پاکستان کی تعمیر و ترقی اور قیام پاکستان کے مقاصد کے حصول کے لیئے (Intellectual resource) انٹلیلکٹچوئیل و سائل https://bit.ly/Salaam1Pakistan
Featured Post
FrontPage صفحہ اول
Salaam Pakistan is one of projects of "SalaamOne Network" , to provide information and intellectual resource with a view to...
Ulema Condemn terrorism, Declare Suicide Attacks ‘Haram
WebpageTranslator
PAKISTANI MEDIA MUST SHOW ITS SINCERITY AGAINST TERRORISM, by displaying the verses from Qur'an and Hadith against Suicide, Terrorism, killing innocent people [http://fb.me/128f56sVg].... when ever a news of terrorism is flashed, in the TV footage a strip should run showing verses, translation in Pashto, Urdu..... if they can't do it, they are coward, hypocrite.
A meeting of 300 eminent religious scholars and Ulema have unanimously agreed and pronounced condemning all forms of terrorists’ activities in North Waziristan Agency and issued stern warning to terrorists about serious consequences. [Miramshah, North Waziristan]
The Ulema declared suicide attacks as Haram in Islam and strongly condemned all those involved in recruiting and training of suicide bombers. A meeting of the prominent Ulema of North Waziristan Agency was held in Madrassah Nizamia at Eidak in Mir Ali Tehsil, which is a leading and respected Madrassah in the entire North Waziristan Agency on June 13.
The meeting warned all foreigners to stop their violent activities as they can only live in the North Waziristan Agency peacefully under the local customs. The meeting ruled that no one can call another ‘Kafir or Munafiq’ based on whatever beliefs or virtues in North Waziristan Agency.
At the backdrop of security environment in the country in general and the North Waziristan Agency in particular, such pronouncement by all encompassing and respected Ulema of the North Waziristan Agency is historic, far reaching and very significant, said observers.
Related Links:
Don’t be Deceived, Know the Real Enemies of PEACE: http://fb.me/128f56sVg
Pakistan US
Big Change on the Cards: Imran Khan: http://t.co/Gx10sWf
The Woes of an Ostrich Republic http://t.co/QRoVhBq
USA Friend or Foe -2: http://t.co/KAVIdp6
USA - A Friend or Foe of Pakistan-1 http://t.co/MzEkrPV
Pakistan must Stand Up for itself: http://t.co/eBvzMEC
Don’t be Deceived, Know the Real Enemies of PEACE: http://fb.me/128f56sVg
War of Terror or Error- Great Debate: http://t.co/mgxwX7E
FATA or Laboratory of Terror? http://t.co/sjfYOvf
Methodology of Implementation of Shari'a? By Force, Preaching or Elections...http://t.co/iIdn66t
Big Change on the Cards: Imran Khan: http://t.co/Gx10sWf
The Woes of an Ostrich Republic http://t.co/QRoVhBq
USA Friend or Foe -2: http://t.co/KAVIdp6
USA - A Friend or Foe of Pakistan-1 http://t.co/MzEkrPV
Pakistan must Stand Up for itself: http://t.co/eBvzMEC
Creeping Islam- Turkish Model
WebpageTranslator
Qazi Hussain Ahmad, ex Chief of Jamait-i-Islami shares his experience of revival of Islam in Turkey, through a gradual process with some lessons for Pakistan ........
Secularist Turkey & Islamic Freedom: Lessons for Pakistan
WebpageTranslator
Young Turks to the Rescue
On my recent trip to Istanbul, I came across an article written by a senior Turkish journalist who warned the Turkish government not to dabble in ‘political Islam’. The example that he gave of such an experiment going dangerously wrong was, of course, that of Pakistan. Interestingly this is exactly what I mentioned to some Turkish university students whom I had met on my first trip to that country in 2009.
Nevertheless, my recent trip convinced me that chances of Turkey becoming an ideological casualty like Pakistan are rather scant. Today Turkey is shining through as an example of a Muslim majority country that is functioning rather well as a secular state and society.
For decades Turkey was striving to find a balance between the great Mustafa Kemal’s radical secular doctrines and its historical link with a royalist Islamic past. But ironically it has been two full terms of a moderate Islamic party in the government that has been the most successful in finally giving Turkey this balance.
No wonder, then, that Justice & Development Party (JDP), has now won a third term in the recently held elections. In spite of the fact that the JDP has a rather staunch Islamist past, the two consecutive terms in power has helped it evolve into a moderate party that is more interested in addressing the people’s economic aspirations and demands than ideology.
I saw the way the party campaigned for this June’s election, and not once did I see a poster or heard a JDP leader even mention religion. I asked one of its supporters if that was due to the JDP fearing a reaction from Turkey’s staunchly secular military, and he told me this was not the case. He said Turks do not need to be lectured on Islam by a political party; and that secondly, the military does not believe anymore that a JDP-led government would dismantle Mustafa Kemal’s secularism.
He said the JDP would once and for all limit the Turkish army’s interventionist role in politics. ‘The party is doing this through democracy and a revamped constitution,’ he added. So, for the first time a popularly elected civilian government is successfully standing up to a politically overbearing military in Turkey which, in the name of defending Kemal’s secular legacy, has had a history of interfering in politics and propping up various nationalist outfits that in turn gave birth to some radical Islamist groups in the 1980s.
