Our Friend Pakistan

[MarkOttawa]

A related guest-post at "Daimnation":

The threats from al Qaeda, firmly entrenched in NWFP, Pakistan
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/007534.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

This sounds like propaganda.  Show me evidence of a new axis of Islam. Who defines their 'hegemonic' dreams - western academic sources and 'intelligence'? Is hegemony such a bad thing?  Could it not bring stability to the region.  What good has western interference brought the region but more strife?  Do not ignore the fact that the West very much had their hand in the Iran Iraq war.  So then, is western interference even required?  Who/What empowers the 'Anglosphere' to act or police the world?  Are there not other ways to impose our will other than armed force - I think so, but even that must be done with great thought and care.   

The Iranians in particular are not shy about proclaiming their desire to be regional hegemons, and Saddam Hussein was very vocal in his desire to become the leading (secular) power in the region. Syria might not openly proclaim their desires, but they have done a great job of colonizing Lebanon since the 1980's. Osama Bin Laden speaks of a new Caliphate (based on Wahhabi religious doctrine). Hegemony imposed by force, and particularly when mated to a violent, xenophobic and nhilist set of beliefs that define Radical Islam is not something any rational person would want to see anywhere.

As to who empowers us to police the world? We do. It is every person's right to defend themselves from attackers, and Radical Islam will not rest until either they have extinguished liberal democracy, free markets and free expression, or are themselves destroyed. Consider that this little dialogue would probably label one, the other or both of us "apostates" and sentenced to death under a Taliban like regime, and you can see why we must meet their force with countervailing force.

AS to how we impose our will; that isn't even the problem. Our system of beliefs and the material outcomes of acting on these systems is so seductive that dictators of any stripe will go to great lengths to isolate their populations from our culture and material goods lest the subject population start asking pointed questions as to how we can live like this and why they cannot do so? (Notice for example the Iranian government bans "western" style movies, music and clothing, and the "Islamic Courts" in Somalia mete out the death penalty for watching soccer games on TV, which is very similar to how former communist regimes acted in attempting to close off communications to and from the West).

 

[-Marauder-]

Don't think that I do not support action, though I would contain it to Afghanistan and maybe, if the conditions were right, Pakistan. 

But all the hype in the world about evil axis' and a dark Islamic hegemonies rising under the guidance of insurgent fundamentalists isn't worth a drop of my brother and sister soldiers blood without the proof to back it up.  I think we've seen enough of where speculation can get us.  What do you propose?  Smiting these countries?  Please.  It high time we explore different means of dealing with this threat.  For while I agree it is a threat, it is one that perhaps we may have brought upon ourselves.. (I mean historically and not literally).  Heck, I can't blame Iran for wanting nukes, though heaven forbid they get them.

As for hegemony, you are thinking mostly in terms of force (or if you prefer from a realist perspective).  Our western hegemony is far greater, runs much deeper and is more resilient than any one formed with coercion or even the threat of it (well, sort of, there are ramifications for not playing along).  Don't believe me?  Buy yourself a Coke in Afghanistan, or a Big Mac in Indonesia, or read The DaVinci Code in a whole host of languages.  If anything their ranting and threats would better defined as a counter-hegemony, and as you pointed out, one that is hollowly enforced with the threat of violence for non-compliance.

My emphasis is on taking a hard look at what is presented as factual (especially on the internet but equally in literature) and seeking any underlying motivation that may undermine MY action, should I base it on sources of one ilk only.  There certainly is a time for bayonets but there is also time for the estimate... so to speak.

 

[tomahawk6]

This from Strategypage.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20060915.aspx

Frontier Justice and Tribal Politics

September 15, 2006: In Pakistan, the government pact with the tribes in Northern Waziristan (along the Afghan border) has some interesting intricacies. It pledges the government to leave the tribes alone, so long as the tribes prevent their people from undertaking attacks into Afghanistan or against the government. In addition, the tribes promise to stop "foreigners" from using Pakistani soil to undertake such attacks; in this context "foreigners" is a euphemism for the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Now these tribes are already hostile to "foreigners," which pretty much means anyone who isn't blood kin. And while they're quite conservative, religiously, they aren't necessarily as conservative as either the Taliban or al Qaeda would like them to be. So the pact offers an incentive to them to clamp down on al Qaeda and Taliban activity.

And it also includes provisions for the government to take action against "trouble makers" that the tribes can't handle themselves. The Pakistani government knows that simply backing off and giving al Qaeda a safe haven is suicidal. Al Qaeda has, since 2003, been making suicide attacks against Pakistani government officials, including president Musharraf.

 

[big bad john]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/15/wpak15.xml&site=5&page=0

US outraged as Pakistan frees Taliban fighters
By Isambard Wilkinson in Peshawar


(Filed: 15/09/2006)



Pakistan's credibility as a leading ally in the war on terrorism was called into question last night when it emerged that President Pervez Musharraf's government had authorised the release from jail of thousands of Taliban fighters caught fighting coalition forces in Afghanistan.

