Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Archive for March, 2021

Change in Direction of Wind-India-Pakistan antagonism by Brig(Retd) Asif Haroon Raja

یہودی

Change in Direction of Wind

 

India-Pakistan antagonism

 

Asif Haroon Raja

The notorious Narendra Modi nurtured by the RSS had earned infamy due to his disgraceful role in the demolition of Babri mosque in Ayodhya in 1992 and the massacre of 2000 Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 when he was the State Governor. The US and the West declared him a terrorist and denied him a visa.  However, when he took over the rule of India in June 2014, all his sins were pardoned. Soon after, he started flexing muscles against Pakistan. On a flimsy pretext as to why Pakistan’s High Commissioner in New Delhi had hosted a dinner for the visiting Kashmiri leadership in August 2014, which had been a norm, he adopted a belligerent posture. After giving marching order to Pakistan’s envoy, he directed the Indian Army deployed in Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) to heat the Line of Control (LoC) and the Working Boundary (WB) in Kashmir in contravention to the 2003 ceasefire agreement.

From September 2014 onwards, the intensity of firing across the LoC and WB was gradually increased under a calculated plan. The martyrdom of Kashmiri freedom fighter Wani in IOK in July 2015 revitalized the freedom struggle, which gave an excuse to Modi’s BJP regime to step up atrocities against the Kashmiris. All previous records of state terrorism and human rights violations were broken. Pellet guns were used for the first time to blind the children and the unarmed youth taking part in protest marches peacefully.

To force Pakistan not to extend diplomatic, political and moral support to the Kashmiris, a propaganda war was geared up to paint Pakistan as an abettor of terrorism in India and Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK). To further maximize pressure, a covert war that had been initiated from Afghan soil in 2003, was accelerated and water terrorism was up-surged as an additional tool to cow down Pakistan. False flag operations, the threat of surgical strikes, induction of sophisticated war munitions, and heavy buildup of conventional forces and nuclear strength were other pressurizing tactics.  

Internally, BJP became the torchbearer of Hindutva. It started destroying democratic institutions and secular values pursued by the Congress, fomented fascism and became intolerant towards other religious minorities in India. Religious and press freedom and independence of the judiciary were undermined. Modi declared his intentions to revoke the special status of IOK. To change the demography of IOK, he started constructing new colonies for the retired army personnel and Hindu Pundits. However, he couldn’t make constitutional changes to make IOK an integral part of India since he didn’t have the requisite majority in the Lok Sabha.

To gain a two-thirds majority in the May 2019 elections, Modi in consultation with his patrons executed a false flag operation in Pulwama on February 14, 2019. In the engineered suicide attack, 44 Indian soldiers died and the blame was promptly put on Pakistan. Indian media created war hysteria and the event was made a pretext to launch an air attack in Balakot on February 22. The incursion backfired, but Pakistan took revenge by giving a befitting response on Feb 26-27 which humiliated the Indian air force and raised the stature of PAF sky-high. Irrespective of the huge setback, Modi succeeded in garnering Hindu votes and sweeping the elections.

After returning to power with a heavy majority, Modi’s first major action was to rescind the special status of IOK by annulling Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution on Aug 05, 2019, and bisecting IOK into two Indian Union Territories. Soon after, 8 million Muslim Kashmiris residing in the illegally annexed region were locked up in their houses, curfew was imposed, and they were subjected to the worst atrocities. Youth were slaughtered or put in torture cells and the women raped. This gory practice is still going on with a vengeance to break their will to resist. The hawkish senior civil and military Indian leaders didn’t stop there. Drunk with power, they threatened to annex GB and AJK and break Pakistan into four parts. Hardly a day passed without unprovoked firings by Indian forces across the LoC and WB in violation of the 2003 ceasefire agreement, killing and injuring civilians living in the close vicinity as well as soldiers. Even villages were not spared.                      

From 2009 onwards, after India blamed Pakistan for the Mumbai attacks and impulsively suspended composite dialogue, Pakistan has been bending over backwards to renew talks with India, but India showed no interest and not only kept notching up its bellicosity but also made terrorism a precondition to restart talks. Pakistan never picked up the courage to state the fact that India is the biggest terrorist state in the region and has created issues with all the neighbouring states in South Asia.

Modi was urged repeatedly to stop the madness but he turned down all peaceful gestures and pursued the path of hostility relentlessly. The constant low-intensity conflict along the LoC together with the absorption of IOK by India upped the temperature to a boiling point and it was feared that open war was round the corner.

 

 

The foreign paid proxies that had been flushed out from FATA and Baluchistan in 2015 were once again regrouped and rejuvenated by RAW and proxy war was stepped up in the two conflict zones.

Apart from Pakistan’s nuclear program, which is an eyesore for India, the USA and Israel, CPEC has become another irritant for the trio. The three strategic partners are determined to disable the nuclear program and to scuttle CPEC at all cost. 

Under the obtaining highly tense geo-political environment hope for peace between India and Pakistan soon was slim. People were keeping their fingers crossed as to when India will further up the ante.

The sudden news of hotline talks between the Army DGMOs of the two countries last month resulting in a ceasefire along the LoC and WB wef 25 February came as a big surprise. It was difficult to believe the national security adviser to the PM Moeed Yusaf who stated that no backdoor channel took place. Since then the volatile LoC and WB are peaceful.

The next development was the offer of peace to India by Gen Bajwa during the security conference in Islamabad this month. It was followed by a letter from virulent Modi to Imran Khan wishing him and the people of Pakistan good wishes on the occasion of Pakistan Day on March 23. A meeting on Indus Water Treaty was also held in Delhi in a friendly environment. Indian troops are expected to take part in joint drills of SCO countries organized by Pakistan. It is speculated that the SAARC Summit which is held in suspended animation since 2016 due to Indian obduracy is likely to be renewed and the next summit will be held in Islamabad and Modi may attend. If so, it will change the whole dynamic.

Let us make an appraisal as to how come this sudden change of heart took place and that too secretly and mysteriously. In my view, another round of hypocrisy is ready to take off and soon our media would spread the news about the success of backdoor diplomacy and the role of our friends in melting the ice of antagonism. Media channels will splash breaking news that a great breakthrough has been achieved and things would soon get back to normal between the two arch-rivals. The government and its allies would claim it as their diplomatic triumph while their fans would get engulfed in ecstasy.

This kind of euphoria is an old phenomenon. Whenever India finds itself in trouble, or it has a sinister plan up its sleeve, it offers a hand of friendship and our leaders readily and excitedly clutch the offered hand saying let bygones be bygone and let us give peace a chance in the overall interest of the two countries in particular and South Asia in general.

In this regard, I would like my friends to recall the peace treaty signed with India on January 4, 2004, and the period till Nov 26, 2008, when we were in a state of euphoria, flying kites that all our core issues of Kashmir, Siachin, Sir Creek and water would be resolved through a composite dialogue. LoC was silenced. But India had a different plan.