This was an irony that itself was tackled by yet another irony in which a moderate Islamist political party led the way by finally turning Turkey into a strong economic player, with democracy stopping constant military intervention in its tracks. The JDP, I noticed, was squarely focused on further advancing Turkey’s recent economic growth. Little was ever said about Islam, even though the issue of Turkey’s long-lasting ban on the veil and the headscarf (in government institutions) has opened up as a debate.
Istanbul is a great expression of the wonderful surreal scenario today’s Turkey exhibits to a person coming from a country like Pakistan where even the most secular public space is being invaded and occupied by gaudy religious symbolism and rhetoric. In Istanbul, bars, nightclubs, cafes, spice markets, carpet sellers, fast food joints, restaurants, western tourists, traffic jams, men and women in the most modern western clothes and women in hijabs, all go about their business, as many beautiful mosques that Istanbul is dotted with call out the faithful to prayer five times a day.
Not once did I come across a Turk frowning at this perfectly functioning juxtaposition of the secular with the religious. Why should they? The economy is doing well, investors and tourists continue to throng Turkey, their mosques and markets are not being blown up by mad men in the name of God. And yet it is the same God Pakistani Muslims worship as well.
In Istanbul I stayed at a lovely little ‘boutique hotel’ in the serene area where the marvellous Blue Mosque is situated. The area is surrounded by the most amazing array of tulip flowers and comfy benches on which I continued to see young Turk couples sitting, holding hands, smilingly and whispering to one another.
What amazed me was the number of girls in headscarves. To a Pakistani this would be an astonishing sight. Women in hijab holding hands with men in public! On the other end, the popular Turkish prime minster’s wife who wears hijab actually takes it off when visiting a public hospital or a school where hijab is banned. This, some Turks told me, was her way of showing respect to modern Turkey’s secular heritage. Stunning stuff.
A majority of Turks also want to become part of the European Union. No Turk sees this as something that would harm their sovereignty or their religious identity; instead they see this opportunity as a way to further Turkey’s economic prowess. Also, did you know the so-called ‘Muslim creationists’ like Harun Yayah (a Turk), who became such a hit in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia, are actually described as ‘deli’ or ‘kizgin’ (both meaning crazy) by a majority of Turks? The Turks sound perfectly sane while trailing a smooth path between religion and secularism.
Smokers’ Corner: 'Young Turks to the rescue' by Nadeem F. Paracha
http://www.dawn.com/2011/06/19/smokers-corner-young-turks-to-the-rescue.html
Secularism for Religion- Compatible? http://t.co/7xG9pve
Clearly the place of Christian faith [say Religion in general] within the 21st century is indeed under attack from those who demand that the values of secularism alone be used as the measure of what is permissible in public debates. ..
Secularism for Religion- Compatible? http://t.co/7xG9pve
Here, An-Naim combines his own unique theory of “Islamic Secularism'', characterised by this now famous statement in the opening pages of the book, “In order to be a Muslim by conviction and free choice, ...
France's governing party plans to launch a national debate on the role of Islam and respect for French secularism among Muslims here, two issues emerging as major themes for the presidential election due next year. ...
"Whereas secularism forthrightly calls for learning from the West, reformism selectively appropriates from it. The reformist says, 'Look, Islam is basically compatible with Western ways. It's just that we lost track of our own ...
There has been a certain expectation of Muslim intellectuals to confront thorny and difficult issues such as secularism, gender equality and religious discrimination, but Ramadan will not have any of that. He says he has already tackled
On the other hand many Islamic activists, using extremely broad, simple and sometimes crude notions of secularism and sovereignty, reject democracy as rule of Man as opposed to Islam which is rule of God. Islamists who reject democracy...
By Asghar Ali Engineer, The writer is an Islamic scholar, who also heads the Centre for Study of Society & Secularism, Mumbai.http://www.dawn.com/2011/04/01/a-progressive-muslim.html. Related Links: Moderate Muslims? مسلمين المعتدلين ...
... state courts from considering; Islamic law, and a federal judge's injunction against the referendum; Turkey, a strategic ally of the US and Israel, moving from 80 years of legally mandated secularism toward Islamic governance.....
Clearly, the empty moral discourse of procedural secularism does not do enough to provide a source of ethical reflection, so instead Muzaffar looks back to the spiritual wellsprings of faith traditions. He articulates an alternative
In his book, A Theory of Universal Democracy, Khan provides a critique of liberal democracy and secularism. He presents the concept of "fusion state" in which religion and state are fused. There are no contradictions in ...
Related Links:
In his book, A Theory of Universal Democracy, Khan provides a critique of liberal democracy and secularism. He presents the concept of "fusion state" in which religion and state are fused. There are no contradictions in ...
Related Links:
Why support the Pak Army?
WebpageTranslator
For instance the present Army leadership was part and parcel, in fact the spearhead of the dubious political arrangements which were forged by the falling dictator Pervez Musharraf to protect his power. These were arrangements, like the NRO, which were extremely toxic for the country, but were pushed with vigour and enthusiasm. Until Musharraf was around, there may have been a justification, or a de facto compulsion, to continue.