Five years after American-led coalition forces overthrew the Taliban during Operation Enduring Freedom, United States officials have been horrified to discover that thousands of foreign fighters detained by Pakistan after fleeing the battleground in Afghanistan have been quietly released and allowed to return to their home countries.

Pakistani lawyers acting for the militants claim they have freed 2,500 foreigners who were originally held on suspicion of having links to al-Qa'eda or the Taliban over the past four years.

advertisementThe mass release of the prisoners has provoked a stern rebuke to the Musharraf regime from the American government. "We have repeatedly warned Pakistan over arresting and then releasing suspects," said a US diplomat in Islamabad. "We are monitoring their response with great concern."

The Daily Telegraph tracked down and interviewed several former fighters who were part of a batch of eight foreign prisoners released last month. Burhan Ahmad, a 32-year-old Bangladeshi who has an American degree in engineering, admitted helping the Taliban against US-led forces in Afghanistan five years ago.

He was arrested by Pakistani security agents as he passed back over the frontier in 2003. Last month he was released from jail, where he spent three years without facing trial.

Like thousands of other Taliban and al-Qa'eda suspects who have been rounded up in Pakistan, Ahmad is now being fed and sheltered by an Islamic welfare group as he waits while a travel agency that specialises in repatriating jihadis prepares his identity papers and air ticket.

He was handed over to the al-Khidmat Foundation, a welfare organisation run by the hard-line Islamist party Jamaat-i-Islami, by a local court in Peshawar.

"I was arrested on the very same day that I arrived in Pakistan as I crossed from Khost to South Waziristan," said Ahmad who then spent 28 months in the custody of one of Pakistan's intelligence agencies before being transferred to a jail where he was imprisoned for three months. "The situation has become too difficult in Afghanistan and so I wanted to go home. I felt I had played my part."

In the hands of al-Khidmat Ahmad was more concerned with worldly goods than attaining a martyr's end in jihad. He produced a list of his personal items that he wanted back from the security agency: socks, a laptop, a thermal vest and some money.

His lawyer, Fida Gul, said: "He is no problem. He will go to Bangladesh. He is not a criminal and he has been cleared by the security forces. His arrest was illegal."

One of those who spoke to this newspaper was a young Tajik who entered Pakistan last year to study, he claimed, at a madrassa in Peshawar. He was shot in the side by Pakistani police as he tried to escape when the madrassa was raided.

A third former prisoner, a 37-year-old Algerian, had come to fight the Russian-backed government in Afghanistan in the early 1990s. He married a Pakistani woman and claimed to have settled down and worked in the honey business when he was arrested last year.

"I am going home to Algeria as I want to take advantage of an amnesty offered by the government," he said. "I know I will be arrested on arrival and interrogated as this happened to several of my Algerian brothers. But then I will be released as I have done nothing wrong."

On the question of whether released militants would return to jihad, Hazrat Aman, a field officer of the al-Khidmat Foundation, said: "If they react like that it is a natural phenomenon. Some of these people spent two to three years in jail. Some of them will live peacefully and others will join jihad again."

iwilkinson@telegraph.co.uk

 

[tomahawk6]

As did the guys we released from Gitmo. Another case for not taking prisoners.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Following up on BBJ's post, shared with the usual disclaimer....

Nato backs down over Pakistan ultimatum
Ahmed Rashid, Telegraph (UK), 16 Sept 06
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/16/wafg116.xml

Key Nato countries have decided not to issue a diplomatic ultimatum to Pakistan which demanded that it ends its support for the Taliban and arrests leaders living in Pakistan.

Nato is placing all its hopes on a critical three-way meeting at the White House on Sept 27 when President Bush is due to meet Pakistani President Pervaiz Musharraf and Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Two months ago senior diplomats from four Nato countries (Britain, Canada, Australia and the Netherlands), whose troops are fighting an estimated 8,000 Taliban in southern Afghanistan, urged their governments collectively to issue a démarche to Pakistan's military regime.

They want it to arrest those Taliban commanders openly operating out of Quetta, capital of Baluchistan province, which adjoins Afghanistan.

However, after a fierce debate on the issue the démarche was cancelled, with Nato members divided on whether or not to pressurise Pakistan.

Britain cited co-operation with Pakistani intelligence in uncovering the recent terrorist plot to attack planes departing London airports.

But a Western ambassador in Islamabad said there was a consensus among Nato, US and UK intelligence officers in Afghanistan that Quetta is "the command and control centre for Taliban planning, logistics, and recruitment in Afghanistan".

Pakistan denies that it is sponsoring the Taliban. But for the first time since 2001 President Musharraf admitted this week in Brussels that the Taliban are using Pakistani soil to carry out attacks in Afghanistan.

The recent intense fighting in southern Afghanistan is partly a Taliban attempt to carve out a safe haven where its leaders can reside during the winter months when fighting winds down.

 

[Kirkhill]

This is one of the characters implicated in a British plot where 7 conspirators allegedly bought 600 kg of Ammonium Nitrate - same MO as our Canadian group.

