U.S. lawmakers, GOP committee "unknowingly" accept bribes -- er, donations -- from fronts for Pakistan's ISI

The New York Times report, below, is careful to avoid accusing the lawmakers of deliberate wrongdoing but there was never anything preventing the lawmakers from checking whether the lobbyists for Pakistan were legally registered as lobbyists for a foreign country. That kind of checking is easy but it wasn't done, not for decades, even though many of the 'donations' were in large amounts:

Pakistan’s Military Plotted to Tilt U.S. Policy, F.B.I. Says
By Charlie Savage and Eric Schmitt
July 19, 2011, published around 11:00 PM EDT
The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Pakistan’s military, including its powerful spy agency, has spent $4 million over two decades in a covert attempt to tilt American policy against India’s control of much of Kashmir — including funneling campaign donations to members of Congress and presidential candidates, the F.B.I. claimed in court papers unsealed Tuesday.
[...]
The Federal Bureau of Investigation made the allegations in a 43-page affidavit filed in connection with the indictment of two United States citizens on charges that they failed to register with the Justice Department as agents of Pakistan, as required by law. One of the men, Zaheer Ahmad, is in Pakistan, but the other, Syed Fai, lives in Virginia and was arrested on Tuesday.

Mr. Fai is the director of the Kashmiri American Council, a Washington-based group that lobbies for and holds conferences and media events to promote the cause of self-determination for Kashmir. According to the affidavit, the activities by the group, also called the Kashmiri Center, are largely financed by Pakistan’s spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, along with as much as $100,000 a year in related donations to political campaigns in the United States. Foreign governments are prohibited from making donations to American political candidates.

“Mr. Fai is accused of a decades-long scheme with one purpose — to hide Pakistan’s involvement behind his efforts to influence the U.S. government’s position on Kashmir,” Neil MacBride, the United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, said.

“His handlers in Pakistan allegedly funneled millions through the Kashmir Center to contribute to U.S. elected officials, fund high-profile conferences and pay for other efforts that promoted the Kashmiri cause to decision-makers in Washington.”
[...]
The F.B.I. said that there was no evidence that any of the lawmakers who received campaign funds from Pakistan were aware of its origins, and it did not name any of the recipients.

However, a search in Federal Elections Commission databases for contributions by Mr. Fai showed that he has made more than $20,000 in campaign contributions over the past two decades. The bulk of his donations went to two recipients: the National Republican Senatorial Committee and Representative Dan Burton, a Republican from Indiana.
[...]

There's lots more to the Times report so I hope you'll read it in full.

Slowly, bit by bit, truths about Washington's relations with India and Pakistan, and the U.S. prosecution of the war in Afghanistan, are becoming public knowledge, in the manner of a slow descent into a vast network of sewers.

Karzai surrounding himself with anti-US advisors as he realizes US military pullout from Afghanistan in 2014 will be total

June 23, 2011:

Karzai surrounding himself with anti-US advisers
By Kathy Gannon
Associated Press

KABUL, Afghanistan – President Hamid Karzai is increasingly isolated and has surrounded himself with an inner circle of advisers who are urging him to move closer to Iran and Pakistan as the U.S. draws down its role in Afghanistan, several friends and aides tell The Associated Press.

Their advice is echoed in Karzai's anti-West rhetoric, which has heightened both in his public speeches and in private. He met recently with Iran's defense minister, and constantly cautions against trusting the U.S. to have Afghanistan's best interests at heart.
[...]
"A lot of Afghans are very concerned about the direction the country is taking, moving away from the international community ... toward a more conservative practice in which the religious people and warlords have more power," Human Rights of Afghanistan Commissioner Nader Nadery said.

"Consistently his aides are pushing him toward Iran and Pakistan," Nadery said. "All those who are managing and controlling his schedule, providing appointments, all see the advantages of breaking with the international community."
[...]
In part, Nadery blamed Karzai's disappointment at not getting a strategic forces agreement with the United States that would allow for U.S. bases in Afghanistan as well as give the president protection and negotiation room with Washington. Instead, the document the U.S. gave to Karzai spoke only of a complete withdrawal, he said.

The United States has said it will have all its fighting forces out of Afghanistan by 2014 and that the security of Afghanistan will be turned over to Afghan forces. The U.S. has not asked for any bases or centers to remain under its control.

"I think the reality of their complete withdrawal has struck home," Nadery said. "Now he sees they may go and they don't want a (military) presence here, there were no bases that they requested and perhaps now he is thinking, `Who will protect me?' And he has turned to Hizb-i-Islami and conservative elements in the country like those on the Ulema (clerics) Council, former warlords, as well as getting closer to Pakistan and to Iran."
[...]

