. And yet America in 2001 decided to do it again: to try, with the assistance of drug traffickers, to impose nation-building on a quasi-state with at least a dozen major ethnic groups speaking unrelated languages. In a close analogy to the use of the Hmong in Laos, America initiated its Afghan campaign in 2001 in concert with a distinct minority, the Tajik-dominated Northern Alliance. In a closer analogy still, the CIA in 2000 (in the last weeks of Clinton’s presidency) chose as its principal ally Ahmad Shah Massoud of the Northern Alliance, despite the objection of other national security advisers that “Massoud was a drug trafficker; if the CIA established a permanent base [with him] in the Panjshir, it risked entanglement with the heroin trade.”[43] There was no ambiguity about the U.S. intention to use drug traffickers to initiate its ground position in Afghanistan. The CIA mounted its coalition against the Taliban in 2001 by recruiting and even importing drug traffickers, usually old assets from the 1980s. An example was Haji Zaman who had retired to Dijon in France, whom “British and American officials…met with and persuaded … to return to Afghanistan.”[44] In Afghanistan in 2001 as in 1980, and as in Laos in 1959, the U.S. intervention has since been a bonanza for the international drug syndicates. With the increase of chaos in the countryside, and number of aircraft flying in and out of the country, opium production more than doubled, from 3276 metric tonnes in 2000 (and 185 in 2001, the year of a Taliban ban on opium) to 8,200 metric tonnes in 2007. Why does the U.S. intervene repeatedly on the same side as the most powerful local drug traffickers? Some years ago I summarized the conventional wisdom on this matter:

Partly this has been from realpolitik - in recognition of the local power realities represented by the drug traffic. Partly it has been from the need to escape domestic political restraints: the traffickers have supplied additional financial resources needed because of US budgetary limitations, and they have also provided assets not bound (as the U.S. is) by the rules of war. … These facts…have led to enduring intelligence networks involving both oil and drugs, or more specifically both petrodollars and narcodollars. These networks, particularly in the Middle East, have become so important that they affect, not just the conduct of US foreign policy, but the health and behavior of the US government, US banks and corporations, and indeed the whole of US society.[45]

Persuaded in part by the analysis of authors like Michel Chossudovsky and James Petras, I would now stress more heavily that American banks, as well as oil majors, benefit significantly from drug trafficking. A Senate staff report has estimated “that $500 billion to $1 trillion in criminal proceeds are laundered through banks worldwide each year, with about half of that amount moved through United States banks.”[46] The London Independent reported in 2004 that drug trafficking constitutes "the third biggest global commodity in cash terms after oil and the arms trade."[47] Petras concludes that the U.S. economy has become a narco-capitalist one, dependent on the hot or dirty money, much of it from the drug traffic. As Senator Levin summarizes the record: "Estimates are that $500 billion to $1 trillion of international criminal proceeds are moved internationally and deposited into bank accounts annually. It is estimated half of that money comes to the United States"….

Washington and the mass media have portrayed the U.S. in the forefront of the struggle against narco trafficking, drug laundering and political corruption: the image is of clean white hands fighting dirty money from the Third world (or the ex-Communist countries). The truth is exactly the opposite. U.S. banks have developed a highly elaborate set of policies for transferring illicit funds to the U.S., investing those funds in legitimate businesses or U.S. government bonds and legitimating them. The U.S. Congress has held numerous hearings, provided detailed exposés of the illicit practices of the banks, passed several laws and called for stiffer enforcement by any number of public regulators and private bankers. Yet the biggest banks continue their practices, the sums of dirty money grows exponentially, because both the State and the banks have neither the will nor the interest to put an end to the practices that provide high profits and buttress an otherwise fragile empire.[48]

In the wake of the 2008 economic crisis, this analysis found support from the claim of Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, that “Drugs money worth billions of dollars kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis.” According to the London Observer, Costa

said he has seen evidence that the proceeds of organised crime were "the only liquid investment capital" available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year. He said that a majority of the $352bn (£216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result…. Costa said evidence that illegal money was being absorbed into the financial system was first drawn to his attention by intelligence agencies and prosecutors around 18 months ago. "In many instances, the money from drugs was the only liquid investment capital. In the second half of 2008, liquidity was the banking system's main problem and hence liquid capital became an important factor," he said.[49]REFERENCE: Obama and Afghanistan: America’s Drug-Corrupted War by Prof Peter Dale Scott Global Research, January 1, 2010 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=16713&context=va  Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is a poet, writer, and researcher. http://www.peterdalescott.net/ 

USA Complicity & Alleged Strategic Depths of General (R) Mirza Aslam Beg.

It is a moot point which crumbled faster: the twin towers of the World Trade Centre or the imposing ramparts of Pakistani pride? Just a few threatening statements from President Bush and Gen Powell and Pakistan's military government, usually so tough at home, conceded everything the Americans were asking for. We did not say, as forgivably we might have, that we would look into the US demands. We did not say that we would consult public opinion before formulating our response. To some extraordinary outbursts of arrogance from Washington we succumbed first and only later was a show made of consulting leaders of public opinion. We buckled under pressure. Alas, no other construction fits our swift capitulation. Perhaps, as General Musharraf has been at pains to explain, we had no other choice. But must we have bent that swiftly? Even if only for form's sake, couldn't we have paused to take breath before agreeing to every last item on America's imperious list of demands? And, pray, what precisely were we afraid of? That the US in its blind anger would make an example of us, flattening our airfields, destroying our installations, taking out our 'nuclear strategic assets'? These wretched assets were supposed to be our ultimate defence. Now they turn out to be our biggest weakness, useless against the crude blackmail to which we have been subjected. Sadly, it's all in character. After India's nuclear tests in May 1998, a few threatening statements from that side threw us into a panic and made us carry out our own tests. Restraint would have won us international kudos and put India in a spot. But out of paranoia we frittered away an historic opportunity. It makes one wonder as to the kind of people we are. Listening to our bombast anyone would take us to be Greeks of the Homeric period. Anyone examining closely our national record would be struck by our pusillanimity. And our ability to shoot ourselves in the foot.