Knowing that the politicians were corrupt and had no intention of correcting their course, the Pakistan Army, as the guardian of internal security, had to provide firm and unflinching support to corrective mechanisms within the system, if they really wanted democracy to take hold and get going in the right direction. They never bothered.
Pakistanis dumped between hard rock and deep sea
The Pakistan Army corps commanders have pushed the hapless and helpless Pakistani nation between a rock and a deep ditch. The rock is the Army itself, armed with guns and a lot of arrogance. The ditch is the corrupt sea of vision-less politicians who cannot see beyond their stolen billions and rightly or wrongly have acquired power and perks they will not let go of.
In an almost defeatist and vengeful tone the 1,032-word political statement coming out of their meeting tells the people that from now on Pakistanis will be at the mercy of the politicians, who the commanders, in their heart of their hearts believe are corrupt and incapable of handling these life and death matters of state. So they want to wash their hands off matters and let the people and their leaders drown fighting each other. They will watch from the sidelines and when a collapse becomes inevitable they will step in and take over, blaming everybody else.
This is almost a political strategy to bring down the system, instead of supporting the system, as the commanders have pledged in their statement. It is like pulling out all the fire engines from a burning house and telling the inmates to fight the fire with their hands and empty buckets.
I have seen many comments on the corps commanders’ statement but none has addressed the real issue in a free, frank and candid manner. Some former army officers, generals and captains alike, even bureaucrats who were part of the military regimes have soft pedalled issues and have defended the Army position, without hinting at their share of responsibility to fix things, if they are so sincere.
The Army [top] leadership [excluding junior officers and innocent disciplined soldiers, who lay down their live for defence of country] has taken a highly defensive position after the repeated debacles, which were not engineered by the politicians but were self-inflicted because of either incompetence or sheer carelessness. The politicians have taken extra sadistic pleasure at the pathetic plight of the security establishment and have rubbed more dirt into its face. It is this attitude, which has forced the Army leadership to talk back, and lecture everybody on how to handle the disasters caused by lapses on their part.
But lapses can be forgiven and prevented with better security management. What cannot be forgiven is the failure of the Army to clean up the mess it has left in the political arena and by refusing to stand by national institutions, which if strengthened could have provided some hope and direction to the country and generated confidence in the systems, both democratic, judicial and civil.
But once he was gone, the Army leadership failed to undo those dirty deals although privately all the top generals would express extreme repulsion at the leadership which grabbed power and deliberately tried to demolish all crucial institutions, including the parliament, the judiciary, the media and the bureaucracy. Was it incompetence or complicity?
An even greater incompetence or complicity was not to back the judiciary against blackmailing by politicians who continued to destroy the economy, implode state-owned enterprises with crunching cronyism, looting billions and whenever challenged by the judges or the media, hurled this card or that card and pushed the complicit Army to back off. They did, ever so willingly. These politicians also easily coerced the executive and almost rendered political parties impotent by keeping critical powers with unelected and/or incompetent party heads. No one raised a finger.
Instead, they allowed corruption by not only looking the other way but strengthened the impression that they were partners in crimes by getting extensions in their tenures and condoning every atrocity that was unleashed by the power-drunk politicians in the name of democracy. What was so undemocratic about creating independent accountability forums or properly investigating white-collar crimes? No one interfered because that would have been politically incorrect.
While this lack of support to institutions and the democratic system strengthened the undeserving and visionless political mafias, security lapses and blunders suddenly brought the Army, navy and the air force under tremendous pressure, thus taking away from them whatever will and potential there was to stop the rapid implosion of the system.
The politicians, who always felt threatened by the Army, got repeated God-given opportunities in shape of Abbottabad, PNS Mehran, Kharotabad, Saleem Shahzad and Clifton episodes to blast the khakis, bringing them almost to their knees, almost to this point when they are publicly pleading their case in long and unnecessary explanations in their defence.
It is a known fact, and the politicians, the civil society, the judiciary, the media and even the Army, admit that repeated martial laws and dictatorships have brought Pakistan to this sorry state. It was then the duty of all of these institutions to help in picking up the pieces and rebuild. If one or more of these institutions resisted this process of improvement, others should have forced them in the larger national interest.
Sadly only the judiciary, parts of the media and portions of civil society joined hands while the major players, led by corrupt politicians continued to resist. They were helped by some apologists who laughed and applauded the fraudulent politics and trickery that was perpetuated on the nation, as if playing tricks and succeeding was a great national service. The Army unfortunately took the side of these corrupt tricksters.
Now when the chips are down and there is tremendous pressure from within the ranks of the Army on its leadership to change course, there is little goodwill left to forgive and forget. The trick brigade is laughing its heart out.
The demand of the corps commanders that the nation should stand by it at this critical time is basically reasonable and should be supported but when the commanders accuse people and parties of ‘perceptual biases’ they are ignoring some bitter realities and condoning their own share in making and perpetuating these perceptions.
What has the Army done after all to undo the wrongs done by General Musharraf against all the political parties and leaders? Was the NRO a deal to undo the wrongs done to PPP or was it a deal by Musharraf to save his own skin by joining the loot brigade? What did General Kayani do to remove fears and concerns of Mian Nawaz Sharif so that he could play his due political role without fear of another military takeover?