Under the guise of peace and friendship, it fenced the whole length of the LoC and Pakistan helped India in subduing the freedom movement in IOK. Getting rid of the threat of Kashmir which had become a bleeding wound for India, RAW launched the biggest ever covert operations from Afghanistan to bleed and destabilise Pakistan and make it a failed state.

From the eastern front India launched a cultural invasion in Pakistan with a focus on the smaller provinces and the younger generation, to popularise India as the most powerful state in the region, glorify Indian armed forces, promote Indian secularism and liberalism through movies, songs, dance, music, fun and frolic, spread obscenity, demonise Islam and Islamists, make settled issues controversial, create divisions, inject doubts and misgivings against the state premier institutions, and remove the sting of jihad. RAW made inroads with the help of people-to-people contacts and confidence-building measures.

Much of it was achieved with the help of Pakistan media, NGOs and liberals and organisations like Aman ki Asha and SAFMA. To maximize pressure on Pakistan, India started building dams on our three rivers as it resorts to water terrorism.

While pretending to be friends, India put all the acts of terror in India and IOK in the basket of Pakistan. This facade of friendship was torn apart by India after it conducted a false flag operation in Mumbai in Nov 2008, suspended composite dialogue abruptly and from that time onwards adopted an extremely aggressive posture which was taken to new heights by Modi from Sept 2014 onwards. He never minced his words while stating his sinister objectives against Pakistan. On several occasions, he and his hardcore lieutenants have been threatening to deprive Pakistan of a single drop of water and to fragment Pakistan. A product of RSS, he nurtures pathological hatred for Muslims and Pakistan.

Historically, our leaders, both civil and military, starting from the great Quaid-e-Azam have been extending a hand of friendship to India and urging it to live as peaceful neighbours, but India not reconciling to the existence of Pakistan rejected the gestures. The main bone of contention was and still is the unresolved Kashmir dispute, which India will never resolve following the wishes of the Kashmiris and the UN resolutions. Talks were a mere gimmick to buy time and absorb IOK into Indian Union, which it did on 5 Aug 2019.

India never let go of any opportunity that came its way to harm Pakistan. Conversely, Pakistan never availed of the opportunities, or whenever it did, the plans were executed poorly. Our successive regimes have remained under the illusion that their defensive policy clothed in one-sided appeasement would make Pakistan safe. India has inflicted tens of thousands of cuts on the body of Pakistan since 2003 and has cleverly portrayed itself as a victim and Pakistan as an abettor of terrorism. India succeeded in selling its false narrative to the world since Pakistan made no effort to build a counter-narrative to put the record straight. All its acts were reactive and apologetic.

Today India is up against the most difficult times both on external and internal fronts. Never before India faced a potent twin threat from China and Pakistan, and never before Indian society was so deeply divided. Never before Pakistan spoke so boldly against India to expose its wrongdoings. India’s ugly face has been exposed to the world for the first time after the arrest of Kulbushan followed by leakage of misdoings of Srivastava Group and Goswami WhatsApp chats. Never before, it was so sharply criticised by world bodies including the EU over its massive human rights abuses against Indian minorities and Kashmiris. Visas have been denied by Canada to its senior military and civil officers involved in human rights abuses. Snakes in the grass in Pakistan milked by India are being systematically crushed.

Pakistan has got out of isolation mainly due to CPEC, which has become a magnet to pull all the landlocked Central Asian States, South Asian States less India and Bhutan, West Asia. Middle East, Africa and Russia. If the Taliban take over, Afghanistan will also join CPEC. Iran is inclined to make Chahbahar complement Gwadar. Pakistan’s macroeconomics have begun to show improvement and the value of the rupee has improved.

The US is in no position to extract any concession from the Taliban or to pull out safely without the cooperation of Pakistan. Pakistan armed forces have emerged as the strongest and most battles hardened force of the world and have earned kudos from the world. These are happy tidings for Pakistan and the only thing it has to do is to put its house in order which is presently in disorder due to the Govt-PDM clash, rising inflation and price hike. There is a need for a national dialogue to cool down the political temperature.

Modi’s fascist and racist policies have backfired and have made all the Indian minorities including the Dalits hostile and they have become defiant. Kissan Tehrik, Khalistan and Naxalite movements, and the freedom struggle in J&K have become existential threats to the security of India. Never before India suffered such humiliations at the hands of the PAF and China’s PLA and it couldn’t do anything to wash out its embarrassment. Much to Modi’s chagrin, its chief patrons USA and Israel didn’t come to his rescue.

India’s huge investments in Afghanistan and covert war against Pakistan seem to have gone down the drain. CPEC which has the potential to make Pakistan self-reliant couldn’t be scuttled and India’s plans to annex GB have been disrupted by China. Hopes of Indo-US-Israel nexus to convert Ladakh into the biggest military station have dashed. Not only Afghanistan but Iran has also slipped out of the hands of India.

While India’s chief patron USA is a descending power engulfed in multiple crises, its chief rival China is the ascending power and the future superpower which has become a strategic partner of Pakistan with common security interests. The story of the USA as the giant and China as a minnow has become redundant and today both are equal competitors.

Shining India’s rising economy has plummeted due to Covid 19 and its GDP has dipped into negative. For all practical purposes, democratic norms and secular values over which India used to gloat have been overtaken by fascism and racism. Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and NRC Bill have alienated the minorities of India particularly the Indian Muslims who are worst affected. Delhi riots in February 2020 followed by a mass movement of the Muslim women in Delhi against the CAA gave a glimpse of the deep-seated hatred of the largest minority against the Hindutva lovers.

About two million Indian security forces are engaged in counter-insurgency operations all over India and IOK for the last so many decades and not a single insurgency or separatist movement could be quashed. The Indian Army particularly the lower ranks are in a state of demoralization due to social discrimination, maltreatment by seniors and misusing them extensively to kill their own citizens. Modi has lost his popularity, his smiles, his stupid hugs, and in frustration is growing a long beard.

India had got a chance of the century in 1971 as quipped by Subramanian and it cut Pakistan to size. Today Pakistan has got a chance of the century to avenge its humiliation and settle the long-standing Kashmir issue. Today, China is also an equal stakeholder in J&K and collusion with Pakistan and freedom fighters in IOK, is well poised to dictate terms to India.

Instead of making productive use of this great opportunity, we are once again inclined to return to the futile talks and to normalise relations with the most cunning and treacherous India which follows the philosophy of taking only and not giving an inch. It has a big role in keeping Pakistan politically unstable and economically weak. Under no circumstances it can see Pakistan prospering.

The sudden change of direction of the wind has not happened on its own. Modi dared to annex the disputed Indian Occupied Kashmir without the tacit approval of USA and Israel and then stuck to it adamantly. India accepted China’s intrusions across the LAC and sued for peace since it is in no position to strike back and forcibly retrieve its lost territory. After the 1962 debacle, the Indian military has once again acted timidly against China’s aggression.

India would not have ceased firing along the LoC last February if its house was in order and it was not faced with twin threats. Modi would not have written a letter of felicitation and desired cordial relations with Pakistan without a nudge from Joe Biden. Pakistan would also not have accepted India’s offer of a ceasefire and talked of peace on its own. The USA is the only country that can dictate terms to India as well as Pakistan.