See also the Guardian's June 23 report, US pullout from Afghanistan signals new power struggle in fragile nation. The highlights:

• Fears peace talks will see Taliban return to power
• Pakistan, India, Russia and China jockey for position

And if anyone's interested in more of the Obama administration's blither about Pakistan:

June 23, 2011 -(Reuters) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Pakistan on Thursday that U.S. military aid could suffer if Islamabad failed to address rising U.S. doubts over its commitment to fighting Islamist militants.

Clinton told a Senate panel that the Obama administration viewed Pakistan as a crucial partner as it seeks to wind down the U.S.-led war in neighboring Afghanistan and vanquish al Qaeda and other militant groups.

But under skeptical questioning from U.S. lawmakers, Clinton said Washington remained concerned that Pakistan's actions were sometimes not lining up with its words -- and that it could affect the billions of dollars in annual U.S. aid to Pakistan.

"When it comes to our military aid, we are not prepared to continue providing that at the pace we were providing it unless and until we see some steps taken," Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

She didn't specify the steps, but stressed it was time for the United States and Pakistan -- which saw relations deeply strained after U.S. special forces raided a Pakistani compound in May to kill al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden -- to ensure they are on the same page.

"On one side of the ledger are a lot of actions that we really disapprove of and find inimical to our values and even our interests," Clinton said.

"Then on the other side of the ledger there are actions that are very much in line with what we are seeking and want. So we're constantly balancing and weighing that."[...]

The official, declared state policy of Pakistan is that terrorism is a legitimate tool of war.

The regime has repeatedly used the tool against unarmed civilians, repeatedly used it to fight undeclared wars, and used it as a foreign policy tool. So what does it say about the United States of America that instead of declaring Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism, in the face of overwhelming evidence going back decades that it does indeed use terrorism as a tool of war, the U.S. regime blithers about values and balancing a ledger?

Memo to Afghans: Who're ya gonna believe? Us or your lying eyes?

Ah. I see from this Wall Street Journal report that Afghans are worried Obama's drawdown speech means the United States is going to leave them at the mercy of the ISI again. Now would we do a thing like that?

For heaven's sake; we've already put them at the mercy of the ISI again. Or haven't Afghans noticed? It's just a matter of degree: once you're hanging from one thumb why complain about the prospect of hanging from two?

Wary Afghans Worry U.S. is Repeating History
By DION NISSENBAUM
June 23, 2011
The Wall Street Journal

KABUL—President Barack Obama's decision to withdraw one-third of U.S. forces in Afghanistan over the next 14 months conjured up uneasy memories for Afghans concerned that their American allies could leave the country before the job is done.

[...] Across the political spectrum, Afghan leaders expressed reservations about American intentions, saying they don't want to see U.S. policy makers repeat the patterns of the past by cutting off support for Afghanistan without making sure it had a stable government. They recalled the U.S. decision to dramatically scale back support for Afghanistan after Soviet forces were forced to withdraw in 1989. Afghanistan observers say withdrawal of American support for Afghan anti-Soviet fighters allowed Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency to secure its place as a central player in Afghanistan's political stability.

"Twenty years ago, they left Afghanistan after the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan and Afghanistan was controlled by the ISI," said Ghulam Haider Hamidi, mayor of Kandahar city. "We don't want to go back 20 years when they were making the decisions about Afghanistan."
[...]

Bringing up baby Pakistan

Dear, he just needs a little tough love:

June 14 (Dawn): A US defence bill approved on Tuesday proposes withholding 75 percent of the $1.1 billion aid to Pakistan for the next fiscal year until the Obama administration reports to Congress on how it would spend the money.

The House Appropriations Committee also gave additional power to Congress to review US assistance to Pakistan. This would ensure that Islamabad cooperates with the Americans in the war against terror, as stipulated in the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill.

The committee unanimously approved an amendment to create an independent panel of experts to examine the Afghanistan-Pakistan situation.[ ...]

Nonsense, dear, he just needs more understanding:

June 16 (RTT News) - EU To Increase Aid To Pakistan In Return For Reforms

European Development Commissioner Andris Piebalgs and German Development Minister Dirk Niebel arrived in Islamabad on Thursday for a joint visit to Pakistan.

Piebalgs will reaffirm the European Commission's plan to increase its development assistance to Pakistan by 50% - to 75 million euros ($106 million) a year -- for 2011-2013, the Commission said in a press release.

The aid programs will continue to focus on rural development, support for education and stronger governance.
[...]
Piebalgs said he will encourage the authorities to speed up the political and economic reform process, as it is the "only way Pakistan can move towards sustainable economic growth and stability."

