So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists….”  — Manifesto of Anders Behring Breivik

By Jeff Gates

War-making storylines tend to lose their steam. Sustained warfare requires more than just a plausible Evil Doer. A credible narrative is also essential. To remind us who to hate, who better than a murderous Nordic Muslim-hater?

Far-fetched? How many Americans had heard of the Taliban before March 2001 when destruction of the ancient Buddhas at Bamiyan was reported worldwide as a ‘Cultural Holocaust’? Voila! An Evil Doer brand emerged and was soon repackaged as Islamo-fascism.

Six months later, an attack on U.S. soil left little doubt that outraged Americans would be provoked to war. Combine an emotionally wrenching mass murder with manipulated intelligence and an invasion was assured—of Iraq. That miscue required sophisticated pre-staging.

Residents of Washington, DC well recall the sniper attacks that left ten dead during the October 2002 lead-up to a Senate vote on a war resolution sponsored by Jewish Zionist Senator Joe Lieberman. Those well-timed murders ensured a heightened sense of insecurity and helped ratchet up the requisite hatred—to invade a nation that played no role in 911.

Remember the Times Square Terrorist? A car belonging to a Muslim was found with two WalMart propane tanks, an alarm clock, a box of fireworks and some fertilizer. When? In May 2010 during the lead-up to a UN vote on a nuclear-free Middle East—opposed by Israel.

To sustain hate requires a sustained stream of plausible reasons to hate. Plus careful maintenance of a ‘generally accepted truth’ that keeps attention focused on a credible threat.

Preparing the Minds

Islamo-phobia was a fresh threat when it first appeared in a 1993 article in Foreign Affairs. Yet it dates from 1990 when Princeton Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis, an avid Zionist, touted “The Roots of Muslim Rage.” By 1996, Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington was ready to publish The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.

With more than 100 nongovernmental organizations promoting The Clash, Americans experienced a seamless segue from an old narrative to a new. Without missing a beat in Pentagon spending, we ended a global Cold War and, by consensus, began a global War on Terrorism.

Huntington argued that cultural and religious identities would emerge as the primary source of conflict. To gain traction, The Clash consensus required a series of events that could be plausibly blamed on Muslim Evil Doers. That was 15 years ago—a long time to sustain a storyline.

With Osama bin Laden dead and war-weary Americans nearing the tenth anniversary of 9/11, The narrative was losing its punch. Plus the storytellers face a transparency problem: Intelligence agencies worldwide have identified pro-Israelis as the common source of the manipulated intelligence that induced the invasion of Iraq.

What’s a Zionist to do? Answer: look to past successes.

Timing is Everything

Ten days prior to 9/11, Tel Aviv announced a $1 million grant to Israeli super-spy Jonathan Pollard. Why then? The timing suggests Tel Aviv was signaling its operatives and sayanim (Hebrew for volunteers).

The Norwegian shooter is akin to the narrative-advancing snipers who emerged in the lead-up to the Senate vote authorizing the U.S. military to invade Iraq. In the lead-up to next month’s UN vote on statehood for Palestine, the carnage in Norway freshened up a stale storyline.

This latest mass murder was committed on the 65^th anniversary of the bombing of the King David Hotel in Tel Aviv. That mass murder was an operation of the Irgun, Zionist-terrorist predecessors to the Likud Party of today’s Benjamin Netanyahu.

The same night that Israel launched its Six-Day War in June 1967, Irgun operative Mathilde Krim was continuing her torrid affair with President Lyndon Johnson—in the White House. Why then? Because that land grab ensured the roots of the Muslim rage required to shape future events.

Why would a Norwegian Zionist target Norwegians? For the same reason that Irgun Zionist Menachem Begin murdered Jews in the King David Hotel: to advance a narrative.

In September 2000, Likud Prime Minister Ariel Sharon led a provocative march to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount. When, after a year of calm, suicide bombings recommenced, Sharon and Netanyahu warned that only when Americans “feel our pain” would we appreciate their plight.  To feel Israel’s pain, they said, would require that America lose 4,500 to 5,000 to terrorism, the initial estimate of those lives lost to a mass murder one year later.

The well-timed operation in Norway turned to mass murder as a means to remake the world order in plain sight.  Those complicit specialize in maintaining a storyline that dates from when the medieval Crusades pit Christians against Muslims.

Absent the success of such deceit, we may forget whom to hate.

Large Visitor Globe

By JEFF GATES

This is the second in a series of four articles

"Our financial health is directly related to our national security."

                            -  Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs

Those old enough to remember the promise of a post-Cold War peace dividend also recall how we segued seamlessly from a global Cold War to a global War on Terrorism.

The fiscal cost for the US component of the Cold War topped $20 trillion in 2011 dollars. But for the Cold War, what might America have accomplished with those resources?

Though the cost of the War of Terrorism is still being tallied, the "but for" costs are fast becoming apparent. The long-term costs of US military involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan could be as high as $4.4 trillion. To date, every dollar has been borrowed. Interest payments alone could total an additional $1 trillion.

During the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson borrowed broadly to afford both "guns and butter." The butter included Great Society old-age security and health care programs whose deferred obligations were left to the future. That future is now.

Vietnam was the first war that the US clearly lost. Afghanistan is next. As Veterans of the Vietnam War asked in the 60s: Who wants to be the last to die for a lost war?

Secretary of State Colin Powell cautioned before the US was induced with manipulated intelligence to invade Iraq: "You break it, you own it." Those who fixed that intelligence have thus far escaped indictment.

Against a multi-decade backdrop of debt-financed lost causes, consider the role of fiscal conservatives elected in 1980 when the total federal debt hovered around $900 billion.

Two key financial forces trace their ascendancy from that era. First was the use of public debt to boost the cash flow of private business. To afford this sudden switchover from demand- to supply-side economics, lawmakers agreed in 1981 to reduce tax receipts by $872 billion over five years. The shortfall would be borrowed, largely abroad.

Though that deficit-financed stimulus was later pared back, by the close of the fiscally conservative Reagan-Bush I era, US debt topped $4200 billion. America's appetite for borrowed funds whetted the appetite of capital markets for more securitized debt.

Second was the dramatic increase in funds under management – particularly pension plans. During the booming 1960s, US companies began putting aside funds for retirees. During the 70s, federal law regulated and encouraged that practice.

By 1980, the US had roughly $800 billion in funds under management. By April 2007, those funds had surged to $16.6 trillion. The bulk of those funds, by law, are meant to fund pensions that in the early 1980s were due 20-30 years in the future. That future is now.

Only now we're three decades further down a fiscal path that burdened the US economy with debilitating debt. With our financial health impaired and our military waging multiple wars abroad, America's vulnerabilities are there for all to exploit.

China's rise to prominence was foreseeable by those long experienced in finance and global trade. We've seen before how a financial force-multiplier profits those who arbitrage labor costs across borders. During the Cold War, Western "capitalists" shipped fabric into the "communist bloc" for refashioning into clothes for high-end retailers in the West.

National security analysts call that "pitting two sides against the middle while profiting off the misery of both." With the US issuing the highest-rated debt and China offering the lowest-priced labor, surely today's financial dynamics were foreseeable decades ago.

While the world's strongest economy was induced with false intelligence to wage serial wars and incur massive debt, the nation with the world's cheapest labor emerged to attract America's purchasing power and reinvest in its own ascendancy.

With the US crippled fiscally, mired militarily and discredited diplomatically, who gained the advantage?

Normalization with China in the 1970s, followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1980s, opened access to global labor pools. By then, ownership of US corporations was shifting into the hands of fund managers who became obliged by law to pursue only those values calculable in money. By consensus, other values were displaced. 

Aided by a steady supply of deficit-financed cash flow, that shared mindset pushed US production offshore. With labor a dominant cost of production, investment capital flowed to firms that moved their manufacturing abroad, often to China.

Like tectonic plates shifting underneath their feet, Americans watched their jobs vanish funded, in part, by America's "full faith and credit." Seduced by a consensus mindset, we felt secure embracing the very financial forces that now threaten our economic security, our retirement security and our national security.

To propose that today's outcomes were unforeseeable suggests an inconceivable incompetence. To posit these outcomes as purposeful suggests the presence of a deeply imbedded enemy within.