General (R) Mirza Aslam Beg - 1 (Frontline 30 May 2010)



URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgFy_VTIsMA

General (R) Mirza Aslam Beg - 2 (Frontline 30 May 2010)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssUyqseoL20

General (R) Mirza Aslam Beg - 3 (Frontline 30 May 2010)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_ABmQTIpHw

General (R) Mirza Aslam Beg - 4 (Frontline 30 May 2010)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUM6Mmdymzc

But I bet the Americans who have a fair measure of Pakistan's capacity to withstand stress are not surprised. We have always been eager to serve their interests, often at great cost to ourselves and mostly without getting much in return. Once again we are gearing up for the same role despite bitter experience of having been repeatedly used and repeatedly abandoned. What handsome revenge for America's debacle in Vietnam was the savaging of the Soviet bear in Afghanistan. A handful of Pakistani generals enriched themselves during that momentous struggle. But what did the country get? Guns, violence, drugs and a sea of refugees. All the glory America's, all the recurring costs Pakistan's. Anyone could be forgiven for thinking that history is being repeated. Surely, a measure of self-serving calculation is involved in the decision General Musharraf has taken on behalf of the nation: a vision of gratitude dollars pouring in, of our debt burden easing, of India being outsmarted, and of Pakistan being treated as honoured ally instead of a country down on its luck. But what did we get before that we are hoping for the wheel to turn this time? We don't know what the US eventually decides. Afghanistan is not the easiest of battlefields and sending in ground troops carries enormous risks. But we do know that Pakistani territory and facilities will be used for any strike on Afghanistan. Such a concession, if at all to be given, should have come at the end of a process of mutual discussion and consultations, not right at the outset as we have done, hoping that the US out of the goodness of its heart will reward us later. We don't even know who'll take care of the refugees pouring into Pakistan. Should we then have pressed the panic button so quickly?

US placed the Taliban in Afghanistan in 1996 - CNN's Crossfire - 09.11.02

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b83FfkKFtw

Granted that it was our support for the Taliban which brought us into the focus of American pressure. But who was pushing the support-Taliban policy? The military, the ISI, the national security establishment. The people of Pakistan are now paying the price of this folly. There was no shortage of voices questioning the wisdom of our Taliban policy: that it was fanning the flames of religious extremism at home and proving a source of disquiet for our friends abroad. The notion of 'strategic depth', so beloved of GHQ, also made no sense because blind support of the Taliban meant not enhanced defence but importing another set of problems into our midst. But the experts remained unfazed. Now under duress we are doing what should have been done long ago: distancing ourselves from the Taliban. At long last the right policy but for the wrong reasons. We are being told, however, that if we had not acted first India, which was rolling out the red carpet for the US, offering it every last facility, would have stolen a march on us, leaving us out in the cold to face American anger alone. What nonsense is this? Must we see ourselves in India's mirror always? True, in order to paint Pakistan into a corner, India has tried to pander to American sensibilities (to its chagrin without much success). We had a duty to protect our flanks. But we could have paused for a moment.

>From which bases in the Rajasthan desert can a ground assault be mounted on Afghanistan? The key to any land action against Afghanistan is Pakistan and if the Americans are serious about any such action they have perforce to use Pakistani facilities. Had our nerve held we could have played for time in order to see what the US was willing to give in return. Admittedly, Pakistan is not Vietnam or Cuba. Our leaders do not take Ho Chi Minh as their model. Still, must we have caved in so quickly? How would the Lion of Damascus, Hafez Al-Assad, have played his cards in such a crisis? He would have spoken no unnecessary word, would have guarded his silence like the Sphinx and made the paladins of the State Department and the Pentagon come to Islamabad, refusing only to meet the American official (was it Armitage?) who said it was for Pakistan to decide whether it wanted to live in the 21st century or the Stone Age. Credible threats Assad would have weighed carefully. Arrogance he would have treated with contempt. Above all, he would not have displayed his hand prematurely. This is not a summons to arms or any misplaced arrogance of our own. The winds blowing across our country may be too strong for us to deflect. But there is no reason for us to sully national honour by behaving in too supine a manner. In any case we are confusing two separate issues: support for the Taliban and bowing before American demands. Our Taliban policy was a prescription for folly. Even if we have friendly feelings for the people of Afghanistan, Pakistan cannot be sacrificed for the sake of any other country. But this is one thing, offering Pakistani territory for use against Afghanistan quite another. Have we carefully pondered the consequences of this move? How will our people take it? And what will be the cost to our already battered pride as a nation?

We are being told to be wise. Wisdom does not lie in acting cravenly. What good is our half-a-million man army and our famous nuclear deterrent if in every crisis we are to crack under the first strain? This does not mean we take on the Americans. There is no need to tempt the gods or please our enemies by doing that. It only means that we let the Americans know, politely but firmly, that while we are only too ready to do the right thing, preferably under United Nations auspices, we are not willing to be pushed around or sell ourselves cheaply. Was it a sense of opportunity lost which made General Musharraf look so tense on Wednesday evening when he addressed the nation? It was not one of his best performances and certainly was a far cry from his conquest of Agra. He asked the nation to trust him. The nation has no choice: he is the captain on deck and it is he who must take the ship of state into safer waters. It would help, however, if even at this stage he opens the shut portals of his regime a bit to let in some fresh air so that decisions affecting the country's future are taken in a setting slightly broader than the cloistered world of the corps commanders. REFERENCE: A passion for selling ourselves cheaply By Ayaz Amir DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending: 22 September 2001 Issue : 07/38 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2001/sep2201.html#apas 

Washington has given in to the Pakistani military time and again, on the theory that we need the generals badly and that they could go elsewhere for support — to the Chinese, for instance. In fact, the United States has considerable leverage with Islamabad. The Pakistanis need American aid, arms and training to sustain their army. If they are going to receive those benefits, they must become part of Pakistan’s solution and not its problem. With some urgency, Washington should:

l Demand a major national commission in Pakistan — headed by a Supreme Court justice, not an army apparatchik — to investigate whether bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have been supported and sustained by elements of the Pakistani state.

l Demand that the provisions of the Lugar-Kerry bill on civilian control of the military be strictly followed or aid will be withheld.

l Develop a plan to go after the major untouched terror networks in Pakistan, such as the Haqqani faction, the Quetta Shura and Lashkar-i-Taiba.