He vowed that knowing that Pakistan faces multiple challenges today on the road to the eradication of poverty, the EU will continue to provide support to address the country's needs. The EU and Pakistan will also discuss the next steps towards an EU-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue, including important economic aspects such as development and market access, progress towards the Millennium Development Goals, but also human rights, and peace-building issues.

John Batchelor featured the above still from the 1938 screwball comedy, Bringing Up Baby, in the course of chortling about the return of screwball comic Keith Olbermann to television. But there, in one picture, is the story of the outside world's relationship with Pakistan, which learned over decades at the World Bank-IMF to play other governments like a fiddle.

So if not for all the victims of Pakistani terrorism the current NATO relationship with Pakistan would also qualify as screwball comedy.

U.S. government still making excuses for Pakistan military's support for terrorists who kill NATO troops

Aren't such excuses supposed to be called treason? Or is that interpretation a childish reading of facts?

AP sources: Pakistanis tip off militants again
By KIMBERLY DOZIER, AP Intelligence Writer – 12 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. officials say Pakistan has apparently tipped off militants at two more bomb-building factories in its tribal areas, giving the terror suspects time to flee, after U.S. intelligence shared the locations with the Pakistani government.

Those officials believe Pakistan's insistence on seeking local tribal elders' permission before raiding the areas may have most directly contributed to the militants' flight. U.S. officials have pushed for Pakistan to keep the location of such targets secret prior to the operations, but the Pakistanis say their troops cannot enter the lawless regions without giving the locals notice.

All officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss matters of intelligence.

The latest incidents bring to a total of four bomb-making sites that the U.S. has shared with Pakistan only to have the terrorist suspects flee before the Pakistani military arrived much later. The report does not bode well for attempts by both sides to mend relations and rebuild trust after the U.S. raid on May 2 that killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, a Pakistani army town only 35 miles (56.32 kilometers) from the capital Islamabad.
[...]

Pak military cuts off food and water to Americans at drone base; U.S. companies still selling war equipment to Pakistan

June 15, The New York Times:

The Pakistanis have already blocked the supply of food and water to the base used for the drones, a senior American official said, adding that they were gradually "strangling the alliance" by making things difficult for the Americans in Pakistan.

June 15, The Washington Post:

[T]he U.S. military still supplies the Pakistani military with new, sophisticated intelligence collection and communications equipment.

The Army Communications and Electronics Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground recently put out a notice signaling that it may need contractors to train members of the Pakistani military on how to use a new "Ground Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (GISR) system."

Developed by DRS Technologies, a high-tech military contractor based in New Jersey, the system intercepts and locates the sources of enemy communications and then permits continued monitoring of them. It also allows users to quickly analyze the collected data, including visual material, "to provide mission-critical intelligence to the warfighter."

U.S. and Pakistani damage control on Rawalpindi's involvement in terrorism ignores much history

Spin machines are working overtime on two continents in the attempt to limit the fallout from bin Laden's stay in Pakistan. Zenpundit blog's Mark Safranski looks at the Washington side in his May 6 post, Pakistan's ISI on trial in Chicago. He links to my May 4 post on steps the U.S. government has undertaken to downplay the ISI role in an upcoming terrorism trial, then observes:

As Pakistan’s corrupt military-feudal elite scramble to put out smoke after Osama bin Laden was caught and killed in an ISI safe house in Abbottabad and hire K Street lawyer-lobbyists like Mark Siegel at $75,000 a month, there are senior officials in Washington, inside and outside of the DoD, who doggedly championed Pakistan and defended the ISI behind closed doors. These officials, as one DC correspondent in the know related to me, are now looking extremely foolish to their peers, even as they double-down and attempt to salvage a thoroughly discredited policy by spinning hard.

While attention is focused on Washington and Islamabad, Pakistan’s dreaded ISI is quietly going on trial. In Chicago. [...]

Meanwhile, John Batchelor looks at the spin from Pakistan. In a summary of his Thursday-night show's discussion about Rawalpindi's presser on the same date, John notes:

Pakistani military officials discussed the U.S. raid in Abbottabad and its implications for U.S.-Pakistani military-to-military relations during the Corps Commanders' Conference, chaired by army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, the Inter-Services Press Relations department said May 5.

The conference admitted shortcomings in developing intelligence on Osama bin Laden's presence in the country but emphasized that the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate's achievements against al Qaeda and others were unmatched; approximately 100 senior al Qaeda leaders or operators have been captured or killed by the ISI, with or without CIA support.

The CIA-developed intelligence on bin Laden based on initial information from the ISI, but it did not share additional information on the case, the statement said. An investigation of the circumstances that led to this situation has been ordered.

