Featured Post

FrontPage صفحہ اول

Salaam Pakistan  is one of projects of  "SalaamOne Network" , to provide information and intellectual resource with a view to...

Showing posts with label الشرق الأوسط. Show all posts
Showing posts with label الشرق الأوسط. Show all posts

Let's try Imran Khan

The Achiever - Imran Khan-Trust him for Change
Let's try Imran Khan
Admit it, whenever Imran Khan is on TV, you do stop in your channel surfing tracks and listen to him. You do that, don t you? No matter how much you criticise him or ostracise him, love him or hate him, you do listen to him, don t you? 
The problem with admitting that you are an Imran Khan fan especially in front of the wise ones, is that you can t do so without being labelled and stereotyped. If you are an Imran Khan fan then you are bound to be either a starry eyed undergrad waiting for Pakistan to happen or a retired wannabe with shattered delusions of grandeur, and no sense of the world at all. And if you are a woman fan (God forbid) then you may as well make the word gullible your second name! The female fan stereotype glares you in the face and all your arguments go down the stereotypical drain. What you are left with in the end, is a concluding statement that begins with the phrase: But I know it in my heart that...
Talk about feeding the stereotype.
So here is a scenario. You are sitting down for a drawing room chat on Pakistani politics. There is Left on your left, Right on your right, and then there is the leftover American tail in the middle. (Or was it the leftover, American helicopter s tail in the middle?) Well, whatever it is, you are sitting down to chat and suddenly you, in your naiveté, make the pronouncement: I think Imran Khan should win the next election.
The left turns right, the right turns left and the leftover American tail turns a beet root red. Everyone starts talking at once, and nobody can make sense of what s going on.
The right has reservations about Mr Khan s past left wing affiliations (social as well as familial). The left, on the other hand, has reservations about Mr Khan s present right wing associations (Jamaat-e-Islami any one?). The leftover American tail has just plain flight reservations (of the business class variety), and all these reservations along with his past and the present and the leftover American tale (not tail mind you) together make a case against Imran Khan s politics.
And then pitch in the conspiracy theorist and the liberal sceptic. He doesn t know it but he is being used by the establishment , says the liberal sceptic. His dharnas are nothing but ISI sponsored advertisements for PTI and the jihadist media, it asserts.
And the jihadist media is actually the Zionist Indian nexus with links in the establishment having links with the Al-Qaida people who, by the way, are all non Muslims because autopsy of the dead bodies of the suicide bombers say so (wink), says the conspiracy theorist.
Duh! says the American tail.
Thud, says the indignant Right.
And all you can do is to ignore the rest, just look at the liberal sceptic and wonder if it would be the same thing to call a liberal sceptic, a sceptical liberal. 
But before one digresses into the linguistic nitty gritties of what better captures the essence of a liberal sceptic, let s get back to the bottom line. And the bottom line is that Imran Khan might sound like a broken record, especially if you listen to him three days in a row, yet Imran Khan is the one person(along with Sheikh Rasheed of course) who does stop you in your channel surfing tracks and makes you listen.
He is the only person who talks about justice, humanity and self-esteem, the next best slogan after unity, faith, discipline and better than roti kapra aur makaan, don't you think? 
And then he is the only person who gives you unconditional hope for a better future.
And my question for the left and the right and the liberal sceptic is: What is wrong with giving hope to our people? 
I repeat the question: What is wrong with giving hope to our people? 
Actually the idea of a progressive road map for Pakistan is so ridiculous for some that the talk of a better future becomes a symbol of foolishness. For others, the minor glitch that Imran Khan used to have girlfriends in the 80s is an obstacle that might hinder the progress of Pakistan until the curse is over. This might make you wonder at the eternal question of why the right is so afraid of girls and girlfriends, but then again I warn you, you d seriously digress if you take that route.
The only places where you would find unflinching support for Imran Khan and plenty of counter arguments for the left and the right and the liberals of all kinds, are the places of learning and education; the places where you find young people who compete for grades, write research essays and dream of making money; who are fond of books, sports, American TV serials and social networking, and have ideals for a better future for Pakistan. Diverse combination of things, I know, but better than rigid and self-made markers of good and bad. These people are not necessarily against girls and girlfriends either, and believe that Pakistan has much more sinister things to worry about than considerations of a cricket sensation s love life in the 80s.
And these are the people who tell you that Imran Khan is a cricketer par excellence, an orator who inspires them, and a philanthropist who makes them optimistic. These are the people who would post on facebook those pictures of him sleeping on the floor in the middle of a sit in; unafraid, undeterred, and without bulletproofing or security of any sort.
And these are the people who don t turn, right or left or a beetroot red when you tell them that you think Imran Khan should win the next election. They simply turn around and say; 
You think so too? 
Cool! 
By Adiah Afraz, an academic. Email: adiahafraz@ gmail.com
--------------------------------------------------------

