Extraordinary Edition

Jeremy Scahill & Tom Engelhardt Talk U.S. Empire

2011-02-25T02:22:00.004-06:00

Part of a Lannon Foundation lecture series. Topics include Pakistan, Egypt, Mubarak, People Power in general, Tunisia, Yemen, the Tucson shootings, UAVs, non-drone air warfare in the FATA, Petraeus, McChrystal, active and retired military sources critical of U.S. mission, strategy and tactics and the status of the United States as a force (for anything) in the world in the near future and potential for utter decline. Enjoy!

Raymond Davis, the U.S. and Pakistan

2011-02-18T01:38:00.004-06:00

Two worthwhile stories on the murder case in Pakistan. The murder happened Jan. 27. The Counterpunch article by Dave Lindorff is dated Feb. 8. The Aletho News article from Moon Over Alabama is from Feb. 14

Counterpunch: The Deepening Mystery of Raymond Davis and Two Slain Pakistani Motorcyclists By DAVE LINDORFF

Aletho News: Raymond Davis And The Curious Lack of Drone Strikes, Moon Over Alabama February 14, 2011

FAIR:"Does Anyone Object to U.S. Drone Wars in Pakistan?"

2011-01-07T11:58:00.004-06:00

From Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting back on Oct. 3, 2010 by Peter Hart

Apparently not, judging by the Washington Post's October 3 story ("Military Drones Aid CIA's mission") about the CIA's expansion of its drone war in Pakistan. It is "part of a high-stakes attempt by the Obama administration to deal decisive blows to Taliban insurgents," and also "a significant evolution of an already controversial targeted killing program."

Post readers get details from "a U.S. official"--who says things like, "Our intelligence has gotten a lot better." The only other perspective comes from Bruce Reidel at Brookings, who is "a former CIA analyst who led the Obama administration's initial overhaul of its Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy." In other words, not much of a critic.

There are obviously fundamental questions about this policy--such as whether it's legal, something Jim Lobe wrote about recently for Inter Press Service (4/2/10).

Tags: CIA, Jim Lobe, Pakistan

Inter Press Service story from April 2010 ...

Legality of Drone Strikes Still in Question
By Jim Lobe*

WASHINGTON, Apr 2, 2010 (IPS) - While welcoming an initial effort by the administration of President Barack Obama to offer a legal justification for drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists overseas, human rights groups say critical questions remain unanswered.

In an address to an international law group last week, State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh insisted that such operations were being conducted in full compliance with international law.

"The U.S. is in armed conflict with al Qaeda as well as the Taliban and associated forces in response to the horrific acts of 9/11 and may use force consistent with its right to self-defence under international law," he said. "...(I)ndividuals who are part of such armed groups are belligerents and, therefore, lawful targets under international law."

Moreover, he went on, "U.S. targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war," which require limiting attacks to military objectives and that the damage caused to civilians by those attacks would not be excessive.

While right-wing commentators expressed satisfaction with Koh's evocation of the "right to self-defence" - the same justification used by President George W. Bush - human rights groups were circumspect.

"We are encouraged that the administration has taken the legal surrounding drone strikes seriously," said Jonathan Manes of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "While this was an important and positive first step, a number of controversial questions were left unanswered."

"We still don't know what criteria the government uses to determine that a civilian is acting like a fighter, and can therefore be killed, and... whether there are any geographical limits on where drone strikes can be used to target and kill individuals," he told IPS.

"He didn't really say anything that we took issue with," said Tom Malinowski, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch (HRW), who also complained about the lack of details.

"But it still leaves unanswered the question of how far the war paradigm he's talking about extends. Will it extend beyond, say, ungoverned areas of Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen? Because you don't want to leave a legal theory out there that could be exploited by a country like Russia or China to knock off its political enemies on the streets of a foreign city," he added.

Drone attacks, which have increased significantly under Obama, are widely considered to have become the single-most effective weapon in Washington's campaign disrupt al Qaeda and affiliated groups, especially in the frontier areas of western Pakistan.

In Obama's first year in office, more strikes were carried out than in the previous eight years under his predecessor, George W. Bush.

Conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), they reportedly killed "several hundred" al Qaeda and Pakistani Taliban militants since Obama in 2009, forcing many of them to flee their border hideouts for large cities where precision attacks would be much harder to carry out without causing heavy civilian casualties.

But the strikes - as well as cruise-missile attacks carried out by the U.S. military against suspected terrorist targets in Yemen and Somalia - have drawn growing criticism from some human rights groups and legal scholars, notably the U.N.'s Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings, Philip Alston, who have argued that several aspects of these operations may violate international law.

Their focus has been less on the use of drones in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Washington's forces are engaged in active hostilities and the Pentagon has implemented relatively transparent procedures to maximise compliance with the laws of war, than on the frontier areas of Pakistan and other "ungoverned" areas where al Qaeda and Taliban militants have gained refuge. The CIA, whose procedures remain secret, is in charge of drone operations.