A May 6 Wall Street Journal report that Mark linked to in his post mentions that Salman Bashir, Pakistan's foreign secretary, hotly defended Rawalpindi's record on dealing with al Qaeda:

Mr. Bashir pointed out that Pakistan had arrested almost 300 members of al Qaeda either alone or in joint operations with the U.S. since the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, including 9/11 mastermind Khaled Sheikh Muhammed. In turn, al Qaeda leaders turned on Pakistan, unleashing a wave of bomb attacks on civilian and military targets.

"Osama bin Laden declared war against Pakistan. He launched wave after wave of suicide bombers who killed thousands of Pakistani men, women and children. These were the people who attacked the ISI, who attacked (military) general headquarters, who have attacked mosques and shrines," Mr. Bashir said. "You've got to be a really fantastic spin master to say the ISI or elements of the ISI are involved in this."

Their involvement in such attacks would be news to al Qaeda and to counterterrorism expert B. Raman, who many times over the years detailed the Pakistani-grown organizations that have made war on the ISI and Pakistan's military. (See Raman's May 2009 report for Forbes, An Alphabet Soup of Terror.) Al Qaeda has made certain not to soil its nest in Pakistan. But there is an element in Washington's Thinkistan that is all too willing to back up Bashir's claims. From the WSJ report:

Christine Fair, an associate professor and Pakistan expert at Georgetown University in Washington DC, said Pakistan's "record of helping us with al Qaeda is indisputable."

Indisputable, huh? How about if you and I take a trip down memory lane, Professor Fair? Let's link arms and skip back along a path piled high on either side with bodies of American dead.

The U.S. government paid their counterpart in Pakistan $25 million for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. They paid $10 for another top al Qaeda operative, Abu Zubaydah.

Then Rawalpindi showed photographs of dead men with beards to the CIA, told them the corpses were al Qaeda operatives they'd killed, and got paid tens of millions of dollars in bounty. Some of those photographs cost the CIA one million dollars a pop.

I don't think being skinned counts as receiving indisputable help, particularly when all signs point to top al Qaeda operatives such as KSM being ISI assets that the ISI sacrificed because they wanted the bounty money to keep themselves in business.

If you'd like to review the bounty program in detail, Professor Fair, you can read my November 2009 post, How the U.S. government built a perpetual-motion war machine in Afghanistan and sacrificed American values in the process

The upshot of the bounty program is that together the U.S. and Pakistan built a kind of perpetual motion machine:

At the end of every complex set of transactions between the CIA and the ISI, yet more enemy combatants materialize, to be rounded up or dispatched, leading to yet more enemy combatants to attack ISAF troops and nation-building efforts in Afghanistan, to be rounded up or dispatched, leading to -- well, last night CNN reported that "Taliban" now control 80 percent of Afghanistan, even though only 7 percent of Afghanis support the Taliban.

No, I wouldn't call that infernal machine "indisputable help." I'd call it a work of evil. The same kind of work that led to Operation Airlift of Evil.

Now let's get down to brass tacks. Christine Fair and other Thinktankistan denizens have spent years shopping the line around Washington that whatever 'alleged' terrorism the ISI engaged in was due to the Pakistani government's fear of India. Odd -- Pope John Paul II didn't look Indian to me, and neither does Kurt Westergaard, the Prophet Mohammed cartoonist -- two high-profile targets of terrorists linked to the ISI.

All this is threatening to come into the light of the U.S. mainstream media once the trial of Tahawwur Hussain Rana gets underway in Chicago because the prosecution's star witness, David Headley aka Dawood Gilani, has already confessed that he worked for the ISI. Which is why the government of the United States of America is moving heaven and earth to downplay Rana's testimony.

Isn't it so, Professor Fair?

For readers who might think I'm picking on to Christine Fair because of that little dustup in 2009 in response to her claim that India was staging provocations in Balochistan, why no. I'm picking on her because of what she told India's Rediff News in response to the dustup:

Fair argued that the massive [U.S.] aid to Pakistan would not "fix Pakistan's chronically neuralgic sense of insecurity vis-a-vis India."

On what recitation of facts about the history of Pakistan's aggression does Fair base her conclusion that Pakistan is insecure about India?

No such facts exist outside the brains of Professor Fair and the host of other South Asia experts whose opinions form the foundation of Washington's Thinktankistan. Another way to put this is to observe that never before has so much American blood been shed because of a complete fantasy.

"Libya Crisis: Implications of the Cease-Fire" boing boing boing boing

Wanna play?

As I noted in the noon update to the Chaos post, which went up at 3:30 AM ET today, trying to keep up with the machinations of the "International Community" and Gadhafi is like trying to play chess with a jackrabbit.