Both the US and India are sailing in choppy waters. Biden would not affect any changes in the overall global policies but would execute them in his own ways and for that, he needs a breather. The moment the US and India sail past the rough patch, they will recommence their old monkey tricks.

Pakistan cannot afford to sing the peace mantra and hope for reopening fruitless talks with India without first providing relief to the 8 million Kashmiris going through hell. Without India restoring the special status and stopping the reign of terror perpetrated upon the Kashmiris, and closing its terror infrastructure in Afghanistan, Pakistan should not agree to reopen talks.

In concert with China, Pakistan is in a position to put pressure on India to agree to these preliminaries before restoring diplomatic ties and then embarking upon wholesome dialogue for the settlement of the Kashmir dispute. Pakistan must play its cards shrewdly and intelligently and must not get duped once again. Time is on Pakistan’s side.

The writer has retired Brig Gen, war veteran, defence & security analyst, international columnist, author of five books, his 6th book under publication, Chairman Thinkers Forum Pakistan, Director Measac Research Centre. asifharoonraja@gmail.com




        

No Comments

An Overseas Pakistani lady speaks out on politics in Pakistan

 

Video

https://www.facebook.com/MubashirHassanShahCBL/videos/446946210072988/

 

 

,

No Comments

The Sharifs and Zardaris have ruled and looted Pakistan for decades, and plundered its treasury by Anjum Saher

The Sharifs and Zardaris have ruled and looted Pakistan for decades, and plundered its treasury

by

Anjum Saher

 

 

 

 

This article is an eye opener for the sleeping masses of Pakistan.

The Sharifs and Zardari’s who ruled this country for decades, plundered its treasury

and now have Pak army and the Judiciary are their next target.

The group headed by the convict Zardari and the absconder N Sharif consist of a bunch of traitors.

They attacked the supreme court of Pakistan in the past. The attack was organized

by Shehbaz Sharif, creating a  dark page in the History of Pakistan Judiciary authored by Sharif family.

They took out a procession against the supreme court , during which a child was killed.

 The protest was against the Supreme Court historical decision, disqualifying N Sharif for life.

 Recall,”  Mujhe Kiyun Nikaala.”

  • Following his father’s footstep, his daughter Maryam (Calibri Font queen) recently led an attackon NAB, damaging the building and trying to threaten the judges.
  • The  threatening  phone call to Justice Abdul Qayum by Shehbaz sharif, asking for severe punishment to shaheed Benazir Bhutto
  • The attack on Supreme court  judges ( by Talal Choudhry on the behest of his Paymasters), comparing the judges  to the Idols in the  
  • The THREAT  to Pakistan Army by Zardari, “Hum Aapki eent se eent baja daingay.”
  • Both Sharif and Zardari and their cohorts are leading a movement  to defame the Judiciary and the Pak army.
  • The masses of Pakistan should be reminded of the atrocities being committed by these two groups and their associates,
  • Achakzai, Fazlur Rehman and others. 
  • Backstabbing Pakistan—
  • Mir Jaffer uz Bengal , Mir Sadiq uz Deccan, 
  • Mir Ayyaz Sadiq uz Lahore
  • Nang-e-Millat Nang-e-Deen Nang-e-Watan.
  •  Indian – Israeli Agents and Traitors attacking our Armed Forces — – Traitors Onslaught

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Muslims of the Subcontinent have still not forgotten the treachery committed by MIR SADIQ OF DECCAN & MIR JAFFAR OF BENGAL which paved the way for the rule of East India Company over Indian Subcontinent and similar act of treachery committed by MIR SADIQ of DECCAN which led to the fall of ruler of Hyderabad Deccan.

Unfortunately, another shameless traitor MIR SADIQ alias MIR AYAZ SADIQ has surfaced from the land of Lahore on the behest of yet another certified convicted criminal NAWAZ SHARIF the most corrupt person who ruthlessly plundered Pakistan and fled to London , declared as Proclaimed Offender by High Court Islamabad . Now this known Indian Agent who operates under instructions of RAW along with his group of Crooks, Corrupts , Criminals are trying their best to pave the way to make Pakistan subservient to an Indian hegemony destabilizing Pakistan and its Armed Forces with their treacherous movesIt is earnestly requested to all that it is incumbent upon all loyal Pakistanis to raise their voice against all such enemy sympathizers.   operating under cover of being Pakistani got to be treated as Enemy Agents responsible for harming the national interest be brought to justice as soon as possible. 

The Narrative of National Dacoits Movement (PDM) comprising of those who ruthlessly plundered the country and Baqiat of those who openly opposed creation of Pakistan and generations old agents of Hindus is deliberately designed to harm the interest of Pakistan and its Armed Forces , facilitating, and strengthening the Indian, Israeli stance to isolate Pakistan in the world. Thus, our Armed Forces are the prime target of these anti-state elements to weaken Pakistan.

“YA ALLAH IN SAB MULK DUSHMAN HARAM KHORON KO TABA KAR DEY.”

  • Ai Khuda In Haram Khors  Aur Indian Agents Ko Is Mulk Sa Naist o Nabood Kar Da. They Have Plundered Our country.
  • Haram Khors Have Brought Pakistan on its Knees
  • Ai Mera Allah – Un Haram Khoron Ko Tabah Kar Da Jis Na Hamara Mulk Ko Loota Ha.

“LET US STEP INTO AND ENTER THE NEW YEAR with PRAYERS and HOPES for a JOYSOME YEAR”. AMEEN.

Those who agree as detailed above, are requested to kindly circulate in their circle of Family & Friends to apprise them as well of nefarious designs of Plunderers & Anti State elements in Pakistan.

Editor’s Note-This article was filled with emotions and the pain Pakistanis are feeling. We are indebted to the author who freely expressed his emotion. Pakistanis are emotional by and large. We had to edit this article heavily, as it was written in a free form. 

, , , ,

No Comments

U.S. Should Pay Iran Reparations by DAVID SWANSON, Counter Punch

FEBRUARY 5, 2021

U.S. Should Pay Iran Reparations

BY

DAVID SWANSON

 

Why would I say such an outrageous, treasonous, delusional, OBVIOUSLY-funded-by-Putin thing? Am I hoping to enrage war-crazed sadists who’ve seen too much television “news”?

Not at all. I want them to still be around when I say that it would actually be preferable for the United States to pay reparations to the entire rest of the earth.

Well, then, why would I say such a thing, and exactly what type of mental disorder would allow me to believe the Iranian government to be saintly perfection?

Ah, that’s the key question, isn’t it? Because, as we all know, in every court that has ever ordered anyone to compensate someone else, it’s been necessary to prove that the someone else was a flawless embodiment of paradise. Proving that someone was harmed has never been relevant at all. Nope. The burden of proof has always been on the victim to show that they have never once done any unpleasant thing to anyone. This is why reparations and compensation and restitution never ever happen. In fact these things don’t even exist as concepts. If they did, the following story might matter.