The weapon itself "is one of the least problematic from a civilian-protection standpoint, because drones can hover over their targets and observe whether civilians are present before delivering a payload, and because they carry relatively small and precisely guided munitions," noted Malinowski.

"The question is a legal one: under what circumstances can you use lethal force at all? Our view has always been that it should be limited to zones of active armed conflict where normal arrest operations are not feasible."

A related question involves who may be targeted. While many authorities insist lethal force can be used under the laws of war against those who are actively participating in armed conflict, the U.S. has used defined participation in very broad terms, including membership in - or even financial support of - an armed group.

In his remarks to the American Society for International Law, Koh, who was one of the harshest and most outspoken critics of the Bush administration's legal tactics in its "global war on terror", acknowledged some of these concerns, noting that his speech "is obviously not the occasion for a detailed legal opinion."

"(W)hether a particular individual will be targeted in a particular location will depend upon considerations specific to each case, including those related to the imminence of the threat, the sovereignty of the other states involved, and the willingness and ability of those states to suppress the threat the target poses," he said.

Koh added that Washington will ensure the application of the principles of "distinction" and "proportionality" in the laws of war.

While noting criticism that the use of lethal force against some individuals far removed from the battlefield could amount to an "unlawful extra-judicial killing", he insisted that "a state that is engaged in an armed conflict or in legitimate self-defence is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force."

"Our procedures and practices for identifying lawful targets are extremely robust, and advanced technologies have helped to make our targeting even more precise," he said.

Alston, the U.N. rapporteur, was far from satisfied with these assurances, however, calling Koh's statement "evasive".

He "was essentially arguing that 'You've got to trust us. I've looked at this very carefully. I'm very sensitive to these issues. And all is well,'" he told an interviewer on 'Democracy Now' Thursday.

"The speech did not provide essential information about the drone/targeted killing programme, including the number and rate of civilian casualties, and the internal oversight and controls on targeted killing, especially within the CIA," said Manes of the ACLU, which has filed a lawsuit to acquire that information.

Tom Parker of Amnesty International was more scathing about Koh's position, suggesting that it was one more concession - along with indefinite detention and special military tribunals for suspected terrorists - to the framework created by Bush's "global war on terror".

"The big issue is where the war is and whether it's a war, and we couldn't disagree more strongly as to the tenor of Koh's comments," he said. "It goes back to the idea of an unbounded global war on terror where terror is hardly defined at all."

*Jim Lobe's blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/

Foreign Policy magazine's AfPak Channel has today's lodown on Pakistan's near collapse

2011-01-04T02:24:00.002-06:00

Gilani losing his authority and a coalition in the Pakistani government. A suicide bomber on Christmas Day attacking would-be recipients of UN aid. Total number of drone strikes in Pakistan in 2010 lands at 118. AfPak has the full update.

Jeremy Scahill on Dec. 2 Democracy Now!: WikiLeaks Cables Confirm Secret U.S. War Ops in Pakistan

2010-12-02T14:34:00.002-06:00

Award-winning journalist Jeremy Scahill on the strategy of prevarication implemented by U.S. political and military leadership to confuse the U.S. public about its role in a war in Pakistan that continues but has no official grounding in terms of law, national or international.

More US aid to Pakistan, with mild griping in the place of clear objectives

2010-10-22T13:02:00.004-05:00

From BBC News by Kim Ghattas in Washington, Oct. 21, 2010

First, an important stat from the BBC ...

"Since 2005, Pakistan has received more than $1bn (£636.4m) of military aid a year from the US - and received close to $2bn for the last fiscal year."

Next, an excerpt ...

A White House report sent to congress earlier this month laments the Pakistani army's inability to hold territory it has seized from insurgents, a failure that means gains are likely to be short-lived.

"The Pakistan military continued to avoid military engagements that would put it in direct conflict with Afghan Taliban or al-Qaeda's forces in North Waziristan," the report said, referring to the region in north-western Pakistan seen as a Taliban and al-Qaeda haven.

"This is as much a political choice as it is a reflection of an under-resourced military prioritizing its targets."

Full story

The end of the BBC piece references an Oct. 19 New York Times editorial written by By Zalmay Khalilzad, former US ambassador to Afghanistan.

Its suggestions are clear and outline a possible future of the US in Central Asia that not only continues along the current self-appointed world police trajectory, but reveals how intricately the pursuit of US enemies fits together with conquest and empire. It's a slight variation on colonialism, but with a much more tempestuous wind at its back. Which brings us back to spending tax money on military equipment and missions.

An excerpt ...

The United States should demand that Pakistan shut down all sanctuaries and military support programs for insurgents or else we will carry out operations against those insurgent havens, with or without Pakistani consent. Arguments that such pressure would cause Pakistan to disintegrate are overstated. Pakistan’s institutions, particularly the country’s security organs, are sufficiently strong to preclude such an outcome.