(I have no idea why jackrabbits are considered to be rabbits; basically they're short kangaroos. At least that was so for the ones I saw during my childhood in the Arizona desert. I never saw a jackrabbit leap a canyon in a single bound but then again I never saw one try.)

I'll leave it to Batchelor and Stratfor to follow the hourly developments and attempt to make sense out of them. Here's VOA's latest report on the situation and Stratfor's latest analysis, hot off the stove:

Libya Crisis: Implications of the Cease-Fire

SUMMARY

Libya’s government announced an immediate cease-fire on March 18, a day after the U.N. Security Council approved a no-fly zone over the North African country. The move complicates European efforts to spearhead a campaign against Libyan government troops. Assuming Tripoli follows through on its declaration, the affect on operations against the Libyan rebels remains in question.

ANALYSIS
Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim said March 18 that Libya would positively respond to the U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a no-fly zone over Libya. The statement was soon followed by a declaration by Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa of an immediate unilateral cease-fire and halt to all military operations. Tripoli added that it was ready to open “all dialogue channels with everyone interested in the territorial unity of Libya,” that it wanted to protect Libyan civilians, and that it was inviting the international community to send government and nongovernmental organization representatives “to check the facts on the ground by sending fact-finding missions so that they can take the right decision.”

The Libyan declaration comes as members of the NATO military alliance were ramping up for airstrikes authorized by the United Nations against troops loyal to Moammar Gadhafi. French diplomatic sources have been quoted as saying airstrikes could start “within hours.” Libya’s move potentially throws a wrench in plans to establish and enforce a no-fly zone — and take additional military action — against the Gadhafi government.

France and the United Kingdom have led the international community in its push to intervene in Libya. Washington had signaled that it would let the European nations lead. Italy, formerly a strong Gadhafi supporter, announced March 18 that it would consider supplying aircraft to the intervention, as did Norway, Denmark and Belgium.

By offering a cease-fire and inviting nongovernmental groups to conduct fact-finding missions, however, Gadhafi is betting that the European nations will lose the political justification for an attack and that political disagreements over military action within European nations can further weaken their already weak resolve. Europeans in general are war-weary from their involvement in NATO’s operations in Afghanistan. They only will support an intervention in Libya if Gadhafi clearly is committing gross violations of human rights. It will be difficult for Paris and London to prove that Gadhafi is indeed committing such acts or to ignore the cease-fire announcement or the invitation to verify it.

The immediate reply from France was that it would deal with the cease-fire declaration with caution and that the threat on the ground was unchanged. But the backlash at home against an intervention in light of Gadhafi’s comments is not something European governments can overlook easily, especially since the most powerful EU member state, Germany, already has buckled under the domestic political strain and expressed skepticism toward a military operation.

Assuming Gadhafi follows through with the cease-fire, how it will affect his operations against the rebels remains in question. Gadhafi may feel the rebels have been suppressed such that he can mop up the remainder through police actions in urban settings. Alternatively, he may feel the rebels are so thoroughly entrenched in their stronghold of Benghazi that he cannot dislodge them under the threat of Western airstrikes — and is therefore cutting his losses and preserving the integrity of his forces from potential Franco-British-American air attacks. Ultimately, the cease-fire could be a delaying action while Gadhafi builds a stronger position around Benghazi. This would not be without risks, however, as it will give French and British air assets time to deploy in air bases in the Mediterranean, better positioning them to enforce a no-fly zone.

That said, the Security Council has authorized a no-fly zone, which means that while assaulting Gadhafi’s ground forces directly may be stalled by the cease-fire statement, establishing a no-fly zone is not. It is also likely that Europeans will respond to the statement with further demands on Gadhafi, such as that he must resign as leader of the country or that he must withdraw his troops from eastern Libya and possibly even other cities in the west that have seen fierce resistance, like Misurata and Zawiya. Both of these demands would be difficult for Gadhafi to accept. The establishment and enforcement of the no-fly zone may still go ahead, but attacking Gadhafi’s forces directly will become difficult in the immediate term.

Chaos

Noon Update
Stratfor:

Libya’s government announced an immediate cease-fire on March 18, a day after the U.N. Security Council approved a no-fly zone over the North African country. The move complicates European efforts to spearhead a campaign against Libyan government troops. Assuming Tripoli follows through on its declaration, the affect on operations against the Libyan rebels remains in question.

[...]

I give up. Following the Libya situation on a daily basis is like trying to play chess with a jackrabbit.
***********
Now that the "International Community" has declared war on Gadhafi it looks as if he's yanked the offer to let the few hundred rebels that are left to fight to surrender or leave Benghazi in peace (and be picked off later in the desert). The idea behind the offer was to spare the key city, but with Gadhafi now racing against the "International Community," it's doubtful he'll attempt to spare noncombatant civilian lives in the push to retake Benghazi.