In the longer run, as the United States scales back its military presence in Afghanistan, it will need the Pakistani military less and less to supply its troops in theater. Pakistan’s civilian government, business class and intellectuals have an ever-larger role in this struggle. They should not get distracted by empty anti-American slogans or hypernationalism. This is Pakistan’s moment of truth, its chance to break with its dysfunctions and become a normal, modern country. The opportunity might not come again. REFERENCE: With bin Laden gone, now’s the time to push Pakistan By Fareed Zakaria, Published: May 11 http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/with-bin-laden-gone-nows-the-time-to-push-pakistan/2011/05/11/AFgM7csG_story.html 

Arguably the most feared institution in Pakistan, the ISI has a mythic reputation among Pakistanis as a shadow government with a hand in virtually every major development in the country. Human rights and democracy activists say the agency is out of control and accuse it of carrying out hundreds of disappearances, systematically rigging elections and harassing civilians who support peace with India. They say the American raid that killed Bin Laden has created a rare moment when the ISI’s judgment and effectiveness is being challenged. Whether the ISI was sheltering Bin Laden or was unaware of his presence, it must be revamped, they say. In a series of unusual developments in a country long dominated by its powerful military, the ISI chief twice offered to resign last week. News commentators are criticizing the agency, and political parties are demanding that the ISI be reined in. “It depends on the caliber and the grit of the political leadership,” Rasul Baksh Rais, a leading Pakistani political scientist, said in an interview. “How they can use this opportunity to restructure the civilian-military relationship and bring the military under civilian control.” American and Pakistani officials said the ISI was still dominated by military officers wedded to an outdated, paranoid and dangerous mindset that the C.I.A. helped create during the 1980s anti-Soviet conflict in Afghanistan. More ultranationalists than jihadists, the ISI’s officers consider themselves to be Pakistan’s true guardians. They see the United States as a feckless and immoral power that is in deep decline, India as Pakistan’s main threat and militants as proxies they can control. A former American intelligence official said the C.I.A. funneled vast amounts of covert aid to more cooperative sections of the ISI in an effort to strengthen them. Former American officials said they did the same with the Pakistani Army. But progress has been slow. American critics of the ISI say it will never be reformed or weakened by Pakistan’s civilian leadership. They say that proponents of continued American aid to the ISI are naïve and “apologists” for an agency that has repeatedly double-crossed the United States. REFERENCE: Chicago Trial May Unmask Pakistan’s Links to Militants By GINGER THOMPSON and DAVID ROHDE Published: May 14, 2011 A version of this article appeared in print on May 15, 2011, on page A6 of the New York edition with the headline: Chicago Trial May Push Pakistan Spy Agency Out of the Shadows. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/world/asia/15headley.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/world/asia/15headley.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss 

A senior delegation of Afghanistan's Taleban movement has gone to the United States for talks. The delegation is to meet officials of the company which wants to build a pipeline to export gas from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. A spokesman for the company -- Unocal in Texas -- said it had agreed with Turkmenistan to sell its gas. Last month an Argentinian company (Bridas) said it would soon sign a deal to build the pipeline.Unocal is said to have already begun teaching Afghan men technical skills. The BBC regional correspondent says a pipeline deal would boost the Afghan economy, but peace must be established first, and that still seems a distant prospect. From the newsroom of the BBC World Service. REFERENCE: Taleban to Texas for pipeline talks Wednesday, 3 December, 1997, 15:56 GMT http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/36735.stm

Fahrenheit 9/11-The Movie-Part 5

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/

URL: http://youtu.be/K4Ebma4YI1s

Courtesy: TruthTV11 http://www.youtube.com/user/TruthTV11#p/u

President George Bush recently boasted: "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive." President Bush should know that there are no targets in Afghanistan that will give his missiles their money's worth. Perhaps, if only to balance his books, he should develop some cheaper missiles to use on cheaper targets and cheaper lives in the poor countries of the world. But then, that may not make good business sense to the Coalition's weapons manufacturers. It wouldn't make any sense at all, for example, to the Carlyle Group- described by the Industry Standard as 'the world's largest private equity firm', with $12 billion under management. Carlyle invests in the defense sector and makes its money from military conflicts and weapons spending.

Carlyle is run by men with impeccable credentials. Former US defense secretary Frank Carlucci is Carlyle's chairman and managing director (he was a college roommate of Donald Rumsfeld's). Carlyle's other partners include former US secretary of state James A. Baker III, George Soros, Fred Malek (George Bush Sr's campaign manager). An American paper - the Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel - says that former President George Bush Sr is reported to be seeking investments for the Carlyle Group from Asian markets. He is reportedly paid not inconsiderable sums of money to make 'presentations' to potential government-clients.

Ho Hum. As the tired saying goes, it's all in the family.

Then there's that other branch of traditional family business - oil. Remember, President George Bush (Jr) and Vice-President Dick Cheney both made their fortunes working in the US oil industry. 

Turkmenistan, which borders the northwest of Afghanistan, holds the world's third largest gas reserves and an estimated six billion barrels of oil reserves. Enough, experts say, to meet American energy needs for the next 30 years (or a developing country's energy requirements for a couple of centuries.) America has always viewed oil as a security consideration, and protected it by any means it deems necessary. Few of us doubt that its military presence in the Gulf has little to do with its concern for human rights and almost entirely to do with its strategic interest in oil.