The Zardari-led PPP was so tainted and corrupt that it had no legs to stand or assert its will on the Army after it was surreptitiously allowed back into the corridors of powers. That was easily done by the Army leaders but have they accepted the civilian supremacy in reality or is it not just a smokescreen that Army wants to support the system?
Was it not the Army responsibility to clean the dirty mess it had left over the years and when the courageous judiciary took up this cause why did the GHQ drag its feet and not assure the unarmed judges that their moral and legal authority would be upheld by those who have the powers to implement their orders. Why did they allow shameless and mindless politicians to defy the law, mock justice and act like mafias, prolonging the agony of the nation? It was the extreme of the insult of apex court as dozens of its decisions were not implemented by the government.
These and many such questions remain unanswered despite the 1,032-word communique of the corps commanders. Their stance on the Pak-US policy is also a big question mark and reflects a growing schism within their ranks as it is now towing the populist line while for the last many years they have been doing what Washington has been asking. Now when the public mood is changing they have shifted the burden on the civilians to devise a policy, issue orders and they will do whatever they are told. It is almost certain, these orders will not be implemented and if so done, blame of any failures will be easy to pin on civilians.
Still not all has been lost. The security lapses are a professional hazard which every army, intelligence agency and institution has to face and can be forgiven. To gain the trust and the confidence of the people and the nation, the Army has to play its role in building up of critically important institutions like the judiciary, the media, civil society, the parliament and the bureaucracy. It has to be either with the corrupt or against them. If mafias and gangs take over everything, in the name of democracy, what needs to be done?
The answer is strong institutional checks. Anyone who attacks or tries to undermine these institutions should be condemned and declared an outcast, through the existing legal and political systems. If political blackmail in the name of the Sindh or Punjab card is attempted, it should be crushed by all legal and constitutional means. And the army should stand behind these decisions, with force, without being apologetic. Only then it will get back respect of the nation.
In one of my meetings with a top general sometime back, I asked about the Sindh Card and what it meant to the Army. The answer was a dismissive sweep of the hand accompanied with the words: “What Sindh Card? If we act not a soul will move carrying the Sindh Card. We know how big this bluff is”.
But ultimately the general sb. and his team surrendered to the bluff, became the butt of jokes and are now offering apologies seeking our support. Support they will get but where should the 180 million people caught between the bluff and the bluffers go?
Comments:
Well articulated analysis, but why it is forgotten that Gen Keyani, as DGISI was part of the NRO process, probably elevated as Army Chief, later granted extension to keep the DEAL secure? Expecting him to clear all the mess, he has been part for so long is asking for too much.... wishful thinking ....as the saying goes: "If auntie had .... she would been .... "
War of Terror or Error- Great Debate [URDU] دہشت گردی یا غلطی کی جنگ - عظیم بحث [اردو]
An interesting Debate/Discussion [URDU] analyzing the of Pakistan in War of Terror, the weak areas and how best should it be conducted. Iftikhar Ahmad and Hamid Mir conduct the debate with intellectuals form all the main segments of Pak society......
More options to watch same debate:
http://pkpolitics.com/2011/06/10/great-debate-10-june-2011/
http://www.zemtv.com/2011/06/10/great-debate-10th-june-2011/
MORE>>>
More options to watch same debate:
http://pkpolitics.com/2011/06/10/great-debate-10-june-2011/
http://www.zemtv.com/2011/06/10/great-debate-10th-june-2011/
MORE>>>
Methodology of Implementation of Shari'a? By Force, Preaching or Elections. [URDU]..http://t.co/iIdn66t
Don’t be Deceived, Know the Real Enemies of PEACE: http://fb.me/128f56sVg
Big Change on the Cards: Imran Khan: http://t.co/Gx10sWf
The Woes of an Ostrich Republic http://t.co/QRoVhBq
USA Friend or Foe -2: http://t.co/KAVIdp6
USA - A Friend or Foe of Pakistan-1 http://t.co/MzEkrPV
How is India
Analysis-Terrorist Attack at Pakistan
Pakistan must Stand Up for itself: http://t.co/eBvzMEC
Wisdom and Faith http://t.co/OTjaGV5
Destabilization and invasion of Pakistan long planned
WebpageTranslator
Globalists' Pakistan War Plan:
Fredrick Kagan sits within the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). AEI's board of trustees represents a wide variety of corporate-financier interests including those of the notorious Carlyle Group, State Farm, American Express, and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co (also of the CFR). War criminal Dick Cheney also acts as a trustee. Joining Kagan as members of AEI's "research staff" are warmongers Newt Gingrich, John Bolton, Richard Perle, John Yoo, and Paul Wolfowitz.
While the sense of self-importance these degenerates shower upon themselves may seem comical, with titles like "senior fellow" and "resident scholar," the fact that their "policy research" usually becomes corporate subsidized "policy reality" and subsequently the American people's unending nightmare, is enough reason to keep tabs on them. For instance Fredrick Kagan was supposedly the architect behind the US troop surge in Iraq. And while we may kid ourselves that with Obama taking office the agenda of these supposed Neo-Conservatives is sidelined, Paul Wolfowitz' plan to overthrow the nations of the Middle East, now being fully executed with US-funded revolutions, probably couldn't have been done without the veil of "left-cover."