Meanwhile in Bahrain (see John's website for links and video in the following post):

Fifth Fleet Bahrain Bug Out
By John Batchelor on March 17, 2011 6:13 PM

The news from Manama, the capital of the small island state of Bahrain, is that the Fifth Fleet HQ has gone on maneuvers to Oman for an indefinite time frame. In sum, bug out from the proxy war in Bahrain between Riyadh and Tehran. Am told that the IRGC has staffed and funded the so-called protesters. The social media messaging that now floods the web, #bahrain, is suspect of being an IRGC disinformation campaign. Of most significance, am told the Bahrain confrontation marks the breakdown of the 65 year-long alliance between Washington and Riyadh. The Kingdom has now turned away. China through the Pakistan connection looks like the choice to replace the US.

Spoke Barry Rubin, GLORIA, to learn that Egypt is also tumbling away from the US. Pat Lang, Sic Semper Tyrannis, said that Cairo is looking for another sponsor. What has caused this break between Washington and its allies in the Middle East?

Am told that the White House is deaf to experienced diplomats in the region. That the White House is piously ideological in supporting so-called democratic leaning youth protesters despite the evidence that the "yuppie bloggers" are either naive ideologues themselves, without experience in governance or diplomacy, or they are tools of the anarchists, Islamists and Twelvers. Asked Barry Rubin if the US is on the brink of losing Egypt. Answer: over the brink. Asked Pat Lang if there was any repairing the break with Riyadh. Answer: no.

Er , how did conversation go from no-fly zone to bombing tanks and heavy artillery?

Well, our butts weren't saved for long. So let me see if I understand this correctly. Everyone fiddled around until it looked as if Benghazi would fall to Gadhafi, then Americans were backed into another war.

Looks like we didn't get rid of the British for very long, either. I guess the Atlanticists won't be happy until Americans have lost their shirts fighting for 'Atlantic' interests.

And here I thought Obama had grown some spine.

Me, I'm going to start praying for the return of George Washington.

New York Times, March 16

Specter of Rebel Rout Helps Shift U.S. Policy on Libya

WASHINGTON — The prospect of a deadly siege of the rebel stronghold in Benghazi, Libya, has produced a striking shift in tone from the Obama administration, which is now pushing for the United Nations to authorize aerial bombing of Libyan tanks and heavy artillery to try to halt the advance of forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

The administration, which remains deeply reluctant to be drawn into an armed conflict in yet another Muslim country, is nevertheless backing a resolution in the Security Council that would give countries a broad range of options for aiding the Libyan rebels, including military steps that go well beyond a no-flight zone.

Administration officials — who have been debating a no-flight zone for weeks — concluded that such a step now would be “too little, too late” for rebels who have been pushed back to Benghazi. That suggests more aggressive measures, which some military analysts have called a no-drive zone, to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from moving tanks and artillery into Benghazi.

The United States is insisting that any military action would have to be carried out by an international coalition, including Libya’s Arab neighbors.

The rapid advance of forces loyal to Colonel Qaddafi, combined with rising calls from the Arab world to prevent a rout of the opposition, has changed the calculations of the administration, which had clung to a belief that interfering in a Middle East uprising could provoke an anti-American backlash.

“The turning point was really the Arab League statement on Saturday,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday to reporters traveling with her in Cairo. “That was an extraordinary statement in which the Arab League asked for Security Council action against one of its own members.”

Mrs. Clinton said she was hopeful that the Security Council would vote no later than Thursday. The American ambassador to the United Nations, Susan E. Rice, is in intensive negotiations over the language of a resolution, sponsored by Lebanon, another Arab state, and backed by France and Britain.

It is unclear how much the administration is willing to put on the line in Libya, given its deep aversion to being entangled in another war and its clear calculation that Libya does not constitute as vital a security interest to the United States as other countries in the region, notably Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Some administration officials voiced the hope that the mere threat of military action could prompt Colonel Qaddafi to show some restraint. [...]

Amrullah Saleh lights a fire under David Petraeus and Hamid Karzai

"We do not want the Taliban to come and cut the noses off our women. We don't want the Taliban to destroy what is left of our historical heritage. We think if we do not rise today, our rights, our very basic rights in a deal with Taliban, will be violated fundamentally." - Amrullah Saleh

MORDOR ASCENDENT, THE OPERA
The lords move to quash an uprising

OVERTURE

By 2004, the US had filmed Pakistani army trucks delivering Taliban fighters at the Afghan border and recovering them a few days later; wireless monitoring at the US base at Bagram picked up Taliban commanders arranging with Pakistani army officers at the border for safe passage as they came in and out of Afghanistan. Western intelligence agencies concluded that the ISI was running a full training programme for the Afghan Taliban, turning a blind eye as they raised funds in the Gulf and allowing them to import materiel, mainly via Dubai. By 2005 the Taliban, with covert Pakistani support, were launching a full-scale assault on Nato troops in Afghanistan and being given covering fire as they returned to their bases in Pakistan.
-- William Dalrymple, 23 August 2010

ACT I

It's had a 100-point inspection. My wife drives one just like it.

