imperial eye on pakistan the enemies of peace the hypocrites munaafiqoon dajjal occult powers & the...

8/6/2019 Imperial Eye on Pakistan the Enemies of Peace the Hypocrites Munaafiqoon Dajjal Occult Powers & the CIA Proxy

1/23

Imperial Eye on Pakistan(The Enemies of Peace; the Hypocrites/Munaafiqoon/ Dajjal Occult Powers; & the CIA Proxy War on Terror to imperialize the World Peace)

MIA 1 | P a g e F r i d a y , J u l y 0 1 , 2 0 1 1

Global Research, May 28, 2011

- 2011-05-27

Imperial Eye on Pakistan

Pakistan in Pieces, Part 1

by Andrew Gavin MarshallIntroduction

As the purported assassination of Osama bin Ladenhas placed the focus on Pakistan, it is vital to assessthe changing role of Pakistan in broad geostrategicterms, and in particular, of the changing Americanstrategy toward Pakistan. The recently reportedassassination was a propaganda ploy aimed attargeting Pakistan. To understand this, it isnecessary to examine how America has, in recentyears, altered its strategy in Pakistan in the directionof destabilization. In short, Pakistan is an American

target. The reason: Pakistans growing military andstrategic ties to China, Americas primary globalstrategic rival. In the Great Game for globalhegemony, any country that impedes Americasworld primacy even one as historically significantto America as Pakistan may be sacrificed upon thealtar of war.

Part 1 of Pakistan in Pieces examines the changingviews of the American strategic community particularly the military and intelligence circles towards Pakistan. In particular, there is a generalacknowledgement that Pakistan will very likelycontinue to be destabilized and ultimately collapse.

What is not mentioned in these assessments,however, is the role of the military and intelligencecommunities in making this a reality; a veritableself-fulfilling prophecy. This part also examines theactive on the ground changes in American strategyin Pakistan, with increasing military incursions intothe country.

Imperial Eye on Pakistan

In December of 2000, the CIA released a report ofglobal trends to the year 2015, which stated that by2015, Pakistan will be more fractious, isolated, and

dependent on international financial assistance.[1]Further, it was predicted, Pakistan:

Will not recover easily fromdecades of political andeconomic mismanagement,divisive politics, lawlessness,corruption and ethnic friction.Nascent democratic reformswill produce little change in theface of opposition from anentrenched political elite and

radical Islamic parties. Furtherdomestic decline would benefitIslamic political activists, whomay significantly increase theirrole in national politics and alterthe makeup and cohesion of themilitary once Pakistans most

capable institution. In a climateof continuing domestic turmoil,the central governments controlprobably will be reduced to thePunjabi heartland and theeconomic hub of Karachi.[2]

The report further analyzed the trends developing inrelation to the Pakistan-India standoff in the region:

The threat of major conflictbetween India and Pakistan willovershadow all other regional

issues during the next 15 years.Continued turmoil inAfghanistan and Pakistan willspill over into Kashmir andother areas of the subcontinent,prompting Indian leaders to takemore aggressive preemptive andretaliatory actions. Indiasconventional military advantageover Pakistan will widen as aresult of New Delhis superioreconomic position.[3]

In 2005, the Times of India reported on a USNational Intelligence Council report, written inconjunction with the CIA, which predicted aYugoslavia-like fate for Pakistan, saying that, byyear 2015 Pakistan would be a failed state, ripe withcivil war, bloodshed, inter-provincial rivalries and astruggle for control of its nuclear weapons andcomplete Talibanisation.[4]

In November of 2008, the US National IntelligenceCouncil released a report, Global Trends 2025, inwhich they outlined major trends in the world bythe year 2025. When it came to Pakistan, the reportstated that, Ongoing low-intensity clashes betweenIndia and Pakistan continue to raise the specter thatsuch events could escalate to a broader conflictbetween those nuclear powers.[5] It stated thatPakistan will be at risk of state failure.[6] Inexamining potential failed states, the report statedthat:

[Y]outh bulges, deeply rootedconflicts, and limited economicprospects are likely to keepPalestine, Yemen, Afghanistan,


2/23



Pakistan, and others in the high-risk category. Spillover fromturmoil in these states andpotentially others increases thechance that moves elsewhere inthe region toward greaterprosperity and political stability

will be rocky.[7]

The report referred to Pakistan as a wildcard andstated that if it is unable to hold together until2025, a broader coalescence of Pashtun tribes islikely to emerge and act together to erase theDurand Line [separating Pakistan fromAfghanistan], maximizing Pashtun space at theexpense of Punjabis in Pakistan and Tajiks andothers in Afghanistan.[8]

In January of 2009, a Pentagon report analyzinggeopolitical trends of significance to the US

military over the next 25 years, reported thatPakistan could face a rapid and sudden collapse.It stated that, Some forms of collapse in Pakistanwould carry with it the likelihood of a sustainedviolent and bloody civil and sectarian war, an evenbigger haven for violent extremists, and thequestion of what would happen to its nuclearweapons, and as such, that perfect storm' ofuncertainty alone might require the engagement ofU.S. and coalition forces into a situation ofimmense complexity and danger.[9]

A top adviser to former President George Bush and

current President Obama warned in April of 2009,that Pakistan could collapse within months, andthat, We have to face the fact that if Pakistancollapses it will dwarf anything we have seen so farin whatever we're calling the war on terror now.The adviser and consultant, David Kilcullen,explained that this would be unlike the conflicts inAfghanistan and Iraq, which each had a populationof over 30 million, whereas Pakistan has [187]million people and 100 nuclear weapons, an armywhich is bigger than the American army, and theheadquarters of al-Qaeda sitting in two-thirds of thecountry which the Government does notcontrol.[10]

Target: Pakistan

Going back to the later years of the Bushadministration, it is apparent that the US strategy inPakistan was already changing in seeing itincreasingly as a target for military operations asopposed to simply a conduit. In August of 2007,newly uncovered documents revealed that the USmilitary gave elite units broad authority in 2004,to pursue suspected terrorists into Pakistan, with

no mention of telling the Pakistanis inadvance.[11]

In November of 2007, an op-ed in the New YorkTimes stated categorically that, the United Statessimply could not stand by as a nuclear-armedPakistan descended into the abyss, and that, we

need to think now about our feasible militaryoptions in Pakistan, should it really come to that.The authors, Frederick Kagan and MichaelOHanlon are both well-known strategists andscholars at the American Enterprise Institute andBrookings Institution, two of the most prominentand influential think tanks in the United States.While stating that Pakistans leaders are stillprimarily moderate and friendly to the US,Americans felt similarly about the shahs regime inIran until it was too late, referring to the outbreakof the Iranian Revolution in 1979. They warn:

The most likely possibledangers are these: a completecollapse of Pakistanigovernment rule that allows anextreme Islamist movement tofill the vacuum; a total loss offederal control over outlyingprovinces, which splinter alongethnic and tribal lines; or astruggle within the Pakistanimilitary in which the minoritysympathetic to the Taliban andAl Qaeda try to establish

Pakistan as a state sponsor ofterrorism.[12]

They state that the military solutions are dauntingas Pakistan is a nation of 187 million people,roughly five times the size of Iraq. They wrote that,estimates suggest that a force of more than amillion troops would be required for a country ofthis size, which led them to conclude, Thus, if wehave any hope of success, we would have to actbefore a complete government collapse, and wewould need the cooperation of moderate Pakistaniforces. They suggested one plan would be todeploy Special Forces with the limited goal ofpreventing Pakistans nuclear materials andwarheads from getting into the wrong hand.However, they admit that, even pro-AmericanPakistanis would be unlikely to cooperate. Anotheroption, they contend:

would involve supporting thecore of the Pakistani armedforces as they sought to hold thecountry together in the face ofan ineffective government,


3/23



seceding border regions and AlQaeda and Taliban assassinationattempts against the leadership.This would require a sizablecombat force not only fromthe United States, but ideallyalso other Western powers and

moderate Muslim nations.[13]

The authors concluded, saying that any state declinein Pakistan would likely be gradual, thereforeallowing the US to have time to respond, and placedan emphasis on securing Pakistans nuclear arsenaland combating militants. They finished the articlewith the warning: Pakistan may be the next bigtest.[14]

In December of 2007, the Asia Times Online ran astory about the US plan to rid Pakistan of PresidentMusharraf, and that the US and the West, more

broadly, had begun a strategy aimed at topplingPakistans military. As part of this, the US launcheda media campaign aimed at demonizing Pakistansmilitary establishment. At this time, Benazir Bhuttowas criticizing the ISI, suggesting they needed adramatic restructuring, and at the same time, reportswere appearing in the US media blaming the ISI forfunding and providing assistance to Al-Qaeda andthe Taliban. While much of this is documented, thefact that it suddenly emerged as talking points withseveral western officials and in the media doessuggest a turn-around against a long-time ally.[15]

Both Democratic and Republican politicians weremaking statements that Pakistan represented agreater threat than Iran, and then-Senator (now VicePresident) Joseph Biden suggested that the UnitedStates needed to put soldiers on the ground inPakistan in cooperation with the internationalcommunity. Biden said that, We should be inthere, and we should be supplying tens ofmillions of dollars to build new schools to competewith the madrassas. We should be in there buildingdemocratic institutions. We should be in there, andget the rest of the world in there, giving somestructure to the emergence of, hopefully, thereemergence of a democratic process.[16]

In American policy-strategy circles, officials openlybegan discussing the possibility of Pakistanbreaking up into smaller states, and increasingdiscussion that Musharraf was going to beremoved, which obviously happened. As the AsiaTimes stated:

Another worrying thing is howUS officials are publiclysignaling to the Pakistanis that

Bhutto has their backing as thenext leader of the country. Suchsignals from Washington arenot only a kiss of death for anypublic leader in Pakistan, butthe Americans also know thattheir actions are inviting

potential assassins to targetBhutto.