WebpageTranslator


US drone strikes fueling terrorism in Pakistan: Imran Khan 

KARACHI- Pakistan's opposition leader Imran Khan has said that the United States' war on terror is breeding extremism and terrorism and termed US drone attacks in the tribal regions a breach of country's sovereignty.
Sit-in suspends NATO supplies International News Network

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Attack on naval base precursor of threats to nukes: Imran
Chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Imran Khan Monday said that the attacks on the key naval base could be a precursor to further such attacks on our strategic assets including Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

He stated this on Monday, while reacting to Sunday’s night Karachi tragedy in which 11 personnel of Pakistan Navy and four of the terrorists perished besides destruction of two high-tech aircraft in PNS.
“At a time when our internal security stands compromised due to hundreds of Raymond Davises roaming the streets of Pakistan with an international agenda to declare Pakistan a failed state, the Mir Jaffars and Mir Sadiqs ruling Pakistan are bending over backwards to destroy the country to remain in power on foreign crutches,” he observed.The PTI chairman said that the massive participation of people from all walks of life in the PTI sit-in (Dharna) at Karachi is proof of the fact that the people of Pakistan are united in their efforts to regain the lost national sovereignty. They want to bring an end to the murderous drone attacks, and stop the double-faced politics practiced by the ruling party and the so-called opposition in parliament, he added.
The Karachi Dharna condemns the continuing drone attacks in the face of the Joint Resolution of the Parliament which was yet another attempt to hoodwink the people by the incumbent rulers, fully aided and abetted by a complicit opposition.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Imran announces ‘Pakistan Bachao Aur Hukoomat Hatao Tehreek’
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf chief Imran Khan has announced the ‘Pakistan Bachao Aur Hukoomat Hatao Tehreek’ (Save Pakistan and Remove the Government Movement) and expressed no confidence in the resolution passed in a joint session against drone attacks.
He was addressing a gathering on the second and concluding day of the sit-in on Sunday on the Native Jetty Bridge to block Nato supplies and drone attacks.Thousands of people joined the two-day protest.
The movement, he said, will start from Lahore and appealed to all like-minded political parties to join hands with the PTI to get rid of the corrupt rulers.
In the second phase, Khan said, we would protest in Islamabad and besiege the Parliament House. He said the parliament had failed to get its resolution against drone attacks implemented as on the very next day of passing of the resolution, drone strikes killed several innocent people in the trial area.
He condemned the hypocratical attitude of the government, saying on the one hand it is adopting a resolution against drones while on the other it has ‘fixed its match’ with the United States.
The prominent political leaders who attended the sit-in included Jamaat-e-Islami leaders Mohammad Hussain Mehanti, Dr Meraj-ul-Huda Siddqui, Sunni Tehreek Chief Sarwat Ejaz Qadri, Anwer Gujjar and the Sindh National Front was represented by Mumtaz Ali Bhutto who read out his message conveying that Sindhis are with Imran Khan as they see him as only saviour who could steer deprived Sindhis out of the present turmoil. Qamar Bhatti of Sindh Taraqqi Pasand Party also shared similar sentiments that Sindhis are fed up of the corrupt rulers and wanted to get rid of the present government for which he supported Imran Khan and vowed to continue supporting him.
Imran Khan said that the rulers are corrupt therefore they would avoid accountability against any state institutions and officials. He said that his party would emerge victorious in the next general elections as people are tired of hypocrite and dishonest rulers. He said that the success of todayís congregation has proved that masses wanted a revolution and not only change of faces to run the country.
Today country is facing severe crisisî he said and asked the gathering that under these circumstances which option is opened to them. The crowd present on the occasion pointed fingers on Khan who they see as the savior of the country.
Reacting on Obamaís recent interview that the US would again act unilaterally inside Pakistan if another militant was found in the country, he said which law on earth allows any one to violate sovereign territory and integrity of other country.
He said the sit-in had heralded a new era which has proved that people wanted revolution and they would support PTI, which is the only ray of hope in darkness. The protest has sent a message to the US that people of Pakistan are not coward and would retaliate if the territorial boundaries of the country were violated.
He said that drone attacks were carried out with the assistance of three- president, prime minister and Army who ëfixed matchí with the United States. He said the protest would convey to the US that ìwe will not be cowed down by drone attacksî.
Khan said that if his party were came into power it would finish the terrorists and assimilate the tribal people into the mainstream. He said it was the worst time for the country and the nation had been made subservient to the Americans. The killing of nine people in Quetta, including a pregnant woman, at the hands of our military has sent a wave of anger amongst the people. He said the rulers and military were continuously telling lie that they were terrorists.
The May 2 incidents had brought shame outside Pakistan and disgrace to oversees Pakistanis who are the assets of the country as they transact large amount of foreign reserves. For the sake of their own vested interests they made nation subservient to the US.
Khan also mustered the support of some of the right-wing parties, including the Sunni Tehrik and Jamiat-i-Ulema Islam, and the Sindh National Front and Jamat-e-Islami. They were carrying PTIís flags and photographs of Aafia Siddiqui and chanting anti-America slogans on the occasion.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