Large Visitor Globe

Debt is a well-traveled route to wealth. With borrowed funds, you can buy a house. Securitize that debt and more credit becomes available for more homebuyers. Securitization can also fuel a debt-induced housing boom.

By JEFF GATES

This is the first in a series of four articles

Greece is in crisis because it has too much debt. The US is in crisis because it needs to issue more debt. The debt-hobbled economies of Europe are known as the PIGS: Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. Their fiscal health may determine the future of the euro.

Like the euro, the dollar suffers from a fiscal cold poised to become financial pneumonia. The US could soon have $16.7 trillion in government bonds secured by our full faith and (ahem) credit.

The deficit for 2011 alone is $1.3 trillion. In 1980, the entire US debt totaled $900 billion. An additional $2.4 trillion in debt is sought to fund the government through 2012.

With fiscal resources tight, budget cuts are under way at the federal, state and local level. New York City plans to lay off five percent of its teachers. California plans to close dozens of its popular state parks. Arizona sold its public buildings and now leases them back.

Public sector pensions are on the chopping block. Look for cuts in Social Security benefits as annual interest payments on US bonds reach $627 billion by 2017 — enough to fund the Pentagon in 2007. America's securitized debt is exceeded only by its unsecuritized obligations. Those debts total tens of trillions more.

Two months ago, Standard & Poor's lowered its outlook for US bonds from stable to negative. Moody's signaled its intent to announce a possible default on US bonds, even if temporary. Fitch also forecasts a possible downgrade.

How did the US reach this perilous juncture?

Post-World War II, America was home to 50 percent of the world's productive power. That strength infused US bonds with global credibility and guaranteed the dollar would be favored worldwide as the reserve currency. Those strengths also ensured we could borrow at will.

Finance has long been the “operating system” shaping geopolitical affairs from the shadows — invisible, intangible yet ever present. That stable presence suggests today's destabilizing dynamics were foreseeable.

As the US reduces its commitments to Africa, China is reinvesting in commodities, building infrastructure and making African allies. While we Americans continue to put our faith in financial assets, Beijing is reinvesting our purchasing power in physical assets — roads, railways, ports — and commodities, including metals, minerals, factories and even farmland. The interest we pay to China on US bonds helps modernize its navy and air force, positioning Beijing to project force worldwide.

Did today's financial dynamics "just happen"? Or was this systemic disabling of America done by design? Americans want to know: How did we get it so terribly wrong?

When waging long-term warfare, shared mindsets are the key battlefield. Victories flow to those skilled at creating generally accepted truths — even if false. Where do consensus beliefs reside if not in a shared mindset? That intangible realm is where modern-day wars are won or lost. At present, the US is losing to those skilled at sustaining false beliefs. Iraq had no WMD yet we were induced to invade by a consensus belief that persuaded us otherwise. Nor did Iraq have yellowcake uranium from Niger. Nor did Al-Qaeda operatives meet in Prague with Iraqi officials. Nor was Saddam Hussein's secular regime collaborating with religious fundamentalists in Afghanistan.

How do lies become widely held beliefs? How was Secretary of State Colin Powell induced to believe that Iraq had mobile biological weapons laboratories? Who has the means, motivation, opportunity and, importantly, the stable nation state intelligence to deceive us with such success?

This latest inducement to war on false pretenses was tactical, not strategic. Strategic duplicity induced the world's strongest economy to freely embrace the very financial forces that now threaten the capacity of Americans to defend their freedom. Did we freely choose to squander and now endanger our “full faith and credit”? Or were we induced? Was post-World War II America the target of a trans-generational fraud?

Debt is a well-traveled route to wealth. With borrowed funds, you can buy a house. Securitize that debt and more credit becomes available for more homebuyers. Securitization can also fuel a debt-induced housing boom. The resulting wealth accrues to those positioned to capture that inflated value. And to those who pocket fees for repackaging debt as tradable securities.

Who captured the bulk of the wealth that we were induced to believe would be found down that debt-fueled path? Answer: The same financial sophisticates who pocketed the bulk of the private sector wealth financed with today's public sector debt. Skeptics question whether the US freely chose this path. Americans rightly want to know how their nation became a global purveyor of junk debt. The US faces a consensus-enabled crisis. Was this outcome a consequence of dysfunctional domestic politics? Or was this the handiwork of those skilled at pitting parties against one another while selling debt to both?

Large Visitor Globe

By Jeff Gates

President Obama hopes to head off a train wreck in September at the U.N. General Assembly. That’s when member nations plan to press for an independent Palestine. The Israel lobby is furious.

Critics doubt that the General Assembly has the authority to recognize Palestine. Yet protection of member sovereignty has been a goal of the U.N. since its founding. Thus the priority that Israel placed on U.N. recognition after President Harry Truman acknowledged Israel on May 14, 1948, eleven minutes after the Zionist enclave declared itself a state.

Truman refused to recognize this enclave as “the Jewish state.” Despite Barack Obama’s reference to the Jewish state in a recent speech on the Middle East, during the final days before granting recognition and thereby “legitimacy,” Truman was consumed with the fear that Zionist aspirations would lead to a racist or a theocratic state.

Those concerns led Zionist leader Chaim Weizzman to lobby Truman with a seven-page letter reassuring him that Jewish settlers envisioned a thoroughly secular state similar to the U.S. and Great Britain. Truman underscored that understanding when he recognized not the “Jewish state” (a description he crossed out) but the “State of Israel.”

Today’s train wreck should have been foreseen when Weizzman lied to Truman about Zionist intentions. As with every U.S. president since, Truman was deceived. 

The Joint Chiefs cautioned Truman about the “fanatical concepts” of a Jewish-Zionist elite that sought recognition as a legitimate state. Even then, U.S. military leaders warned that this extremist enclave sought “military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.” Truman, a Christian-Zionist, chose to believe otherwise.

Albert Einstein was also worried. He and other concerned Jews described the Zionist political party that produced Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon and now Benjamin Netanyahu as a “terrorist party” with “the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party.”

The Train Wreck

Truman’s worst fears have since been realized except that the effects were far worse than either he or the Joint Chiefs envisioned. To persuade other nations to endure this enclave of fanatics, the U.S. assured nearby Arab neighbors that Israel would seek no more land.

We now know that the Zionists saw nation-state recognition as only an initial foothold in the region from which to expand their territory and wield geopolitical influence—behind a U.S.-enabled facade of legitimacy.

Secretary of State George Marshall assured Truman that if he recognized these extremists as a legitimate state, Marshall would vote against him. This former WWII general anticipated the dynamics that have since devastated U.S. national security as we Americans were induced to expend our blood and treasure in support of Zionist goals.

The U.S. now appears culpable due to our alliance with a nuclear-armed theocratic enclave of extremists with an apartheid domestic policy and an expansionist foreign policy.

The U.S. diplomatic community also warned Truman against recognition, as did the intelligence community and the policy planning staff at the State Department. Clark Clifford, chairman of Truman’s 1948 presidential campaign, told Truman that if he withheld recognition, campaign funding expected from the Israel lobby would be withheld.

Ally or Agent Provocateur?

Fast-forward to 1967 and we find this same transnational network pre-staging a conflict designed to appear defensive. Since mythologized as the heroic “Six-Day War,” that agent provocateur operation set in motion geopolitical reactions still playing out today.

How far ahead of time was this provocation planned? An Israel Air Force general conceded that attack simulations began in the early 1950s. United Artists president Arthur Krim and his wife, Mathilde, began a strategic friendship with Texas Senator Lyndon B. Johnson. By acquiring property near the LBJ Ranch, Mathilde, a former Irgun operative, could carry on an affair with Johnson while her husband chaired the finance committee for the Democrats.

On the night that the Six-Day Land Grab began, Mathilde was enjoying a sleepover in the Johnson White House. But for that Zionist aggression, would Israel have been able to live peacefully with its neighbors? Israel and its supporters staged an elaborate charade to recast this provocation as defensive. That ruse included the cover-up of an Israeli assault on the U.S.S. Liberty that killed 34 Americans and left 175 wounded.

Then as now, the fabled “Israelites” were portrayed as victims of a hostile world. Then as now, anyone chronicling the consistency of this duplicity risks portrayal as an “anti-Semite.”

This trans-generational deceit continues to undermine U.S. national security at every turn. Zionist treachery began long before George Marshall and the Pentagon cautioned Truman against what these fanatics would now deny the Palestinians: legitimacy.