If she is killed in this way, therewon't be enough time to find thereal culprit, but what's certain isthat unprecedented internationalpressure will be placed onIslamabad while everyone willuse their local assets to createmaximum internal chaos in thecountry.[17]

Of course, this subsequently happened in Pakistan.As the author of the article pointed out withstartlingly accurate foresight, Getting Bhutto killedcan generate the kind of pressure that could result inpermanently putting the Pakistani military on a backfoot, giving Washington enough room to push forinstalling a new pliant leadership in Islamabad. Heobserved that, the US is very serious this time.They cannot let Pakistan get out of their hands.[18]

Thus, it would appear that the new US strategic aimin Pakistan was focused on removing the Pakistanimilitary from power, implying the need to replace

Musharraf, and replace him with a new, compliantcivilian leadership. This would have the effect offracturing the Pakistani elite, threatening theArmys influence within Pakistani politics, andundertaking more direct control of Pakistansgovernment.

As if on cue, in late December it was reported that,US special forces snatch squads are on standby toseize or disable Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in theevent of a collapse of government authority or theoutbreak of civil war following the assassination ofBenazir Bhutto.[19]

The New York Times ran an article in early January2008, which reported that, President Bushs seniornational security advisers are debating whether toexpand the authority of the Central IntelligenceAgency and the military to conduct far moreaggressive covert operations in the tribal areas ofPakistan. The article stated that the new strategywas purportedly in response to increased reports ofAl-Qaeda and Taliban activity within Pakistan,which are intensifying efforts there to destabilizethe Pakistani government. Bushs National


4/23



Security team supposedly organized this effort inresponse to Bhuttos assassination 10 dayspreviously.[20]

Officials involved in the strategy discussions saidthat some options would probably involve theC.I.A. working with the militarys Special

Operations forces, and one official said, Afteryears of focusing on Afghanistan, we think theextremists now see a chance for the big prize creating chaos in Pakistan itself. Of pivotalimportance to the strategy, as the Times reported:Critics said more direct American military actionwould be ineffective, anger the Pakistani Army andincrease support for the militants.[21] Perhaps thisis not simply a side-effect of the proposedstrategy, but in fact, part of the strategy.

As one prominent Pakistani political and militaryanalyst pointed out, raids into Pakistan would

expand anger and prompt a powerful popularbacklash against the Pakistani government, losingpopular support.[22] However, as I previouslystated, this might be the intention, as this wouldultimately make the government more dependentupon the United States, and thus, more subservient.

On September 3, 2008, it was reported that acommando raid by US Special Forces was launchedin Pakistan, which killed between 15 and 20 people,including women and children. The Special Forceswere accompanied by five U.S. helicopters for theduration of the operation.[23]

In February of 2009, it was reported that, Morethan 70 United States military advisers andtechnical specialists are secretly working inPakistan to help its armed forces battle Al Qaedaand the Taliban in the countrys lawless tribalareas. So not only are U.S. Special Forces invadingPakistani territory; but now US military advisers aresecretly advising the Pakistani Army on its ownoperations, and the advisers are themselves primarymade up of Special Forces soldiers. They providethe Pakistani Army with intelligence and advisingon combat tactics, and make up a secret commandrun by US Central Command and SpecialOperations Command (presumably JSOC JointSpecial Operations Command).[24]

In May of 2009, it was reported that, the U.S. issending Special Forces teams into one of Pakistan'smost violent regions as part of a push to acceleratethe training of the Pakistani military and make it amore effective ally in the fight against insurgentsthere. The Special Forces were deploying to twotraining camps in the province of Baluchistan, andwill focus on training Pakistan's Frontier Corps, a

paramilitary force responsible for battling theTaliban and al Qaeda fighters. Further, the projectis a joint effort with the U.K., which helps fundthe training, although it is unclear if British militarypersonnel would take part in the initiative. Britishofficials have been pushing for such an effort forseveral years.[25]

In December of 2009 it was revealed that,American special forces have conducted multipleclandestine raids into Pakistan's tribal areas as partof a secret war in the border region whereWashington is pressing to expand its droneassassination programme, which was revealed by aformer NATO officer. He said these incursions hadoccurred between 2003 and 2008, indicating they goeven further back than US military documentsstipulate. The source further revealed that, thePakistanis were kept entirely in the dark about it. Itwas one of those things we wouldn't confirm

officially with them. Further, as the source noted,British SAS soldiers have been active in theprovince of Bolochistan in 2002 and 2003 andpossibly beyond.[26]

The Balkanization of Pakistan: Blaming the

Pakistanis

Selig S. Harrison is a director of the Asia Programat the Center for International Policy, senior scholarof the Woodrow Wilson International Center forScholars, former senior associate of the CarnegieEndowment for International Peace, and former

journalist and correspondent. His reputation forgiving early warning of foreign policy crises waswell established during his career as a foreigncorrespondent. In his study of foreign reporting,Between Two Worlds, John Hohenberg, formersecretary of the Pulitzer Prize Board, citedHarrisons prediction of the 1965 Indo-Pakistan wareighteen months before it happened. Further,More than a year before the Russians invadedAfghanistan, Harrison warned of this possibility inone of his frequent contributions to the influential

journal Foreign Policy.[27]

On February 1, 2008, Selig Harrison threw hisrenowned predictive abilities on Pakistan in anop-ed for the New York Times in the run-up to thePakistani elections. He started by stating that,Whatever the outcome of the Pakistani elections,now scheduled for Feb. 18, the existing multiethnicPakistani state is not likely to survive for longunless it is radically restructured. Harrison thenwent on to explain that Pakistan would likely breakup along ethnic lines; with the Pashtuns,concentrated in the northwestern tribal areas, theSindhis in the southeast uniting with the Baluch


5/23



tribesmen in the southwest, with the Punjab rumpstate of Pakistan.[28]

The Pashtuns in the north, would join with theirethnic brethren across the Afghan border (some 40million of them combined) to form an independentPashtunistan, and the Sindhis numbering 23

million, would unite with the six million Baluchtribesmen in the southwest to establish a federationalong the Arabian Sea from India to Iran,presumably named Baluchistan; while the rumpstate of Pakistan would remain Punjabi dominatedand in control of the nuclear weapons. SeligHarrison explained that prior to partition from India,which led to the creation of the Pakistani state in1947, Pashtun, Sindhi and Baluch ethnicities hadresist[ed] Punjabi domination for centuries, andsuddenly:

they found themselves subjected

to Punjabi-dominated militaryregimes that have appropriatedmany of the natural resources inthe minority provinces particularly the natural gasdeposits in the Baluch areas and siphoned off much of theIndus Rivers waters as theyflow through the Punjab.

The resulting Punjabi-Pashtunanimosity helps explain why theUnited States is failing to get

effective Pakistani cooperationin fighting terrorists. ThePashtuns living along theAfghan border are happy to givesanctuary from Punjabi forcesto the Taliban, which iscomposed primarily of fellowPashtuns, and to its Qaedafriends.

Pashtun civilian casualtiesresulting from Pakistani andAmerican air strikes on bothsides of the border are breedinga potent underground Pashtunnationalist movement. Its initialobjective is to unite all Pashtunsin Pakistan, now divided amongpolitical jurisdictions, into aunified province. In time,however, its leaders envisagefull nationhood.

... The Baluch people, for theirpart, have been waging

intermittent insurgencies sincetheir forced incorporation intoPakistan in 1947. In the currentwarfare Pakistani forces arewidely reported to be deployingAmerican-supplied aircraft andintelligence equipment that was

intended for use in Afghanborder areas. Their victims areforging military links withSindhi nationalist groups thathave been galvanized intoaction by the death of BenazirBhutto, a Sindhi hero as was herfather, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.[29]

This passage is very revealing of the processes andperceptions surrounding Balkanization anddestabilization. What I mean by this, is thathistorically and presently, imperial powers would

often use ethnic groups against each other in astrategy of divide and conquer, in order to keep thebarbarians from coming together and dominate theregion.

Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in his 1997 book, TheGrand Chessboard, that, Geopolitics has movedfrom the regional to the global dimension, withpreponderance over the entire Eurasian continentserving as the central basis for global primacy.[30]Brzezinski then gave a masterful explanation of theAmerican global strategy, which placed it into afirm imperialistic context:

To put it in a terminology thathearkens back to the morebrutal age of ancient empires,the three grand imperatives ofimperial geostrategy are toprevent collusion and maintainsecurity dependence among thevassals, to keep tributariespliant and protected, and tokeep the barbarians fromcoming together.[31]

While imperial powers manipulate, and historically,even create the ethnic groups within regions andnations, the West portrays conflict in such regionsas being the product of these ethnic or tribalrivalries. This perception of the East (Asia and theMiddle East) as well as Africa is referred to asOrientalism or Eurocentrism: meaning it generallyportrays the East (and/or Africa) as the Other:inherently different and often barbaric. Thisprejudiced perspective is prevalent in Westernacademic, media, and policy circles. Thisperspective serves a major purpose: dehumanizing a


6/23



people in a region that an imperial power seeks todominate, which allows the hegemon to manipulatethe people and divide them against each other,while framing them as backwards and barbaric,which in turn, justifies the Western imperial powerexerting hegemony and control over the region; toprotect the people from themselves.

Historically and presently, Western empires havedivided people against each other, blamed theresulting conflict on the people themselves, and thus

justified their control over both the people, and theregion they occupy. This was the strategy employedin major recent geopolitical conflicts such as thebreakup of Yugoslavia and the Rwandan genocide.In both cases, Western imperial ambitions were metthrough exacerbating ethnic rivalries, providingfinancial, technical, and military aid and training tovarious factions; thus, spreading violent conflict,war, and genocide. In both cases, Western, and

primarily American strategic interests were metthrough an increased presence militarily, pushingout other major imperial and powerful rivals, aswell as increasing Western access to key economicsresources.

This is the lens through which we must view theunfolding situation in Pakistan. However, thesituation in Pakistan presents a far greater potentialfor conflict and devastation than either Yugoslaviaor Rwanda. In short, the potential strategy ofBalkanization and destabilization of Pakistancould dwarf any major global conflict in the past

few decades. Its sheer population of 187 millionpeople, proximity to two major regional wars inIraq and Afghanistan, its strategic location asneighbor to India, China, and Iran with access to theIndian Ocean, and its nuclear arsenal, combine tomake Pakistan the potential trigger for a muchwider regional and possibly global war. Thedestabilization of Pakistan has the potential to bethe greatest geopolitical catastrophe since WorldWar II.

Thus, Selig Harrisons op-ed in the New YorkTimes in which he describes the likely breakup ofPakistan along ethnic lines as a result of ethnicdifferences must be viewed in the wider context ofgeopolitical ambitions. His article lays thefoundation both for the explanation of a potentialbreakup, and thus the justification for Westernintervention in the conflict. His predictivecapacities as a seasoned journalist can bealternatively viewed as pre-emptive imperialpropaganda.

Fracturing Pakistan

The war in Afghanistan is inherently related to thesituation in Pakistan. From the days of the Afghan-Soviet war in the 1980s, arms and money wereflowing through Pakistan to the Mujahideen inAfghanistan. During the civil war that followed,Pakistan armed and financed the Taliban, whicheventually took power. When the U.S. and NATO

initially attacked Afghanistan on October 7, 2001,this was primarily achieved through cooperationwith Pakistan. When the war theatre was re-namedAfPak, the role of Pakistan, however, wasformally altered. While the previous few years hadseen the implementation of a strategy ofdestabilizing Pakistan, once the AfPak wartheatre was established, Pakistan ceased to be asmuch of a conduit or proxy state and became atarget.

In September of 2008, the editor of Indian DefenceReview wrote an article explaining that a stable

Pakistan is not in Indias interests: With Pakistanon the brink of collapse due to massive internal aswell as international contradictions, it is matter oftime before it ceases to exist. He explained thatPakistans collapse would bring multiple benefitsto India, including preventing China from gaining amajor port in the Indian Ocean, which is in themutual interest of the United States. The authorexplained that this would be a severe jolt toChinas expansionist aims, and further, Indiasaccess to Central Asian energy routes will openup.[32]

In August of 2009, Foreign Policy Journalpublished a report of an exclusive interview theyheld with former Pakistani ISI chief LieutenantGeneral Hamid Gul, who was Director General ofthe powerful intelligence services (ISI) between1987 and 1989, at a time in which it was workingclosely with the CIA to fund and arm theMujahideen. Once a close ally of the US, he is nowconsidered extremely controversial and the US evenrecommended the UN to put him on theinternational terrorist list. Gul explained that he feltthat the American people have not been told thetruth about 9/11, and that the 9/11 Commission wasa cover up, pointing out that, They [theAmerican government] havent even proved thecase that 9/11 was done by Osama bin Laden and alQaeda. He said that the real reasons for the war onAfghanistan were that:

the U.S. wanted to reach out tothe Central Asian oilfields andopen the door there, whichwas a requirement of corporateAmerica, because the Talibanhad not complied with their


7/23



desire to allow an oil and gaspipeline to pass throughAfghanistan. UNOCAL is acase in point. They wanted tokeep the Chinese out. Theywanted to give a wider securityshield to the state of Israel, and

they wanted to include thisregion into that shield. Andthats why they were talking atthat time very hotly aboutgreater Middle East. Theywere redrawing the map.[33]

He also stated that part of the reason for going intoAfghanistan was to go for Pakistans nuclearcapability, as the U.S. signed this strategic dealwith India, and this was brokered by Israel. So thereis a nexus now between Washington, Tel Aviv, andNew Delhi. When he was asked about the

Pakistani Taliban, which the Pakistani governmentwas being pressured to fight, and where thefinancing for that group came from; Gul stated:

Yeah, of course they are gettingit from across the Durand line,from Afghanistan. And theMossad is sitting there, RAW issitting there the Indianintelligence agency theyhave the umbrella of the U.S.And now they have createdanother organization which is

called RAMA. It may be newsto you that very soon thisintelligence agency ofcourse, they have decided tokeep it covert but it isResearch and Analysis MilliAfghanistan. Thats the name.The Indians have helped createthis organization, and its job ismainly to destabilizePakistan.[34]

He explained that the Chief of Staff of the AfghanArmy had told him that he had gone to India tooffer the Indians five bases in Afghanistan, three ofwhich are along the Pakistani border. Gul was askeda question as to why, if the West was supporting theTTP (Pakistani Taliban), would a CIA drone havekilled the leader of the TTP. Gul explained thatwhile Pakistan was fighting directly against the TTPleader, Baitullah Mehsud, the Pakistani governmentwould provide the Americans where Mehsud was,three times the Pakistan intelligence tipped offAmerica, but they did not attack him. So why all ofa sudden did they attack?

Because there were some secrettalks going on betweenBaitullah Mehsud and thePakistani militaryestablishment. They wanted toreach a peace agreement, and if

you recall there is a long historyof our tribal areas, whenever atribal militant has reached apeace agreement with thegovernment of Pakistan,Americans have without anyhesitation struck that target.

... there was some kind of a dealwhich was about to be arrived at they may have already cut adeal. I dont know. I dont haveenough information on that. But

this is my hunch, that Baitullahwas killed because now he wastrying to reach an agreementwith the Pakistan army. Andthats why there were no suicideattacks inside Pakistan for thepast six or seven months.[35]

An article in one of Canadas national magazines,Macleans, reported on an interview with a PakistaniISI spy, who claimed that Indias intelligenceservices, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), havetens of thousands of RAW agents in Pakistan.