Oil and gas from the Caspian region currently moves northward to European markets. Geographically and politically, Iran and Russia are major impediments to American interests. In 1998, Dick Cheney - then CEO of Halliburton, a major player in the oil industry - said: "I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian. It's almost as if the opportunities have arisen overnight." True enough. For some years now, an American oil giant called Unocal has been negotiating with the Taliban for permission to construct an oil pipeline through Afghanistan to Pakistan and out to the Arabian Sea. From here, Unocal hopes to access the lucrative 'emerging markets' in South and Southeast Asia. In December 1997, a delegation of Taliban mullahs traveled to America and even met US State Department officials and Unocal executives in Houston. At that time the Taliban's taste for public executions and its treatment of Afghan women were not made out to be the crimes against humanity that they are now. Over the next six months, pressure from hundreds of outraged American feminist groups was brought to bear on the Clinton administration. Fortunately, they managed to scuttle the deal. And now comes the US oil industry's big chance. REFERENCE: War Is Peace by Arundhati Roy (October 2001) http://www.wussu.com/current/roy.htm 

World: West Asia

Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline

The 1,300km pipeline will carry gas across Afghanistan's harsh terrain

A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas. Unocal says it has agreements both with Turkmenistan to sell its gas and with Pakistan to buy it.

The Afghan economy has been devasted by 20 years of civil war

But, despite the civil war in Afghanistan, Unocal has been in competition with an Argentinian firm, Bridas, to actually construct the pipeline. Last month, the Argentinian firm, Bridas, announced that it was close to signing a two-billion dollar deal to build the pipeline, which would carry gas 1,300 kilometres from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, across Afghanistan. In May, Taleban-controlled radio in Kabul said a visiting delegation from an Argentinian company had announced that pipeline construction would start "soon".

Kabul

The radio has reported several visits to Kabul by Unocal and Bridas company officials over the past few months. A BBC regional correspondent says the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea. With the various Afghan factions still at war, the project has looked from the outside distinctly unpromising. Last month the Taleban Minister of Information and Culture, Amir Khan Muttaqi, said the Taleban had held talks with both American and Argentine-led consortia over transit rights but that no final agreement had yet been reached. He said an official team from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan should meet to ensure each country benefited from any deal. However, Unocal clearly believes it is still in with a chance - to the extent that it has already begun training potential staff. It has commissioned the University of Nebraska to teach Afghan men the technical skills needed for pipeline construction. Nearly 140 people were enrolled last month in Kandahar and Unocal also plans to hold training courses for women in administrative skills.

Women face working restrictions under Taleban rule

Although the Taleban authorities only allow women to work in the health sector, organisers of the training say they haven't so far raised any objections. The BBC regional correspondent says the Afghan economy has been devastated by 20 years of civil war. A deal to go ahead with the pipeline project could give it a desperately-needed boost. But peace must be established first -- and that for the moment still seems a distant prospect.  REFERENCE: World: West Asia Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline Thursday, December 4, 1997 Published at 19:27 GMT http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

A legendary figure from that period was a man named Colonel Imam, whom I first met five years ago. He was tall and burly, with a thick beard and a crooked smile that suggested several missing teeth. He wore a white turban and an olive-green, British issue second world war-issue paratroop jacket, which he told me he had been wearing since he joined the army in 1971. During the 80s, Imam ran many of the ISI training camps, becoming popular among ethnic Pashtun fighters for his love of Islam and his fondness for killing Soviets. "Those were wonderful times," he told me. Although his real name was Sultan Amir, to the Afghans he became "Colonel Imam". "I loved the fight. And the mujahideen were very fond of me," he said with a smile. The US liked him too. On the wall of his Rawalpindi home hung war trophies from the 80s – daggers, faded photos, a Russian general's gun – but on the table sat a chunk of the Berlin wall, cased in glass. "To one who helped deliver the first blow," it read. "The Americans gave me that," he said. With the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, the CIA largely abandoned Pakistan. But the spirit of "jihad" – fighters imbued with Islamist vim – lived on in the ISI. Pakistani officers, having imbibed too much of their own ideology, transformed the spy agency. It started to support Islamist groups across Asia – Bangladesh, Uzbekistan, Burma, India – and the US placed Pakistan on a terrorist watchlist. In 1993, Javed Ashraf Qazi, a secular-minded general officer, was sent in to clean up the mess. "I was shocked at what I found," he tells me. Senior ISI officers had jettisoned their uniforms for shalwar kameez; their subordinates would disappear off to the mosque for hours on end. The ISI had bought a hotel in Bangkok, probably to facilitate gun-running. The outgoing spy chief, Javed Nasir, was a playboy turned zealot who had grown a scraggly beard and refused to shake women's hands. On his first day in the office Qazi found him running out of the door to a Muslim missionary conference. "When people say the ISI is a rogue agency, it was true in those days," he says.

Zbigniew Brzezinski Taliban Pakistan Afghanistan pep talk 1979

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYvO3qAlyTg

It should by now be generally accepted that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 was deliberately provoked by the United States. In his memoir published in 1996, the former CIA director Robert Gates made it clear that the American intelligence services began to aid the mujahidin guerrillas not after the Soviet invasion, but six months before it. In an interview two years later with Le Nouvel Observateur, President Carter's national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski proudly confirmed Gates's assertion."According to the official version of history," Brzezinski said,"CIA aid to the mujahidin began during 1980, that's to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan. But the reality, kept secret until now, is completely different: on 3 July 1979 President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And on the same day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained that in my opinion this aid would lead to a Soviet military intervention."

Asked whether he in any way regretted these actions, Brzezinski replied:

Regret what? The secret operation was an excellent idea. It drew the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? On the day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, saying, in essence: 'We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War.'

Nouvel Observateur:"And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which has given arms and advice to future terrorists?"

Brzezinski:"What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?"

