Could the Northern Alliance - America’s allies who helped bring down the Taliban Government in 2001 and bring Hamid Karzai to power - be behind the brazen attempt on his life during a military parade last week?
“Who was behind the April 27 attempt on the life of the President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, and what did they have to gain? Read the rest of this entry »
Now it’s Condoleezza Rice’s turn to take a hand in putting up the false front the Bush Administration is trying to construct and pass off as “victory.” She follows President Bush last September, Vice President Cheney and the war’s heir apparent, John McCain, last month in projecting a perception of peace with smoke and mirrors.
In a surprise trip last weekend, the Secretary of State was cheerleading “a coalescing of a center in Iraqi politics in which the Sunni leadership, the Kurdish leadership, and elements of the Shiite leadership that are not associated with these special groups have been working together better than at any time before.”
The “special groups” are militias of the Mahdi Army. If the central government continues to attack them, as it did ineptly in Basra this month only to be bailed out by US forces, al-Sadr is threatening “all-out war.”
While Rice hailed the coalescing, there were three rocket attacks–the first as she was meeting with Maliki at his office, another while returning to the Green Zone from a meeting with Iraqi President Jalal Talibani, a third that delayed a ceremony at which she unveiled a plaque commemorating civilian deaths in the Green Zone.
Credulous, likely-senile Jimmy Carter had tea with the terrorist group Hamas and now, according to MSNBC, Hamas is asking for a 10-year “truce” while refusing to recognize the State of Israel on the condition that said State of Israel return to the nearly-indefensible 1967 (read 1949) borders.
This is nothing new from Hamas, which would love to import offensive weaponry for the next 10 years while ruling both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Hamas’ terrorist attacks will simply be farmed out to (or conveniently blamed upon) Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Al-Aksa Martyrs’ Brigades etc…while Hamas claims to be at peace and that Israeli self-defense violates this ‘hudna’ (an Islamic temporary truce until victory can be attained over an unwary enemy).
Hamas had its chance to give up violence and become a constructive political organization when it won that so-called election. Hamas could have suppressed violence and dismantled the other terrorist groups (see above list) while working with Israel and the world community to ease the plight of its subjects. Did Hamas choose to grow up? No way! Hamas chose to blow its big chance and continue to bring misery to the Palestinian Arabs.
Only an ignorant, politically-correct, self-righteous moralizing fool would buy-into this nonsense.
What can be gleaned from the fact that on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War, President George W. Bush and his ‘alter ego’ Osama bin Laden both gave speeches? Patrik Etschmayer writes for Switzerland’s Nachrichten, ‘Bush once again showed how brilliant he is at ignoring the reality of his own mistakes and giving the truth a whole new twist … This speech - which was an absolute denial of reality and self-deception - was not out there on its own for long, but was soon accompanied by one from his alter-ego on the Dark Side, when Osama bin Laden reportedly spoke again … Bin Laden’s message carries more than just a warning for Europe. It also shows that even for bin Laden, Bush is a man whose time has run out. … Both are voices from the crypt - but it seems that it will be bin Laden’s voice that will be heard the longest.’
By Patrik Etschmayer
Translated By Patrik Etschmayer
March 20, 2008
Switzerland - Nachrichten - Home Page (German)
It’s the fifth anniversary of the starting shot of the second Iraq War, and right on cue, two of the undead have chosen to speak. First, George W. Bush gave his speech on the anniversary of this enterprise; and from the other, reports are that Osama Bin Laden too has spoken once again.
Bush went first, however, and once again showed how impressive and brilliant he is at ignoring the reality of his own mistakes and giving the truth a whole new twist.
A wonderful example for his mental somersaults can be found early in the speech, when Bush says the following about the defeated Iraqi army and regime: “When the Iraqi regime was removed, it did not lay down its arms and surrender. Instead, former regime elements took off their uniforms and faded into the countryside to fight the emergence of a free Iraq.”
What he didn’t say was that the army and security forces had in fact surrendered, and then were released by the Americans - with the effect that in the aftermath, hundreds of thousands of unemployed soldiers and police - still armed - were ready to organize resistance to the occupiers.