By the consistency of our support over more than six decades, the U.S. now appears guilty by association. If the U.N. vote becomes a diplomatic train wreck, we have only ourselves to blame.

Large Visitor Globe

By Jeff Gates

Conspiracy theorists assure us that Osama bin Laden was killed in December 2001 and his body put on ice in—of course—an undisclosed location. If the recent killing of bin Laden was a lie, who were the liars? All 79 members of SEAL Team 6, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the U.S. State Department, the White House and 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. All conspired to have us believe that he was killed in Pakistan.

“Who you gonna believe,” the theorists ask, “me or your lyin’ eyes?”

The killing or capture of Osama bin Laden was a strategic imperative of the Obama presidency. His death on Pakistani soil now presents a challenge to the strategic depth required for security and stability in the region. How, under these circumstances, does the U.S. collaborate with a nation given $20 billion since 911? 

To date, the clash between the U.S. and Pakistan has been the focus of mainstream news. Little has been said about the loss of 30,000 Pakistani lives to the war on terrorism. That human toll includes a sharp upswing in deadly attacks since the November 2008 assault in India where Islamic extremists, trained in Pakistan, left 174 dead in Mumbai. Pakistan was portrayed as guilty—by association.

Savvy national security analysts are monitoring who uses bin Laden’s death to tout The Clash of Civilizations. The continued plausibility of this narrative requires a series of plausible Evil Doers, a role that bin Laden played to perfection.

With his death in Abbottobad, home to Pakistan’s elite military academy, Islamabad looks guilty—by association. Mainstream media immediately proposed a no-win proposition for Pakistan: it was either complicit or incompetent. No other option was offered.

When deploying agenda-advancing narratives to induce wars, the power of association is critical. Should a nuclear device be used in the U.S., the U.K. or the E.U., here is the plausible storyline: “How could Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal be secure if their military could not locate bin Laden’s lair in a military town in Pakistan?”

Is Pakistan Next for Regime Change?

Is the power of association again being deployed to start a war by inducing an internalized narrative that displaces facts with false beliefs? Is Islamabad a new cast in a new movie featuring the same old plot?

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Americans know they were induced to invade Iraq on false intelligence. That deceit could not have succeeded absent pre-staging that changed our perception of Iraq from ally to Evil Doer. Is a similar shift in perspective being promoted to rebrand Pakistan?

Plausibility is key. Yet Tom Donilon, Obama’s National Security Adviser, was quick to concede there is no evidence of foreknowledge by Pakistan of bin Laden’s whereabouts.

He also concedes that Pakistan suffered greatly at the hands of those who used its remote lawless regions to train fanatics and launch attacks that killed Pakistanis while Islamabad provided intelligence that enabled Washington to kill or capture extremists.

Obama chose not to share operational intelligence with anyone, including Pakistanis and senior White House staff. Silence is the essence of operational security.

Despite sovereignty issues, the U.S. and Pakistan must make this six-decade relationship work. Progress is best sustained when cooperation is based on mutual interests.

Why Not Try a Prescription That Matches the Malady?

Women in the Pashtun region bordering Afghanistan report that their lives would be vastly improved if they had the electricity to run four light bulbs, charge their cell phones and power their TVs. This is 2011 after all.

Equipping an off-the-grid home with just two high efficiency thin film solar panels would do the job. Another four panels would allow them to refrigerate their food. Imagine raising and educating your children without access to affordable electricity.

Approximately 70% of Pakistani tax revenues are used to service external debt. Much of the balance funds their 1.5 million-strong military, leaving few resources for education or other services for Pakistan’s 185 million citizens.

It’s no wonder that Pakistani children educated in 40,000 Islamic seminaries (madrassas) fail to learn useful job skills. Or that the average Pakistani is skeptical of Islamabad.

The missing component is not trust but a shared vision of what both nations require to restore and sustain their national security. As the largest contributor of personnel to U.N. peacekeeping missions, Pakistan is well positioned to become a global force for positive change.

At this key juncture in an essential relationship, should Americans kill more Muslims, further advancing The Clash storyline? Or should Pakistan and the U.S. join forces to create a new narrative founded on peace through human dignity and solar-powered prosperity?

The tools are known, available and affordable. The missing ingredients are leadership, imagination and the confidence that success is possible.

Large Visitor Globe

THE COALITION OF CONSCIENCE

CHARTER OF DEMANDS

A meeting of different organizations was held under the Chairmanship of Admiral Fasih Bukhari, President Ex Servicemen Association and former Chief of Naval Staff, Pakistan Navy. It was represented by the intelligentsia, opinion makers and other influentials.

We, the people of Pakistan, progeny of the Great Nara (Sarasvati), Indus, Gandhara and Muslim Civilizations that predate all civilizations of the world; and a bastion of knowledge since antiquity; and those who have withstood all imperial adventures,

Having evolved a civilization founded on acceptance of higher values of civilized life, respect for others’ rights, culture of giving not taking, and imbibing an ideology of submission to God’s will, with the firmest of beliefs and faith in our abilities to discern the correct civilization path to a better tomorrow,

Disturbed and aghast at the policies being pursued by the oldest and nascent democracies; overtaken by the imperialist, expansionist and exploitative mindset; concerned that democracy is fast becoming the domain of the highest bidders; political-military and industrial complexes, financial cartels and believers of the doomsday scenarios,

Saddened at the gross violations of human rights defined in the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights of the American Founding Fathers and UN Resolutions, an infringement on the values of cultures, Faith in God that reflects separate standards and values; liberal for self and barbaric for others inherently leading to conflict,

Cognizant that silence is acceptance and complicity in the murder of the innocent; considering such militarized preemptions a violation by the governments on the largest suffering class of the poor in Pakistan, Afghanistan and all coalition countries fighting in Afghanistan.

Spiritually disturbed, because all faiths propagate peace, forgiveness and a quest for truth; rightfully asserting that all those who resort to violence and murder of innocent blatantly violate the universal common values of humanity,

Desiring that political and religious leaders in all our nations lead the way to peace for humanity, to stand united as equals, to save mankind and our planet from extinction.

Appealing to the international and national conscience to stand up and declare that ‘enough is enough’ because, civilizations, cultures and ideologies cannot be bombed out of the minds,

We, the Coalition of Conscience demand, that this, illegal, unjust, and inhuman war be stopped through the collective power of human resilience and conscience world over.

CHARTER OF DEMANDS

1. The foreign presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan is part of problem rather than the solution;

The coalition Governments must immediately order a cessation of all military and sting operations in the region and allow peace to be negotiated.

2.         Al-Qaeda is a convenient tool to blanket all opposition to US policies in the region and impose unilateral policies;

All efforts to use this pretext to prolong the presence in the region and to pursue an international agenda other than peace must cease.

3.         On going coalition operations have a fragmenting effect on both Pakistan and Afghanistan;

All coalition operations with divisive effects must be stopped.

4.         The entire spectrum of violence and instability in Pakistan is a backwash from Afghanistan created by the presence of foreign forces. Support to insurgent and terrorist groups in FATA and Balochistan originate from Afghanistan. If this is not stopped, the instability will spread to other regions as well;

We demand the Government of Pakistan to make its own independent policies to ensure peace and development in the region; the mother of all civilizations.

1. Afghan movement is led by leaders who are indigenous to Afghanistan and legitimate representatives of resistance to foreign occupation;

These leaders must be treated as party to peace and brought into a comprehensive dialogue process as reflected in Pak-Afghan Jirga of 2007.

1. Failing a clear timetable from the coalition for the cessation of war;

The Government of Pakistan will be urged to exercise this nation’s legitimate right to secure its interests against all hostile bases inside Afghanistan, supporting and funding terrorism and insurgency in Pakistan.

7.         In order to ensure long term stability and prosperity in the region;

The Government of Pakistan must carry forward the inconclusive negotiations of 1996 and assist all Afghans (Resistance and Northern Alliance) to mediate peace. We welcome support from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and China with no covert agendas.

1. It is not Pakistan’s responsibility to ensure logistics for coalition forces in Afghanistan knowing well that much of it is used to destabilize and terrorize Pakistanis;

This support must stop unless approved by UN and conducted under transparent international safeguards and inspections.

1. Gross violations and exercise of human rights on selective bases are widely documented;

All Pakistani prisoners kept by coalition countries, Pakistan, and Afghanistan in illegal detention centers must be brought back immediately and subjected to Pakistani courts.