In the 1720s, the newspapers of the colonies that would become the United States wrote positively about the Persian Empire, that place that 2500 years ago held some 60% of humanity. Various U.S. “founding fathers” like Thomas Jefferson sought models in Persian history. From the 1690s to 1800s, based on their school books, U.S. children were unlikely to think of “xylophone” with the letter “x” and likely to think of “Xerxes.” In a staple of U.S. education for generations, Abbott’s Histories, four non-Westerners were included. Three of them were Xerxes, Cyrus, and Darius. Examples from Persian history were tossed around in Congressional speeches. U.S. towns named themselves (and they still are named) Media, Persia, Cyrus.

From the 1830s to 1930s Presbyterian missionaries from the United States lived and raised families in Persia with the goal of converting Christians there to a preferred flavor of Christianity. In that, they largely failed, but they succeeded in providing schools, medicine, and generally positive ideas about the United States.

From the 1850s to 1920s Persian newspapers promoted the United States as a model. Right up through the 1940s the Iranian government generally sought greater U.S. influence in Iran, and the U.S. government usually refused, usually contemptuously.

Iran, from the 1820s on was forced by Russia and Britain and other European nations into a cycle of debt and concessions. It was principally as an alternative to Russia or Britain that Iran was attracted to the United States, or at least to the idea it had of what the United States was. In 1849, with the United States never having had an ambassador in Iran, Iran began secret (don’t tell the British!) talks with the U.S. minister in Constantinople. In 1851 they signed a Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation. It was incredibly fair and respectful by comparison with European treaties with Iran, but it was never ratified. To my knowledge Iran did not ask a single Native American nation what good ratifying it would have done. In 1854, the Shah of Iran asked the United States to put U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf and U.S. flags on every Iranian ship, but the U.S. government wasn’t interested. It wasn’t until 1882 that the U.S. Congress could be persuaded to send any U.S. representative to Iran, and then only because a key Congress Member had a sister there as a missionary and potential victim of “Mohammedan fury.” That representative would not be called an ambassador, due to Iran not being a European country, but his arrival in Tehran in 1883 was cause for a major celebration. Five years later, Iran sent its first envoy to Washington, where the U.S. government generally refused to pay any attention to him and U.S. newspapers were so cruel to him that he resigned after nine months.

In 1891 Iranians publicly rebelled against the Shah’s awarding of a tobacco monopoly to the British. In 1901, for 20,000 pounds, the Shah gave a Brit the right to drill almost anywhere for oil for 60 years. Meanwhile, in 1900 a new minister began representing Persia in the United States and significantly increased trade between the two nations, especially in Persian carpets. The Persian pavilion at the 1904 St. Louis World’s Fair was a great success (and gave the U.S. the waffle cone).

In 1906 Persia saw a major popular uprising, including widespread use of the sit-in as a tool of nonviolent action (hey, Iran-hating auto worker with a good salary, I’m looking at you), and won the creation of a representative parliament. In 1907, Russia and Britain sought to divide Persia into zones for their respective control. The parliament (Majles) resisted, and the Shah tried hiring bands of thugs to instigate a coup against the Majles. The nation descended into civil war. In 1909 an American named Howard Baskerville became a hero still honored in Iran when he was killed by the royalists.

In 1909 the Majles asked the United States to provide a treasurer-general to oversee the nation’s finances. W. Morgan Shuster got the job. He became more than an accountant. He became a leader of the constitutionalist resistance to the efforts of royalists to overthrow the Majlis. In this, he was not acting on behalf of the U.S. government. When Russian forces demanded Shuster’s ouster, the Majles wrote to the U.S. Congress for help, but Congress had no interest (it did get a good laugh). A violent coup followed. Shuster was out. A Russian puppet government was in. Back in the United States, Shuster was a star. Persian fashion was hot. The U.S. Post Office took its motto from Herodotus’ description of the postal system of the Persian Empire. But actual Persia was of no concern.

 

 

 

 

 

When Europe launched the insanity of World War I, Persia declared neutrality. This was simply ignored by both sides, which proceeded to use the place as a battlefield and to cut off supply lines, resulting in some 2 million Persians starving to death or dying of disease. When Christians massacred Muslims, with the complicity of U.S. missionaries, the good impression those missionaries had made for decades were ruined. Persia nonetheless kept asking the U.S. government for help and for the return of Shuster. In 1916, the Shah asked permission to hide in the U.S. legation and to fly the U.S. flag from the Imperial Palace — both of which requests were turned down. At the end of the war, Persia hoped for some justice out of the negotiations in Paris, but was shut out by British maneuvering, including bribing the Shah. This left Iran without the chance to have its hopes in Woodrow Wilson shattered like the rest of the world’s, blame going instead to Britain. The U.S. minister in Tehran handed out a public statement claiming that the United States had tried its best to get Persia included in the Paris Peace Conference. The country was shut down by pro-U.S. riots. Read that last sentence twice.

The secret dealings of Britain with Persia, behind Wilson’s back, was a key argument in the U.S. Senate for refusing to join the League of Nations. Persia offered the United States oil and continued to implore it to become more involved, but the U.S. government had a higher priority, namely not offending the British. In 1922, the U.S. State Department sent a new financial advisor, but he was no Shuster. When a U.S. oil company was finally chosen to work in Persia, it immediately was hit by the Teapot Dome scandal, and those plans collapsed. Then, in a case of mistaken identity combined with insane murderousness, a mob beat a U.S. consul to death, and the U.S. government insisted that three boys be killed as compensation, and so they were.

Iran kept reaching out to the United States, turning over its archaeological efforts to Americans, welcoming new missionaries and their schools. Up through 1979, many Iranian government officials were graduates of a U.S. missionary school called the Alborz School.

The Shah flirted with Nazism. The theories of an “Aryan” (Iranian) origin of a superior Nordic race — theories largely of U.S. origin — were used by Nazi Germany to appeal to Iran. Yet Iran still declared its neutrality during the sequel to WWI, and it still didn’t matter. The Soviet Union and Britain invaded. Iran, of course, asked the U.S. government to object. The U.S. government, of course, ignored this. During the war, in fact, Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin used Tehran as a place to meet while doing their best to ignore the fact that anyone lived there. Stalin was effectively the host. Even the Shah was not invited to a birthday party for Churchill. But when the Great Men left, Roosevelt sent the Shah a note saying he hoped the Shah would someday visit Washington. The Shah clung to that hope and pushed to make it real for years after. Meanwhile some 30,000 U.S. soldiers were in Iran from 1943 to 1945 with the usual drunkenness and rape and Apartheid flaunting of wealth in the face of hunger that has been the trademark of U.S. bases around the world from that day to this.