More >>>>



20 May 2011
Drone strikes were a comparative rarity when President Bush was in office, but have been dramatically and repeatedly escalated by President Obama, usually in retaliation for attacks by militant groups. This has led CMC to term the .
Drone strikes were a comparative rarity when President Bush was in office, but have been dramatically and repeatedly escalated by President Obama, usually in retaliation for attacks by militant groups. This has led CMC to term the..

US Drone Attacks, Taliban & Shamsi Air Base


US vacates Shamsi Airbase, Pak Army takes over

 The United States has finally vacated the Shamsi Airbase in the Washuk district of Balochistan after using it for numerous covert and overt ...
US wraps up drone operation business at Shamsi‎ The Nation, Pakistan
US leaving Shamsi base won't have big impact on air war‎ The Express Tribune
International News Network - Xinhua 
all 2896 news articles »

USA has killed over 2000 people in FATA, through droned attacks, [flown from  Shamsi Air base], mostly civilians. Pak Taliban have killed over 30,000 innocent Muslims on pretext to avenge Drone attacks, they even attacked Naval Air Base at Karachi. Question arises that Why Taliban do not attack Shamsi Airbase in Pakistan? Its very simple, aim of Taliban is to kill Muslims and destabilise Pakistan, they are allegedly financed and aided by USA, India and other anti-Pak powers so; Why should they attack the  base of their benefactors?  
Quran:5:57  O ye who believe! take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport whether among those who received the Scripture before you or among those who reject faith; but fear ye Allah if ye have Faith (indeed).
Quran;3:28. Let not the believers make unbelievers their protectors rather than the believers; anyone who does so will have nothing to hope for from Allah - except if you do so as a precaution to guard yourselves against their tyranny. Anyhow, Allah warns you to fear Him: because with Allah is your final refuge. 
However normal friendly relations with peaceful Non Muslims are not forbidden :
“Allah only forbids you to make friendship with those who fought you on account of your faith and drove you out of your homes and backed up others in your expulsion. Those who will take them for friends are indeed the wrongdoers”. (Qur’an;60:9).

THE announcement of Defence Minister Chaudhary Ahmad Mukhtar that the United States has been asked to vacate the Shamsi airbase in Balochistan has widely been hailed by people of Pakistan, who consider it belated but still timely move as part of the efforts to restore national honour and dignity. According to him, Americans have started moving equipment and materials from the base, which had been leased to the UAE but was being used by the United States for logistic support for its forces in Afghanistan and carrying out highly provocative drone attacks in tribal areas of Pakistan. The decision is in line with unanimous resolution of the parliament that requires of the government to review its policy if the United States persists with its drone attacks. In contemptuous disregard to the demand contained in the resolution, which symbolised voice of the nation, Americans are not only continuing their drone attacks but also we have seen accentuation in the process. As Pakistan cannot, for obvious reasons, confront drones and shoot them down, the least it can do is to ask the United States to vacate the base that was being used as a nerve centre for drone attacks. In the first place, it is devoid of higher moral values and principles to have allowed a country use of our soil to facilitate attacks on the neighbouring country.
But the case of Shamsi is all the more striking as it was used to plan and execute drone attacks against Pakistan’s own people. What a tragedy that we have all along been lodging protests to the United States over drone attacks but behind-the-curtain allowed use of our own base for the purpose. Shamsi had become subject of a heated national debate and disgust with people considering it as a stigma for the country and therefore, the move of the Government to get it vacated is a welcome development. This is a futuristic decision aimed at safeguarding national interests and restoring national honour, which began with the arrest of killer Raymond Davis. But the entire process must be based on principles and should not convey the impression of a tit-for-tat approach i.e. in reaction to reduction and stoppage of aid by the United States as per its past practice of leaving Pakistan in the lurch.

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=100517
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An Other Opinion!