Of the fact that the U.S. Army also failed to secure huge caches of Iraqi army weapons, which were then cleared out by insurgents in the tremendous power vacuum that existed at the time … not a word was mentioned.
Nor was any mention made of the non-existent weapons of mass destruction (the alleged existence of which was the main reason for the war), the fact that al-Qaeda only appeared in Iraq after the invasion, and that for four years the U.S. administration ignored every voice that criticized its actions in Iraq - and in the case of the generals that dared to speak up - it silenced them.
The perhaps too-late U-turn in Iraq, which in recent times has at least brought a degree of calm, was mentioned this way: “So we reviewed the strategy - and changed course in Iraq.” Four botched-up years of ineptitude rolled up into one sentence, which makes it sound as if some real achievement has been accomplished.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the Iraq War anniversary.
Is the Bush Administration hoping for or perhaps even egging Israel on - to invade the Gaza strip and destroy Hamas’ power base there? Political Commentator Maria Appakova writes for Russia’s Novosti, ‘Sixty four percent of Israelis consider it necessary to hold a dialogue with Hamas to obtain a truce. But this is hardly in the interests of the United States. Nor is a truce likely to lead to peace. … Thus, just one option remains - the destruction of Hamas power in Gaza.’
By Maria Appakova
Translated By Igor Medvedev
March 5, 2008
Russia - Novosti - Original Article (Russian)
MOSCOW: U.S. President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have simultaneously announced that they continue to believe in the possibility of establishing peace in the Middle East by the end of 2008.
These statements were made the day after Israel concluded ground operations in the Gaza Strip which resulted in the deaths of over 120 Palestinians. What price will Palestinians and Israelis have to pay before Washington realizes that its hopes have been dashed?
Bush’s words of hope, expressed during a press conference in Washington on the results of talks with King Abdullah II of Jordan, could perhaps have been dismissed as diplomatic politesse. But Rice was at that very moment visiting the Middle East and could see for herself what was going on in the region. In parallel with her meetings in Israel, rockets continued to fall; and the Israelis continued surgical strikes in Gaza on the eve of withdrawing its troops.
So what is the source of such faith that peace can be established in the next 10 months - and at a time when it seems that all international efforts to return the two sides to the negotiating table, especially those of the United States, have failed?
Yes, of course Israeli and Palestinian leaders maintain that peace remains their strategic objective, but statements on the resumption of talks have been sluggish. On the contrary, Israel is actively discussing new full-scale operations in the Gaza strip. For his part, President of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, announced on the eve of Rice’s visit on Sunday that he was freezing negotiations with Israel, which were launched late last year in Annapolis under the patronage of the United States.
Recall that meetings between Israeli and Palestinian delegations resumed over the past few months, including those headed by Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. The purpose of the meetings was to discuss the parameters of a Palestinian-Israeli settlement. Before that, there had been no talks on a peace agreement since the fall of 2000. They were at best not about peace, but about a truce and a ceasefire. Now the situation has returned to what it was over seven years ago.
Although the Iranian President was welcomed with great fanfare by Iraqi leaders a few days ago, Iranian intelligence officials are singing another tune. According to this news account from Iraq’s Azzaman newspaper, Iraq’s Intelligence chief Muhamad Abdullah Al-Shahwani has criticized the Iranian intelligence services for seeking to, ‘abort the experiment with the Awakening Councils,’ a collection of mostly Sunni groups that U.S. forces are backing to fight al-Qeada. Hinting at the root of the problem, Al-Shahwani said, ‘a number of senior Iraqi officials refuse to recognize the Awakening Councils and the positive role they have played in bringing new hope.’