Even though the demise of the Soviet Union owes more to Mikhail Gorbachev than to Afghanistan's partisans, Brzezinski certainly helped produce"agitated Muslims," and the consequences have been obvious ever since. Carter, Brzezinski and their successors in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, including Gates, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, and Colin Powell, all bear some responsibility for the 1.8 million Afghan casualties, 2.6 million refugees, and 10 million unexploded land-mines that followed from their decisions. They must also share the blame for the blowback that struck New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. After all, al-Qaida was an organization they helped create and arm. REFERENCE: Are We to Blame for Afghanistan? By Chalmers Johnson 11-21-04 http://hnn.us/articles/8438.html 

Qazi fired the ideologues, sold the hotel and ordered his subordinates to wear their uniforms (some struggled to fit in them). "We cleaned it up," says Qazi, who later became a minister under Pervez Musharraf. But the ISI was not done with jihad; it had merely narrowed its focus. The proof is on the wall of Qazi's home. I notice an unusual rifle hanging on the wall. It is an Indian service rifle, Qazi admits half bashfully – a present from one of the "mujahideen" fighters the ISI started to send into Indian-occupied Kashmir from the mid 90s, when he was in charge. "We turned a blind eye to some groups," he says. They included Lashkar-e-Toiba, he admits – the terrorist outfit that in 2008 would attack hotels and train stations in the Indian city of Mumbai, killing 170 people. In the early 90s, the ISI also started to support an obscure Islamist movement in Afghanistan called the Taliban. Colonel Imam was sent back into Afghanistan to advise the one-eyed Taliban leader Mullah Omar. They had history: Imam, it turned out, had trained Omar back in the mujahideen camps in the 80s. With ISI backing, the Taliban swept to power in Kabul; at the UN in New York, a beleaguered Afghan official complained that Imam was the "de facto governor" of the newly conquered territories. "Ah, they are naughty people," Imam told me of the Taliban with his shy smile. "Rough people, good fighters, but respected. And they were all my friends." Over the past decade, however, the ISI has professed to have abandoned jihad. As American troops swarmed across Afghanistan, in search of Bin Laden in late 2001, President General Pervez Musharraf disavowed the Taliban, sacked his most Islamist generals (including the then ISI director, Mahmud Ahmed) and brought Colonel Imam home. The following January he made a signature speech banning a slew of jihadi groups. "We need to rid society of extremism," he declared. REFERENCE: Whose side is Pakistan's ISI really on? Declan Walsh The Guardian, Thursday 12 May 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/12/isi-bin-laden-death-pakistan-alqaida

Jang Group is "Selective" over Saudi Arabia & WikiLeaks.

Jang Group is very "fond" of quoting Foreign Sources particularly when Foreign Sources carry news against any Elected Government of Pakistan specially if the party is PPP and Leader is Asif Ali Zardari. So lets quote genuine News published in The News International and Other Foreign Sources on Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Corruption therein.

Corrupt, Vile & Filthy: Arabs, Aal-e-Saud, & Wahhaabis. http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2010/06/corrupt-vile-filthy-arabs-aal-e-saud.html

NEW YORK: Saudi King Abdullah called President Asif Ali Zardari the greatest obstacle to Pakistan’s progress, according to an online report of New York Times that quoted Wikileaks as saying. The report further quoted King Abdullah as saying: “When the head is rotten, it affects the whole body.” The cables released by Wikileaks, the whistle-blower, disclose that aging monarch of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah, as speaking scathingly about the leaders of Iraq and Pakistan. Speaking to another Iraqi official about Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, King Abdullah said, “You and Iraq are in my heart, but that man is not.” The king called President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan the greatest obstacle to that country’s progress. “When the head is rotten,” he said, “it affects the whole body.” REFERENCE: Saudi King called Zardari greatest obstacle to Pak progress: report Updated at: 20 PST, Monday, November 29, 2010 http://www.thenews.com.pk/latest-news/5791.htm Saudi King called Zardari greatest obstacle to Pak progress: report Updated at: 0012 PST, Monday, November 29, 2010 http://www.geo.tv/11-29-2010/75020.htm

Wednesday, December 08, 2010, Muharram 01, 1432 A.H

http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/dec2010-daily/08-12-2010/main.htm

'A picture speaks a thousand words' Sons of Late. King Faisal [Great Great Great Maternal Grandson of Mutawwa Sheikh Mohammad Bin Abd Al Wahab] Turki Al Faisal and Saud Al Faisal with NEO CON Ex- US Vice President Dick" Cheney [Wahabis are one big fraud] - Prince Saud, Prince Turki,Vice President and Mrs. Cheney http://www.saudiembassy.net/archive/2006/news/page562.aspx Man is known by the company he keeps DEATH SQUADS: Seymour Hersh, Dick Cheney & Secret Assassination Wing http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/05/seymor-hersh-dick-cheney-secret.html

ROVER’S DIARY: Blessed are the WikiLeaks revolutionaries —Babar Ayaz

It is ironic that the Saudis have labelled Zardari as a “rotten head”, while their whole body polity is rotten. This comment is like the pot calling the kettle black. Pakistan has much more respect for human rights and freedom to criticise the government, while Saudi Arabia is politically far behind

Blessed are the people who live in post-Second World War times, when humankind has progressed more than it has ever done before. Blessed are the people who live in the times of information technology. Blessed are the people who live in the times of democratisation of information. Blessed are the people who are using this technological revolution to bring out in the open what our rulers do behind closed doors. REFERENCE: DAILY TIMES Tuesday, December 07, 2010 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\12\07\story_7-12-2010_pg3_4