1. Rendition centers, trials under duress and extra judicial killings including drones and blanket air strikes violate basic human rights;

War reparations and criminal trials of coalition leaders who have knowingly falsified evidence in support of war before their own people; their Parliaments; and before the UN Security Council must be brought before Law. All Pakistani leaders guilty of same must be tried under Pakistan laws.

These are the ten screams of conscience. Let them travel far and wide through the resonance of people’s will and be understood and acted upon with speed, honesty, and conviction. We wish a better and secure future for all nations of the world.

The founder members of THE COALITION OF CONSCIENCE are:

Pakistan Ex Servicemen Association

Association of Former Ambassadors

Christian Study Center, Rawalpindi Pakistan

Omar Asghar Khan Foundation

Society for Advancement of Health and Education (SAHEE)

KBS Welfare

Sindi Awam Sanghat

Poverty Alliance

Good Governance Forum

Alternate Solutions Institute

Pakistan Overseas League

Defence of Human Rights

And signatory Citizens

All Civil Society Organizations and Individuals world over are invited to join and raise their voice for the future of mankind.

Country May Be destroyed; The will of the People Can Not Be Broken

Indian Brutalities Are No Less Than Israel’s

By Sajjad Shaukat

A young Kashmiri martyred has a smile on his face

Youme Shuhada-e-Kashmir (Martyrs’ Day) is observed on July 13 every year on both sides of the Line of Control and all over the world by the Kashmiris to pay homage to 22 Kashmiris who were martyred in 1931 to free Kashmir from the brutalities of despotic Dogra rulers. The day is the milestone in the history of Kashmiri struggle against foreign occupation.

The history of Dogra rule (1846-1947) in Kashmir is replete with tyrannous treatment, meted out to the Kashmiri Muslims by Dogra forces. Under the Dogra rule, they were leading so miserable life that it was difficult to differentiate them from beasts. Slave labour, heavy taxes, capital punishment for cow slaughter, and living under constant terror was order of the day.

In this connection, Yousaf Saraf in his book, ‘Kashmiris Fight for Freedom’ calls it “free forced labour” and “instead of donkeys and horses, Kashmiri Muslims were used for transportation of goods across the far-flung areas”.

Atrocities of the Dogra regime could also be judged from the book of Sir Walter Lawrence, ‘The India We Served’. While describing the pathetic picture of the Kashmiris, he remarks, “army was employed in forcing the villagers to plough and sow, and worse still, the soldiers came at harvest time and when the share of the state had been seized” and “there was very little grain to tide the unfortunate peasants over the cruel winter.”

Under that tyrannical regime, political rights could not be imagined; even the religious rights had been segregated away from the Muslims of the state.

On April 19, 1931, the ban of Eid Khutba ignited widespread demonstrations in the Jummu city for a number of days. It was followed by desecration of the Holy Qur’an at the hands of Dogra forces, which resulted into outrage among the Muslims throughout the state. In Srinagar, people gathered in Jamia Masjid to denounce this blasphemy. One such get-together was held in Khankah-e-Muella Srinagar, which was addressed by prominent Kashmiris. When the meeting was concluded, a youth, Abdul Qadeer, pointing his finger to the Maharaja’s palace, raised slogans “destroy its every brick”. With the accusation of sedition, he was arrested forthwith. Abdul Qadir was to be tried in the court but due to large public resentment, the court was shifted to Central Jail Srinagar.

On July 12, 1931, in response to the shifting of court, intense public protests were held throughout the city. The next day, on July 13, 1931, thousands of people thronged the Central Jail Srinagar to witness the in-camera trial of Abdul Qadeer. As the time for obligatory prayer approached, a young Kashmiri stood for Azan. The Dogra Governor, Ray Zada Tartilok Chand ordered soldiers to open fire at him. When he got martyred, another young man took his place and started Azan. He was also shot dead. In this way, 22 Kashmiris embraced martyrdom in their efforts to complete the Azan.

The people carried the dead and paraded through the streets of Srinagar, chanting slogans against Dogra brutalities. Complete strike was observed in the city, which was followed by weeklong mourning. This incident shook the whole state and the traffic from Srinagar to Rawalpindi and Srinagar to Jammu came to halt from July 13 to 26, 1931. The 22 martyrs are buried in Martyrs’ Graveyard at Khawaja Bazar, Srinagar.

The atrocities against the Kashmiri Muslims did not stop even after the partition of India. The human rights record of Indian government in the occupied Kashmir has been terrible and is characterized by arbitrary arrests, torture, rape and extrajudicial killings.

Since 1989 when liberation of Kashmir entered a new phase, Indian military troops have been using all inhuman tactics of ethnic cleansing to disturb the majority population of the Kashmiris.

Today’s Kashmir presents the worst possible case of state terrorism where Indian forces threaten to eliminate entire masses engaged in demanding implementation of the United Nations resolutions. Various methods of state terrorism such as breaking the leg, burning of a village, custodial killings etc., are mercilessly used against the innocent Kashmirirs, demanding their legitimate right of freedom. More than half million people have been massacred by the Indian troops so far.

In the recent past, discovery of nearly 3000 graves of the unmarked Muslims in the 18 villages of Indian controlled

Graveyards are full but India wont listen

Kashmir surprised the international community, displaying new evidence regarding New Delhi’s state terrorism there.

It is notable that ‘composite dialogue’ between India and Pakistan took place on a number of occasions, but produced no outcome, prolonging the agony of the subjugated people of the occupied Kashmir due to Indian intransigence.

Nevertheless, observance of Kashmiris’ freedom struggle on the Martyrs’ day every year is reaffirmation of the fact that Kashmiris will continue to fight against Indian illicit occupation. In this respect, Youme Shuhada-e-Kashmir is an ideal day for Kashmiris to seek inspiration to carry their struggle for freedom to its logical end. At this time of distress, the people of Pakistan side with the oppressed ones in sharing the grief of Kashmiri freedom lovers. Pakistan also observes Youme Shudaha-e-Kashmir on July 13, launching a protest against the oppressive polices of Indian occupation, which has continued against the hapless Kashmiris.

However, on July 13, all over the world, Kashmiris renew their pledge to continue the ongoing war of liberation for the accomplishment of their right of self-determination and for the independence of occupied terroritoris from the despotic Indian rule.

Sajjad Shaukat is a regular contributor to www.opinion-maker.org He writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations.

New Dynamics Are In Place

India cannot fathom the new ground realities

By Moin Ansari

Ethnic Populations Accros the Border

As Tomas Kunh said a long time ago “The paradigm has shifted, and when the paradigm shifts, everything goes back to zero”. The world watched (pun intended) aghast as the Swiss watch making industry was decimated by an electronic watch marketed by TI and Casio. Ironically the electronic watch was invented by the Swiss themselves. Within years 60% of the Swiss labor force had to scramble to find non-existent jobs.

In another paradigm shift the books on international relations had to be rewritten and map makers had to work overtime to paint the new realities. The planet watched the demise of the USSR and the liberation of Central Asia Republics and the unity of Germany.   The profound change dissolved the dreams of Catherine the Great of reaching the warm waters of the Arabian Sea. Pakistan as a new custodian of those waters breathed a sigh of relief.

The impending US withdrawal and its “coopetition” with China is another paradigm shift which transforms South and Central Asia. Pakistan has been building its relationship with China for decades. It was a gift born out of the blunders of Nehru in Kashmir and Tibet. If Nehru had not triggered belligerency with Pakistan and China in 1948, the world would have been different. However he and other politicians in Delhi had an opportunity to build Asia–they tried to build Akhand Bharat–aggravating each and every one of their neighbors. Today Bharat faces a foreign policy Armageddon–but it is one of its own making. It cannot see Pakistan. It wants to devour Bangladesh, Sikkim and Bhutan. It wants to colonize Afghanistan. It wants to step on Lanka. It wants to bamboozle Nepal. The chickens have come home to roost. In an opportunistic move to please Israel and America it betrayed Iran, and that betrayal will cost it Afghanistan. All have teamed up and want nothing to do with Bharat. Even Afghans in the Kabul palaces want Delhi out. The sad thing is in instigating trouble in all its neighbors, it has rocked the boat internally. Bharat faces colossal issues within its boundaries.