By Karim Abd Zair in Baghdad and Nadal Al-Laithy in London
Translated By James Jacobson and Nicolas Dagher
February 28, 2008
Iraq - Azzaman - Original Article (Arabic)
The head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, Muhamad Abdullah Al-Shahwani , yesterday criticized the Iranian intelligence services for seeking to, “abort the experiment with the Awakening Councils,” which are battling elements of al-Qaeda in Iraq. For his part, an advisor to the Awakening Councils, Tamir Al-Tamimi, told Azzaman,” the Awakening Councils have been targeted by the Iranians, either directly or indirectly, through terrorist organizations that cooperate with Iran, such as al-Qaeda. Read the rest of this entry »
This is just one of the allegations in Roger Faligot’s book, The Chinese Secret Services: From Mao to the Olympic Games. This specialist in intelligence retraces the history of the ties between the Middle Kingdom and al-Qaeda. According to this review of the book from Le Matin of Switzerland, the author writes, ‘The first negotiations with Osama bin Laden’s entourage are alleged to have been held in 2006 in Pakistan’s Baluchistan Province … What has China promised to prevent a suicide bomber from blowing himself up during the finals for the 100-meter dash? And most importantly, what confidence can we give any commitment undertaken by Osama bin Laden? The answer will come next August in Beijing.’
By Ian Hamel
Translated By James Jacobson
February 23, 2008
Switzerland - Le Matin - Original Article (French)
Tomorrow, the word “Guoanbu ” will be as familiar as CIA, KGB or General Intelligence . China has not only become a great world power, it has also erected the most important secret services in the world. They comprise two million spies who scrutinize your acts and gestures, especially if you’re an athlete, a sports journalist or an opponent of the upcoming Olympic Games in Beijing. For the latter, China has also established a center for special intelligence equipped with a budget of $1.3 billion.
Security has become a national priority in the Middle Kingdom, which dreads nothing more than dramas like the one that occurred in Tiananmen Square in 1989 ; demonstrations by Beijing’s Uyghur opponents (a Muslim minority from West China ); or protests by the Tibetans, during the global festival of sport next August. In The Chinese Secret Services. from Mao to the Olympic Games, China expert Roger Faligot reveals that General Chen Xiaogong, the new coordinator of military intelligence, negotiated with al-Qaeda to prevent terrorist attacks during the Olympics.
MAO’S GRANDSON
There relationship between China and the Islamist movement are long-standing. At the end of 1979 beginning with the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, the Chinese decided to help the Mujahideen. Beijing provided Simonov sub-machine guns and Kalashnikov assault rifles, which have the advantage of using the same ammunition as Russian weapons. Within the Chinese Embassy in Islamabad, there is a military attaché named Kong Jining. This commander, who supplied the Islamists with weapons of war, was none other than Mao Zedong’s grandson.
“The choice of such an agent shows the importance that the Chinese placed on operations in Afghanistan. These good relations have continued with the Taliban. At the end of 2001 …
Continuing the unhelpful theme of “just stop saying this stuff”, the RNC has chastised its terrified Tennessee representatives:
(CNN) – Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan formally denounced Thursday the Tennessee Republican Party’s use of Barack Obama’s full name in a recent press release questioning the Illinois senator’s commitment to Israel.
“The RNC rejects these kinds of campaign tactics,” RNC Chairman Mike Duncan said in a statement. “We believe this election needs to be about the critical issues confronting our nation.”
The problem, unfortunately, can’t be solved so easily. Like it or not, years of war have made Islam one of those critical issues — particularly for Republicans. When someone’s screaming from a nightmare, telling them to just hush up is unhelpful in the extreme.
For many, the name Hussein evokes Saddam, which brings Iraq, which leads to al-Qaeda, which results in… if we don’t stay vigilant, we’ll be fighting Islamic extremism in our very own cul-de-sacs!!!!
This is not the raving of some small radical fringe (my prior post on that here). It’s the logical, totally predictable result of a political tactic… and if you’re going tell scary stories at bedtime, you need to be prepared to deal with the resulting Things That Go Bump In The Night.
Is the United States even now preparing to mount ground operations or ‘train’ elite forces inside Pakistan? The evidence to support the claim is piling up, and Pakistanis are not reacting well. According to this editorial from Pakistan’s The Nation newspaper, ‘American forces working with our elite units would be able to obtain strategically crucial information and might eventually control of these operations. … Tribesmen [in the Northwest Frontier Province] are already up in arms over our military campaign in their region. The presence of American troops would simply add fuel to the fire - and the consequences would be disastrous.’