Kagan's report regarding Pakistan's partial occupation and the seizure of its nuclear arsenal is founded on what may first appear to be a reasonable concern; the fear of Pakistan collapsing and its nuclear arsenal falling into the wrong hands. According to Kagan's narrative, Islamic extremists seizing Pakistan's nuclear arsenal pose as much a threat today as "Soviet tanks" once did.
It's not terrorists, it's China
What Kagan leaves out is the very source of this destabilization and America's overall grand strategy in the region. America's continued presence in Afghanistan as well as its increasingly aggressive "creep" over the Afghan-Pakistani border has been justified under the ambiguous and omnipresent threat of "terrorism." In reality, the true goal is to contain the rise of China and other emerging economies using the pretense of "terrorism." Destabilization via foreign-funded ethnic insurgencies, regime change via foreign-funded sedition, and a regional strategy of tension between power brokers in Beijing, New Delhi, and Islamabad have for years attempted to keep in check not just China and Pakistan's rise, but India's as well.
This is not merely speculative conjecture. China itself has recently accused the United States of directly attempting to destabilize their nation as well as using the pretense of "terrorism" as a means to hobble China's growing influence. In an April 2011 Reuters report, it was stated that "a senior domestic security official, Chen Jiping, warned that "hostile Western forces" -- alarmed by the country's rise -- were marshalling human rights issues to attack Party control." Compounding China's accusations are open admissions by the US State Department itself declaring that tens of millions will be spent to help activists circumvent China's security networks in an effort to undermine Beijing. This comes after it has been revealed that the entire "Arab Spring" was US-funded.
The issue of Pakistan in regards to China is not merely a figment of a paranoid Beijing's imagination, it is stated policy circulating throughout America's corporate-funded think-tanks. Selig Harrison of theSoros funded Center for International Policy has published two pieces specifically calling for carving off of Pakistan's Baluchistan province, not as part of a strategy to win the "War on Terror," but as a means to thwart growing relations between Islamabad and Beijing.
In "Free Baluchistan," he explicitly calls to "aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression." He continues by explaining the various merits of such meddling by stating, "Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces."
In a follow up article titled, "The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis," Harrison begins by stating, "China’s expanding reach is a natural and acceptable accompaniment of its growing power—but only up to a point. " He thenrepeats his call for meddling in Pakistan by saying, "to counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an Arabian Sea outlet at Gwadar."
Gwadar in the southwest serves as a Chinese port, the starting
point for a logistical corridor through Pakistan and into Chinese
territory. The plan is to plunge the entire nation into chaos and use
US forces to systematically "help" restore order. (click to enlarge)
The very suggestion of fomenting armed violence simply to derail sovereign relations between two foreign nations is scandalous and reveals the absolute depths of depravity from which the global elite operate from. It is quite clear that the "War on Terror" is but a pretense to pursue a policy of regional hegemony with the expressed goal of containing China. This in turn, is part of a greater strategy covered in the 2006 Strategic Studies Institute report "String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China's Rising Power across the Asian Littoral." Throughout the report China's growing influence and various means to co-opt and contain it are discussed. SSI makes special note to mention engaging with all of China's neighbors in an effort to play them off against Beijing in order to maintain American preeminence throughout Asia.
Destabilizing Pakistan
In addition to the Gwadar port in Pakistan's Baluchistan region, China has also built dams, roads, and even nuclear power plants in the country. China has also supplied Pakistan with a tremendous amount of military technology.The only cards America seems to have left in its hand to counter this growing relationship are threats of destabilization, the subsequent stripping of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, and Pakistan's Balkanization into smaller, ineffectual states.
In a 2009 article by Seymour Hersh titled, "Defending the Arsenal," much attention was given to the immense amount of suspicion and distrust Pakistan views America with. In particular, distrust is garnered over America's obsession with "defending" Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Under the pretense of "helping" Pakistan if ever it fell into chaos, America has been trying to ascertain the location of Pakistan's nuclear weapons as well as the trigger assembles kept separate as a security measure.
While America supposedly "fears" destabilization, concurrently, the effects of their war with the Taliban on the Afghan-Pakistan border has overtly stirred up instability inside Pakistan. At one point, Hersh describes Islamabad's request for predator drones to conduct the attacks themselves, which was denied. They then asked for America to at least pretend to have given the drones to Pakistan and give them Pakistani markings - this was also denied. In fact, it seems almost as if the war against the Taliban, especially the drone campaign, is being used specifically to stir up the Pashtun minority and aim them at Islamabad, just as Harrison had suggested the Baluchistan insurgents be used to carve off Pakistan's southwest coastal region.
This brings us back to Fredrick Kagan's "blueprint," which is summed up in a New York Times piece co-authored with Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon. Their article titled, "Pakistan's Collapse, Our Problem," describes the complete collapse of the Pakistani government, overrun by "extremists." It goes on to describe "Pro-American moderates" within the Pakistani army in need of US forces to help them secure Islamabad and their nuclear arsenal. Several options are given for where the nuclear weapons could be stored safely, all of them involve US oversight. This would give the US an ideal geopolitical scenario that would permanently Balkanize the country along Pashtun, Baluchi, and other ethnic minority lines, and result in a permanent Western presence inside the country.