- From left to right: Dick Cheney, Prince Bandar, Condoleezza Rice, and George W. Bush, on the Truman Balcony of the White House on September 13, 2001. [Source: White House] - Defense Secretary Dick Cheney takes a leading role in drawing up the plans for the US invasion of Iraq (see December 1990). He is appalled by what he calls the “lack of creativity” of the initial plans, drawn up by a number of senior generals. Cheney and Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell spend days poring over the plans, with Cheney pressuring both Powell and the generals to make wide-ranging changes. But the generals respect Cheney’s input. “He wasn’t a micromanager like McNamara,” one general later recalls, referring to former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who planned much of the US’s Vietnam strategies. “And he wasn’t arrogant like [former Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld. He wanted this one done right.” Overwhelming Force - Cheney joins Powell in advocating the “enhanced option,” adding 100,000 more troops to the initial invasion force to bring troop strength up to nearly half a million US forces slated to go into Iraq. Powell and Cheney have no intention of being undermanned by Iraq’s large ground forces. And Cheney wants to slough off the remnants of what many call the “Vietnam syndrome.” He wants a resounding victory. “The military is finished in this society if we screw this up,” he tells Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar (see August 5, 1990 and After). While Powell and Cheney see eye-to-eye on most invasion-related issues, they do disagree on one fundamental issue: the possible use of the Army’s tactical nuclear arsenal (see Mid-August, 1990). (Nuclear weapons will not be used in the Iraq invasion.) Limited Role of Congress? - Cheney sees no reason for Congress to have anything more than a peripheral role in the entire affair (see December 1990). Authors Lou Dubose and Jake Bernstein later write: “Despite the fact that going to war with Iraq would be a larger undertaking than the D-Day invasion of Normandy, Cheney argued that the president did not need the consent of Congress. He seemed more understanding of King Fahd’s polling of the royal family and calling Arab leaders (see August 5, 1990 and After) than he was of [President] Bush’s willingness to go to Congress for consent” (see January 9-13, 1991). [DUBOSE AND BERNSTEIN, 2006, PP. 101-102] REFERENCE: Late 1990: Defense Secretary Cheney Helps Plan Iraq Invasion http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=alate90invade#alate90invade Profile: Bandar bin Sultan a.k.a. "Bandar Bush", Prince Bandar http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=bandar_bin_sultan

ISLAMABAD: A WikiLeaks report has claimed that Saudi Foreign Affairs Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, commenting on the assassination of former Pakistan People's Party chairperson Benazir Bhutto, had observed that he had been afraid of just "such an outcome" ever since she had decided to return to Pakistan. The WikiLeaks quoted the prince the prince as cautioning in a meeting held at the US Foreign Ministry on January 2, 2008, that the “US must not be seen publicly to be influencing Pakistan's internal affairs, lest it inadvertently inflame matters by provoking extremists to further violence." Prince Saud characterised Pakistan's internal situation as "serious and tense", and described the country's political environment as "poisonous". He emphasised the need to maintain stability, noting that the key challenge for then President Pervez Musharraf to maintain the unity of the Pakistani armed forces. He voiced strong support for holding planned parliamentary elections, but also said a limited postponement would be acceptable, given the current situation in the country. Postponing the elections could be "an opportunity for the Pakistanis to talk things out", he said. Prince Saud cautioned that Pakistan must be allowed to resolve its current political crisis internally, without overt, external pressure. REFERENCE: ‘Prince Saud feared Benazir would be assassinated’ By: Mian Abrar Published: December 03, 2010 http://pakistantoday.com.pk/pakistan-news/National/03-Dec-2010/Prince-Saud-feared-Benazir-would-be-assassinated

Nobody in Pakistan Press "Particularly The Jang Group" is interested in "Juicy Leaks on Saudi Corruption"

ISLAMABAD: The letter written by Saudi Prince Bandar bin Khalid bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud to the Chief Justice of Pakistan alleging that substandard accommodation on exorbitant rates was provided to the Haj pilgrims from Pakistan in Makkah by the Government of Pakistan has turned up to be genuine. The foreign ministry has been informed about this by Pakistan Ambassador in Saudi Arabia, Alhaj Umer Khan Ali Sherzaie, through his D/O letter. The official confirmation from the Saudi Foreign Office is being followed, as the ambassador took up the matter with Alla-Din Al-Askari, chief of protocol Royal State of Saudi Arabia. Well-placed sources told The News here that the envoy had verified the authenticity of the communication to the Foreign Office here upon the information supplied by Pakistan’s Consul General in Jeddah Abdul Salik to him, who has reported to the embassy after a probe that the letter has been duly written by His Royal Highness, the Prince, who has a distinguished status in the Royalty. The letter was dispatched to the Chief Justice of Pakistan late last month and Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary ordered the Ministry of Religious Affairs to report to the court within 15 days. The orders were made on 3rd of November. Later, the matter was also referred to the Foreign Office.

The Supreme Court, in its communication on the day, declared, “The Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan received a letter purportedly written by Prince Bandar Bin Khalid Bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud, alleging that substandard accommodation on exorbitant rates was provided to the pilgrims of Pakistan to Makkah-tul-Mukarramah by the Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan. It has further been alleged that hired buildings were 3.5 km away from Haram whereas he had offered to the Government of Pakistan to provide the buildings nearer to the Haram on cheaper rates. On the letter, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan passed the order, This issue seems to be serious and may cause bad name for our government. Call for comments from the Ministry of Religious Affairs and this matter may be brought in the notice of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” Accordingly, comments were received from the Ministry of Religious Affairs and the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan passed the following orders: Copy of the comments be sent to Ministry of Foreign Affairs to look into this case in continuation of our earlier order. Let Foreign Office take up this matter on government to government level.” The Saudi prince told the Supreme Court that Pakistan’s Ministry of Religious Affairs is indulging in corruption while dealing with Haj pilgrims, the reports said. ‘’We offered cheaper accommodation within two kilometres of the Haj congregation venue but (this was rejected).’’ ‘Our offer was 3,500 Saudi Riyals per pilgrim but the Pakistani authorities rented out the accommodation,” he said. ‘The Pakistani pilgrims are still being charged 3,500-3,600 Saudi Riyals for this accommodation although the rent at such a far-off location is not more than 1,500 Riyals under any circumstances,’ he stated. Prince Khalid said in the letter that “there (is) concrete evidence of financial bungling and departmental corruption as far as the Haj affairs of Pakistani ministry is concerned”. He urged the court to take note of the alarming situation. Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry directed the secretary in-charge of the ministry to furnish a detailed response on the accusations made in the letter within 15 days. Federal Minister for Religious Affairs Hamid Saeed Kazmi told the National Assembly on the following day: “We have not received any such letter from the Saudi prince.”