The highlighted part is the bit that I found interesting.  The ISI is, IIRC, the Pakistani Secret Service that seems to be often associated with the Taliban.

I won't answer your questions

By SIMON HUGHES
September 19, 2006

TERROR suspect Omar Khyam brought his bomb plot trial to a dramatic halt yesterday by refusing to answer his lawyer’s questions.

Khyam told the Old Bailey he did not want to endanger his family back in Pakistan.

He and six other British Muslims are accused of planning attacks on targets including the Bluewater shopping centre in Kent and London’s Ministry of Sound nightclub.

The gang is alleged to have bought 600 kilos of ammonium nitrate fertiliser to be turned into explosives for the al-Qaeda-linked attacks.
I won't answer your questions

Khyam, 24, admits attending a weapons-training camp in Pakistan where he claimed the country’s Inter-Services Intelligence, known as ISI, gave explosives instruction.

Yesterday Khyam’s barrister Joel Bennathan asked if he helped buy and store the fertiliser in November 2003.

The defendant replied: “Before I go into that topic I just want to say the ISI in Pakistan had had words with my family in Pakistan regarding what I have been saying about them, and I think they are worried about what I may end up revealing about them. “Right now my priority for me is the safety of my family there. As much as I want to go on and clarify matters I am going to stop.”

The surprised barrister asked what he meant by “stop” and Khyam added: “I am not going to discuss anything related to the ISI any more, or my evidence.”

Judge Sir Michael Astill warned Khyam his refusal to give evidence could reflect badly with the jury.

When asked if he understood, Khyam replied: “Yes.”

The trial was adjourned for legal discussions and is due to resume today.

The jury has heard that aluminium powder intended to be mixed with the fertiliser was found at Khyam’s home in Crawley, West Sussex.

Khyam also allegedy talked of blowing up the House of Commons “to take out all the MPs”.

He and co-defendants deny conspiracy to cause an explosion and other charges.

s.hughes@the-sun.co.uk

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006430396,00.html

 

[Kirkhill]

Under the heading of "Whose side are you on?"

Pakistan puts off signing F-16 deal with US
Press Trust of India
September 26th, 2006, 12:47


Pakistan has put off signing the letter of acceptance (LOA) for purchase of 36 F-16 fighters from the US after complaints from its air force that the planes were "bereft" of vital electronic warfare systems.

After the complaints, Pakistan's Ministry of Defence asked the US Secretary of Air Force International Affairs, (SAIFA), which is the coordinator and supervisor for the project, to extend the signing of LOA until December 31, Pakistani weekly Friday Times reported.

The last extension was sought on July 31 this year.

The deal was apparently deferred partly due to conditions imposed by the US on the operations of F-16s and the "absence" of vital electronic capabilities from these platforms.

Musharraf was expected to take up these issues when he meets President George W Bush in Washington on Friday.

"So the signing deal is off. Perhaps President Musharraf will try to extract some concessions during his meeting with Bush.

But the entire deal is likely to spark much more debate and change before finalisation," the weekly quoted a Pakistani official as saying.

According to the report, the F-16s were being offered without EW programme capabilities for their Radar Warning Receiver (RWR).

"This means that they will have pre-installed threat library and its RWR will only be able to identify Non-NATO aircraft," it quoted an expert as saying.

"Any NATO aircraft attacking these F-16s using Beyond Visual Range (BVR) capability could take them out easily simply because these F-16s would not know when they would be locked in sight of the attacking adversary and hence would be unable to take evasive measure," he said.

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/Pakistan_puts_off_signing_F-16_deal_with_US_20060926.php

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Wonder when the war of words starts to escalate?
Reprinted under the Fair Dealings Act

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/09/30/india-pakistan.html
Pakistan behind train bombings: Indian police
Last Updated: Saturday, September 30, 2006 | 8:56 AM ET
CBC News
Pakistan's intelligence agency was behind the train blasts in Mumbai in July that killed more than 200 people, according to a police official in charge of the investigation.

The attacks were planned by the spy agency and carried out by a Pakistan-based group, Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, assisted by the banned group Students Islamic Movement of India, A.N. Roy, Mumbai's police commissioner, said on Saturday.
Tariq Azim, Pakistan's minister of state for information, denied
the claim, calling it "sad and unfortunate." India, he added, has given no evidence of Pakistani involvement in the attacks.

Seven bombs ripped through suburban trains in Mumbai, India's financial and entertainment capital, killing at least 207 people and wounding another 700.
"We have solved the July 11 bombings case," Roy told a news conference. "The whole attack was planned by Pakistan's ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence agency), and carried out by Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and their operatives in India."

Roy made his statements as police arrested four more suspects in connection with the bombings. He told a news conference 15 people are in custody, including 11 Pakistanis.
Lashkar-e-Tayyaba is one of the Islamic groups fighting since 1989 for Kashmir's independence from India.

With files from the Associated Press Related

 

[tomahawk6]

The ISI is either a rogue agency that Musharraf cannot control or he doesnt want to control. If thats the case then our response should be to ignore Pakistan's border and go after the taliban. No more safe havens for our enemy.