EDITORIAL
February 27, 2008
Pakistan - The Nation - Original Article (English)
CITING State Department officials, The Boston Globe has revealed that the Bush Administration would like to set up special coordination centers on the Pakistani side of the tribal belt - not only for the purposes of intelligence sharing - but to have 30 counterinsurgency experts on the ground to train elite Pakistani units in the fight against terrorists, and ultimately for conducting joint operations with Pakistani troops. The U.S. administration has already asked Congress for $453 million for the project, which also includes an aid package.
[Editor’s Note: According to the Feb. 9 edition of the Asia Times, “Wana military airfield in South Waziristan and Miranshah airfield in North Waziristan have been upgraded from makeshift airstrips into proper runways with backup facilities, which indicate plans for a powerful air operation.” The article, written by the Asia Times Pakistan Bureau chief Syed Saleem Shahzad, also says that U.S. forces have been deployed at Lowari Mandi and Ghulman Khan checkpoints (both on the Afghan side of the border near North Waziristan) and that a new military camp is being built near Shawal (North Waziristan), on the Afghan side ].
President Musharraf’s endorsement of the plan, which sent a shock wave through the nation, undermines the firm stand Pakistan has taken against allowing U.S. troops on its soil since the start of the War on Terror. That’s to say nothing about allowing them to operate directly from our territory. Interestingly, the timing of the plan coincides with waning political support for President Musharraf, which leads one to wonder whether his acquiescence is a desperate attempt to help his party cling on to power [Musharraf’s party was trounced in Parliamentary elections last week].
American forces working with our elite units would be able to obtain strategically crucial information about our geography, and might eventually result in U.S. control of these operations. Tribesmen [in the Northwest Frontier Province] are already up in arms over our military campaign in their region. The presence of American troops would simply add fuel to the fire - and the consequences would be disastrous.
That’s how the Rand Corporation is describing the large-scale intervention we’ve gotten ourselves into in their most recent study. This is from the Rand Corp., which, I am pretty sure, is supposed to skew conservative.
Recognizing that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan will not be the last of their kind, a new RAND Corporation study issued today finds that U.S. capabilities to meet the threat of Islamist insurgencies are seriously deficient and out of balance.
The report finds that large-scale U.S. military intervention and occupation in the Muslim world is at best inadequate, at worst counter-productive, and, on the whole, infeasible. The United States should shift its priorities and funding to improve civil governance, build local security forces, and exploit information — capabilities that have been lacking in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Violent extremism in the Muslim world is the gravest national security threat the United States faces,” said David C. Gompert, the report’s lead author and a senior fellow at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “Because this threat is likely to persist and could grow, it is important to understand the United States is currently not capable of adequately addressing the challenge.”
The findings are from a major review of strategies to combat insurgencies RAND initiated at the request of the Department of Defense.
What is so absolutely, positively, bottomlessly aggravating about these conclusions is that people could have and would have and were telling us this certainly before we entered Iraq and perhaps before we entered Afghanistan (I recall the former, I do not recall the latter). And if you don’t believe me, well, here’s the Rand again:
The authors cite data from some 90 conflicts since World War II that show the surest way to defeat insurgencies is to foster local governments that are seen by their citizens as representative, competent and honest. “Foreign forces cannot substitute for effective local governments, and they can even weaken their legitimacy,” said co-author John Gordon.
Historically, large-scale military intervention against insurgencies — e.g., France in Indochina and Algeria and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan — more often fails than succeeds.
The study finds that because it can take time for a local insurgency to acquire strength and turn jihadist, the chances of defusing an insurgency are better than 90 percent when caught early. But those chances drop to less than 50 percent if the insurgency has the chance to become a full-blown uprising. Thus, the United States needs the ability to interpret “indicators and warnings” so it can act in the early stages of the insurgency.
Sickening. What and who was President Bush and his advisors listening to when making their decisions to begin military incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq? Feh. Don’t bother answering.
If this is the first time you are hearing this news, you aren’t alone - no one seems to have reported it. You know where I heard it, of all places?