The Times of India is one of the most vocal critics of anything Pakistani. This week the chagrin has been more vitriolic than usual. Perhaps it is chagrined by the Pakistani deftness in Afghanistan, or it is pure hatred of anything to do with Islamabad–one can never tell. This much is certain, the entire Bharati (aka India) media is in a tizzy fit about Bharat’s diminished role and imminent eviction from Pakistan. South block and the entire Bharati diplomatic corps are seeing the world change in front of them, and they can’t seem to do anything about it. Mad dashes to Riyadh, Tehran, and Beijing have come to naught.

Delhi seems to represent a rejectionist front all on its own. No other country has joined the “stay the course in Afghanistan”. The world seems to have rejected the Delhi notion of “no compromise in Afghanistan”, no “talks with Pakistan”, and no “Nuclear deals with China”.

The Planet wants a Pan-Afghan solution, certainly the Afghans want it. The neighbors want it, and Pakistan desires it. Pakistan and Afghanistan are natural partners with a built in mechanisms to unite. What’s more important is that the US, the UK and Europe have bought into it and just want a face saving exit from Kabul.

Delhi’s think tanks are beyond panic on the NSGs silence, and the American wink wink nod nod whispered acquiescence of China’s policy of helping Pakistan. Many analysts have actually said that President Obama has asked China to help Pakistan in energy and other fields. Some international think tanks also say that the US and China have held a “Malta” type of conference and allocated areas of influence–and Asia and Africa falls in the Chinese lap, while Europe and the Americas fall under American influences. In other words Bernard Lewis’s map of the Confucian power is being implemented.

The Bharati media is stung not by the Nuclear deal, but by the fact that the NSG simply ignored Delhi. Delhi pulled all the stops in its opposition to the Pakistan-China deal–and ended up in knots. Neither the US, nor any of the European countries seem to be concerned about the Pakistani-China deal. Only Delhi is jumping up and down antagonizing Beijing, irritating the US, and pouring water on the peace process with Pakistan. Bharat’s stance in front of the NSG is comical–it goes something like this “make an exception for us, but not for anyone else, be it Pakistan or Iran”.  In Psychiatric terms, Delhi’s self image differs dramatically from the image others have of it–when the images are very different, it is a true sign of lunacy. Bharat sees itself special. Other powers see it as a bully, a paper tiger, and a spoilt brat—a naked penury strken one with a distended stomach. Bharat sees itself as a huge powerful elephant. These two images cannot be reconciled by a $42 billion Call Center industry–which affects 6 million Bharatis only. Its the other billion that overwhlems the world–its the other billion which are not shown on Bollywood and which doesn’t seem to exist for the Delhi politicians. The Delhi politicians are busy projecting power when huge cavities in Kashmir, Assam and Naxal control area sap the strenght of any argument that emanates from Bharat.

The TOI report had a horrid headline. However the roundup of the news from Pakistan is a true representation of the level of consternation in Delhi. The Bharati media was championing Incredible India which would rule the world. Egged on by the religious right, the sensational newspapers reported the Neocon nonsense and the naive Bharati population lapped it up.

When the rubber hit the road, Bharat discovered that Condaleeza Rice could coronate Bharat as a super power, even if she wanted to. Slumdog pured water on the dreams and the aspirations of the irredentist and revanchist media weaned on the Indian National Congress propaganda machine which projects a hyperbolic version of the future of Bharat. Foreign Leaders know what the Bharati media wants to hear. They say the right words and then laugh their way to the bank.

Meager success in the past decade has given the media a false sense of security. The hubris and arrogance is unfathomable and very nonsensical. No America president or European Prime Minster is as arrogant an ordinary two-bit Bharati bureaucrat.

The TOI report below is a treat to read, because it gives a real vignette of what Bharati’s are thinking. Mr. Zardari has a strong government supported by a friendly opposition, by the army and by the international media. Calling Mr. Zardari names simply informs us that the TOI is frustrated at the success of the Zardari government in dismantling Delhi’s designs in the neighborhood.

The China National Nuclear Corporation recently announced that China would set up two power reactors in Pakistan. It was a move that raised India’s hackles.

Iran and China forge stronger relationship with Pakistan

TOI, the Bharati media and the Delhi establishment seem to have discovered the C-3, and C-4 Nuclear plants  as “new deals”. Rupee News has been reporting on them for years. Mr. Zardari’s trip to China has little to do with C-3 and C-4, that was already presented by China to the NSG as a fait accomplii. Mr. Zardari’s trip was multifaceted and profound in many ways. It has engaged China in economic, industrial, housing,  and transit ventures which will literally transform all of Asia. The Trans-Korakoram rail link will be an engineering feat and will connect Xinjiang, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan etc to the warm waters of the Arabian sea. This was the dream of Catherine the Great and one of the visions of Mao Zedung.

The rail and road links will enhance trade, and commerce along the silk route. While the Bharati media discusses the 150 km road in Afghanistan day in and day out–it cannot appreciate or fathom the engineering marvels that are going on in the Karakorums.  The trip now allows two additional points of contact between China and Paksitan. These three links have colossal potential and will help China in getting its goods to the sea quickly and rapidly.

The TOI articles are myopic only about the Nuclear deal which was signed a decade ago–before the Indo-US deal. Bharat’s brouhaha about the Sino-Pakistani deal is an acknowledgement of Pakistan’s Nuclear status and the growing Sino-Pakistani relationship.  Noise from Delhi has highlighted Pakistan’s civilian nuclear deal which will encourage other countries to follow suit. The US is on the fence–and has moved from a “solid no” to a “maybe” to a “soon” to a “OK” stance. It needs a little more encouragement, and will award Pakistan parity—just like the NSG has done.

A round-up of the issue of the week as reported in the media.

Pakistan’s president Asif Ali Zardari, boxed in at home, decided it was time to go visitng his dear friends in China once more this past week. The beleaguered president made his fifth trip as president of Pakistan and met Chinese premier Wen Jiabo for another round of friendly talks. The six-day trip that Zardari made, along with his two daughters, saw the two countries sign six agreements on agriculture, healthcare, justice, media, economy and technology. But these were just the trimmings.

The real deal that Zardari sought to push through was to seek a nuclear deal with China. The China National Nuclear Corporation recently announced that China would set up two power reactors in Pakistan. It was a move that raised India’s hackles. It riled the US as well and there were also objections from some other countries, which said any such move would go against China’s non-proliferation commitments as a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

Commenting on Zardari’s visit, the Daily Times in its editorial on July 9 said, “The most prominent area of this bolstering of ties – especially for the world – is the Sino-Pak civilian nuclear deal that is now beginning to see complete formalisation and initiation. It is unfortunate that the US has expressed its reservations about this deal, where the main goal is to address the acute power crisis in Pakistan. It is also unfortunate that, until now, we have been denied the same right to civil nuclear technology that India was offered in 2006 by the US.

It is rather ironic that the ‘original sinner’ was granted a waiver for its transgressions , as India used its civil nuclear technology for the development of nuclear weapons first, igniting the nuclear arms race in South Asia.” It also called China Pakistan’s “ever-supportive ally” and observed that “in the face of international doubt and pressure, it has been these two allies that have always stood by each other.”

But the Dawn had a different take on the US response to any prospective Sino-Pak nuclear deal. It quoted from an interview published in the Council on Foreign Relations published with an American expert on Pakistan-China relations, Andrew Small of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, and suggested that China does not think the US would be mighty miffed.

“The Chinese… believe that Washington needs Beijing’s support on issues such as Iran at the moment and will be unwilling to mount serious resistance to the deal,” observes Mr Small… Moreover, in private, Chinese analysts are quite clear that this is a strategic tit-for-tat (in response to USIndia nuclear deal)… Mr Small points out that the Chinese appear willing to ignore the guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and claim that the deal was part of the exemption for prior Sino-Pak civil nuclear cooperation – the power plants Chashma 1 and 2, which were ‘grandfathered’ as conditions of China’s membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group.”

Rob Taylor, in his blog ‘Afghan Journal’ on Reuters (UK) observed that “It’s a bit of a nuclear poker going on in the region and Afghanistan as the new battleground between the regional players cannot remain untouched.” Slamming India and the US for raising objections to the prospective deal, Sultan M Hali wrote in the Pakistan Observer: “It is the US-India civil nuclear energy deal, which is neither transparent nor legal. In fact International observers including the IAEA should take cognizance of India’s track record before expressing concerns regarding Pak-China civil nuclear energy deal.