Once the two world wars had ended, Iran began a golden age of democracy and relative well-being. It wouldn’t last long. In 1947, an Iranian democracy movement asked if it could hold a sit-in demonstration at the U.S. embassy as a symbol of democracy. It was of course told to get lost. The U.S. Ambassador from 1948 to 1951 had extremely Churchillian attitudes toward the irrational natives, who were of course incapable of and unready for democracy. He and the Shah got on well. It was in 1949 that the Shah finally got his first of many visits to the United States, land of democracy. In 1950, Iranians learned of U.S. complicity in British manipulation of their government, and persisted in criticizing the United States in tones of shock and disappointment, using all the language of straying from principles that is so routine in this-is-not-who-we-are speeches from U.S. politicians. Then the Iranians, despite Britain and the United States, elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.

For the first time in forever, an Iranian representative government had represented the wishes of the Iranian public, not those of a king or his foreign sponsors and handlers. This outrage was not to be tolerated. Mossadegh, like most Iranians, believed that Iranians, rather than Britain, should profit from Iranian oil. He nationalized the oil, and his fate was sealed. But before it was, he would appeal in every way he could to the world and to the United States. He compared his actions to the Boston tea party. He traveled to New York and eloquently won his case at the UN Security Council. He immediately headed for Philadelphia to pose with the Liberty Bell. He got himself made Time magazine man of the year. He also negotiated with the U.S. to allow Britain to still play a major role in Iranian oil, but Britain threw that idea in his face. The oil was, after all, a British possession that had somehow found it way under Iranian soil. Gallup found that a full 2 percent of the U.S. public thought the U.S. should take Britain’s side against Iran. My guess is that’s about the percentage of the U.S. public that now know that the U.S. did just that.

Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of Teddy, claimed he and the CIA overthrew the Iranian government using $60,000. Norman Darbyshire of Britain’s MI6 claimed he spent over 1.5 million pounds and drafted the coup plans and assassinated the Mossadegh-loyal chief of police and talked Roosevelt out of quitting when their coup first failed. Col. Stephen J Meade of the CIA, who was also involved in the 1949 coup in Syria that is largely erased from coup histories even by those who know about Iran 1953, claimed he was the U.S. partner of Darbyshire in planning the whole thing. Indisputably this coup required electing Churchill in the UK and Eisenhower in the U.S., and Eisenhower appointing the Dulles brothers, who began planning the coup with the British before Eisenhower was inaugurated. It also required that Eisenhower, having campaigned on Cold War anti-communism, believe or pretend to believe his own propaganda and the ridiculous notion that Mossadegh was a commie sympathizer.

The coup at first failed, looking even less competent or threatening than the Beer Belly Capitol Putsch of 2021 in Washington. The Shah, whom the failed coup intended to install as dictator, looked ridiculous fleeing to Rome. But mobs on the streets and a visit of 28 tanks to Mossadegh’s house did the trick. Iran was liberated! The Shah returned! Democracy was out! Quoting Jefferson would now be left to various other Untermenschen banned from the Paris Peace Conference, such as Ho Chi Minh. Freedom was on the march! The Shah was empowered, armed, and turned into the world’s top weapons customer, and the United States into the world’s top weapons dealer. A philanthropic operation called SAVAK was established under the tutelage of the CIA and later the Mossad, specializing in torture and murder. All was right with the world, and the U.S. government was finally paying attention to Iran and funneling money into it. A leader even came to visit Iran for the first time (not counting FDR visiting Stalin), and it was Vice President Richard Nixon.

The Shah’s dictatorship learned well, bought weapons, provided oil, and even created a “two-party system” so ridiculously copied from the U.S. model that Iranians referred to them as the party of “Yes” and the party of “Yes, Sir.” U.S. influence was finally in Iran as a reality rather than a dream. By 1961, there were 5,000 Americans living in Iran, and Hollywood was all over the cinemas and televisions, Newsweek and Time on the news stands. Many were less than pleased at finally having gotten what they’d spent so long asking for. Saying that out loud could get you killed, which may have been a big part of the problem. In 1964 the U.S. got a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) to give U.S. troops immunity for crimes in Iran. Many were enraged. But someone fearlessly spoke against that basing SOFA, a man known as Ayatollah Khomeini.

When the United States elected Jimmy Carter president, the Shah worried momentarily about the “human rights” rhetoric, until realizing it was just for show. The weapons kept flowing as before. Carter even visited the Shah and toasted him as an “island of stability” one week before he was overthrown by a revolution with the slogan “Death to America’s Shah.” The revolution, however, was mainly nonviolent. The Shah was not killed. He spent the better part of a year searching the globe for someplace to live. When Carter let him into the United States, Iranians feared the worst. They did not believe the Shah needed U.S. medical treatment, because the Shah had hidden the fact that he was ill. They did believe that the United States would use its embassy in Tehran, as it had done 26 years earlier, to overthrow the Iranian government and re-install the Shah. So, Iranian students broke in and took over the U.S. embassy, creating a hostage crisis, ending Jimmy Carter’s presidency, and initiating Day 1 of the history of U.S.-Iranian relations in U.S. media, for whom nothing prior to the hostage crisis ever happened. Iran, in 2021 U.S. cultural understanding, came into existence in 1979.

In 1980 the despotic ruler of neighboring Iraq, a man who had been brought to power with U.S. assistance, Saddam Hussein, invaded Iran. The Iranian revolution, begun as a coalition including leftists and liberals as well as the religious, now moved in the direction of resembling what it had overthrown. It did so in the name of unity and survival. Ronald Reagan’s government aided both sides in the war, hoping to damage both sides and make money from both sides. Both sides unnecessarily prolonged the war. Both sides committed horrors. Iranian-backed militias blew up U.S. Marines in Lebanon. The U.S. helped Iraq know where to bomb people, and helped Iraq acquire and get away with using chemical weapons. The U.S. also secretly sold weapons to Iran, because, just like the Israeli government, the U.S. government had an agenda often at odds with its own propaganda. You, dear reader, are supposed to go on hating Iran and adoring Reagan, and quoting Reagan on “not dealing with hostage-takers,” but the reality was Reagan selling weapons to Iran to try to free hostages in Lebanon and to get money for a war in Nicaragua that Congress had forbidden him to fight. The Bush Senior government finally persuaded Iran to get those hostages freed, by making promises it immediately and casually broke, without so much as an “I’m sorry.” In fact, when the U.S. shot down an Iranian passenger plane full of men, women, and children, Bush announced that he would never apologize for anything and didn’t care what the facts were.

He and every other U.S. president since has, however, very much cared what Israel wanted. Iran offered the U.S. an oil deal in 1995 and Israel killed it. On September 11, 2001, while people across the Middle East cheered, Iranians mourned. The President of Iran offered to come to the site of the World Trade Center and condemn such barbarism. His offer was of course dismissed out of hand. Iran offered to assist the United States with its war on Afghanistan, and that offer was quietly accepted, used, and forgotten. Bush Junior then declared Iran a member of an Axis of Evil with the nation that had waged war on it, Iraq, and a nation it had virtually nothing to do with, North Korea. In 2003, Iran offered to negotiate away its nuclear program, to allow full intrusive inspections, to accept a 2-state solution in Palestine/Israel, and to keep participating in the “war on terrorism.” Iran was told to go Dick Cheney itself.