The article then goes on to say larger military operations to take back Balkanized sections of the country could be undertaken, "If a holding operation in the nation’s center was successful, we would probably then seek to establish order in the parts of Pakistan where extremists operate. Beyond propping up the state, this would benefit American efforts in Afghanistan by depriving terrorists of the sanctuaries they have long enjoyed in Pakistan’s tribal and frontier regions."
It should be noted that co-author Michael O'Hanlon also contributed to the "Which Path to Persia?" report which described how using foreign-funded armed insurgency, foreign-funded popular revolutions, co-opting members of the military, and covert military operations could be used to topple Iran's government. In Iran's case, this plan has already gone operational. In Pakistan's case it seems all but a foregone conclusion that it is at least being attempted.
If Kagan's plan were executed after sufficient instability and justification had been created, China's holdings in Pakistan would be entirely eliminated, with Pakistan itself becoming a permanent extension of the unending US occupation of Afghanistan. This explains China's initial reaction to the "Bin Laden" hoax. Immediately recognizing the unfolding implications, China rushed to Islamabad's defense calling for support from the international community for Islamabad. China also criticized America's intrusion into Pakistan's sovereign territory.
The US raid incensed the Pakistani people, attempted to drive a wedge between the military and the government, as well as gave rhetorical leverage to the US over Islamabad and the Pakistani military. The suggestion by the US that "Bin Laden" had a support network inside Pakistan's military appears to be an initial attempt to usher in some form of Kagan's "nuke-napping" invasion plan. With Beijing openly accusing the US of interfering in its internal affairs and with the "Arab Spring" quickly turning into regional warfare, there is no turning back for the globalists.
The corporate-financier oligarchs and their many helping hands are a degenerate elite who have spent their entire lives sheltered from the consequences of their actions. It has always been the soldiers and the taxpayers who bore the brunt for their delusions of grandeur. To them, war is a cost-benefit analysis, and like their financial pyramid schemes that only get bigger and bigger, so too their gambles with our lives and treasure. It appears that they are quite willing to destabilize Pakistan, a nation with 170 million people, and risk war, a nuclear exchange, and a possible confrontation with China and Russia in the process.http://landdestroyer.blogspot.
Destabilization and invasion long planned
by Tony Cartalucci
Bangkok, May 11, 2011
Bangkok, May 11, 2011
In a 2007 article from the London Guardian titled, "Bush handed blueprint to seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal," it is stated that fears of destabilization inside Pakistan might prompt the United States to occupy Islamabad and the provinces of Punjab, Sindh, and Baluchistan in an attempt to secure Pakistan's nuclear warheads. Behind thisreport is Fredrick Kagan, brother of the equally sloven Robert Kagan of the Foreign Policy Initiative, yet another contrived, corporate fueled warmongering think-tank.
Fredrick Kagan sits within the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). AEI's board of trustees represents a wide variety of corporate-financier interests including those of the notorious Carlyle Group, State Farm, American Express, and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co (also of the CFR). War criminal Dick Cheney also acts as a trustee. Joining Kagan as members of AEI's "research staff" are warmongers Newt Gingrich, John Bolton, Richard Perle, John Yoo, and Paul Wolfowitz.
While the sense of self-importance these degenerates shower upon themselves may seem comical, with titles like "senior fellow" and "resident scholar," the fact that their "policy research" usually becomes corporate subsidized "policy reality" and subsequently the American people's unending nightmare, is enough reason to keep tabs on them. For instance Fredrick Kagan was supposedly the architect behind the US troop surge in Iraq. And while we may kid ourselves that with Obama taking office the agenda of these supposed Neo-Conservatives is sidelined, Paul Wolfowitz' plan to overthrow the nations of the Middle East, now being fully executed with US-funded revolutions, probably couldn't have been done without the veil of "left-cover."
Kagan's report regarding Pakistan's partial occupation and the seizure of its nuclear arsenal is founded on what may first appear to be a reasonable concern; the fear of Pakistan collapsing and its nuclear arsenal falling into the wrong hands. According to Kagan's narrative, Islamic extremists seizing Pakistan's nuclear arsenal pose as much a threat today as "Soviet tanks" once did.
It's not terrorists, it's China
What Kagan leaves out is the very source of this destabilization and America's overall grand strategy in the region. America's continued presence in Afghanistan as well as its increasingly aggressive "creep" over the Afghan-Pakistani border has been justified under the ambiguous and omnipresent threat of "terrorism." In reality, the true goal is to contain the rise of China and other emerging economies using the pretense of "terrorism." Destabilization via foreign-funded ethnic insurgencies, regime change via foreign-funded sedition, and a regional strategy of tension between power brokers in Beijing, New Delhi, and Islamabad have for years attempted to keep in check not just China and Pakistan's rise, but India's as well.
This is not merely speculative conjecture. China itself has recently accused the United States of directly attempting to destabilize their nation as well as using the pretense of "terrorism" as a means to hobble China's growing influence. In an April 2011 Reuters report, it was stated that "a senior domestic security official, Chen Jiping, warned that "hostile Western forces" -- alarmed by the country's rise -- were marshalling human rights issues to attack Party control." Compounding China's accusations are open admissions by the US State Department itself declaring that tens of millions will be spent to help activists circumvent China's security networks in an effort to undermine Beijing. This comes after it has been revealed that the entire "Arab Spring" was US-funded.