The disused Bhandari airstrip 200 miles south of Quetta in Balochistan was gifted to Sheikh Zahid Al-Nahyan the ruler of Abu Dhabi by the government of Pakistan in the 1990’s. The airstrip called Shamsi was developed by Emirates Sheiks into a jet capable airfield , and was used for falcon hunting of rare Bustards in Balochistan. It was leased out to US Central Intelligence Agency in 2001 by UAE with President Musharraf’s approval, and was developed by the United States Air Force as a military air base in great secrecy for bombing of Afghanistan. CIA occupation of the base clearly had his approval. General Pervez Musharraf as President should have comprehended the long time strategic implications of handing over Shamsi air base to Washington! Development of Shamsi for clandestine operations was kept a highly guarded secret, and Chief Minister Magsi and even Corps Commander were not allowed to visit it, when it was being developed for Drone operations and construction of the required infrastructure for this purpose was taking place. There is no evidence on record that the UAE government handed over Shamsi to the CIA for Drone operations. It was General Musharraf who handed over Shamsi and allowed US Air Force operations against Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants from some other PAF bases including the Shahbaz Air Base. The PPP led government continued Musharraf’s policies till recently, and allowed CIA to launch Predator drones from Shamsi Air Base for the destruction of terrorist hideouts in FATA. Islamabad’s denials that the government was unaware of CIA drone operations from Shamsi till very recently, may be justified by being kept in the dark, by ally America, which has refused to share anti-terrorist intelligence with Pakistan.

The United States spent billions of dollars on the development of Shamsi air base. The USAF developed Bandari airstrip into a jet capable airfield with long runways for handling bombers and heavy transport aircraft. Shamsi has taxiways, tarmacs and refueling facilities for sustained bomber, fighter and drone operations. By 2006 Predator drones began to be launched against Taliban hideouts and selected targets in the tribal belt. Shamsi has remained a busy base for anti-terrorist operations in FATA. Few weeks back Washington Post reported that three months ago the US had stopped air and drone strikes from Shamsi base. This was soon after the Raymond Davis dispute exploded into a full-fledged fiasco. The Post reported that US-CIA personnel and the Predator drones remain at Shamsi Air Base till further decision. Recently Google Earth showed three predator drones parked on the Shamsi tarmac, next to a hangar.

During the last six years Predator drones launched from Shamsi Air Base killed hundreds of militants and in collateral damage greater number of civilian men women and children have been killed and injured. It is shocking that Pakistani soil is being used for launching American missiles for bombing Pakistani villages and homes in FATA and killing Pakistani citizens along with foreign militants. The drones cannot distinguish Pakistani citizens from Al-Qaeda terrorists. Thus drone attacks kill peaceful citizens along with the terrorists. According to some defence specialists the collateral damage in Pakistan is minimal as compared to Afghanistan. The Tehrik-Taliban- Pakistan and its godfather Al-Qaeda are engaged in suicide attacks across Pakistan including FATA and in Afghanistan. They bomb mosques, hotels, bazars, police stations, schools, military, Rangers, FC, CID and Navy installations. They kidnap and murder people and have killed 36000 Pakistani’s including 5000 military personnel. They are enemy number one of the Pakistani nation. Across the border in Afghanistan the terrorists target NATO, and Afghan National Army installations, hotels and shopping centers. It is unfortunate that thousands of Pakistani nationals have become terrorists and are sheltering foreign and local criminals in the tribal Agencies and elsewhere, with the motive to spread mayhem, death and destruction in their own country. Washington considers Predator attacks on their Hujras and villages justified with drone missiles to end the terrorist menace. Pakistani protests to pressure America to stop drone attacks to wipe out terrorism have a humanistic face, but are difficult to justify, considering terrorist massacres and destruction, and adverse effect on national morale. Hillary Rodham Clinton the US Secretary of State, Robert Gates the Defense Secretary and Director CIA Leon Panetta, who is the new US Defense Secretary have categorically rejected Pakistani pleas to stop drone attacks, asserting that the Pakistani establishment in the past had approved such attacks, which were being launched from Shamsi Air Base. The nation needs to be told the truth.

The nation must be told the truth about the gifting, leasing out or renting of the Shamsi Air Base to the UAE, the CIA and the United States Air Force. The terms and conditions must be known to remove the impression that the United States has forcibly usurped the Shamsi Base, and has plans for perpetual occupation of the strategically important Air Base.

A PAF officer who declined to be identified said, “ We have told them to vacate the Base. We are unable to provide security to their people”. In a tough response on June 30, US authorities responded, “ United States is rejecting demands from Pakistani officials that American personnel abandon the Shamsi Military Base used by the CIA to stage drone strikes against suspected militants. US Personnel have not left the remote military installation , and there is no plan for them to do so. The Base is neither vacated, nor being vacated. This blunt rejection of the Pakistani demand was confirmed by another senior US official. Having spent billions on the Base infrastructure, and being fully resolved to eradicate terrorist safe heavens in FATA, US drone operations from the Shamsi Air Base are likely to continue unabated. This will add fuel to the fire of the acrimonious Pak-US relationship over the intensified drone bombings and violation of Pakistani sovereignty by the Obama Administration.