Many officials inside Pakistan were convinced that,Indias endgame is nothing less than the breakupof Pakistan. And the RAW is no novice in that area.In the 1960s, it was actively involved in supportingseparatists in Bangladesh, at the time East Pakistan.The eventual victory of Bangladeshi nationalism in1971 was in large part credited to the support theRAW gave the secessionists.[36]

Further, there were Indian consulates set up inKandahar, the area of Afghanistan where Canadiantroops are located, and which is strategically locatednext to the Pakistani province of Baluchistan, whichis home to a virulent separatist movement, of whichPakistan claims is being supported by India.Macleans reported on the conclusions by MichelChossudovsky, economics professor at Universityof Ottawa, that, the regions massive gas and oilreserves are of strategic interest to the U.S. andIndia. A gas pipeline slated to be built from Iran toIndia, two countries that already enjoy close ties,would run through Baluchistan. The Baluchseparatist movement, which is also active in Iran,offers an ideal proxy for both the U.S. and India toensure their interests are met.[37]


8/23



Even an Afghan government adviser told the mediathat India was using Afghan territory to destabilizePakistan.[38] In September of 2009, the PakistanDaily reported that captured members and leadersof the Pakistani Taliban have admitted to beingtrained and armed by India through RAW or

RAMA in Afghanistan in order to fight thePakistani Army.[39]

Foreign Policy magazine in February of 2009quoted a former intelligence official as saying, TheIndians are up to their necks in supporting theTaliban against the Pakistani government inAfghanistan and Pakistan, and that, the same anti-Pakistani forces in Afghanistan also shooting atAmerican soldiers are getting support from India.India should close its diplomatic establishments inAfghanistan and get the Christ out of there.[40]

The Council on Foreign Relations published abackgrounder report on RAW, Indias intelligenceagency, founded in 1968 primarily to counterChina's influence, [however] over time it has shiftedits focus to India's other traditional rival, Pakistan.For over three decades both Indian and Pakistaniintelligence agencies have been involved in covertoperations against one another. One of RAWs mainsuccesses was its covert operations in East Pakistan,now known as Bangladesh, which aimed atfomenting independence sentiment and ultimatelyled to the separation of Bangladesh by directlyfunding, arming and training the Pakistani

separatists. Further, as the Council on ForeignRelations noted, From the early days, RAW had asecret liaison relationship with the Mossad, Israel'sexternal intelligence agency.[41]

Since RAW was founded in 1968, it had developedclose ties with the Afghan intelligence agency,KHAD, primarily to do with intelligence sharing onPakistan. In the 1980s, while Pakistan was funding,arming and training the Afghan Mujahideen withthe support of Saudi Arabia and the CIA, India wasfunding two covert groups which orchestratedterrorist attacks inside Pakistan, which included alow-grade but steady campaign of bombings inmajor Pakistani cities, notably Karachi and Lahore.RAW has also had a close relationship with theCIA, as even six years before RAW was created, in1962, the CIA created a covert organization madeup of Tibetan refugees, which aimed to executedeep-penetration terror operations in China. TheCIA subsequently played a part in the creation ofRAW. In the 1980s, while the CIA was workingclosely with the ISI in Pakistan, RAW, while waryof their relationship, continued to getcounterterrorism training from the CIA.[42]

In October of 2009, the New York Times reportedthat the US strategy to vastly expand its aid toPakistan, as well as the footprint of its embassy andprivate security contractors here, are aggravating analready volatile anti-American mood as Washingtonpushes for greater action by the government against

the Taliban. The U.S. gave Pakistan an aid deal of$1.5 billion per year for the next five years, underthe stipulation of Pakistan to cease supportingterrorist groups on its soil and to ensure that themilitary does not interfere with civilian politics.President Zaradari accepted the proposal, makinghim even more unpopular in Pakistan, and furtherangering Pakistans powerful military, which seesthe deal as interfering in the internal affairs of thecountry.[43]

America is thus expanding its embassy and securitypresence within the country, as the Embassy has

publicized plans for a vast new building inIslamabad for about 1,000 people, with security forsome diplomats provided through a Washington-based private contracting company, DynCorp. TheNYT article referred to how relations werebecoming increasingly strained between Pakistanand the US, and tensions were growing within thecountry exponentially, as the American presencewas fueling a sense of occupation among Pakistanipoliticians and security officials, and severalPakistani officials stated that, the United Stateswas now seen as behaving in Pakistan much as itdid in Iraq and Afghanistan. Futher:

In particular, the Pakistanimilitary and the intelligenceagencies are concerned thatDynCorp is being used byWashington to develop aparallel network of security andintelligence personnel withinPakistan, officials andpoliticians close to the armysaid.

The concerns are seriousenough that last month a localcompany hired by DynCorp toprovide Pakistani men to betrained as security guards forAmerican diplomats was raidedby the Islamabad police. Theowner of the company, theInter-Risk Security Company,Capt. Syed Ali Ja Zaidi, waslater arrested.

The action against Inter-Risk,


9/23



apparently intended to cripplethe DynCorp program, wastaken on orders from the seniorlevels of the Pakistanigovernment, said an officialfamiliar with the raid, who wasnot authorized to speak on the

record.

The entire workings ofDynCorp within Pakistan arenow under review by thePakistani government.[44]

As revealed in the Wikileaks diplomatic cables,U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson wrotein September of 2009 that the U.S. strategy ofunilateral strikes inside Pakistan risk destabilizingthe Pakistani state, alienating both the civiliangovernment and military leadership, and provoking

a broader governance crisis in Pakistan withoutfinally achieving the goal.[45]

In an interview with Press TV, Hamid Gul, formerInter-Services Intelligence chief revealed more ofwhat he sees as the US strategy in Pakistan. Heexplained that with the massive expansion of theU.S. Embassy in Pakistan, and alongside that, theincreased security staff, the Chinese are becomingincreasingly concerned with the sovereignty andsecurity of Pakistan. He claimed that the money thatthe US government offered (with heavy conditions)to Pakistan, $1.5 billion every year for five years,

will be spent under the direction of the Americans,and that they are going to set up a largeintelligence network inside Pakistan, andultimately they really want to go for Pakistan'snuclear assets. He further claimed that the Indiansare trying to destabilize Pakistan; however, heexplained, this does not necessarily meandisintegrate, but rather:

they are trying to destabilizePakistan at the moment so thatit feels weak and economicallyhas to go begging on its kneesto Americans and ask for succorand help. And in that processthey will want to expect certainconcessions with regards tonuclear power and also withregards to setting up theirfacilities here in Pakistan.[46]

When he was asked what Americas long-term goalwas in regards to Pakistan, Gul responded that thegoal:

for America is that they want tokeep Pakistan destabilized;perhaps create a way forBaluchistan as a separate stateand then create problems forIran so that this new state willtalk about greater Baluchistan...

So it appears that the long-termobjectives are really to fragmentall these countries to an extentthat they can establish a stripthat would be pro-America, pro-India, pro-Israel. So this seemsto be their long-term objectiveapart from denuclearizingPakistan and blocking Iran'sprogress in the nuclearfield.[47]

In Part 2 of Pakistan in Pieces, I will examine the

specific ways in which the American strategy ofdestabilization is being undertaken in Pakistan,including the waging of a secret war and theexpansion of the Afghan war into Pakistaniterritory. In short, the military and intelligenceprojections for Pakistan over the next several years(discussed in the beginning of Part 1 above) are aself-fulfilling prophecy, as those very same militaryand intelligence agencies that predict a destabilizedPakistan and potential collapse are now undertakingstrategies aimed at achieving those outcomes.

Notes

[1] NIC, Global Trends 2015: A DialogueAbout the Future With Nongovernment Experts.The Central Intelligence Agency: December 2000:page 64http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2015.html[2] Ibid, page 66.[3] Ibid.[4] PTI, Pak will be failed state by 2015: CIA.The Times of India: February 13,2005: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Pak-will-be-failed-state-by-2015-CIA/articleshow/1019516.cms[5] NIC, Global Trends 2025: A TransformedWorld. The National Intelligence Council:November 2008: page xhttp://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html[6] Ibid, page 45.[7] Ibid, page 65.[8] Ibid, page 72.[9] Peter Goodspeed, Mexico, Pakistan face'rapid and sudden' collapse: Pentagon. The NationalPost: January 15,2009:http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/stor


10/23



y.html?id=1181621[10] PAUL MCGEOUGH, Warning thatPakistan is in danger of collapse within months. TheSydney Morning Herald: April 13,2009:http://www.smh.com.au/world/warning-that-pakistan-is-in-danger-of-collapse-within-months-20090412-a40u.html

[11] Scott Lindlaw, AP: U.S. gave troops OK toenter Pakistan. USA Today: August 23,2007: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-08-23-pakistan-engagement_N.htm[12] Frederick Kagan and Michael OHanlon,Pakistans Collapse, Our Problem. November 18,2007: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18kagan.html[13] Ibid.[14] Ibid.[15] Ahmed Quraishi, The plan to topplePakistan's military. Asia Times Online: December6,

2007: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IL06Df03.html[16] Ibid.[17] Ibid.[18] Ibid.[19] Ian Bruce, Special forces on standby overnuclear threat. The Sunday Herald: December 31,2007: http://www.heraldscotland.com/special-forces-on-standby-over-nuclear-threat-1.871766[20] Steven Lee Myers, David E. Sanger andEric Schmitt, U.S. Considers New Covert PushWithin Pakistan. The New York Times: January 6,2008:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/washingt

on/06terror.html[21] Ibid.[22] Ibid.[23] Farhan Bokhari, Sami Yousafzai, andTucker Reals, U.S. Special Forces Strike InPakistan. CBS News: September 3,2008:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/03/terror/main4409288.shtml[24] Eric Schmitt and Jane Perlez, U.S. UnitSecretly in Pakistan Lends Ally Support. The NewYork Times: February 22,2009:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/world/asia/23terror.html[25] YOCHI J. DREAZEN and SIOBHANGORMAN, U.S. Special Forces Sent to TrainPakistanis. The Wall Street Journal: May 16,2009:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124241541672724767.html[26] Declan Walsh, US forces mounted secretPakistan raids in hunt for al-Qaida. The Guardian:December 21,2009:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21