Some Americans still haven’t gotten used to the fact that since the election of Nicolas Sarkozy as French President, France is just about our staunchest European ally. In contrast to the Germans the Dutch and even the British, according to this editorial by Pierre Rousselin of France’s Le Figaro, it seems that Paris is the rare European capital, ready, willing and able to send more troops into harms way in Afghanistan for the good of Western civilization. Rousselin writes, ‘The Atlantic Alliance will not withstand a failure of its first mission beyond Europe’s borders. … Our special forces are very popular with the Americans. They are preparing to reenter service against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and the sending of reinforcements to more sensitive areas is under consideration.’
Pierre Rousselin
Translated By James Jacobson
February 11, 2008
France - Le Figaro - Original Article (French)
In Afghanistan, NATO is in big trouble. On the ground it’s very difficult to resist the return of the Taliban and staff headquarters is at pains to find countries willing to volunteer combat troops. The Atlantic Alliance will not withstand a failure of its first mission beyond Europe’s borders.
France, which is participating in the common effort, can contribute to ameliorating the situation. It has the means and the political will - and in any case, certainly more than most of its European allies.
Because we intend to carry more weight in the decisions of the Atlantic Alliance and to revive European defense, Afghanistan will be an initial test for us.
Americans, English and Canadians are deployed in the south and east, where fight the fighting is most deadly. They have appealed for more of their European allies, who have taken up positions in the North of the country where there is less danger, to send reinforcements in the south. No countries have volunteered.
The situation speaks volumes about the crisis in NATO. It lacks resources and it lacks political courage. If every capital can limit the geographical commitments of its troops because it fears the public reaction, it becomes impossible to comprehend how this comprises a cohesive military alliance. On the battlefield, operations must be conducted under extreme conditions, which is why the systematic use of these restrictions on the use of troops is a mechanism that NATO authorities must one day reconsider.
In the mean time, France, which has the mission of securing Kabul, is ready to do more. Since last September, our Air Force has carried out ground-support missions out of Kandahar, where the Rafale [fighter jets] will join with the Mirages [also fighter jets], which are already in action. Our special forces, which were committed between 2003 and January 2007, are very popular with the Americans. They are preparing to reenter service against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and the sending of reinforcements to more sensitive areas is under consideration.
Can the United States expect its NATO allies to step up and station more combat troops in Afghanistan’s more dangerous regions? Given the commentary in much of the European press with perhaps the exception of the French, that seems like an unlikely prospect. Burkhard von Pappenheim writes for Germany’s Frankfurter Rundschau, ‘U.S. Defense Secretary Gates’ terse words discredit the ISAF mission in Afghanistan, since he speaks much about war and very little about peace. As a result, permanently stationing German soldiers in the south would jeopardize their success in the north.’
By Burkhard von Pappenheim
Translated By Ulf Behncke
February 10, 2008
Germany - Frankfurter Rundschau - Original Article (German)
The denial by the Defense Minister is so feeble that it should count as a confirmation. The Federal Government would like to dispatch to Afghanistan more troops than the 3,500 soldiers already approved by Parliament. The mandate is exhausted. Therefore, when the mission is extended into next fall, the Great Coalition [the U.S. and its NATO allies] must debate an expansion at the same time. [After all], a military operation cannot be meaningfully led if commanders have to forever count their soldiers. The German Bundeswehr (Federal Defense Forces) needs a bit of room to maneuver in Afghanistan.
However: Anyone who sends more troops into the Hindu Kush must also consider how and when they will be withdrawn. This will decide whether this nation is debating a politically intelligent and helpful deployment, or a military adventure.
In their area, the Germans have been relatively successful. One reason is that militarily, they have it easier than their allies in the hard-fought south. But that’s not the whole story. Their approach - to help the country by working to stabilize it - is the right one. If the country needs to be better-secured, then the Bundeswehr must obtain additional authorization - because the hope has been growing that in the foreseeable future, the troops will be able to leave altogether.
“The irony is that the occupier, by which we mean the Americans, the British and the rest of the countries of the occupation, are of the Christian religion, and yet we have heard of no non-Muslims who have collaborated with them.”
By Dr. Fawaaz al-Fawaaz
Translated By James Jacobson
February 5, 2008
Iraq - Kitabat - Original Article (Arabic)
Before I go any further, I would like to say that I am a Muslim man, but that I see facts as being separate from religious bigotry or fanatical ethnic affiliation. When it comes at the expense of others, I do not believe we should see things from the emotional perspective of the group alone.