On September 15, 2010 Chris Brummitt reported for AP on meetings that day in Islamabad between Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi (photo above) and President Asif Ali Zardari. Brummitt wrote in the lead paragraph:

Pakistan's intelligence services are willing to work more closely with Afghanistan to fight Taliban militants, [Zardari] said Wednesday after talks with the Afghan leader focussed on allegations Islamabad is harboring Afghan insurgents.

Brummitt went on to report that although Karzai and Zardari discussed ways to tackle the Afghan Taliban sanctuaries and training grounds inside Pakistan, they did not say whether any formal agreements had come out of the conversation. A few paragraphs later, after observing that for several weeks Karzai and other Afghan officials had been stepping up their calls for Pakistan to go after the Afghan Taliban, Brummitt got down to brass tacks:

"We need more security cooperation between our intelligence and their intelligence, which Pakistan is willing to offer," said Zardari.

It was not clear, however, if the offer was endorsed by Pakistan's military and intelligence establishment, which dictates the country's foreign and security policies, especially in regard to Afghanistan and arch enemy India. Many analysts say it wants to keep Afghan insurgents as proxies to secure its interests in Afghanistan when the Americans withdraw. ...

ACT II

"Petraeus lauds Pakistan in Surprise Visit" -- July 12, 2010

It's had a 100-point inspection. My wife drives one just like it.

The next day, September 16, General David Petraeus popped into Islamabad to join Karzai; Rahmatullah Nabil, chief of Afghanistan's NDS (intelligence agency); and unnamed "top" U.S. intelligence officials in a meeting with Pakistan Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani (photo above) and Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha, head of Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency.

As to what emerged from the meeting, which was termed "unprecedented" for the number of key players, the ISI spokesperson and the U.S. embassy would not comment. State wouldn't comment because first of all it wasn't an official meeting, despite all the officials involved. But more to the point State wouldn't comment because Petraeus & Co. got nothing -- zero, zip, squat -- out of the meeting.

I think only one major English-language Western press outlet, the Express Tribune, bothered to report on the meeting, which from the report was spun by unnamed officials as signaling Pakistan's agreement to back 'Karzai's plan' to reintegrate Taliban into Afghanistan's government. Pakistan's agreement on any such matter is worthless, as everyone knows; Rawalpindi will slip as many Taliban as they want into Kabul's regime.

Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, who carries more clout than Zardari, managed to squeeze time into his schedule to meet with Karzai and "assured" him that he had "Pakistan’s full support to the Afghan reconciliation plan." Beyond that:

Both leaders agreed to strengthen the tripartite dialogue between Afghanistan, Pakistan and Isaf forces and pre-empt efforts by vested interests to poison the cordial relations between the two neighbours.

In short, "top" U.S. intelligence officials ran up a fuel bill on the taxpayer dime to jet into Islamabad for the buffet at the five-star hotel where the unprecedented meeting took place.

ACT III

We don't sell used cars in this dealership

The only meetings of importance about Afghanistan will occur shortly, when Saudi intelligence chief Prince Muqrin Bin Abdul Aziz (photo above) arrives in Pakistan. He will be negotiating with high-level Taliban leaders on behalf of Karzai and ISAF. In meetings at various 'safe houses' Aziz will start to hammer out power sharing deals between the Taliban leaders and Karzai's regime.

As to how a Saudi prince landed in the thick of negotiations -- the Asia Times Online, which couldn't resist rubbing it in, chose the date of September 11 to reveal that high-level Pakistani sources had told their bureau chief in Islamabad, Syed Saleem Shahzad, that Pakistan's military and the Saudi government had the central role in the backchannel negotiations with the Afghan Taliban -- and with al Qaeda in Pakistan.

Some of the statements Shahzad passed along are more probably items on Kayani's wish list, such as getting the Saudis to repatriate Osama bin Laden, but the gist of the revelations in his report is accurate.

So if it was a foregone conclusion that the September 15-16 meetings in Islamabad were worthless, why put on the show?