/us-forces-secret-pakistan-raids[27] CIP, SELIG S. HARRISON. Center forInternational

Policy: http://www.ciponline.org/asia/Seligbio.html[28] Selig S. Harriosn, Drawn and Quartered.The New York Times: February 1,2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/opinion/01harrison.html[29] Ibid.[30] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand

Chessboard: American Primacy and its GeostrategicImperatives. (New York: Perseus, 1997), page 39[31] Ibid, page 40.[32] Bharat Verma, Stable Pakistan not inIndias interest. Indian Defence Review: September11,2008:http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2008/09

/stable-pakistan-not-in-indias-interest.html[33] Jeremy R. Hammond, Ex-ISI Chief SaysPurpose of New Afghan Intelligence AgencyRAMA Is to destabilize Pakistan. Foreign PolicyJournal: August 12,2009: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/0

8/12/ex-isi-chief-says-purpose-of-new-afghan-intelligence-agency-rama-is-%E2%80%98to-destabilize-pakistan%E2%80%99/[34] Ibid.[35] Ibid.[36] Adnan R. Khan, New Delhis endgame?Macleans: August 23,2009: http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/23/new-delhi%E2%80%99s-endgame/[37] Ibid. See also Michel Chossudovsky, TheDestabilization of Pakistan, Global Research,December 30, 2007[38] Imtiaz Indher, Afgan MPs call for early

withdrawal of foreign troop. Associated Press ofPakistan: April 1,2009: http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72423&Itemid=2[39] Moin Ansari, Proof: Captured TTP terroristsadmit to being Indian RAW agents. Pakistan Daily:September 20, 2009: http://www.daily.pk/proof-captured-ttp-terrorists-admit-to-being-indian-raw-agents-11015/[40] Laura Rozen, Can the intel communitydefuse India-Pakistan tensions? Foreign Policy:February 16, 2009:http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/16

/can_the_intel_community_defuse_india_pakistan_tensions[41] Jayshree Bajoria, RAW: India's ExternalIntelligence Agency. The Council on ForeignRelations: November 7,2008: http://www.cfr.org/publication/17707/[42] Ibid.[43] Jane Perlez, U.S. Push to Expand inPakistan Meets Resistance. The New York Times:October 5,2009:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/world/asia/06islamabad.html


11/23



[44] Ibid.[45] US embassy cables, Reviewing ourAfghanistan-Pakistan strategy, The Guardian, 30November2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/226531[46] US military bases 'will destabilize Pakistan'.

Press TV: September 13,2009: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=106106&sectionid=3510302[47] Ibid.

Andrew Gavin Marshall is a frequent contributor to

Global Research. Global Research Articles byAndrew Gavin Marshall

The AfPak War Theatre: Establishing the New

Strategy

As Senator Obama became the President-electObama, his foreign policy strategy on Afghanistanwas already being formed. In 2007, Obama took onveteran geostrategist and Jimmy Carters formerNational Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski asone of his top foreign policy advisers,[1] and heremained his foreign policy adviser throughout2008.[2] On Obamas campaign, he announced thatas President, he would scale down the war in Iraq,and focus the War on Terror on Afghanistan,promising to send in about 10,000 more troops andto strike next-door Pakistan, if top terrorists arespotted there.[3]

In October of 2008, before the Presidential elections,senior Bush administration officials gathered insecret with Afghanistan experts from NATO and theUnited Nations, to deliver a message to advisers ofMcCain and Obama to tell them that, the situation inAfghanistan is getting worse, and that the nextpresident needed to have a plan for Afghanistanbefore he took office, or else, it could be toolate.[4] Both McCain and Obama had agreed to atroop increase for Afghanistan, essentially ensuringthe continuity of empire from one administration to

the next.

A week after winning the election, Obama invitedone of Hillary Clintons top supporters and advisersto meet with him. Richard Holbrooke, who hadworked in every Democratic administration sinceJohn F. Kennedy, which extended from the VietnamWar, in the sixties, to the Balkan conflicts of thenineties, was Clintons Ambassador to the UnitedNations for the last year and a half of the Clintonadministration. Obama had decided that Holbrookeshould take on the hardest foreign-policy problem

that the Administration faced: Afghanistan andPakistan. Holbrooke wrote in March of 2008, beforeObama won the Presidency, that, The conflict inAfghanistan will be far more costly and much, muchlonger than Americans realize, and it willeventually become the longest in Americanhistory.[5]

The position Holbrooke was to receive in the Obamaadministration was one created specifically for him.He was to become a special representative to theregion of Afghanistan and Pakistan:

[I]n addition to being an emissaryto the region, Holbrooke wouldrun operations on the civilian sideof American policy. He wouldcreate a rump regional bureauwithin the State Department,carved out of the Bureau of South

and Central Asia, whoseAfghanistan and Pakistan deskswould report directly to him. Hewould assemble outside expertsand officials from variousgovernment agencies to work forhim, and he would report to thePresident through HillaryClinton. Clinton told Holbrookethat he would be the civiliancounterpart to General DavidPetraeus, the military head ofCentral Command.[6]

Holbrooke was thus placed in charge of Af-Pak, aterm of his own creation, to make the point that thetwo countries could not be dealt with separately,which was then adopted into official parlance.[7]

In November of 2008, the Washington Post reportedthat while Obama was considering giving the positionof Secretary of State (which he then did), he was alsodiscussing giving General James L. Jones theposition of National Security Adviser, which hesubsequently did. The article stated that, Obama isconsidering expanding the scope of the job to givethe adviser the kind of authority once wielded by

powerful figures such as Henry A. Kissinger. JamesJones was a former NATO commander and MarineCorps commandant.[8]

Jones as NATO commander was pivotal inassembling troops for the war in Afghanistan, and atthe time of his nomination as NSA (National SecurityAdviser), he headed the U.S. Chamber ofCommerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy.[9]The official statement of purpose for the Institute for21st Century Energy is:


12/23



to unify energy policymakers,regulators, business leaders, andthe American public behind acommon sense strategy thatensures affordable, reliable, anddiverse energy supplies, improvesenvironmental stewardship,

promotes economic growth, andstrengthens national security.[10]

Jones earned $900,000 in salary from the Chamber ofCommerce, and got $330,000 from serving on theboard of Boeing and $290,000 for serving on theboard of Chevron upon his resignations of thosepositions to become National Security Adviser.[11]In October of 2010, Jones was replaced as NationalSecurity Advisor by Tom Donilon.

On February 8, 2009, within weeks of being installedas NSA, Jones gave a speech at the 45th Munich

Conference on Security Policy, in which he stated:

As the most recent NationalSecurity Advisor of the UnitedStates, I take my daily ordersfrom Dr. [Henry] Kissinger,filtered down through GeneraalBrent Scowcroft and SandyBerger, who is also here. Wehave a chain of command in theNational Security Council thatexists today.[12]

He then elaborated on the purpose and restructuringof the National Security Council under the Obamaadministration. He stated that the NSC must bestrategic in that, we wont effectively advance thepriorities if we spend our time reacting to events,instead of shaping them. And that requires strategicthinking. He further stated that:

the NSC today works veryclosely with President ObamasNational Economic Council,which is led by Mr. LarrySummers, so that our response tothe economic crisis is coordinated

with our global partners and ournational security needs.[13]

Shortly after taking office, Obama set up a two-month White House strategic review of Afghanistanand Pakistan, to be headed by Bruce Riedel, a formerCIA official and scholar at the Brookings Institution,and Riedel will report to Obama and to retiredMarine Gen. James L. Jones Jr., the national securityadvisor, and was to work very closely with RichardHolbrooke in drafting the policy review.[14]

In February of 2009, Henry Kissinger wrote an articlefor the Washington Post describing the strategyAmerica should undertake in Afghanistan andPakistan, emphasizing the role of security over theaim of reform of the Afghan government, statingthat, Reform will require decades; it should occur asa result of, and even side by side with, the attainment

of security -- but it cannot be the precondition for it.Militarily, Kissinger recommended the control ofKabul and the Pashtun area, which stretches fromAfghanistan to the North-West Frontier Province andBalochistan province in Pakistan. When it came tothe issue of Pakistan, Kissinger wrote:

The conduct of Pakistan will becrucial. Pakistan's leaders mustface the fact that continuedtoleration of the sanctuaries -- orcontinued impotence with respectto them -- will draw their country

ever deeper into an internationalmaelstrom.[15]

Following the policy review, on March 27, Obamaannounced the administrations new strategy forAfghanistan and Pakistan, decidedly to make it a dualstrategy: the AfPak strategy. Obama promised tosend lawyers and agricultural experts to Afghanistanto reform its government and economy, and to offerseven and a half billion dollars in new aid forschools, roads, and democracy in Pakistan.[16]