After the arrival of the occupier, we saw that most of the collaborators were Muslim - not ordinary Muslims - but clerics. Clerics must be the most committed to religion, to the Prophet and to the family of the Prophet, and there are times that we need to seek out the religious instruction of these men, to help us and keep us from straying from the faith. But like it or not, we have seen that the best collaborators were clerics. So there is no choice but to remind everyone of the emergence of clerics who put on the garb of politics to achieve dirty ends that expose Read the rest of this entry »
How interested in the rest of the world in the U.S. presidential race? According to one op-ed writer from Folha of Brazil, ‘The spectacle of American democracy in the process of restoring itself, will rival the Beijing Olympics as the major event scheduled for 2008. Between the democracy that invented the Internet and The Simpsons and the dictatorship that manufactures everything from bolts to super-athletes, I’ll choose the former.’
By Sérgio Malbergier
Translated By Brandi Miller
January 10, 2008
Brazil - Folha - Original Article (Portuguese)
The American elections have gotten off to an electrifying start. After seven years of George W. Bush, war on terror and global anti-Americanism, the people of the United States have shown that they’re eager for change, which is something already guaranteed by the candidates, both Democratic and Republican.
None represent continuity. The vision that drove the Bush Administration post-September 11th, which was that the U.S. is the undisputed power that deserves to be in that position, and that it should exercise its imperial power to eliminate potential threats preventatively, collapsed along with order in Iraq.
Iraq and the war on terror were Bush’s fulcrums (along with his active pro-business policies), are no longer the principle topics of electoral discussion. Instead, these center on domestic issues and speak precisely about change. Even if the words sound less true coming from the mouth of Hillary Clinton - the Democratic representative of the establishment - it is undeniable that there’s a big difference between her and Bush.
The two primaries so far - in Iowa [which was actually a caucus] and New Hampshire - enjoyed the robust participation of the population. The debate goes on openly and the races are tight for both Democrats and Republicans. Amongst the protagonists, the Democrats could take the White House with the first woman (Hillary) or the first African descendent (Barack Obama). In the Republican corner, a cranky former prisoner from the Vietnam War (John McCain) and a controversial former New York mayor (Rudy Giuliani) lend the battle color.
The fun is guaranteed, even if we don’t have the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, in the main cast. The budget guarantees a major production. Hillary has raised way over $90 million. Obama, who electrifies the young, is right behind with $80 million. Among Republicans, Mitt Romney leads with $62 million, followed by Giuliani with $47 million.
This multi-million-dollar spectacle is followed every minute by megasites and political gigablogs and the ever-increasing histrionics of 24-hour news channels. Of the debates that take place with all candidates present, the most interesting is the CNN-YouTube partnership, with questions selected from thousands of videos sent in by Internet users.
How much Arab angst does President Bush confront on his farewell tour of the Middle East? Judging from this op-ed article from Al-Seyassah, the leading newspaper of Kuwait which is the President’s next stop - the moment he leaves the friendly embrace of Israel, things are likely to be touch and go at best.
“What has the United States achieved in Iraq except handing it and its people on a golden platter to the savage wolves of Tehran and its Revolutionary Guard, which today is the biggest player not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East? George Bush’s farewell visit is the beginning of the last chapter of the greatest American failure in history.”
By Dawood Al-Basri
Translated By James Jacobson and Nicolas Dagher
January 6, 2007
Kuwait - Al-Seyassah - Original Article (Arabic)
In the autumn of his stormy presidency, American George W. Bush will now offer more of his well-known Texan diplomacy on a farewell visit to the Arab region. The reason that his announced itinerary includes most Middle East nations without any mention of Iraq is clear: The cause of his rushed, secretive visit, hidden from the eyes, voices and ears of journalists and whistle-blowers, is that they would ask him whether it’s reasonable for this “agent of change” to visit without touring his project to build the American dream in Iraq, the foundations of which have collapsed. They would ask how he could come without looking at the Iraq disaster, which was caused by the ulterior motives of American policy in the hands of Bush. Read the rest of this entry »
The president Musharraf appears at the moment to feel secure, at least in the strict political sense, since as we have seen, another attack on his life could happen at any time. Support from Washington is key to this feeling of security - support that is humorously called in the street “Busharraf,” - as is support from the Pakistani military, which permits him to remain in his place at the head of the country.