The issue of Pakistan in regards to China is not merely a figment of a paranoid Beijing's imagination, it is stated policy circulating throughout America's corporate-funded think-tanks. Selig Harrison of theSoros funded Center for International Policy has published two pieces specifically calling for carving off of Pakistan's Baluchistan province, not as part of a strategy to win the "War on Terror," but as a means to thwart growing relations between Islamabad and Beijing.
In "Free Baluchistan," he explicitly calls to "aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression." He continues by explaining the various merits of such meddling by stating, "Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces."
In a follow up article titled, "The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis," Harrison begins by stating, "China’s expanding reach is a natural and acceptable accompaniment of its growing power—but only up to a point. " He thenrepeats his call for meddling in Pakistan by saying, "to counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an Arabian Sea outlet at Gwadar."
Gwadar in the southwest serves as a Chinese port, the starting point for a logistical corridor through Pakistan and into Chinese
territory. The plan is to plunge the entire nation into chaos and use
US forces to systematically "help" restore order. (click to enlarge)
The very suggestion of fomenting armed violence simply to derail sovereign relations between two foreign nations is scandalous and reveals the absolute depths of depravity from which the global elite operate from. It is quite clear that the "War on Terror" is but a pretense to pursue a policy of regional hegemony with the expressed goal of containing China. This in turn, is part of a greater strategy covered in the 2006 Strategic Studies Institute report "String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China's Rising Power across the Asian Littoral." Throughout the report China's growing influence and various means to co-opt and contain it are discussed. SSI makes special note to mention engaging with all of China's neighbors in an effort to play them off against Beijing in order to maintain American preeminence throughout Asia.
Destabilizing Pakistan
In addition to the Gwadar port in Pakistan's Baluchistan region, China has also built dams, roads, and even nuclear power plants in the country. China has also supplied Pakistan with a tremendous amount of military technology.The only cards America seems to have left in its hand to counter this growing relationship are threats of destabilization, the subsequent stripping of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, and Pakistan's Balkanization into smaller, ineffectual states.
In a 2009 article by Seymour Hersh titled, "Defending the Arsenal," much attention was given to the immense amount of suspicion and distrust Pakistan views America with. In particular, distrust is garnered over America's obsession with "defending" Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Under the pretense of "helping" Pakistan if ever it fell into chaos, America has been trying to ascertain the location of Pakistan's nuclear weapons as well as the trigger assembles kept separate as a security measure.
While America supposedly "fears" destabilization, concurrently, the effects of their war with the Taliban on the Afghan-Pakistan border has overtly stirred up instability inside Pakistan. At one point, Hersh describes Islamabad's request for predator drones to conduct the attacks themselves, which was denied. They then asked for America to at least pretend to have given the drones to Pakistan and give them Pakistani markings - this was also denied. In fact, it seems almost as if the war against the Taliban, especially the drone campaign, is being used specifically to stir up the Pashtun minority and aim them at Islamabad, just as Harrison had suggested the Baluchistan insurgents be used to carve off Pakistan's southwest coastal region.
This brings us back to Fredrick Kagan's "blueprint," which is summed up in a New York Times piece co-authored with Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon. Their article titled, "Pakistan's Collapse, Our Problem," describes the complete collapse of the Pakistani government, overrun by "extremists." It goes on to describe "Pro-American moderates" within the Pakistani army in need of US forces to help them secure Islamabad and their nuclear arsenal. Several options are given for where the nuclear weapons could be stored safely, all of them involve US oversight. This would give the US an ideal geopolitical scenario that would permanently Balkanize the country along Pashtun, Baluchi, and other ethnic minority lines, and result in a permanent Western presence inside the country.
The article then goes on to say larger military operations to take back Balkanized sections of the country could be undertaken, "If a holding operation in the nation’s center was successful, we would probably then seek to establish order in the parts of Pakistan where extremists operate. Beyond propping up the state, this would benefit American efforts in Afghanistan by depriving terrorists of the sanctuaries they have long enjoyed in Pakistan’s tribal and frontier regions."
It should be noted that co-author Michael O'Hanlon also contributed to the "Which Path to Persia?" report which described how using foreign-funded armed insurgency, foreign-funded popular revolutions, co-opting members of the military, and covert military operations could be used to topple Iran's government. In Iran's case, this plan has already gone operational. In Pakistan's case it seems all but a foregone conclusion that it is at least being attempted.
If Kagan's plan were executed after sufficient instability and justification had been created, China's holdings in Pakistan would be entirely eliminated, with Pakistan itself becoming a permanent extension of the unending US occupation of Afghanistan. This explains China's initial reaction to the "Bin Laden" hoax. Immediately recognizing the unfolding implications, China rushed to Islamabad's defense calling for support from the international community for Islamabad. China also criticized America's intrusion into Pakistan's sovereign territory.
The US raid incensed the Pakistani people, attempted to drive a wedge between the military and the government, as well as gave rhetorical leverage to the US over Islamabad and the Pakistani military. The suggestion by the US that "Bin Laden" had a support network inside Pakistan's military appears to be an initial attempt to usher in some form of Kagan's "nuke-napping" invasion plan. With Beijing openly accusing the US of interfering in its internal affairs and with the "Arab Spring" quickly turning into regional warfare, there is no turning back for the globalists.