“I have seen such reports only in the media. I want to assure that we will hold a thorough probe and stringent action will be taken against officials if proven guilty.” As many as 160,000 Pakistanis went to Saudi Arabia this year. Interestingly, secretary religious affairs ministry disputed the credentials of the letter as he was also supported by the minister subsequently. Now the minister has gone to Saudi Arabia to perform Haj with his family members as the leader of Pakistan’s delegation. Well-placed sources told this scribe that the federal secretary was part of the team that accorded the approval to the hiring of disputed accommodation and the officials of the same ministry are carrying out the investigations. REFERENCE: Saudi prince’s letter to CJ is genuine Updated at Thursday, November 11, 2010 By M Saleh Zaafir http://beta.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=2005&Cat=13

During "Judicial Crisis in 2007" the same Saudi Arabia and their Vile, Corrupt, Pervert, Rascal Princes tried to Bribe the Chief Justice of Pakistan at the behest of Musharraf. The Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan should have written letter to King Abdullah on this Naked Fascism of Saudi Arabia. Jang Group has removed [permanently] many news stories from their web cache to lie blatantly without being caught. Now in 2010 that lick-spittle Prince Prince Bandar bin Khalid bin Faisal Al-Saud Offices: Chairman of the board of directors, AL-WATAN newspaper http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/saudi/cards10.html is writing a letter to CJP on Corruption??? Where was this suddenly found conscience when they kept watching silently the Judicial Murder of Bhutto and not only that they also accepted rather arranged the Exile of Mr. Nawaz Sharif [why the Prince didn't write any letter], instead of writing letters these "2000" Saudi Princes should take a deep breath and do some soul searching. My intention is not to condone corruption but unearth this "double standard" because the same Jang Group had viciously attacked Saudi Diplomat and Sheikh Sudais [Imam Kaaba] when they intervened in Lal Masjid Affair.

"QUOTE"

ISLAMABAD: The Saudi Ambassador to Pakistan Ali S Awadh Asseri met the deposed Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, to extend an invitation for Haj, an offer that was politely declined. “Saying thank you, the deposed CJ told the ambassador he could not go abroad in the present crisis,” a family source said. Asseri went to see Justice Chaudhry at 10 am and remained with him for almost half-an-hour, the source told The News. The Interior Ministry, however, said it had no knowledge of the meeting but the interior minister said the ambassador did not need any prior permission to see the deposed CJ and he could go whenever he wanted. Although, many Western diplomats have been meeting politicians, Asseri is the first diplomat who was allowed to see Justice Chaudhry since his house arrest on November 3. Deposed Justice Bhagwan Das confirmed that he was in the picture about the meeting but said he did not know its details. A close confidante of Justice Chaudhry and leading lawyer, Athar Minallah, told The News that the Saudi ambassador went to see Justice Chaudhry for extending him an invitation of Haj. Minallah said that Saudi ambassador had also invited Justice Chaudhry before March 9 when he was first sacked. Later, the Saudi government had again extended the invitation after his restoration, he said. And now when the time for performing Haj is getting nearer with many intending pilgrims already flown to Makkah, Ambassador Asseri did not forget his last commitment and again went to remind Justice Chaudhry about this standing offer.

Minallah said Justice Chaudhry thanked the ambassador for inquiring his well being and extending the Haj invitation but said he could not accept it at this point of time. Justice Chaudhry told the ambassador that the people of Pakistan were passing through a critical phase of history. It would be therefore unwise on his part to leave them alone and to go for Haj. But he said he was deeply grateful for the invitation extended by the Saudi government. Justice Chaudhry also told the ambassador that he was entirely committed to the cause of rule of law and the restoration of the judiciary. According to Minallah, Justice Chaudhry was firm on his previous stand and no let-up was noticed in his strong determination. He said the continued confinement has failed to break Justice Chaudhry and he was as optimistic today as was before November 3.

Tariq Butt adds: “The former chief justice wants to perform Haj along with his family. We are prepared to facilitate his pilgrimage,” Ambassador Asseri told The News. He said Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had requested to the embassy for visa to perform Haj, and “my meeting with him was about that.” The diplomat said there was also an outstanding invitation to Chaudhry for visit to Saudi Arabia that was extended to him five months back. At the time, he was the chief justice of the Supreme Court. On being approached by this correspondent, Caretaker Interior Minister Lt-Gen (retd) Hamid Nawaz said that to his knowledge, the deposed judge had so far made no request to the government, indicating his intention to go for Haj. “First, he has to write to the government showing his keenness for performing Haj. Only then, we will consider his case,” he said.

The government has repeatedly stated that none of the deposed judges is confined to his house and every one of them has free access to movement. However, no visitor is allowed to meet any of these justices as police continue to man different barricades on roads leading to the Judges’ Enclave and elsewhere. The latest refusal to a meeting with the former chief justice came when former prime minister Nawaz Sharif had made a bid on Thursday. “I will find out whether or not the former judge is going for Haj,” Interior Ministry spokesman Brig (retd) Javed Iqbal Cheema told The News. “I will let you know,” he said but did not call back. The Saudi ambassador said he did not discuss with the former judge any matter concerning Pakistan’s internal affairs. The deposed chief justice was not available for comment. Asseri’s meeting has assumed great importance in the prevailing situation when a logjam exists between the government and the judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts, who had either refused or were not called to take oath under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) that President General Pervez Musharraf issued on Nov 3. REFERENCE: Jang Group has removed [permanently] many news stories from their web cache to lie blatantly without being caught, here is the source for the quote : http://www.paklinks.com/gs/pakistan-affairs/271499-ex-cj-iftikhar-meets-saudi-ambassador-exile-deal-offered.html Saudi envoy meets deposed CJ, invites him for Haj Iftikhar declines invitation; says he cannot leave country in present situation By Umar Cheema Dec 7th, 2007 07:46 PM http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story...l.asp?Id=11593
http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=11593&Cat=13&dt=12/10/2007

ISLAMABAD: Saudi Ambassador, Ali Awaz Al Asiri called on confined former chief Justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry at his residence. Intelligence sources told that this meeting between the Saudi ambassador and the former chief justice lasted for about an hour at the Judges Colony, where the demands for the re-instatement of the Judges and other options deliberated. Sources told that following the parley with the chief justice, Saudi ambassador also visited the foreign office here and discussed matters of national importance. REFERENCE: Saudi envoy meets former CJ Iftikhar Chaudhry Updated at Friday, December 07, 2007 1330 PST http://thenews.jang.com.pk/updates.asp?id=33504 REFERENCE: Jang Group has removed [permanently] many news stories from their web cache to lie blatantly without being caught, here is the source for the above Umar Cheema's quote : http://www.paklinks.com/gs/pakistan-affairs/271499-ex-cj-iftikhar-meets-saudi-ambassador-exile-deal-offered.html