And why is this so? Well, the answer is the usual:
The Pakistani generals are not interested in the defense or coordination of a democratic model because they are conscious that it could mean the end of their privileges and of their comfortable and powerful situation, and in this respect they are in agreement with the other key player, the United States government.
Washington’s actions in Pakistan, as in other parts of the world, have been disguised by the discourse of “promoting democracy in all corners of the planet,” but much the same as in the past with Pinochet, Marcos and many other dictators, or even with the General Zia or Musharraf in Pakistan, what they really look for is the extreme defense of their own economic, political, and military interests throughout the world
This sentiment on the Pakistani street is not dissimilar from that on the Arab street: if the U.S. stopped supporting the home-grown holders of power, whose decisions were causing all the problems, then life would be much better. Arabic media continually put out such pieces.
Have the people of Iraq defeated al-Qaeda - and didn’t Americans have anything to do with it? According to this op-ed article from Iraq’s Al-Zawraa newspaper, ‘After four years of resistance, courage and sacrifice by our Iraqi people in the fight against al-Qaeda and its offshoots, success has been achieved … With gold letters, Iraqis have marked their place in the annals of history.’
By Salman Daud Alhafezi
Translated By Jenny Oliver
December 28, 2007
Iraq - Al-Zawraa - Original Article (Arabic)
The Takfiri gangs (Sunni Extremists ) who came across the border like a swarm of locusts after the regime toppled, have tried to turn Iraq into a place controlled by titans and tyrants and a headquarters for the dissemination of their ideology and myths - myths which came not from Allah.
With coercion, murder, displacement and bombings, they sought to bring the Iraqi people to their knees. In their sick fantasies, they imagined that they could claim Iraq as their own Islamic nation. After four years of resistance, courage and sacrifice by our Iraqi people in the fight against al-Qaeda and its offshoots, success has been achieved in reducing hostilities. With gold letters, Iraqis have marked their place in the annals of history. Read the rest of this entry »
Does the murder of Benazir Bhutto ‘mark the culmination of the war on terror which
began on Sept. 11, 2001?’ According to this analysis by one of France’s leading historians, Alexandre Adler, the Pakistani military is up to its old tricks, appearing not to realize that ‘its chances of survival are directly linked to victory for the democrats and to a closer relationship with India.’
The Chronicle of Alexandre Adler
Translated By James Jacobson
December 29, 2007
France - Le Figaro - Original Article (French)
With the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, we have reached the culmination of the war on terror which began on September 11, 2001. Still harboring on its territory the two main leaders of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, it isn’t surprising that Pakistan has again taken center stage.
The quick and apparently anxious way General Musharraf joined with the Americans after September 11th indeed allowed Islamabad to avoid offering any clear answer on the involvement of its army and secret services in the attack on New York. Still later, the strategic nature of the country and the facilities granted the FBI and CIA to hunt down the men of al-Qaeda - certainly offered without pleasure - has continued to immunize Pakistan’s military junta vis-à-vis the United States. Still, behind the smiles of command, George W. Bush has continued to strengthen cooperation with India for the purpose of intimidating the Pakistani army. In turn, this decidedly unreliable army high-handedly refused to accept Washington’s offer of lifting the embargo on F-16’s in favor of an alliance with increasingly-friendly China. Read the rest of this entry »
Does the assassination of Benazir Bhutto signal the collapse of American policy in the region? According to the editorial board of the NRC Handelsblad of The Netherlands, not quite …
“… the assassination of Bhutto is an unprecedented setback for the United States. If Pakistan with its fifty warheads crumbles, the entire region around the only Islamic nuclear power runs the risk of disintegrating.”