Since 1957, the United States had been providing Iran with nuclear technology. Iran has a nuclear energy program because the U.S. and European governments wanted Iran to have a nuclear energy program. The U.S. nuclear industry took out full-page ads in U.S. publications bragging about Iran’s support for such an enlightened and progressive energy source. The U.S. was pushing for major expansion of Iran’s nuclear program just before the Iranian revolution of 1979.

Since the Iranian revolution, the U.S. government has opposed Iran’s nuclear energy program and misled the public about the existence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. This story is well-told in Gareth Porter’s Manufactured Crisis.

When the United States assisted Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in a war against Iran in the 1980s, in which Iraq attacked Iran with chemical weapons, Iran’s religious leaders declared that chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons must not be used, even in retaliation. And they were not. Iran could have responded to Iraqi chemical attacks with chemical attacks of its own and chose not to. Iran says it is committed to not using or possessing weapons of mass destruction. The results of inspections bear that out. Iran’s willingness to put restrictions on its legal nuclear energy program — a willingness present both before and after any U.S. sanctions — bears that out.

When the Soviet enemy disappeared, new ones were quickly found. According to both former NATO commander Wesley Clark and former UK prime minister Tony Blair, the Pentagon made a list of several nations’ governments to be overthrown, and Iran was on it. In the year 2000, the CIA gave Iran (slightly and obviously flawed) blueprints for a key component of a nuclear weapon. In 2006 James Risen wrote about this “operation” in his book State of War. In 2015, the United States prosecuted a former CIA agent, Jeffrey Sterling, for supposedly having leaked the story to Risen. In the course of the prosecution, the CIA made public a partially redacted cable that showed that immediately after bestowing its gift on Iran, the CIA had begun efforts to do the same for Iraq. In 2019, Sterling publishing his own book, Unwanted Spy: The Persecution of an American Whistleblower.

I can only make sense of one reason why the CIA hands out blueprints for nuclear bombs (and in the case of Iran planned to deliver actual parts as well). Both Risen and Sterling claim that the goal was to slow down Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Yet we now know that the CIA had no solid knowledge that Iran had any nuclear weapons program, or if it had one how advanced it was. We know that the CIA has been involved in promoting the false belief that Iran is a nuclear threat since the early 1990s. But even assuming that the CIA believed Iran to have a nuclear weapons program in 2000 (which the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate would later claim had been ended in 2003), we have not been offered any explanation of how providing flawed blueprints could have been imagined to slow such a program down. If the idea is supposed to be that Iran or Iraq would simply waste time building the wrong thing, we run up against two problems. First, they would likely waste vastly more time if working without plans, as compared to working with flawed ones. Second, the flaws in the plans given to Iran were obvious and apparent.

When the former-Russian assigned to deliver the blueprints to the Iranian government immediately spotted the flaws in them, the CIA told him not to worry. But they didn’t tell him that the flawed plans would somehow slow down an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Instead they told him that the flawed plans would somehow reveal to the CIA how far along Iran’s program was. But how that would happen has never been explained either. And it conflicts with something else they told him, namely that they already knew how far along Iran was and that Iran already had the nuclear knowledge that they were providing. My point is not that these assertions were true but that the slow-them-down rationale was not attempted.

One never wants to underestimate incompetence. The CIA knew next to nothing about Iran, and by Sterling’s account was not seriously trying to learn. By Risen’s account, around 2004 the CIA accidentally revealed to the Iranian government the identities of all of its agents in Iran. But incompetence does not seem to explain a consciously thought-out effort to distribute nuke plans to designated enemies. What does seem to explain it better is the desire to point to the possession of those plans, or of the product of those plans, as evidence of a hostile threat of “weapons of mass destruction,” which, as we all know, is an acceptable excuse for a war.

That we are not entitled to find out, even 20 years later, whether giving nuke plans to Iran was incompetence or malevolence, or to ask Bill Clinton or George W. Bush why they approved of it, is itself a problem that goes beyond incompetence and into the realm of anti-democratic tyrannical governance by secret agencies.

We have no possible way of knowing a complete list of countries the U.S. government has handed nuclear weapons plans to. Trump tried giving nuclear weapons secrets to Saudi Arabia in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, his oath of office, and common sense. The silver lining is that whistleblowers on giving nukes to the Saudis have apparently been listened to by certain members of Congress who have gone public with the information. Whether the difference is the individuals, the committees, the sides of Capitol Hill, the party in the majority, the party in the White House, the involvement of the CIA, the general culture, or the nation being given the keys to the apocalypse, the fact is that when Jeffrey Sterling went to Congress to reveal the giving of nukes to Iran, Congress Members either ignored him, suggested that he move to Canada, or — with horrible timing — died before doing anything.

Ignoring Iran was a long Congressional tradition before the establishment of the tradition of claiming Iran is a threat to the world. Now lying about Iran is a major industry. The United States now imposes deadly sanctions on the entire nation of Iran, in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Iran made an agreement for more thorough inspections than any other nation on earth to get sanctions relief. The United States violated and tore up the agreement, and now says that Iran had better change its ways if it wants the agreement back.

There are, not one, but two Iranian shah dynasties with descendants in the United States awaiting their turns.

One includes Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last dictator whom the United States imposed on Iran from 1953 to 1979. Pahlavi lives in Potomac, Maryland, (across the river from Langley) and openly advocates for an overthrow of the Iranian government (because 1953 has worked out so well?) or, as the Washington Post puts it, “runs an advocacy association that is outspoken about the need for democracy in his home country.”

Yet Iranians — like either saints or an abused spouse, you decide — persist in declaring their openness to negotiating with the U.S. government. I, for one, apologize and propose reparations. At the very least, end the sanctions!

Much of what I’ve described above can be found in America and Iran by John Ghazvinian. I also recommend watching a movie called Coup 53.

David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is executive director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson‘books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio.He is a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, and was awarded the 2018 Peace Prize by the U.S. Peace Memorial Foundation. Longer bio and photos and videos here. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook

Courtesy

, ,

No Comments

Afghanistan yesterday, today, tomorrow Pakistan-US role by Brig.Gen(Retd) Asif Haroon Raja.

Afghanistan yesterday, today, tomorrow

Pakistan-US role

By

Brig.Gen(Retd) Asif Haroon Raja.

Part-One

 

                                      “While we all hope for peace it shouldn’t be peace at any cost but peace based on principle, on justice” Corazon C. Aquino

 

Background

Pakistan and Afghanistan never enjoyed friendly relations since the latter didn’t accept the Durand Line as an international border and laid claims over Pashtun inhabited areas in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Baluchistan. Afghanistan has traditionally remained close to India and hostile towards Pakistan. Relations dipped during the rule of President Daud after he seized power in 1973 from King Zahir Shah. Insurgents in Baluchistan were provided safe havens and Pakhtunistan movement was fueled.