Holbrooke had a staff of 30 in the State Department,and nine government agencies, including the C.I.A.,the F.B.I., the Defense and Treasury Departments,and two foreign countries, Britain and Canada, [were]represented in the office. General David Patraeus,then Commander of U.S. CENTCOM (thePentagons Central Command with authority over theMiddle East, Egypt and Central Asia), along withthen-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral MikeMullen, and Richard Holbrooke worked together andpressured General Ashfaq Kayani, the head of thePakistani Army, to push back against the Taliban inSwat, which had the effect of precipitating theinternal displacement of more than 2 millionpeople.[17]

Changing Strategy, Changing Command

In January of 2009, shortly after Obama took office,he announced that his administration picked Lt.Gen. Karl W. Eikenberry, a former top militarycommander in Afghanistan, to be the next UnitedStates ambassador to Kabul, of which the New YorkTimes said:

Tapping a career Army officerwho will soon retire from the


13/23



service to fill one of the countrysmost sensitive diplomatic jobs isa highly unusual choice.[18]

Further, the General had repeatedly warned that theUnited States could not prevail in Afghanistan anddefeat global terrorism without addressing the havens

that fighters with Al Qaeda had established inneighboring Pakistan, which is parallel to the newstrategy in Afghanistan. His appointment has thebacking of Richard C. Holbrooke, President Obamasspecial envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.[19]

On May 11, Defense Secretary Robert Gates firedGeneral David D. McKiernan, Commander of theInternational Security Assistance Force (ISAF),which commands all NATO forces in Afghanistan.Gates stated that, It's time for new leadership andfresh eyes, and that it was the Pentagon commandwhich recommended the White House fire

McKiernan, including Gates, the Chairman of theJoint Chiefs Mullen and McKiernans military boss,General Patraeus, Commander of CENTCOM.[20]

There has been much speculation as to the reasons forhis firing, and it is a significant question to ask, as thefiring of a General in the field is a rarity in theAmerican experience. The general view pushed bythe Pentagon was that it was due to a matter ofconsistency, as in changing strategies and changingambassadors, it was also necessary to changeGenerals. While McKiernan was focused on militarymeans and tactics, the strategy required counter-insurgency tactics. It was reported that, McKiernanwas overly cautious in creating U.S.-backed localmilitias, a tactic that Petraeus had employed when hewas the top commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.[21]

One Washington Post article made the claim that thepush to fire McKiernan came initially and mostforcefully from the Chairman of the JCS Mullen, andthat Gates agreed and lobbied Obama to fire him. Thereasoning was that McKiernan was too deferential toNATO in that he wasnt able to properly manage theNATO forces in Afghanistan, and lacked the politicalfortitude to manage both military and politicalaffairs.[22]

The official reason for the firing was mostly tofacilitate alignment with the new strategy requiring anew military commander, which is likely true.However, it requires an understanding of the newstrategy as well as a look at who was sent in toreplace McKiernan where you realize the true natureof his being fired. [Note: McChrystal himself waslater fired in 2010 after publicly speaking out againsttop administration officials].

McKiernan was replaced with Lt. Gen. Stanley A.

McChrystal, former Commander of the PentagonsJoint Special Operations Command (JSOC), thehighly secretive command of U.S. Special Forcesoperations. As the Washington Post pointed out, hisappointment marks the continued ascendancy ofofficers who have pressed for the use ofcounterinsurgency tactics, in Iraq and Afghanistan,

that are markedly different from the Army'straditional doctrine.[23]

The new AfPak strategy, which McChrystal wouldoversee, relies on the kind of special forces andcounterinsurgency tactics McChrystal knows well, aswell as nonmilitary approaches to confronting theTaliban. It would hinge success in the seven-year-oldwar to political and other conditions across the borderin Pakistan.[24]

In March of 2009, investigative journalist SeymourHersh revealed that the U.S. military was running an

executive assassination ring during the Bush years,and that the Joint Special Operations Command(JSOC) was running it, and that, It is a special wingof our special operations community that is set upindependently, and that, They do not report toanybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, theyreported directly to the Cheney office... Congress hasno oversight of it. He elaborated:

Under President Bushs authority,theyve been going into countries,not talking to the ambassador orthe CIA station chief, and findingpeople on a list and executingthem and leaving. Thats beengoing on, in the name of all ofus.[25]

Hersh appeared on Amy Goodmans program,Democracy Now, to further discuss the program, ofwhich he stated:

Theres moreat least a dozencountries and perhaps more. ThePresident has authorized thesekinds of actions in the MiddleEast and also in Latin America, I

will tell you, Central America,some countries. Theyve beenour boys have been told they cango and take the kind of executiveaction they need, and thatssimplytheres no legal basis forit.[26]

At the time this news story broke, it was reported thatthe JSOC commander at the time, ordered a halt tomost commando missions in Afghanistan, reflecting agrowing concern that civilian deaths caused by


14/23



American firepower are jeopardizing broader goalsthere. The halt lasted a total of two weeks, andcame after a series of nighttime raids by SpecialOperations troops in recent months killed women andchildren.[27]

All of this is very concerning, considering that the

new Commander of NATO operations inAfghanistan, was the former head of the executiveassassination ring. Having run JSOC between 2003and 2008, McChrystal built a sophisticated networkof soldiers and intelligence operatives, whichconducted operations and assassinations in Iraq,Afghanistan, as well as Pakistan.[28]

In June it was reported that McChrystal was givencarte blanche to handpick a dream team ofsubordinates, including many Special Operationsveterans, as he moves to carry out an ambitious newstrategy. He was reported to be assembling a corps

of 400 officers and soldiers who will rotate betweenthe United States and Afghanistan for a minimum ofthree years. The New York Times referred to thisstrategy as unknown in the military today outsideSpecial Operations. The Times further reported thatMcChrystal:

picked the senior intelligenceadviser to the Joint Chiefs ofStaff, Maj. Gen. Michael T.Flynn, to join him in Kabul asdirector of intelligence there. InWashington, Brig. Gen. ScottMiller, a longtime SpecialOperations officer now assignedto the Joint Chiefs of Staff butwho had served previously underGeneral McChrystal, is noworganizing a new Pakistan-Afghanistan CoordinationCell.[29]

In June of 2006, Newsweek referred to McChrystalsJSOC as being a part of what Vice President DickCheney was referring to when he said America wouldhave to work the dark side after 9/11. McChrystalalso happened to be a Fellow at Harvard and the

Council on Foreign Relations.[30]

As it was later revealed, the CIA had been running from 2002 onwards a force of roughly 3,000 eliteparamilitary Afghans, purportedly to hunt al-Qaedaand the Taliban for the CIA. Used forreconnaissance, surveillance, and actual operations,many in the force have been trained by the CIA in theUnited States, and their operations and numbers haveexpanded since the new strategy involving Pakistanwas put in place. The paramilitary force orterrorists, depending upon ones perspective are

undertaking covert operations inside Pakistan, oftenworking directly with U.S. Special Forces.[31] Itmust be remembered that during the Afghan-Sovietwar in the 1980s when the CIA was funding, armingand training the Afghan Mujahideen to fight theSoviets late to become known as al-Qaeda theywere, at the time, referred to as freedom fighters,

just as the terrorist death squads were referred to inNicaragua. Thus, the nomenclature of paramilitaryforce must be viewed with suspicion as to what thegroup is actually doing: covert operations,surveillance, assassinations, etc., which by manydefinitions would make them a terrorist outfit.

In May of 2009, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs ofStaff was reported as saying that a US militaryoffensive in southern Afghanistan could have theeffect of pushing militants and Taliban into Pakistan,whose troops are already struggling to combatmilitants. Chairman Mike Mullen stated that this

means that Pakistan could face even greater turmoilin the months ahead. This was based off of a USsurge of troops in Afghanistan. Senator RussFeingold said that, We may end up furtherdestabilizing Pakistan without providing substantiallasting improvements in Afghanistan, and that,Weak civilian governments, an increased number ofmilitants and an expanded U.S. troop presence couldbe a recipe for disaster for those nations in the regionas well as our own nation's security. Mullenresponded to the Senators concerns by stating, CanI... (be) 100 percent certain that won't destabilizePakistan? I don't know the answer to that.[32]

But of course, the answer is in fact, certain; and itsan unequivocal yes. These remarks were madefollowing the surge of an additional 21,000 US troopsto Afghanistan in March. In the beginning of May,Pakistan launched a military offensive against theTaliban in Swat and other areas of the North WestFrontier Province (NWFP), after a peace deal brokedown between them, forcing more than two millionpeople from their homes.[33] It was further reportedthat:

Pakistani military chief Gen.Ashfaq Kayani has told U.S.

officials he's worried not onlyabout Taliban moving across theborder, but also the possibilitythat U.S. forces could prompt anexodus of refugees from southernAfghanistan.[34]

In May, Holbrooke and the American militaryestablishment had pressured the Pakistanigovernment to undertake the offensive against theTaliban in the Swat Valley, which led to thedisplacement of more than 2 million people. As the