Indian double standards fail to take into account that Pakistan-China relations are not based on isolating either India or any other country in the region. It is the Chanakyan principle that “the enemy of your enemy should be made your friend so that you can pressurize your enemy.”

Ali Sukhanver, also writing in the Pakistan Observer hailed the Sino-Pak relationship as a way out for Pakistan from depending on the US: “Pakistan, Iran and China are painting a new picture with the colours of closeness and friendship based on needs and requirements. Iran is providing natural gas to Pakistan and China is enhancing its nuclear ability; simply a relationship based on caring and kindness. As a result of these favours showered on Pakistan , it would become very easy for Pakistan to release itself from the cruel clutches of the US dependence.”

It was is not just nuclear assistance that Zardari wants from China. He wants Beijing to partner Islamabad in fighting terrorism as well. China Central Television quoted him as saying, “China and Pakistan are both victims of terrorism …To strengthen Sino-Pakistani anti-terrorism cooperation and strike at terrorism, separatism and religious extremism is in the fundamental interests of both nations.”

Xinhua reports, “Next year will mark the 60th anniversary of China-Pakistan diplomatic relations. Wen said China is willing to take the opportunity of the 60th anniversary to propel bilateral relations to a new stage.” This is one cosy twosome the world will be closely watching. TOI roundup.

All this translates into a foreign policy failure of colossal proportions. Bharati attempts to partition Afghanistan is not a foreign policy–it is an act of desperation.

Rupeenews.com

By Dr. Raja Muhammad Khan

Sequel to the pronouncement of US forces’ exit plan from Afghanistan by President Obama on December 2, 2009, ‘London Conference on Afghanistan’ was held on January 28, 2010.  British Government hosted the conference along with UN and Afghanistan. The basic objective set for the conference was to transfer the security responsibilities of Afghanistan to its own security forces from the ISAF and to entice the warring factions; the Taliban, to end the violence.  The agreed strategy was “Instead of demonising the Taliban, we now contemplate the possibility that some of them could become part of the solution, an Afghanistan run by the Afghans themselves.” A reintegration fund was established to allure the Taliban to give up militancy and join peace process. As per the former British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, the primary objective of the fund was to, “provide an economic alternative to those who have none other than participation in the insurgency.”

In a way, through London Conference, President Hamid Karazai sought the formal approval of international community for the start of reconciliation process with Taliban and other warring factions in Afghanistan.  The Americans, though agreed to this new initiative, however, remained incredulous of the reconciliation and its outcome for them. The main consideration remained with the US policy makers was, ‘if at all Taliban are to be reintegrated into the  main stream, including Afghan Government functionaries, then what did US get by ousting them in 2001 and waging a prolonged war thereafter’?  Since January 2010, there has been no let-up in the US and NATO military operations, killing many Afghans. The occupation forces even could not subdue the Taliban after launching frequent offensive including Marjah Operation launched in February 2010.

The repetitive failing of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, have eventually forced them to re-evaluate their rigid policy of not reconciling with the ground realities. It was in the same context that at the concluding session of the G-20 Summit, held at Toronto, Canada, President Obama declared the Pakistan’s Afghan settlement efforts as “useful”.  Without making a direct reference about the parties taking part in the reconciliation process, the US President said that, “conversations between the Afghan government and the Pakistani government, building trust between those two governments, are a useful step”. While giving a tacit approval of the reconciliation process, President Obama emphasized on the political solution to the conflict in Afghanistan. He even gave implicit approval for the inclusion of Taliban in the process of reconciliation. Indeed, Pakistan has long been emphasizing on the reconciliation of all Afghan groups including the Taliban for the establishment of a broad based government in its neighbourhood. Pakistan perceives that, reconciliation is the only way for a durable peace in that country.

Over the period, the reconciliation process has gained more support from almost all stakeholders as well as the international community. The United Kingdom has also supported the reconciliation process. Its Army Chief during a recent statement fully backed the process. The British Foreign Minister, Mr William Hague has visited Pakistan and appreciated the role played by Pakistan in curbing the scourge of terrorism. He too emphasised on the reconciliation process in Afghanistan. After all, war is not the solution of any issue. The decade old war in Afghanistan has not led to a solution of the issue. Continuation of an indefinite war is in the interest of neither the US and NATO nor the Karazai administration.  Therefore, there is no need to make it an issue of the prestige as far as the US hierarchy is concerned. After all this war is proving to be longest drawn war in the history of U.S and economically insupportable.  Wars are fought to attain certain aims and objectives in the shortest possible time.  If staying in the region is the ultimate aim, then, US may linger on it indefinitely. However, it will have to satisfy the domestic audience, once the families of the US and NATO soldiers in Afghanistan are continuously receiving the dead bodies of their loved ones back home.

In the same backdrop, the newly appointed US Military Commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, has also supported the reconciliation process. General Petraeus, has recently replaced General Stanley Mac Crystal, who was sacked by President Obama on being critical to the US political leadership.  Indeed, General Mac Crystal has the strong urge for the negotiations with the Taliban for a durable peace in Afghanistan. In an interview with the Financial Times on January 25, 2010, the former commander of the ISAF said that; “the Taliban can contribute and help in the future to run the country.”  He further said that, “a soldier Vcaoura he had been enough fighting and there is a need to find a political solution.” This realistic feeling was of a commander who knew the real situation on the ground.

While undergoing through his confirmation process, in front of the Armed Services Committee, General Petraeus told the Chairman of the Committee, Senator, Carl Levin, that, “Pakistani involvement in some form of reconciliation agreement, I think that is essential”. He further told the Committee that, “Clearly, we want to forge a partnership or further the partnership that has been developing between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Those countries are always going to be neighbours. And helping them develop a constructive relationship would be an important contribution”.

More recently, there have been reports that President Karazai has met some of the key Taliban elements like Sirajuddin Haqqani in connection with the reconciliation among the various Afghan groups. However, these reports did not get official confirmation, as General Petraeus referred his telephonic conversation with Afghan President during the senate confirmation, who denied any such meeting in the recent days.  Nevertheless, had there been a truth in these reports, why should President Karazai be stopped from meeting the Afghan nationals, particularly those who contributed a lot in the pulling out of Soviet forces from Afghanistan. What, if they now oppose US, after all US is also an occupying power, not very different from the former Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the new military commander in Afghanistan has boldly accepted the fact that, it was on the U.S requirement in 1980s that Pakistan established a linkage with notables of Afghanistan to shape the Mujahedeen against the former Soviet Union. Therefore, if those connections are still intact, there is no harm in that. After all Pakistan and Afghanistan are two neighbours, who share common culture, traditions and above all the same religion.

Yet another acknowledgement made by General Petraeus on the Pakistani contributions is that, “We can facilitate the dialogue, participate in the dialogue, be an honest broker, we are friends to both. We are enormously enabling both. Pakistan is in a tough fight. One of its fights, by the way, is to keep our lines of communication open.”  According to a BBC report, Taliban has refused to negotiate with the Afghan Government until the withdrawal of the foreign forces from the Afghan soil. These were indeed the apprehensions of President Obama and CIA Director Leon Panetta, while the news of the reconciliation was spread all around.

After a deliberate analysis of the statements of various US officials, it appears that still US intends using the policy of ‘stick and carrot’ for the solution of Afghan issue. As in the past, the new General also wants to maintain an upper hand, even if the reconciliation process goes on.   The General think that Taliban should be first defeated in the field and then negotiated once they are in the position of weakness. As he indicated that, “Now, whether that is possible, such an agreement, I think is going to depend on a number of factors that will play out over the course of the summer, including creating a sense among the Taliban that they are going to get hammered in the field and perhaps should look at some options”. Such strong threats may not be acceptable to Taliban, therefore, would lead to further fuelling the already fragile situation.

It seems that US has not learnt a lesson from the Marjah Operation, in which over 15000 troops (US, NATO and ANA troops) participated in the small town of the Marjah, but met complete failure. There was no gain by the US and NATO forces in that. As a face saving through a secret patch-up, Taliban allowed the photo session of US forces landing at a small plateau in that town. Now, if General Petraeus is planning a similar operation in Kandahar, he must understand that, the fate of that operation would not be very different from the Marjah Operation. At this critical juncture, the hammering of Taliban in the field would not be possible for US. Rather, this would be a futile exercise, might results into killing of innocent Afghans, and more body bags despatched to their hometowns, as it has been happening since October 2001.