 

When Afghanistan was occupied by Soviet forces in December 1979, and 4 million Afghans became refugees in Pakistan, Pakistan under Gen Ziaul Haq condemned the invasion and decided to support the Afghan resistance forces. The US and Saudi Arabia came in support of Pakistan led covert war in June 1981. The two provided funds and weapons only. The Soviet forces accepted defeat and pulled out by February 1989 but in the ten-year gruesome war, the country was devastated and two million Afghan civilians lost their lives. Pakistan had to face KGB-KHAD-RAW-Al-Zulfiqar sabotage and subversion.

 

No sooner the US achieved all its objectives, the US not only ditched Pakistan in 1990 and put it under harsh sanctions, but to rub salt on wounds of Pakistan, it made India its strategic partner which was the camp follower of USSR. The Mujahideen eulogized as holy warriors were abandoned as a result of which civil war broke out between the warring groups.

 

 

  

 

The Taliban under Mulla Omar started their Islamic movement from Kandahar in 1994 and after capturing Kabul in 1996, they established Islamic Emirate. Taliban were in control of 93% territory till 07 Oct 2001, and only 7% in the north was controlled by the Northern Alliance (NA) comprising Uzbeks, Tajiks and Hazaras. The military wing of NA was trained by the Indian and Iranian military trainers in Iran.

 

 

 

From 1997 onwards, the Taliban regime came in bad books of Washington because of cancellation of oil & gas pipelines project of UNICOL and was put under sanctions. Al-Qaeda under Osama bin Laden that had been created by CIA to fight the Soviets turned hostile and started hitting American targets in Gulf of Aden and African countries.

During the 5-year rule of Taliban, Afghanistan was made free of warlords, crimes and social vices including rapes and drug business. People could leave their houses and shops unlocked since none dared to commit theft. Justice was cheap and quick. For the first time since 1947, Pakistan enjoyed very cordial relations with Afghanistan and its western border became safe and Indian presence in Afghanistan faded. The closeness promoted the concept of strategic depth. After the forcible removal of Taliban regime by the US-NATO forces in November 2001, Pak-Afghanistan relations have strained and Indian influence has bounced back in a big way. It was owing to their social and judicial achievements that Talibanization crept into FATA and Malakand Division in Pakistan and later give birth to TTP and TNSM.   

 

Pakistan-US relations 1954-2000

 

Pakistan-USA relations have all along been transactional in nature and never developed into deep-rooted strategic relationship based on mutual trust and friendship. The 74 years history has seen many ups and downs; the US behaving like an overbearing mother-in-law and Pakistan put on a roller coaster ride behaving like a submissive daughter-in-law, taking her barbs without a whimper. Such an unfair treatment was meted out in spite of Pakistan having put its national security at stake three times and each time suffering a great deal.

 

The US embraced Pakistan for the accomplishment of its objectives in this region and no sooner the objectives were achieved, it was unceremoniously dumped. Each time the US ventured into this part of the world, it found Pakistan to be most suitable and most pliable to serve its ends. Pak-US relations were at their best during Eisenhower-Dulles era after which the US started wooing India and forced Pakistan to lean on China.

 

During the Cold War, Pakistan was reluctantly taken on board by the US in 1953/4 to help in containing communism in South Asia after India which was the camp follower of the Soviet Union refused to become part of the US defensive arc. Pakistan joined the western pacts due to its extreme security concerns from India and Afghanistan, both backed by former Soviet Union.

 

Although Pakistan earned the title of ‘most allied ally of the US’ and became totally dependent upon the US arms and technology, but the US disappointed Pakistan when its support was needed the most in the 1965 and 1971 wars with India. Pakistan was denied the crucially needed war munitions from the US as well as diplomatic support during the two wars, while India continued to receive arms from the USSR and kept the resolution of Kashmir dispute at bay due to Soviet vetoes. 

 

The US ignored India’s nuclear explosion in 1974 but promptly imposed sanctions on Pakistan in 1979 on mere suspicion that it was working on a nuclear program. However, soon after, when Pakistan’s services were needed to fight the occupying Soviet forces in Afghanistan, it once again hugged it in 1981 and doled out monetary and military assistance.

 

Throughout the 1990s, Pakistan was kept under the leash under the charges of developing an Islamic bomb, nuclear proliferation and cross border terrorism in Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK). Holy warriors were dubbed as terrorists and hounded. Indo-US relations blossomed into strategic relationship during Bill Clinton rule and thereon it kept flourishing leaps and bounds.

 

Post 9/11 events

 

Pakistan was once again taken on board by the US after 9/11 for the achievement of its short-term regional objectives in Afghanistan. From the very outset, the US intoxicated with power ignored the geography, history, culture, sociology and ideology of Afghanistan. It didn’t bother that it had been a graveyard of empires where it was easy to enter but near impossible to exit safely. Not only Alexander the great fell, but the British also failed and the USSR disintegrated.

 

Blinded by rage to avenge the 9/11 attacks and immersed in the pool of arrogance and egotism, the US and its western allies jumped into the inferno of Afghanistan with full zeal and enthusiasm, and vaulted from one plan to another in pursuit of a hollow strategy, which was never changed to correct its course.

 

Gen Musharraf accepted all 7 demands of the US since he was denied the option of staying neutral. To save Pakistan from destruction, he ditched the Taliban and provided airbases, seaport, land routes and intelligence cooperation to the invaders. The US could not have so easily toppled the Taliban regime and occupied Afghanistan in a month if Pakistan had not provided full support.

 

Completely isolated and encircled from all directions, and the traditional fallback position of FATA denied, the Taliban could fight the ground forces of NA, but couldn’t have resisted the massive air bombing for long. Hence they wisely undertook a tactical withdrawal to regain strength and start bleeding the occupiers through prolonged insurrectional war. The euphoric George W. Bush sounded the victory bugles too prematurely and took it for granted that the Taliban were down and out.

 

Mistakes made by Bush administration

 

Much against Pakistan’s advice, the US installed NA heavy regime in Kabul which was pro-India and anti-Pakistan. The puppet regime ignored the Afghan Pashtuns and started giving more space to India to make it the preeminent player in Afghanistan as was desired by the US.

 

Ignoring the heavy majority Pashtuns and relying solely on the minority NA regime was the first mistake made by Bush administration. This blunder was followed by another when it imposed the US tailored constitution upon the tribal based society. 

 

Opening of the second front by USA in Iraq in 2003 without consolidating the gains in Afghanistan was another slip-up, since engagement on two fronts diluted the war effort of the US-NATO and allowed breathing space to the Taliban to regroup in FATA.

 

Yet another error was raising non-Pashtun heavy Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) which turned into a liability.

 

CIA and NATO as well as Afghan warlords indulged in drug business which had almost been eliminated by the Taliban. These distractions loosened the grip of ISAF led by weak military commanders over Afghanistan and enabled the Taliban to recover lost space in southern and eastern Afghanistan and also earn money from drug business for their war effort.

 

Since the two land routes from Pakistan used by NATO containers passed through the Taliban dominated rural belt, the US security contractors and Afghan officials had to pay toll tax to the Taliban for passage of every container which also became a source of income for them.