Undeterred by blunt US response Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar claimed that, “ Shamsi Air Base is being shuttered, and drone operations from it had stopped.” This claim was rejected by the US disclaimer from Washington. But Ahmed Mukhtar told Reuters, “ When the US forces will not operate from there, no drone attacks will be carried.” This expectation was rudely rejected by US officials. But a crafty CIA official remarked that no American military personnel had ever been stationed at Shamsi Air Base. The drone program from in Pakistan (from the Shamsi Air Base) is run by the CIA.” CIA Director Leon Panetta, who has been promoted as US Defense Secretary, during his last visit to Islamabad was urged by President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani to bring an end to the drone attacks and devastation in FATA. Panetta bluntly rejected to halt drone attacks, and refused to assure the top Pakistani leaders that drone attacks could be halted.

In an incisive article Brig Farooq Hameed Khan comments about the strategic advantages that the United States drives from the occupation of Shamsi Air Base. “This airfield provides a launch pad 200 miles south of Quetta, where the US believes hides the Afghan Taliban Shura led by Mullah Omar. CIA believes that Mullah Omar is hiding in Quetta, much like Osama bin Laden lived undetected in Abbottabad. Shamsi Base is one hundred miles east of the Iranian border, and is ideally located for spying on Iran. It enables the United States to conduct spying and covert intelligence missions into and around Iran. Washington considers Tehran as its foremost foe, and will use Shamsi Base to gather vital intelligence information about Iran. And importantly it is not too far from Chagai-Pakistan’s nuclear test site. Being close to the Balochistan coast it enables the US to spy over Gwadar, and keep an eye on Pak-China collaboration for the development of this important sea port, and an important trading center in the future. Shamsi will enable CIA to gather data about Pakistan’s coastal areas, with several vital Pakistan Navy installations there. In the adjoining Arabian Sea the massive presence of US Navy’s aircraft carriers, missile firing cruisers, destroyers, submarines and landing craft provide evidence of massive sea power, menacing deployed posing a very serious threat to Pakistan’s security and sovereignty. 

As a first step, Pakistan could urge the US by diplomatic means, to share the Shamsi Air Base with Pakistan Air Force, for joint operations against terrorists. ISI may offer to cooperate with the CIA for sharing intelligence information about Taliban and Al-Qaeda fugitives. This is a difficult exercise, but we cannot and should not allow permanent occupation of a strategic Air Base by a foreign power. Shamsi Air Base is being used for launching drone attacks by the CIA. While Pakistan's sovereignty has been trampled underfoot, The collateral damage has killed hundreds of innocent civilians. This must stop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Supplies to Nato forces in Afghanistan were blocked in protests over drone strikes blocked a key road in Pakistan for three days. The protests was called by Tehrik-e- Insaf, the party of cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan, ...


A new report from the Conflict Monitoring Centre (CMC) has reported that 2043 Pakistanis have been slain in CIA drone strikes in the past 5 years, with the vast majority of them innocent civilians. ...
Drone Attacks in FATA: Why Taliban don't Attack Shamsi Air Base... 

Pakistan and the US: A Too-Close Embrace?

WebpageTranslator

It is of little surprise that in the weeks following the killing of Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda’s leader, in a Pakistani military garrison town, the Pakistani relationship with the United States has been described using various analogies of romantic dysfunction: as an abusive relationship, as one partner cheating on another, and as a failing marriage where the partners stay together for the sake of the children.
The children, in this case, being various distinct (but linked) violent, armed groups that are waging war on both parties, separately and at times in concert.
But if the relationship between these states really is a romantic entanglement gone wrong, then the latest batch of US embassy cables to be leaked by the whistleblowing website Wikileaks is like having access to the email and text message exchanges between the two, revealing the many faces of the partnership.
In short, the cables show that while the Pakistani government wears a certain face in public, rejecting US missile strikes on its territory and military cooperation on Pakistani soil with aggressive rhetoric about sovereignty, in private, both military and civilian officials approve (or "acquiesce", to use a term from one of the cables) to both of these.
The result is a relationship that is one thing in the confines of closed door meetings and quite distinctly another in the harsh light of day. There is repeated reference in the cables, released through the Pakistani newspaper Dawn, to the potential fallout of any of the topics of conversation (from US drone strikes to the presence of US Special Forces providing Pakistani paramilitary troops with intelligence support) becoming public: an understanding that were the private face to impinge on the public, it would have to retaliate.
First, however, the facts.