Saudi Arabia is ready to offer Pakistan's sacked chief justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, shelter in the kingdom, Pakistani government sources told Adnkronos International (AKI). High-level sources told AKI, on condition of anonymity, that this was discussed when the Saudi Ambassador to Pakistan, Ali Awaz Al Asiri, called on the deposed chief justice at his residence in the capital Islamabad on Friday. They said that the meeting was set up by the Pakistani government. Al Asiri is believed to have invited Chaudhry and his family to make the Haj or Muslim pilgrimage to the holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia, this year. The Haj is scheduled to take place this month. Al Asiri is also believed to have offered Chaudhry and his family a prolonged stay in Saudi Arabia. Sources within the Saudi consulate in Karachi, on the condition of anonymity, also confirmed to AKI the offer of shelter to Chaudhry and said that the government of Saudi Arabia had tried to bring stability to Pakistan. Chaudhry was sacked as chief justice after President Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan on 3 November, citing rising extremism and an unruly judiciary. The former head of the Supreme Court was placed under house arrest. While opposition leader and former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was prevented from meeting Chaudhry on Thursday, just a day later Al Asiri was allowed to meet him. It is believed that the potential deal would help break the deadlock within opposition parties who are divided on whether to contest the January general elections if the sacked judges are not reinstated. A Saudi-brokered deal would be a face-saving gesture for Chaudhry and the entire opposition who need to deal with Musharraf's government and also support an independent judiciary to gain public support. REFERENCE: Jang Group has removed [permanently] many news stories from their web cache to lie blatantly without being caught, here is the source for the above Umar Cheema's quote : http://www.paklinks.com/gs/pakistan-affairs/271499-ex-cj-iftikhar-meets-saudi-ambassador-exile-deal-offered.html Saudi envoy meets deposed CJ, invites him for Haj

Umar Cheema Saturday, December 08, 2007 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=11593&Cat=13&dt=12/10/2007

WikiLeaks cables: Saudi princes throw parties boasting drink, drugs and sex

Royals flout puritanical laws to throw parties for young elite while religious police are forced to turn a blind eye

• Heather Brooke
• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 7 December 2010 21.30 GMT
• Article history

These Saudi students at a prayer event in Riyadh conform to the puritanical image of the country, but worldly pleasures are available behind closed doors to the very rich, WikiLeaks cables show. Photograph: Fahad Shadeed/Reuters

In what may prove a particularly incendiary cable, US diplomats describe a world of sex, drugs and rock'n'roll behind the official pieties of Saudi Arabian royalty.

Jeddah consulate officials described an underground Halloween party, thrown last year by a member of the royal family, which broke all the country's Islamic taboos. Liquor and prostitutes were present in abundance, according to leaked dispatches, behind the heavily-guarded villa gates.

The party was thrown by a wealthy prince from the large Al-Thunayan family. The diplomats said his identity should be kept secret. A US energy drinks company also put up some of the finance.

"Alcohol, though strictly prohibited by Saudi law and custom, was plentiful at the party's well-stocked bar. The hired Filipino bartenders served a cocktail punch using sadiqi, a locally-made moonshine," the cable said. "It was also learned through word-of-mouth that a number of the guests were in fact 'working girls', not uncommon for such parties."

The dispatch from the US partygoers, signed off by the consul in Jeddah, Martin Quinn, added: "Though not witnessed directly at this event, cocaine and hashish use is common in these social circles."

The underground party scene is "thriving and throbbing" in Saudi Arabia thanks to the protection of Saudi royalty, the dispatch said. But it is only available behind closed doors and for the very rich.

More than 150 Saudi men and women, most in their 20s and 30s, were at the party. The patronage of royalty meant the feared religious police kept a distance. Admission was controlled through a strict guest list. "The scene resembled a nightclub anywhere outside the kingdom: plentiful alcohol, young couples dancing, a DJ at the turntables and everyone in costume."

The dispatch said the bar featured a top shelf of well-known brands of liquor, the original contents reportedly replaced with sadiqi. On the black market, they reported, a bottle of Smirnoff vodka can cost 1,500 riyals (£250) compared with 100 riyals (£16) for the locally-made vodka.

In a venture into Saudi sociology, the diplomats explained why they thought their host was so attached to Nigerian bodyguards, some of whom were working on the door. "Most of the prince's security forces were young Nigerian men. It is common practice for Saudi princes to grow up with hired bodyguards from Nigeria or other African nations who are of similar age and who remain with the prince well into adulthood. The lifetime spent together creates an intense bond of loyalty"

The cable claimed it was easy for would-be partygoers to find a patron out of more than 10,000 princes in the kingdom. Some are "royal highnesses" with direct descent from King Abdul Aziz, while others are "highnesses" from less direct branches.

One young Saudi told the diplomat that big parties were a recent trend. Even a few years ago, he said, the only weekend activity was "dating" among small groups who met inside the homes of the rich. Some of the more opulent houses in Jeddah feature basement bars, discos and clubs. One high-society Saudi said: "The increased conservatism of our society over these past years has only moved social interaction to the inside of people's homes." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-cables-saudi-princes-parties

Continuation of my earlier posts [watch the documentary]


Oil Wars The Kingdom Part 1

Oil Wars The Kingdom Part 2

Oil Wars The Kingdom Part 3

Oil Wars The Kingdom Part 4

Oil Wars The Kingdom Part 5

Oil Wars The Kingdom Part 6

Oil Wars The Kingdom Part 7

Oil Wars The Kingdom Part 8

Oil Wars The Kingdom Part 9

Oil Wars The Kingdom Part 10

Oil Wars The Kingdom Part 11

Oil Wars The Kingdom Part 12

Oil Wars The Kingdom Part 13

Oil Wars The Kingdom Part 14