15/23



New Yorker put it, Holbrooke was mapping out anew vision for American interests in a volatile region,as his old friend Henry Kissinger had done inSoutheast Asia. And he was positioning himself to bea mediator in an international conflict, as he had donein the Balkans.[35]

In September of 2009 a classified report written byGeneral McChrystal was leaked, in which he hadconcluded, that a successful counterinsurgencystrategy will require 500,000 troops over fiveyears.[36] It was further reported in September that,the CIA is deploying teams of spies, analysts andparamilitary operatives to Afghanistan, part of abroad intelligence surge that will make its stationthere among the largest in the agency's history,rivaling its stations in Iraq and Vietnam at the heightof those wars. The initiative began under pressurefrom Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, and theextra personnel are being employed in a number of

ways, including teaming up with Special Forcestroops in pursuing high-value targets. Further:

The intelligence expansion goesbeyond the CIA to involve everymajor spy service, officials said,including the National SecurityAgency, which intercepts callsand e-mails, as well as theDefense Intelligence Agency,which tracks military threats.[37]

In October of 2009, it was reported by theWashington Post that although Obama announced atroop surge in Afghanistan of 21,000 additionaltroops, in an unannounced move, the White Househas also authorized -- and the Pentagon is deploying -- at least 13,000 troops beyond that number. It wasreported that these additional forces were primarilymade up of support forces, including engineers,medical personnel, intelligence experts and militarypolice. Thus, it brings the total 2009 surge inAfghanistan to 34,000 US troops. Thus as of October2009, there were 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan(more than double the amount of when Bush leftoffice), and 124,000 US troops in Iraq.[38]

In early October, Henry Kissinger wrote an article forNewsweek in which he proposed a strategy for theUS in Afghanistan, in which he initially made it clearthat he supported General McChrystals proposal ofsending an additional 40,000 troops to Afghanistan.Kissinger proclaimed that calls for an exit strategywere a metaphor for withdrawal, which istantamount to abandonment. Clearly, Kissingerfavours a long-term presence. He stated that even avictory may not permit troop withdrawals, citingthe case of South Korea. Kissinger further wrote onthe options for Afghan strategy, stating:

A negotiation with the [Taliban]might isolate Al Qaeda and leadto its defeat, in return for notchallenging the Taliban in thegovernance of Afghanistan. Afterall, it was the Taliban which

provided bases for Al Qaeda inthe first place.

This theory seems to me to be tooclever by half. Al Qaeda and theTaliban are unlikely to be able tobe separated so neatlygeographically. It would alsoimply the partition ofAfghanistan along functionallines, for it is highly improbablethat the civic actions on whichour policies are based could be

carried out in areas controlled bythe Taliban. Even so-calledrealistslike mewould gag ata tacit U.S. cooperation with theTaliban in the governance ofAfghanistan.[39]

Kissinger further claimed that a reduction of forces inAfghanistan would fundamentally affect domesticstability in Pakistan by freeing the Qaeda forcesalong the Afghan border for even deeper incursionsinto Pakistan, threatening domestic chaos, and that,the prospects of world order will be greatly affectedby whether our strategy comes to be perceived as aretreat from the region, or a more effective way tosustain it.[40]

He further explained that any attempts to endow thecentral government with overriding authority couldproduce resistance, which would be ironic if, byfollowing the received counterinsurgency playbooktoo literally, we produced another motive for civilwar. Kissinger thus proposed a strategy not aimed atcontrol from Kabul, but rather, emphasis needs tobe given to regional efforts and regional militia.Kissinger explained the regional importance ofAfghanistan, and thus, the challenge of American

strategy:

The special aspect of Afghanistanis that it has powerful neighborsor near neighborsPakistan,India, China, Russia, Iran. Each isthreatened in one way or anotherand, in many respects, more thanwe are by the emergence of abase for international terrorism:Pakistan by Al Qaeda; India bygeneral jihadism and specific


16/23



terror groups; China byfundamentalist Shiite jihadists inXinjiang; Russia by unrest in theMuslim south; even Iran by thefundamentalist Sunni Taliban.Each has substantial capacitiesfor defending its interests. Each

has chosen, so far, to stand moreor less aloof.[41]

In November of 2009, Malalai Joya, a former AfghanMP and one of the few female political leaders inAfghanistan, said that:

Eight years ago, the U.S. andNATOunder the banner ofwomen's rights, human rights,and democracyoccupied mycountry and pushed us from thefrying pan into the fire . . . Eight

years is enough to know betterabout the corrupt, mafia systemof [President] Hamid Karzai . . .My people are crushed betweentwo powerful enemies . . . Fromthe sky, occupation forces bomband kill civilians... and on theground, the Taliban and warlordscontinue their crimes . . . It isbetter that they leave my country;my people are that fed up . . .Occupation will never bringliberation, and it is impossible tobring democracy by war.[42]

In late November, Pakistani Premier Yousuf RazaGilani warned that the US's decision to sendthousands of extra troops to Afghanistan maydestabilize his country, as it would likely lead to aspill over of militants inside Pakistan. In particular,it could force militants and Taliban to migrate intoPakistans southern province of Balochistan.[43]

On December 1, President Obama announced that theU.S. would send an additional 30,000 US troops toAfghanistan by summer 2010, and with a plan topurportedly withdraw by July 2011. As the

Washington Post reported, adding 30,000 U.S.troops to the roughly 70,000 that are in Afghanistannow amounts to most of what Gen. Stanley A.McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATOforces there, requested at the end of August. Obamastated that the chief objective was to destroy al-Qaeda, and a senior administration official said that,the goal for the Afghan army, for example, is toincrease its ranks from 90,000 to 134,000 by the endof 2010.[44]

President Karzai said in early December that,

Afghanistan's security forces will need U.S. supportfor another 15 to 20 years, and that, it would takefive years for his forces to assume responsibility forsecurity throughout the country.[45] This statementsupports the conclusions set out in McChrystalsclassified report, which stated that the US would needto remain for at least 5 years.

Seth Jones, a civilian adviser to the U.S. military andsenior political scientist at RAND Corporation, oneof Americas top defense think tanks, wrote an op-edfor the New York Times in December titled, Takethe War to Pakistan. He stated that the U.S. isrepeating the same mistakes of the Soviets when theyoccupied Afghanistan in the 1980s by not attackingthe Taliban sanctuary in Pakistans Baluchistanprovince. He stated that, This sanctuary is criticalbecause the Afghan war is organized and run out ofBaluchistan. He then proclaimed that, the UnitedStates and Pakistan must target Taliban leaders in

Baluchistan, which could include conducting raidsinto Pakistani territory or hit Taliban leaders withdrone strikes.[46]

As Jeremy Scahill reported in June 2009, more than240,000 contractor employees, about 80 percent ofthem foreign nationals, are working in Iraq andAfghanistan to support operations and projects of theU.S. military, the Department of State, and the U.S.Agency for International Development. Scahillreported on the findings of a Defense Departmentreport on contracting work in the war zones, statingthat, there has been a 23% increase in the number ofPrivate Security Contractors working for theDepartment of Defense in Iraq in the second quarterof 2009 and a 29% increase in Afghanistan, whichcorrelates to the build up of forces in the country.While contractors outnumbered forces inAfghanistan, in Iraq they were roughly equal to theUS forces occupying the country, at 130,000.[47]

It was reported that as Obama ordered more troops toAfghanistan in December of 2009, a new surge ofcontractors would follow suit. As of June 2009, thenumber of contractors in Afghanistan outweighed theUS military presence itself, with 73,968 contractorsand 55,107 troops. According to different estimates,

Between 7% and 16% of the total are Blackwater-style private security contractors. As of December2009, the number of contractors in Afghanistan wasreported to be 104,100.[48]

In January of 2010, as Obamas announced 30,000extra troops began to be deployed to Afghanistan,Pakistani officials became increasingly fearful that astepped-up war just over the border could worsen theincreasingly bloody struggle with militancy withinPakistan itself, ultimately further destabilizingPakistans southwestern border and the already


17/23



volatile tribal areas in the northwest. On top ofsending militants into Pakistan, there were fears thatit would exacerbate the flow of Afghan refugees intoPakistani territory.[49]

Blackwater and the Secret War in Pakistan

In November of 2009, investigative journalist andbest-selling author Jeremy Scahill wrote an exclusivereport on the secret war of the United States inPakistan. The story sheds light on the Americanstrategy in the region aimed at the destabilization andultimately the implosion of Pakistan. The chiefarchitects and administrators of this policy inPakistan are none other than the Joint SpecialOperations Command (JSOC), previously run as anexecutive assassination ring by GeneralMcChrystal, and the infamous mercenaryorganization, Blackwater, now known as XeServices. JSOC and Blackwater work together

covertly in undertaking a covert war in yet anothernation in the region, adding to the list of Afghanistanand Iraq.