EDITORIAL
Translated By Meta Mertens
December 29, 2007
The Netherlands - NRC Handlesblad - Original Article (Dutch)
In the for the time being the only Islamic nuclear power in the world, it is situated in a chaotic region, and an assassination has been committed for which everyone in that country can be responsible. Because of the combination of nuclear bombs, geopolitics and paranoia, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is much more dangerous than previous political assassinations in Pakistan. Bhutto was no lily-white politician. A cloud of corruption and tribalism hung over her. She was not averse to bargaining, not even with her key opponent, General Musharraf. And in her administrative career - she was prime minister twice - she left little of lasting value behind her.
Nevertheless, after her return from exile in October, she was the very embodiment of opposition against Musharraf, who had been written off for the presidential polls on January 8th. What the judges and lawyers were unable to do with their demonstrations this year, she could possibly accomplish. Bhutto was the personification of a potential civil and secular government, which could bring an end to the military regime and build a barrier against Islamic fundamentalism. Moreover, she was a political safety isle for President Bush, who desperately needs new initiatives now that his foreign policy in the region appears to be coming apart.
For all of these reasons, the assassination of Bhutto (the fourth killed in her family) goes beyond the interest of the victim herself. Pakistan as a state is balanced on the edge of an abyss. The presidential elections of January 8th will be boycotted by the remaining opposition candidates [they have since changed their minds]. Regional and tribal antagonisms, fueled by religious fundamentalism and/or economic interests, will be encouraged.
There is little chance that the perpetrators behind the perpetrator will ever be found. The instigators can hide themselves in Islamic circles that reside along the Afghan-Kashmir border. They can hide within the army, where the late General Zia ul Haq (who had Bhutto’s father Ali Bhutto tried and executed) is admired by soldiers who aspire to an Islamic state. And in any event, the state security services, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), is still a spider in this web.
Since the intervention of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in 1979, the ISI has been allowed to play a larger and increasingly notorious role. For ten years, Pakistan acted as a broker for the U.S. The service trained the Islamic resistance movement. The Taliban are the by-product of this. After 9/11, Pakistan again became a bridgehead for the United States, this time against the religious students [Taliban] in Afghanistan.
Was it Benazir Bhutto that was the primary target her assassins - or was it relations with the United States in general? According to this op-ed article from Switzerland’s 24heurs, ‘the target is democracy in Pakistan. Or more simply: the goal is to destabilize a government allied with the United-States. Allied with the wicked West.’
By Foreign Desk Editor Andrés Allemand
Translated By Sandrine Ageorges
December 28, 2007
Switzerland - 24 heurs - Original Article (French)
Who profits from a crime? This is the unavoidable question in the aftermath of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Should we listen to some of her supporters who already see a Machiavellian plot by President Pervez Musharraf to dispose of his main rival in legislative elections on Jan. 8 - and why not - since this justifies his hold on power with a new “security” coup d’état? Or should we instead adhere to hear the President’s speech, which blamed the perpetual war against Islamist terrorism?
Clearly, the crime benefits the partisans of chaos. It wasn’t their first attempt. This year Pakistan broke a sad record: the number of suicide bombings. They killed nearly 800 people in the last twelve months, although most haven’t been publicized. Just yesterday, while the death of Benazir Bhutto was the central focus of the media, Nawaz Sharif - another former prime minister and a candidate in the presidential election - survived gunfire during his own election rally.
The target is democracy in Pakistan. Or more simply: the goal is to destabilize a government allied with the United-States. Allied with the wicked West. A government that resists, as much as it can, the advance of Islamic radicalism, which is no longer satisfied administering the “tribal zones” along the Afghanistan border or the thousands of madrasas - the Koranic schools which manufacture Taliban. Remember: in early July, the fundamentalists stormed the Red Mosque, in the heart of Islamabad.
![[Guardian Unlimited, U.K.]](http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/steve_bell/2008/03/04/bell512.jpg)
![The Telegraph, U.K.]](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00296/Peter_Brookes_296162a.jpg)
![[Guardian Unlimited, U.K.]](http://worldmeets.us/images/afghanweightbush_guardian.gif)
![[Excelsior, Mexico]](http://www.exonline.com.mx/XStatic/excelsior/images/espanol/carton_delatorre_0301.jpg)