ACT IV

Amrullah Saleh (middle) in 2010 at a lunch prior to a speech he gave warning against re-Talibanization of Afghanistan

The above photograph of Saleh was taken by the Washington Post's Joshua Partlow in July, little more than a month after Saleh's resignation on June 6 as NDS chief. From Partlow's accompanying report:

The man who served as President Hamid Karzai's top intelligence official for six years has launched an urgent campaign to warn Afghans that their leader has lost conviction in the fight against the Taliban and is recklessly pursuing a political deal with insurgents.

In speeches to small groups in Kabul and across northern Afghanistan over the past month, Amarullah Saleh has repeated his belief that Karzai's push for negotiation with insurgents is a fatal mistake and a recipe for civil war. He says Karzai's chosen policy endangers the fitful progress of the past nine years in areas such as democracy and women's rights.

"If I don't raise my voice we are headed towards a crisis," he told a gathering of college students in Kabul. ...

On September 17, the day after the two-day gabfest in Islamabad, The Australian's Amanda Hodge reported from Kabul on the fruit of Saleh's summer of barnstorming:

World's Afghans fund new voice

A push to establish Afghanistan's first formal political opposition out of the ashes of the old Northern Alliance is gaining momentum. The campaign is being led by the country's former intelligence chief Amrullah Saleh, who resigned this year in protest at President Hamid Karzai's plans to negotiate with the Taliban and to pardon up to 400 insurgents.

With the US-led NATO alliance flagging a drawdown of troops from July next year, Mr Karzai is pushing for negotiations with the Taliban that will end the crippling and bloody nine-year insurgency.

Afghan analyst turned parliamentary candidate Haroun Mir told The Australian yesterday a core group of Karzai opponents were committed to establishing an opposition that could speak for ordinary Afghans who opposed the Taliban.

He outlined a global fundraising strategy that would draw on contributions from Afghans across Australia, Europe, Canada, the US and Britain, along similar lines to that which fuelled the separatist ambitions of Sri Lanka's Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam for more than three decades.

Unlike the money Tamil separatists collected from the Tamil diaspora, funds raised by the Afghans will go toward the creation of a true opposition political party -- something that Afghanistan's fledgling democracy has lacked:

While Afghanistan's constitution allows for political parties, a combination of traditional tribal divisions, the non-transferable vote system and restrictive electoral regulations introduced by the Karzai administration have hurt attempts to form functioning political parties.

After last year's fraud-tainted election, failed presidential candidate Abdullah Abdullah promised to establish a credible opposition party under the banner of National Alliance for Hope and Change.

Dr Abdullah said [on September 16] he was backing more than 300 of the 2580 candidates running for the 249 lower house seats this Saturday and had helped many fundraise for their campaigns.

But Mr Mir said Dr Abdullah's opposition party was still little more than a promise.

"If, by the summer of next year there's no tangible progress (in the war against the Taliban), then everybody will start moving towards a political settlement and then who would be able to represent the majority of Afghans who are opposed to the Taliban?" Mr Mir told The Australian.

"There's no voice for them. Our hope is that this movement cuts across the country and includes all Afghans. Politics until now has been based on ethnic and geographic affinities. I hope this time it will be broader.

It will be broader, with Amrullah Saleh leading the effort. No one knows that better than officials in the Pentagon and the Obama administration -- and the Saudi and Pakistani regimes.

Thus, the U.S.-orchestrated dog and pony show in Islamabad last week, and the haste with which Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief is being dispatched to Pakistan.

CURTAIN

The stage falls dark. Then a small spotlight; The Fool appears and asks mockingly, So, children of the Allies, how did you travel in the space of one generation from Middle Earth to Mordor?

Related Pundita Posts
Amrullah Saleh versus Mordor
NO COMPROMISE
Alden Pyle in Pakistan Part 1 and Part 2
Caste in Pakistan ...
He ain't heavy, he's my genocidal, hallucinatory, two-faced ally
David Petraeus might study Kashmir ...
How to kill a lot of Taliban
Why General Stanley McChrystal is going straight to hell

Additional Readings
Taliban intimidation tactics, murders, kidnappings worked against election monitors as well as Afghan voters in Saturday's election: The New York Times: Light Turnout in Afghan Parliamentary Election as Violence Deters Voters by Elisabeth Bumiller and Rod Nordland; Sept. 19, 2010

Massive, Saudi-funded madrassas across rural Bengal creating Muslim extremism in the region: Fox News Cable: Muslim Persecution of Hindus In India ... by Phyllis Chesler; Sept. 9, 2010

The New York Times: Lacking Money and Leadership, Push for Taliban Defectors Stalls by Rod Nordland; Sept 9, 2010

Pepe Escobar remembers his adventures in Talibanistan
Part 1: Throw these infidels in jail
Part 2: The degree zero of culture
Part 3 Married to the Mob