The faces of co-operation
The most obviously contentious issue when it comes to the relationship between the two countries is that of the repeated violations of Pakistan's sovereignty, as that country describes it, that are US missile strikes launched by Predator drone aircraft in Pakistan's tribal areas. 


Previously released cables have indicated that there is indeed tacit support from the Pakistani government and military for these strikes, even as the same officials who agree in private condemn them in public.


The latest batch of cables further corroborates those claims.
In one cable, dated February 11, 2008, Pakistani Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, requests "continuous Predator coverage" of Waziristan (in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA). Kayani was meeting with US Admiral William J Fallon, then the US CENTCOM commander, who offered the Pakistani general the use of US Joint Tactical Aircraft Controllers - troops specially trained to direct air strikes from forward operating positions on the ground - instead. At this, Kayani demurred, suggesting that the presence of "US JTACs on the ground would not be politically acceptable", the cable says.
It is unclear whether Kayani was requesting that the drones fly surveillance or strike missions.
'Zardari noted he would be willing to "take the political heat" of a cross-border raid if a really important high value target was captured.'
In another cable, dated March 24, 2008, Kayani briefs Admiral Mike Mullen, the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, on various issues, from politics to the combat effectiveness of the Pakistani Frontier Corps paramilitary force.
In the meeting, Mullen "asked Kayani for his help in approving a third Restricted Operating Zone (ROZ) for US aircraft over FATA".
An ROZ is a "box" of airspace which the US or NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan would be permitted use of. Implicit in the request is the fact that two ROZs have already been approved and are in use.
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Haider Mullick, a fellow at the US Joint Special Operations University and the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, said that it is likely that FATA has been divided, for operational purposes, into northern, central and southern "boxes".
In another cable, dated October 2, 2009, an official at the Pakistani government's FATA Secretariat responds to a query from a US diplomat regarding the expected effectiveness of Pakistani military operations in South Waziristan by saying that "the Army thought they had the capability and that the US could assist with continued strikes".
The official goes on to emphasise that it is "important that the US launch strikes against [Lashkar-e-Islam leader] Mangal Bagh", who has been a thorn in the side of Pakistani forces, but whose group is not generally targeted by US strikes as it does not directly operate in Afghanistan.
The cable concludes that the official "remains a strong advocate of US strikes". Indeed, he goes as far as to suggest that the US engage in "follow-on attacks immediately after an initial strike", as, in his assessment, "the only people in the area are terrorists" following a missile strike.
The US, however, appears aware of the distinction between the Pakistani government's statements in private and in public. In a cable sent to Washington by then US Ambassador Anne Patterson, she notes with growing alarm the dissonance between the two sets of statements, in response to a US missile strike in Bannu, a settled area that is outside FATA.
"As the gap between private [Pakistani government] acquiescence for U.S. action and public condemnation grows, Pakistani leaders who feel they look increasingly weak to their constituents could begin considering stronger action against the US, although we have yet to see any indication that such a decision is on the table," she says in the cable dated November 24, 2008.
Finally, in an interesting note, dated October 6, 2008, about a meeting with Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president, Ambassador Patterson says that "Zardari noted that he would be willing to 'take the political heat' of a cross-border raid if a really important high value target was captured".
Osama bin Laden, of course, would have been identified as such a high-value target, throwing the Pakistani government's statements about the US unilateral cross-border raid that resulted in his death being counterproductive to good relations in an interesting light.


Beyond drones
In addition to statements on drones, there are also multiple references in the new cables to the presence of US Special Forces troops on the ground in Pakistan, acting at least twice in concert with Pakistani forces in an intelligence-support capacity, and also as trainers. While Pakistan has publically spoken of the presence of US trainers for its paramilitary forces, it has never admitted to their presence on combat missions.


In a cable dated October 9, 2009, Ambassador Patterson writes that the Pakistani military approved a request for "U.S. SOC(FWD)-PAK [US Special Operations Command (Forward)-Pakistan] to deploy to Wana, South Waziristan and Miram Shah, North Waziristan, in the FATA, in order to provide intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and general operational advice to the 11 Corps' 9th and 7th Divisions".


She notes that the initial assessment saw the deployment of six personnel each to Wana and Miram Shah, equipped with "a live downlink of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) [drone] full motion video", indicating that drone missions would be flown in conjunction with the 11 Corps' operation.