 

The US dual standards

 

Misled by misconceived victory, over confident Bush instead of fulfilling the promises made to the Afghans by promoting democracy, education and development works, he gave preference to covert operations against Pakistan and forced Pakistan to fight the Al-Qaeda in South Waziristan (SW). That way, Pakistan earned the hostility of Al-Qaeda and own tribesmen.

 

Ironically, while Washington waged war in Iraq and Afghanistan to bring democracy, it stoutly upheld Pakistan’s military dictatorship.

 

While Pak security forces fought the Pakistani Taliban and Baloch rebel groups in FATA and in Baluchistan that were funded, trained, equipped and guided by RAW-NDS combine to destabilize Pakistan, they didn’t confront the Afghan Taliban whose struggle was entirely confined to Afghanistan and they never fired a bullet against Pak forces.

 

Pakistan started taking measures to protect its national security in 2008 once it learnt that CIA-FBI had gained complete sway over FATA with the help of TTP formed in Dec 2006. Blackwater was inducted in 2008 to bolster CIA-FBI in urban areas of Pakistan. Nexus of CIA-RAW-NDS-MI-6-Mossad-BND in Kabul supported anti-Pakistan proxies in FATA and Baluchistan.

 

In order to keep the supply routes to the TTP open so that it could indulge in terrorism in FATA and KP, the US rejected Pakistan’s proposal to fence the western border, or to increase number of border posts on Afghan side to prevent infiltration.

 

A coordinated Indo-Afghan propaganda campaign backed by the west was launched to defame Pakistan and its premier institutions.

 

Obama’s Nightmare era

 

Based on Obama’s Af-Pak strategy of anvil and hammer, managed by Richard Holbrook, ISAF failed to provide the anvil when Pak forces delivered the hammer in SW in 2009, thus letting the TTP militants under Hakimullah Mehsud to flee to Afghanistan. Pak forces managed to retrieve 17 out of 19 administrative units under the influence of TTP and confined its presence to the last bastions of North Waziristan (NW) and Khyber Agency.

 

But for Pakistan which nabbed over 600 Al-Qaeda senior leaders and operators and handed them over to CIA, the ISAF couldn’t have dismantled and defeated them in Afghanistan as claimed by Obama. Bulk of Al-Qaeda fighters had otherwise shifted to Iraq in 2004 and formed Al-Qaeda Arabian Peninsula after the US-NATO forces occupied Iraq in May 2003.

 

Two troop surges in 2009 raised the strength of ISAF (an amalgam of 48 military contingents) to near 1,50,000, but it proved futile since it resulted in heavy casualties of the occupiers. Adoption of rearward posture and abandonment of boots on ground strategy by ISAF after suffering setbacks in battles of Helmand and Nuristan and putting ANSF in the forefront, and thereafter putting heavy reliance on airpower, was a wrong decision made by Gen McChrystal. It enabled the Taliban to snatch the initiative and build momentum of offensive, which couldn’t be reversed by the occupying force.   

 

Tensions between the US and Pakistan kept increasing when the US adopted a highly discriminatory policy of blaming Pakistan for the failures of ISAF-ANSF, and instability in Afghanistan; subjecting it to drone war; insulting and penalizing it and constantly pressing it to do more against Haqqani Network (HN) and Quetta Shura, and at the same time covering up the sins of India and Kabul regime and going out of the way to reward them. Extreme pressure was mounted to flush out HN from NW. Discriminatory policy brought in element of distrust.  

 

2011 was the worst year for Pakistan in which Raymond Davis, Abbottabad attack, Memogate and Salala attack took place which forced Pakistan to cut off military cooperation with the US and stop the two NATO supply routes for six months.  

 

The reason behind the discriminatory behavior was that while Indo-US-Afghan-West-Israel are strategic partners and work in collusion to achieve their common objectives, Pakistan doesn’t fit into the US security paradigm or the Indo-Pacific strategy, and as such was accepted as a tactical partner to fight terrorism both inside Pakistan and in Afghanistan.

The points of friction which kept the Pak-US relations dysfunctional are Pakistan’s nuclear program, the CPEC, its closeness with China, hostility against India mainly due to unresolved Kashmir dispute, its refusal to recognize Israel, and its refusal to fight Afghan Taliban.

Initiation of peace talks by Obama in 2011 which led to opening of Taliban’s political office at Doha in mid-June 2013 lacked sincerity since whichever Taliban leader came forward for a peace deal, whether from TTP or the Taliban, was droned. Wali, Baituallah Mehsud, Hakimullah Mehsud, Akhtar Mansour, were all killed by drones. Fight and talk strategy was aimed at dividing Taliban movement.  

After withdrawal of bulk of ISAF forces by Dec 2014, the Taliban rapidly captured more territory and gained a military ascendency over occupying forces and the ANSF. Demoralization set in among the occupiers and collaborators; green-over-blue attacks as well as suicide cases increased; rate of desertions in ANSF accelerated.

Installation of a unity regime in Kabul in 2016 by Obama regime was a bad decision. Due to poor governance, corruption and power tussle between Ghani and Abdullah, writ of the government got confined to Kabul.

The Taliban gained dominance over 56% rural territory through which major supply routes pass; its influence stretched to well over 80% area where they installed shadow governments; could strike any part of the country; developed war economy; had sound command, control & communication infrastructure; fair judicial system and dedicated fighters.

The Taliban succeeded in breaking their isolation and were wooed by China, Russia, Turkey, Iran, Qatar, UAE, KSA, and Germany. China signed a $ 3 billion development project with the Taliban. It reduced the clout of Pakistan over them.

Writ of the ANSF backed by the US led Resolute Support Group got restricted to capital cities which are often attacked by the Taliban.    

   

Landmark peace agreement

After maximizing force against the Taliban and pressure against Pakistan, Donald Trump reopened the stalled peace talks in July 2018 and finally inked the historic peace agreement with the Taliban on February 29, 2020, in which the Kabul regime was excluded. The UN, Russia, China and Pakistan endorsed the agreement.

The Taliban agreed not to allow Afghan soil for terrorism against the US/allies, reduce violence, desist from attacking western targets in Afghanistan, sever ties with al-Qaeda, and to open inter-Afghan dialogue for a comprehensive political settlement. The US agreed to pull out all troops by May 1, 2021 and to refrain from attacking the Taliban. 5000 Taliban prisoners and 1000 ANSF prisoners were to be released within 3 months after start of intra-Afghan talks on March 10, 2020, and Taliban leaders removed from the UN blacklist. 

Intra-Afghan dialogue got delayed due to Ashraf Ghani’s reservations and foot dragging over prisoner exchange. Firefight between the Taliban and ANSF supported by the US continued in which former had an upper hand.

Trump was keen to end the longest war and make a clean break from Afghanistan and he reduced the US troop level to 2500 only.  

To be continued

The writer is a retired Brig Gen, war veteran, defence & security analyst, international columnist, author of five books, 6th book under publication, Chairman Thinkers Forum Pakistan, Director Measac Research Centre, takes part in TV talk shows. Email: asifharoonraja@gmail.com     

, , ,

No Comments