There is yet another confusion boggling the mind of General Petraeus. Theoretically, he supports the policy of President Obama regarding the US withdrawal of troops from that country commencing from July 2011. However, practically, he is not convinced.  As he highlighted that, “I support the policy of the President. As the President has stated, July 2011 is the point at which we will begin a transition phase in which the Afghan government will take more and more responsibility for its own security. As the President has also indicated, July 2011 is not a date when we will be rapidly withdrawing our forces and switching off the lights and closing the door behind us.”

In order to support his own point of view, the General feels that still a considerable time is required before the security responsibilities can be taken over by the Afghan forces themselves. As he elaborated, “It is going to be a number of years before Afghan forces can truly handle the security tasks in Afghanistan on their own. The commitment to Afghanistan is necessarily, therefore, an enduring one and neither neither the Taliban nor our Afghan and Pakistani partners should doubt that”.

General Petraeus has joined his new assignments, in the Afghan war theatre with a lot of bewilderment in his mind. In the first phase, he has to disprove the visualization of General Stanley Mac Crystal that NATO and US forces are losing the Afghan war. To change this perception, he would depend on the much talked and long awaited summer offensive in Kandahar, the Taliban stronghold.  The operation if conducted would be a serious setback to the reconciliation process, started by President Karazai. It would rather be a counterproductive effort, leading to the addition in the Taliban strength. Otherwise, Taliban Movement is taking the shape of Afghan National Resistance Movement against oppressive foreign occupation. Apart from the Afghan masses, President Karazai would even not support this operation, as it would undermine his own authority. Therefore, the General should re-evaluate the feasibility of this summer offensive.

The General should bear in mind that irrespective of his military power, Taliban could be neither subdued nor defeated. Could they defeat them in last ten years? Rather, Taliban became more powerful than they ever were. Therefore, the wisdom demand that General Petraeus, otherwise a mature professional soldier should analyse the ground realities in Afghanistan, before deciding for a major military operation in that country.

Secondly, The General must have a precision whether to support or otherwise, the reconciliation process among the various groups in Afghanistan. For an honourable exit of US and NATO forces from Afghanistan, he must bear in the mind that this the only way forward. The common Afghan is now sick of the repeated foreign invasions/ occupations and factional fighting continuing since late 1970s. Moreover, US too cannot afford a prolonged war. It has spent trillions of dollars on overseas wars and earned a bad repute for its generations even. US soldiers are involved in horrendous killings of Afghan and Iraqi innocent people. Therefore, they must stop this carnage here and go back. What all-Afghans want is the peace and employment, which US failed to, give them?

Thirdly, there still exists indistinctness in the mind of General, whether to follow the timeline for the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan (July 2011) as spelt out by President Obama in December 2009. Rather than an immediate “switching off the lights,” follow a   gradual withdrawal process for the exit from the Afghanistan. This would fulfil the demand of the Taliban, who want pulling out of foreign troops from their homeland before reconciliation and reintegration into the government is made possible.

Fourthly, US hierarchy must understand that presence of India, a geographically non-contiguous country; create more complications than ever before. In the garb of reconstruction, Indian leadership wants to colonize the Afghan people and their homeland. This fact would be more pronounced once NATO and U.S decide to leave the Afghan soil. General Petraeus must know that except a few leaders of the Northern Alliance, Afghans are highly allergic to Indian role in their country. India is indeed part of Afghan flux, therefore, its leaving Afghan soil prior to U.S, and NATO forces pull-out would be most essential. Otherwise, India would play its old game of fuelling the infighting between Pashtuns and Northern Alliance.

Fifthly, though the General himself has acknowledged that Pakistan has a very significant role in the Afghan peace, as Afghanistan and Pakistan are part of same society, hence, Pakistan’s contributions should not be relegated to accommodate the interests of others.  Pakistan’s solemn effort is to establish peace and stability followed by economic prosperity in Afghanistan. “Pakistan cannot wish anything for Afghanistan, which it does not wish for itself.” Indeed, the roots of the current internal instability in Pakistan can be traced to the prolonged instability in Afghanistan. Once Afghanistan stabilises, Pakistan would get stability as a routine matter.

Moreover, by now everyone is convinced that Afghan stability would come through the process of reconciliation among its various groups including Taliban and Northern Alliance. The New US General and the Commander of ISAF, General David Petraeus must have these things in mind to precede further in a fiddly situation like Afghanistan. Having clarity and brevity about aforementioned facts would give the General a series of new successes, rather meeting the fate of his predecessor, General Stanley Mac Crystal.

The writer is an analyst of international affairs.

Focus on the U.S., Israel and Middle East

By Kourosh Ziabari

Joshua Frank

Joshua Frank is an American progressive journalist and noted anti-war columnist. His articles and commentaries have appeared on CounterPunch, Z Magazine, AntiWar.com, Truthout and Alternet. He is author of “Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush” and co-editor with Jeffrey St. Clair of Red State Rebels: Tales of Grassroots Resistance in the Heartland.

Joshua took part in an interview with me to discuss the latest developments in the Middle East region, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the prospect of Israel-U.S. relations, the recent controversy over the Freedom Flotilla attack and the media propaganda against Iran. Here is the complete text of our interview.

Kourosh Ziabari: What’s the main reason behind the United States’ unconditional support for the state of Israel? In his early days of assuming office, President Obama failed to address the international community’s concern regarding the Operation Cast Lead in which the Israeli forces killed more than 1,300 Palestinian citizens. Moreover, it seems that the United States has retreated from its stance regarding the ongoing Israeli settlements on the Palestinian lands. Why is the relationship between the United States and Israel so profound that makes Israel immune to international law? Why is the United States always “committed” to the security of Israel?

Joshua Frank: I believe that the U.S.’s seemingly unconditional support of Israel is a complicated, multifaceted issue. First and foremost, Israel is a strategic ally for the U.S. interests in the region. As you know, there aren’t many countries in the Middle East that support the United States’ military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor do many countries see much of the benefit of the U.S. companies’ profiting from their imperial resource extraction ventures. So Israel plays a powerful role in supporting the U.S. in these endeavors, if not directly, then at least politically and tactically. Military-wise, Israel is the most powerful country in the area, with a large nuclear cache and airports the serve the U.S. military uses often for its endeavors. After the Camp David Accords the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers actually helped construct Israeli Air Bases in the Negev Desert.

Likewise, Israel needs the U.S. to support its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. Without U.S. backing, the Israel government could not afford its ongoing military forays. Indeed, the U.S. also plays a substantial role in deflecting criticism of Israel’s ongoing human rights violations, whether by flexing muscle on the UN Security Council or in the court of public opinion. Israel can most often rely on the U.S. to support its actions, illegal or otherwise, be they the invasion on Lebanon or the recent Flotilla attack. A lot of critics of Israel point their finger solely at the pro-Israeli lobby in the U.S. as the primary reason behind the U.S. close relationship to Israel. While the lobby is certainly strong, the U.S. Empire is stronger, and in fact I would argue, actually uses the Israel lobby to its benefit. It’s a symbiotic relationship, and not entirely one-sided as many Zionist-conspiracy theorists seem to argue.

KZ: Israel possesses up to 200 nuclear warheads and this figure is confirmed by a number of international organizations, including the Federation of American Scientists; however, it’s Iran which is being pressured over its nuclear program. How do the United States and its European allies justify their double standards regarding Iran’s nuclear program? There’s no proof that Iran has moved towards building nuclear weapons, but everybody knows that the Israeli nuclear technician Mordecai Vanunu has released the evidences which indicate that Israel has accumulated a number of nuclear bombs in its arsenal. What’s your idea?

JF: I think you sort of answered your own question. The U.S. doesn’t have to justify their double standards to anyone, especially not the international community. It’s also about how the western world views itself, that our actions are always genuine and justified. Through this distorted lens Israel can view itself as the victim and not the perpetrator. So whereas Iran’s alleged nuclear program, real or mythical, is seen as a threat, Israel’s existing arsenal that could detonate the entire Middle East is for peace of mind, because you just never know when those darn Arabs will attack for no reason at all!