General Kayani, centre, also repeatedly asked the US to revisit the procedures for disbursing funds to the Pakistani military, complaining that the
civilian government ate into military funding [GALLO/GETTY]
She also notes that this would be the second such mission, following on from a September 2009 operation in which "four SOC(FWD)-PAK personnel who were embedded with the Frontier Corps (FC) at Khar Fort, in Bajaur Agency in the FATA, provided ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] for an FC operation (reftel).  This support was highly successful, enabling the FC to execute a precise and effective artillery strike on an enemy location".


Patterson writes that the increased cooperation is a result of "patient relationship-building with the military", but notes that the deployments are "highly politically sensitive because of widely held concerns among the public about Pakistani sovereignty and opposition to allowing foreign military forces to operate in any fashion on Pakistani soil". She concludes that if the deployments were to become public knowledge, the Pakistani military "will likely stop making requests for such assistance".


Another cable notes the existence of "Intelligence Fusion Cells [IFCs] with embedded US Special Forces with both SSG [Special Services Group, Pakistan's elite commando unit] and Frontier Corps (Bala Hisar, Peshawar)".


Yet another says that US special forces at the IFCs were aiding Pakistani FC troops with "imagery, target packages and operational planning".


Mullick, the defence analyst, says the IFCs would "combine intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) resources from American and Pakistani intelligence sources to plan, support and evaluate joint and complementary operations. For example, on occasion they share human intelligence contacts, live drone feeds, signals intelligence, etc.


"In some of these fusion centres you could find CIA, DIA [Defence Intelligence Agency], ISI [Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence] and Pakistani military intelligence officers working in concert with Pakistani Frontier Corps and SSG intelligence officers."


Further, in a "scene-setter" for General Kayani's visit to the US in early 2009, Patterson notes that Kayani will be expected to "request increased intelligence sharing (real-time [Signals Intelligence] and ISR)".


The existence of the IFCs, and mentions of "ROVER equipment" would indicate that the Pakistani military is receiving live feeds from drones flying over Pakistani airspace on certain occasions through US troops using Remote Operations Video Enhanced Receivers (ROVERs).


Mullick notes that the US military provided "critical ISR support to Pakistani 11 Corps and Frontier Corps (North) during the South Waziristan Operation 2009", with signal intercepts proving "critical" in locating key Pakistani Taliban leaders.


The February 2009 scene setter also refers to Pakistan's coordination with NATO and US troops in Afghanistan improving "dramatically".  Mullick notes that both sides have been providing support to one another by "block[ing] insurgent border crossings and shar[ing] ISR", though there are other areas in which cooperation has been more complicated.


Other analysts, such as retired Pakistani Brigadier Shaukat Qadir, say the US has not been doing enough, and that during that operation the 2009 South Waziristan operation, ISAF forces actually vacated six border posts on their side, "allowing [Pakistani Taliban leaders] to escape". He added that the nature of the US troop surge in Marja in 2010 was such that Pakistani closing of border crossings would have been "ineffective", as the US was attacking "unidirectionally", rather than forcing Taliban fighters to the Pakistani border.


Following the release of these cables, the Pakistani military issued a "categorical" denial of both the presence of US troops in the Pakistani tribal areas (and at the Bala Hisar IFC), and of Pakistani requests for US drone support. The Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) division, which issued the statements, said there has only "been sharing of technical intelligence in some areas".


Maintaining the divide
In several places, the cables note the precarious balance of the two-faced nature of Pakistan's position on cooperation with the United States.


After the 2008 drone strike on Jani Khel, in Bannu, referenced in the earlier mentioned November 24, 2008, cable, Patterson noted that the strike was being seen publically as a "watershed event", since it was on a settled area in "Pakistan proper".


She warns that the strike had drawn condemnation from across the political board, and could push Pakistan's "private acquiescence" to the strikes to breaking point. Indeed, since that strike, only one other such strike has taken place outside of the tribal areas: it was again in Jani Khel, Bannu, in March 2009.


Wherever US deployments are mentioned, there is usually a quick reminder that if this information were to be made public, it would likely have negative political consequences and force the Pakistanis into adopting a harsher stance in working with the US.


In fact, in one cable, dealing with the United States' sale of F16 aircraft to Pakistan, Patterson suggests that despite the fact that Pakistan will likely not be in a position to fully pay for the aircraft it has ordered, "walking away from this symbol of renewed post-9/11 cooperation would cause enormous political consequences", adding that it would make it more difficult to continue counterinsurgency co-operation along the Pakistan-Afghan border.


In the 2008 meeting with Admiral Mullen, Kayani cautions against the Pakistani need for US military trainers being publicised "because it implied that the Pakistani Army was not capable of facing down the militant threat". Kayani repeatedly asks for equipment over training, the cables show, while the US takes the contrary view, suggesting that counterterrorism training for Pakistani forces is both desirable and necessary.