The corporate-financier oligarchs and their many helping hands are a degenerate elite who have spent their entire lives sheltered from the consequences of their actions. It has always been the soldiers and the taxpayers who bore the brunt for their delusions of grandeur. To them, war is a cost-benefit analysis, and like their financial pyramid schemes that only get bigger and bigger, so too their gambles with our lives and treasure. It appears that they are quite willing to destabilize Pakistan, a nation with 170 million people, and risk war, a nuclear exchange, and a possible confrontation with China and Russia in the process.
Bush handed blueprint to seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal
· Architect of Iraq surge draws up takeover options
· US fears army's Islamists might grab weapons
The Guardian, 1 December 2007
Pakistani paramilitary forces holds an alleged suspect during a crackdown operation against militants near Mingora in northern Pakistan, Friday, November 30, 2007. Photograph: Mohammad Zubair
The man who devised the Bush administration's Iraq troop surge has urged the US to consider sending elite troops to Pakistan to seize its nuclear weapons if the country descends into chaos. In a series of scenarios drawn up for Pakistan, Frederick Kagan, a former West Point military historian, has called for the White House to consider various options for an unstable Pakistan.
These include: sending elite British or US troops to secure nuclear weapons capable of being transported out of the country and take them to a secret storage depot in New Mexico or a "remote redoubt" inside Pakistan; sending US troops to Pakistan's north-western border to fight the Taliban and al-Qaida; and a US military occupation of the capital Islamabad, and the provinces of Punjab, Sindh and Baluchistan if asked for assistance by a fractured Pakistan military, so that the US could shore up President Pervez Musharraf and General Ashfaq Kayani, who became army chief this week.
"These are scenarios and solutions. They are designed to test our preparedness. The United States simply could not stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss," Kagan, who is with the American Enterprise Institute, a thinktank with strong ideological ties to the Bush administration, told the Guardian. "We need to think now about our options in Pakistan,"
Kagan argued that the rise of Sunni extremism in Pakistan, coupled with the proliferation of al-Qaida bases in the north-west, posed a real possibility of terrorists staging a coup that would give them access to a nuclear device. He also noted how sections of Pakistan's military and intelligence establishment continued to be linked to Islamists and warned that the army, demoralised by having to fight in Waziristan and parts of North-West Frontier Province, might retreat from the borders, leaving a vacuum that would be filled by radicals. Worse, the military might split, with a radical faction trying to take over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
Kagan accepted that the Pakistani military was not in the grip of Islamists. "Pakistan's officer corps and ruling elites remain largely moderate. But then again, Americans felt similarly about the shah's regime and look what happened in 1979," he said, referring to Iran. The scenarios received a public airing two weeks ago in an article for the New York Times by Kagan and Michael O'Hanlon, an analyst at the Brookings Institution, who has ties to the Democrats.
They have been criticised in the US as well as Pakistan, with Kagan accused of drawing up plans for another US occupation of a Muslim country. But the scenarios are regarded with some seriousness because of Kagan's influence over thinking in the Bush administration as the architect of the Iraq troop surge, which is conceded to have brought some improvements in security.
A former senior state department official who works as a contractor with the government and is familiar with current planning on Pakistan told the Guardian: "Governments are supposed to think the unthinkable. But these ideas, coming as they do from a man of significant influence in Washington's militarist camp, seem prescriptive and have got tongues wagging - even in a town like Washington, built on hyperbole." Kagan said he was not calling for an occupation of Pakistan.
"I have been arguing the opposite. We cannot invade, only work with the consent of elements of the Pakistan military," he said. "But we do have to calculate how to quantify and then respond to a crisis that is potentially as much a threat as Soviet tanks once were. Pakistan may be the next big test." The political and security crises there have led the Bush administration to conclude that Pakistan has become a more dangerous place than it was before Musharraf took over in the coup of October 1999.
One Pentagon official said last week that the defence department had indeed been war-gaming some of Kagan's scenarios. A report by Kagan and O'Hanlon in April highlighted their argument. "The only serious response to this international environment is to develop armed forces capable of protecting America's vital interests throughout this dangerous time," it said. But in Pakistan, aides to Musharraf yesterday dismissed Kagan's study as "hyperbole".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Open letter to Sharif brothers: While Pakistan Army is busy fighting the terrorists, Shahbaz Sharif & Nawaz Sharif in Punj... -
GOOD governance, human rights and individual freedoms, and rule of law are among the main features of democracy. A democratic state cannot c...
-
The world is in turmoil; mass killing, genocide, ethnic cleansing, occupation of Muslim lands for natural resources, oppression,... -
The press and electronic media are frequently reminding us that the civil and military leaderships are on the ‘same page’ and there exists a...
-
Besieged Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has been assured by military that there will be no coup, but in return he must “share space with the ar... -
There is an urgent need for an earnest dialogue between our political and military leaders. Notwithstanding who emerges as winner in the cu...
-
بے جا تکرار فوج کو ثالث ‘ ضامن یا سہولت کاربنایا جائے۔ فرق کیا ہے؟ فوج کی ذمہ داریاں کسی سے ڈھکی چھپی نہیں۔ بنیادی طور پر یہ ادارہ ملکی سلا...