Scahill described the covert operations as targetedassassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaedaoperatives, as well as other sensitive action insideand outside Pakistan. Further, the Blackwateroperatives also assist in gathering intelligence andhelp direct a secret US military drone bombingcampaign that runs parallel to the well-documentedCIA predator strikes. The sources for the report aredrawn heavily from individuals within the USmilitary intelligence apparatus. One source revealedthat the program is so compartmentalized thatsenior figures within the Obama administration andthe US military chain of command may not be awareof its existence. This program is also separate fromthe CIAs own programs, including both droneattacks and assassinations, of which the CIAassassination program was said to be cancelled inJune of 2009.

It was in 2006 that JSOC reached an agreement withthe Pakistani government to run operations within thecountry, back when Stanley McChrystal was runningit in close cooperation with Vice President Dick

Cheney as an executive assassination ring. Aformer Blackwater executive confirmed thatBlackwater was operating in Pakistan in cooperationwith both the CIA and JSOC, as well as being on asubcontract for the Pakistani government itself, aswell as working for the Pakistani government on asubcontract with an Islamabad-based security firmthat puts US Blackwater operatives on the groundwith Pakistani forces in counter-terrorism operations,including house raids and border interdictions, in theNorth-West Frontier Province and elsewhere inPakistan.

JSOCs covert program in liaison with Blackwater inPakistan dates back to 2007, and the operations arecoordinated out of the US Bagram Air Base inAfghanistan, and that Blackwater operates at anultra-exclusive level above top secret. The contractsare all kept secret, and therefore shielded from

public oversight. On top of carrying out operationsfor JSOC and the CIA inside Pakistan, Blackwaterfurther conducts operations in Uzbekistan.

In regards to the drone strikes within Pakistan, whilelargely reported as being a part of the CIA droneprogram, many are, in fact, undertaken under a covertparallel JSOC program. One intelligence source toldJeremy Scahill that, when you see some of thesehits, especially the ones with high civilian casualties,those are almost always JSOC strikes. Further,Blackwater is involved in the drone strike programwith JSOC, Contractors and especially JSOC

personnel working under a classified mandate are not[overseen by Congress], so they just don't care. Ifthere's one person they're going after and there'sthirty-four people in the building, thirty-five peopleare going to die. That's the mentality. Blackwaterfurther provides security for many secret US dronebases, as well as JSOC camps and DefenseIntelligence Agency (DIA) camps within Pakistan.

With General McChrystals rise from JSOCCommander to Commander of the Afghan wartheatre (which in military-strategic terms nowincludes Pakistan under the umbrella of AfPak),there is a concomitant rise in JSOC's power andinfluence within the military structure. McChrystalhad overseen JSOC during the majority of the Bushyears, where he worked very closely and directlywith Vice President Cheney and Secretary of DefenseDonald Rumsfeld. As Seymour Hersh had exposed,JSOC operated as an executive assassination ringand had caused many problematic diplomaticsituations for the United States, as even the StateDepartment wasnt informed about their operations.One high-level State Department official was quotedas saying:

The only way we found out about

it is our ambassadors started tocall us and say, 'Who the hell arethese six-foot-four white maleswith eighteen-inch bicepswalking around our capitalcities?' So we discovered this, wediscovered one in South America,for example, because he actuallymurdered a taxi driver, and wehad to get him out of there realquick. We rendered him--werendered him home.[50]


18/23



Blackwater is also involved in providing security fora US-backed aid project in a region of Pakistan,which implies that even some aid projects areconnected with military and intelligence operations,often using them as a cover for covert operations.Blackwater still operates in Afghanistan working for

the US military, the State Department and the CIA.As one military-intelligence official stated:

Having learned its lessons afterthe private security contractingfiasco in Iraq, Blackwater hasshifted its operational focus totwo venues: protecting things thatare in danger and anticipatingother places we're going to go asa nation that are dangerous.[51]

Mmuch of Scahills information has been supported

by other mainstream news sources. In August of2009, the New York Times reported that in 2004, theCIA hired outside contractors from the privatesecurity contractor Blackwater USA as part of asecret program to locate and assassinate topoperatives of Al Qaeda. The CIA had held high-level meetings with Blackwater founder and formerNavy SEAL Erik Prince. The article also revealedthat in 2002, Blackwater had been awarded thecontract to handle security for the CIA station inAfghanistan, and the company maintains otherclassified contracts with the C.I.A. Blackwater hashired several former CIA officials, including CoferBlack, who ran the C.I.A. counterterrorism centerimmediately after the Sept. 11 attacks.[52]

On December 10, 2009, the New York Timesreported that in both Afghanistan and Iraq,Blackwater participated in some of the C.I.A.s mostsensitive activities clandestine raids with agencyofficers against people suspected of beinginsurgents. These raids, referred to as snatch andgrab operations, occurred almost nightly between2004 and 2006, and that, involvement in theoperations became so routine that the linessupposedly dividing the Central Intelligence Agency,the military and Blackwater became blurred. One

former CIA official was quoted as saying, Therewas a feeling that Blackwater eventually became anextension of the agency. Further, Blackwater wasreported to have provided security not only for theCIA station in Afghanistan, but also in Iraq; and inboth countries, Blackwater personnel accompaniedthe [CIA] officers even on offensive operationssometimes begun in conjunction with Delta Force orNavy Seals teams.[53]

In late August it was reported that Blackwater had aCIA contract to operate the remotely piloted drones,

carried out at hidden bases in Afghanistan andPakistan, as well as provide security at the bases.[54]In December, the New York Times ran a storyreporting that the CIA had terminated its contractwith Blackwater that allowed the company to loadbombs on C.I.A. drones in Pakistan andAfghanistan. However, while the CIA claimed that

all Blackwater contracts were under review, a CIAspokesperson said that, At this time, Blackwater isnot involved in any C.I.A. operations other than in asecurity or support role,[55] which is still a verywide role, considering how the roles have beenblurred between providing security and activelytaking part in missions.

As the Guardian reported in December of 2009,Blackwater had a contract in Pakistan to manage theconstruction of a training facility for the paramilitaryFrontier Corps, just outside Peshawar, which is thePakistani Armys paramilitary force.[56] Despite a

continual official denial of Blackwater involvementin Pakistan, in December, the CIA admittedBlackwater operates in Pakistan under CIAcontracts,[57] and in January of 2010, US DefenseSecretary Robert Gates confirmed that bothBlackwater (now known as Xe Services) andDynCorp have been operating in Pakistan.[58]

However, some reports indicate that Blackwater maybe involved in even more nefarious activities insidePakistan. A former head of Pakistanis intelligenceservices, the ISI, stated in an interview that apartfrom simply taking part in drone attacks, Blackwatermay be involved in actions that destabilize thecountry. Elaborating, he said, My assessment isthat they [Blackwater agents] either themselves ormost probably through others, through the locals do carry out some of the explosions, and that, theidea is to carry out such actions, like carrying attacksin the civilian areas to make the others look bad inthe eyes of the public. In other words, according tothe former head of the ISI, Blackwater may beinvolved in committing false flag terrorist attacksinside Pakistan.[59]

In November of 2009, Al-Jazeera reported that whilemany attacks occurring across Pakistan are blamed

on the Tehreek e-Taliban, Pakistans Taliban, thegroup has issued its first video statement denyinginvolvement in targeting civilians and has blamedexternal forces for at least two recent blasts. Thedenial stated that the attacks are being used as anexcuse to prepare for military operations in varioustribal regions of Pakistan, including SouthWaziristan. The denial also stated that the PakistaniTaliban had no role in the bomb blast in a Peshawarmarket that killed at least 100 people as well as anattack in Charsada, a town located in Pakistan's NorthWest Frontier Province. The spokesperson claimed


19/23



that the Pakistani Taliban does not target civilians,and that the bombings were linked to Blackwateractivities in the country. Even when the bombingsinitially occurred the Taliban denied involvement,and the local media was blaming Blackwater andother American agencies.[60]

The head of the Pakistani Taliban had previouslystated that, if Taliban can carry out attacks inIslamabad and target Pakistan army's headquarters,then why should they target general public, andproceeded to blame the bomb blast in Peshawar thatkilled 108 people on Blackwater and Pakistaniagencies [that] are involved in attacks in publicplaces to blame the militants. He was further quotedas saying, Our war is against the government andthe security forces and not against the people. We arenot involved in blasts.[61]

In January of 2010, it was reported that Blackwater

is in the running for a Pentagon contract potentiallyworth $1 billion to train Afghanistan's troublednational police force, as Blackwater already trainsthe Afghan border police an arm of the nationalpolice and drug interdiction units in volatilesouthern Afghanistan.[62]

As Jeremy Scahill reported in August of 2009 on alegal case against Blackwater, where a formerBlackwater mercenary and an ex-US Marine havemade a series of explosive allegations in swornstatements filed on August 3 in federal court inVirgini

imperial eye on pakistan the enemies of peace the hypocrites munaafiqoon dajjal occult powers & the...

Documents