Tensions at melting point
In the wake of the operation to kill Osama bin Laden (and the questions this raised about Pakistani complicity and/or incompetence in the matter) and the ensuing high tensions between the two countries, these revelations serve only to further raise the temperature on a partnership already at melting point.


Following the release of the cables, the Los Angeles Times reportedthat Pakistan has ordered the closure of three IFCs. The order came shortly after a demand for the US to further reduce its troop footprint in the country, with a significant cutback of trainers expected.


On the US side, following a visit by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Admiral Mullen to Islamabad, it would now appear that a Pakistani military operation in North Waziristan is on the cards, with initial strikes already launched in the agency. Pakistan has previously resisted launching such an operation, saying its troops are stretched too thin by other operations.


Pakistan has denied that it is launching such an operation.
'As the gap between private [government] acquiescence for US action and public condemnation grows, Pakistani leaders who feel they look increasingly weak to their constituents could begin considering stronger action against the U.S., although we have yet to see any indication that such a decision is on the table.'


The reality of the relationship, as further illustrated by many of the newly released cables, is that the Pakistan-US relationship is seen, both from the outside and internally, as something that is constantly tenuous - a partnership that is always in a delicate balance.


The cables reveal, too, a certain gap in the two countries' strategic understanding of the geopolitical neighbourhood. US diplomats repeatedly note that Pakistan's calculus is driven by its perceived need for "strategic depth" in Afghanistan in case of a conflict with India, who it considers its primary threat, going as far as to solicit from General Kayani what "political end state in Afghanistan would convince him to end proxy support for militants". They also suggest that a solution to the Kashmir issue would greatly serve to downgrade Pakistan’s fears regarding India, and that "enhanced [US government] efforts in this regard should be considered".


But what the cables do not pick up on is that Pakistan's calculus of the situation goes beyond these two issues. On a more fundamental level, it would appear that the Pakistani state is on a different ideological page from the United States. Specifically, this has to do with the Pakistani backing of certain militant groups as tools of their foreign policy. Moreover, the Pakistani state makes distinctions between militant groups not on their ideology, but on who their primary targets are, Brig (retd) Qadir says. As such, it has no incentive to go after members of the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network, or Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba, as the US wants it to do, as these do not threaten the Pakistani state, as al-Qaeda and the Tehrik-e-Taliban do.


Ultimately, the Pakistani strategic view is internally consistent, banking on a US exit from an Afghanistan where the Taliban will be in some form of power (as it would appear the US is also reconciling itself to).
As for the Pakistani populace's perceptions (the very reason for the repeated warnings that information on US-Pakistan cooperation must be kept secret), they, too, are married to the Pakistani state's strategic perception of the situation: a view predicated on distrust of the US.


"The view in Pakistan has always been that the US is not interested in Pakistan except for how it serves its own purposes," says journalist and activist Beena Sarwar.


She argues that Pakistanis view the United States through a historic lens of being used as a proxy for US interests in the region, often to the detriment of Pakistani development and democracy. She also points the finger at Pakistani political leaders, saying that they have repeatedly put short-term issues ahead of the country's long term interests (such as investments in education and health).


Sarwar says the toxicity of being seen to publically be co-operating with the United States in a fight in which both sides are, theoretically, on the same side, comes from a history of "distrust", and of governments not being able to create political narratives that are unequivocal regarding extremism.
Ultimately, given Pakistani (both state-level and public) distrust of the US and their divergent strategic and ideological views of the region, the question arises: are the two countries really natural allies? The intricate issues at play would suggest that in some areas they are, and in others they may not be. Geopolitics, however, seems to have thrown them from that more natural centre ground into an an often uncomfortable, too-close embrace.
Follow Asad Hashim on Twitter: @AsadHashim
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/06/201161134142800785.html

War of Terror or Error
1.      Don’t be Deceived, Know the Real Enemies of PEACE: http://fb.me/128f56sVg
2.      USA Friend or Foe -2:  http://t.co/KAVIdp6
3.      USA - A Friend or Foe of Pakistan-1 http://t.co/MzEkrPV
4.      Shattering Some Myths: http://t.co/QEfQjpY
5.      Wisdom and Faith http://t.co/OTjaGV5
6.      Genocide of Muslims in Europe - Mladic’s Killing Fields in Srebrenica: http://t.co/dZZmY0N
Genocide of Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila: http://t.co/3hyqO8H

Analysis-Terrorist Attack at Pakistan Naval Air Base...http://t.co/DzNdtvb
Pakistan must Stand Up for itself: http://t.co/eBvzMEC
Shattering Some Myths – Naval Base Attack: http://t.co/QEfQjpY