It may sound ridiculous, sure, but there are many people who follow this line of thinking. Of course, they can blame it on militant strains of Islam, which certainly has its problems, but by and large the outrage directed toward Israel is cross-sectional because so many of the country’s policies are overtly arrogant. Of course, even within the country you have plenty of lively dissent, much of which does not get its due attention in the mainstream press. Vanunu is one historical figure example of this movement, a movement that is growing by the day.

KZ: Iran is under the spates of black propaganda by the western mainstream media. The western media depict Iranian nation as a backward, uncivilized and extremist people. How is it possible to acquaint the western public with the unseen and concealed realities of Iran?

JF: I think the new media is already breaking through this propaganda very effectively. I also believe there are plenty of people in western countries that know governments don’t always represent the interests of the masses. The Iranian government is reckless to be sure, but that doesn’t mean all Iranians agree with every single policy; same story for voting Jews that live in Israel. It is naiive to think all Jews support the occupation of Palestine. Many do of course, but there are many that also believe it is illegal, unjust and counterproductive to achieving peace in the region.

The bigger issue is that Westerners are consistently inundated with misinformation. The U.S. government for example, has to continually sedate its citizens into compliance. It’s brilliantly executed time and again and it’s the reason why the antiwar movement, for instance, is virtually non-existent in this country at the moment. Even those that oppose the escalation of war in Afghanistan are by and large silent. That wasn’t the case during the Bush era, where a surge in troop levels combined failure of an exit strategy would have forced tens of thousands into the streets. But since liberals and progressives now have their liberal Obama, mums the word. They’ve been scared into complacency by the propaganda of “change” and “hope”. They are literally afraid to resist the man they worked to hard to elect. It’s a special kind of trepidation. Meanwhile, the PATRIOT Act gets reaffirmed, billions more is passed for war funding and U.S. soldiers continue to die in two endless, directionless wars.

KZ: It seems that whoever wants to rise to prominence as a potential choice for presidency in the United States should avow his commitment to the security and stability of Israel, even at the cost of killing thousands of people or destructing the other countries. As you quoted him in one of your articles, Barack Obama had told a crowd of pro-Israeli Americans that he would never put the military option off the table concerning Iran’s nuclear program. My question is that, is the Israeli lobby so powerful and influential in the United States that even determines the destiny of White House?

JF: It’s bigger than that, I think. Like I said, it’s not the lobby that determines the destiny of the White House, it is the Empire apparatus that does. For example, Obama, had he challenged U.S. imperialism during his campaign and tenure in the Senate, would never have been supported by the arms industry, the oil companies and the like. The Israel lobby is just one of these major forces and shouldn’t be viewed in isolation. The energy cartels, I think, have just as much or even more sway over the administration, as the catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico so boldly symbolizes. Same goes for the corporate GM food giants, the pharmaceutical industry, military contractors among others. Ultimately it is about corporate and military domination of public policy and the pro-Israel lobby is one of the big players, but not the only one that holds the US government and the U.S. people hostage.

KZ: Some analysts believe that Israel has paved the ground for its growing isolation by unjustifiably attacking the Freedom Flotilla. As an instance, the government of Nicaragua decided to sever its diplomatic ties with Israel. What’s your estimation? Will the state of Israel succeed in getting through with this pivotal juncture safely?

JF: The Freedom Flotilla was a horrific, bloody episode that will surely be notched up as another military defeat for Israel. Anytime this sort of thing happens, Israel has to work overtime to save face. Previously, and to a greater extent, I think the attack on Lebanon for dubious reasons was also a blemish for Israel power. They ended up having to halt their excursions and bombings because the international community by-and-large believed their actions were not justified.

I think, as Alexander Cockburn and others have pointed out, that this is an example of Israel’s power rapidly dwindling. The fact that Israel felt threatened by a Freedom Flotilla should be enough for anyone to realize that their use of force was not only illegal under international law, but unethical and a sign that they are losing the fight they started. Such bullying acts won’t win Israel many new supporters; it will only harden its militarist admirers.

KZ: Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren has called the IDF incursion into the Freedom Flotilla a human and responsible action. He likened the massacre of civilians onboard the Freedom Flotilla to the America’s fight against the Nazi Germany in the Second World War. What do you think about what he has said?

JF: Honestly I don’t think much about it. Military talking heads like Oren are pure vessels of propaganda. They will do whatever they can, soul already sold, to defend Israeli military actions. Internationally such rhetoric is taken at face value: never believe half of what Israel taking heads say — or any other political leaders for that matter — who spout in defense of such brutal actions. If anything, Oren is quite adept at employing the very Nazi propaganda he so despises.

KZ: It’s widely believed that the political regime of Israel will immediately collapse should the White House lift its support to Tel Aviv. Is it possible for Israel to survive without the U.S. backing? Will the influence of Israeli lobby over the corporate government of the United States allow any independent president to rise to power and oppose to Israel ideologically?

JF: Israel would certainly survive without U.S. backing, but in a much more modest capacity. As a supporter of a one state solution, I don’t believe any peace between Palestine and Israel will occur until the U.S. takes a more brokered approach. If Israel makes concessions and the U.S. backs off its monetary support, the international community will ensure that a new Israel, one that is truly democratic and less economically stratified, will survive in its place. I think that the American people would support a candidate that spoke truth to power with regard to Israel. They really haven’t had a chance to do it. Would the lobby accept this? Not likely, but nor would any of the other corporate and military powers that capitalize on American intentions in the Middle East.

KZ: What do you think about the U.S. and UK mainstream media which are said to be controlled by the Zionist owners and media moguls such as Rupert Murdoch? How do these media outlets shape reach-out to their international audiences and shape their opinions?

JF: Biased news and commentary is just that, biased, and plenty of outlets spew gross lies and propaganda. However, the new media is breaking ground every day. Here in the U.S. Glenn Greenwald’s analysis has become widely read, mainly because it’s free and uncensored on the web. As a result of his popularity, he is consistently being interviewed in the mainstream press and on popular cable news programs. This is just one example of alternative views making their way to the public. The freer the media, the more informed the public and the less censorship that ultimately occurs. So I’m hopeful that the Murdochs of the world will continually be challenged by this new reality.

KZ: What’s your prediction for the destiny of Israel in the Middle East? With a U.S. government which offers its unconditional support to Tel Aviv and the EU countries that follow the U.S. trajectory passively, can Israel rescue itself from the growing isolation it’s facing internationally?

JF: Israel will have to make large and significant compromises if it is to survive as a Jewish state. The world is watching their every move very closely. Despite the media blackout and the power of pro-Israel forces, the plight of Palestinians is being exposed daily, not only in other countries, but within Israel itself. Israelis are not all in support of the occupation and do not by any means believe it makes them any safer. On the contrary, it makes them less safe.

The bigger question is, can the U.S. survive in its current state? Can the U.S. continue to exploit the resources and people of the Middle East for its own profit and greed? Can it abuse and exploit its own people for much longer? I don’t believe so. Our economy is crumbing and our military is overextended and local budgets continue to dip into the red. We simply cannot continue to expand U.S. Empire. And when the U.S. Empire falls, Israel’s power and ego will be deflated as well. Again, it’s a symbiotic relationship and intimately intertwined.

Kourosh Ziabari is Iranian media correspondent, freelance journalist and the author of Book 7+1. He is a contributing writer for websites and magazines in the Netherlands, Canada, Italy, Hong Kong, Bulgaria, South Korea, Belgium, Germany, the U.K. and the U.S. . Currently, he works for the Foreign Policy Journal as a media correspondent. He is a member of Tlaxcala Translators Network for Linguistic Diversity and World Student Community for Sustainable Development. Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian freelance journalist and media correspondent. He has interviewed political commentator and linguist Noam Chomsky, member of New Zealand parliament Keith Locke, Australian politician Ian Cohen, member of German Parliament Ruprecht Polenz, former Mexican President Vicente Fox, former U.S. National Security Council advisor Peter D. Feaver, Nobel Prize laureate in Physics Wolfgang Ketterle, Nobel Prize laureate in Chemistry Kurt Wüthrich, Nobel Prize laureate in biology Robin Warren, famous German political prisoner Ernst Zündel, Brazilian cartoonist Carlos Latuff, American author Stephen Kinzer, syndicated journalist Eric Margolis, former assistant of the U.S. Department of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, American-Palestinian journalist Ramzy Baroud and the former President of the American Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Sid Ganis.