Nonetheless, this aggressive approach would require the United States to think through a series of likely Pakistani responses. To deal with an interruption of our supply lines to Afghanistan, for example, we must stockpile supplies and start bringing in more materiél through the northern supply routes and via air.

At the same time, we should present clear, significant incentives. In exchange for demonstrable Pakistani cooperation, the United States should offer to mediate disputes between Pakistan and Afghanistan; help establish a trade corridor from Pakistan into Central Asia; and ensure that Pakistan’s adversaries do not use Afghanistan’s territory to support insurgents in Pakistani Baluchistan.

More fundamentally, the United States needs to demonstrate that, even after our troops depart Afghanistan, we are resolved to stay engaged in the region. To that end, the United States should provide long-term assistance to Pakistan focused on developing not only its security apparatus, but also its civil society, economy and democratic institutions.

Pakistan arrests 7 militants, foil plot to kill PM

2010-10-15T13:17:00.004-05:00

Associated Press story dated Oct. 14 appears on Pakistan Conflict Monitor

Pakistan arrests 7 militants, foil plot to kill PM

By KHALID TANVEER (AP)

MULTAN, Pakistan — Pakistani police arrested a group of Islamist militants plotting to kill the prime minister in a gun and suicide bomb attack at his house, officials said Thursday. The seven men also are accused of targeting other government leaders for assassination.

Militants in Pakistan have frequently attacked government officials, security officers and political leaders as part of a campaign to destabilize the U.S.-allied government and take over the state. Opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was killed in a gun-and-bomb attack near Islamabad in 2007.

The conspiracy against Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani was nearly complete, police officials said.

The suspects are accused of belonging to the al-Qaida-linked group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. Their plan included monitoring Gilani's movements and storming his private residence in the central city of Multan with guns and a suicide bomber, police investigator Waris Bharwana said.

"These terrorists were arrested in a timely fashion, and surely we have averted an attack on the prime minister," he said.

Authorities did not offer any evidence to back up their allegations.

Like other top officials, Gilani does not publicize his movements ahead of time and travels with extensive security.

Abid Qadri, a regional police chief, said authorities learned about the plot during an initial interrogation of the seven militants, who were arrested late Wednesday after a shootout near a village in central Pakistan.

The militants opened fire when police tried to pull their car over for a routine check, Qadri said. Nobody was wounded in the shooting, but two men managed to escape, he said.

A judge has ordered the seven suspects be held and questioned in a prison. Their next court date is Oct. 27, Bharwana said.

Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, a banned Sunni Muslim extremist group, has been linked to the Taliban as well as al-Qaida. The group has been accused of attacking minority Shiite worship places and assaulting security forces and other targets.

Some of the suspects are believed to have taken part in an attack last year on the offices of Pakistan's main spy agency in Multan, which is in Punjab province in central Pakistan, Qadri said.

The men were also conspiring to kill Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, also a Multan native, and the minister for religious affairs, who last year survived an assassination attempt in Islamabad, Qadri said. He said the suspects also had plans to attack a dam, a bridge and military installations.

New America Foundation raises unaddressed issues in U.S.-Pakistan military ops

2010-10-14T15:51:00.004-05:00

Video from the New America Foundation, one of the groups taking action to inject debate into the largely closed and classified U.S. military pursuits within the borders of Pakistan presents a legal approach not previously offered on U.S.-Pakistan relations and campaigns.

This legal framework is directly related to the relegated priorities of arresting the occurrences of civilian victims and casualties, the unpopularity among the resident population of the attacks and their value in neutralizing terrorists, Pakistan's sovereign duty to its citizenry, frailty of legal arguments supporting the CIA's drone program and the prosecution of a classified and therefore supposedly covert war inside an overt one. Relegated, that is, beneath the priority of executing leadership in international terrorist cells or organizations (extrajudicial killing being a related issue of separate special importance) and implementing a technology that allows targets (and collateral victims) to be eliminated while soldiers prosecuting the attack operate from safety half the world away.

Featured Speaker
Christopher Rogers
Pakistan Field Fellow, Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC)
BACKUP LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9yQMj289Hg
In the event the embedded video won't work, please use the YouTube link above.

Pakistan erupts in the news; U.S. rift threatens West's policy in Central Asia

2010-10-09T00:13:00.005-05:00

From a possible revision of ally status for Pakistan with the U.S. to the average Pakistani being sick to death of the CIA using robots to kill their children, Pakistani spies insisting the Taliban kill for purposes of intimidation to no chance for suggesting in U.S. media that drone attacks are not the best strategy, Pakistan is in the news and coming undone in America's unending quest to simplify the lines drawn by 9/11 into Us and Them, cowboys and radical religious guys who won't sleep or stop praying to play with their children until every last cowboy is dead.

Should the U.S. Give Up on Pakistan? The Atlantic Monthly online
By Max Fisher | October 07, 2010 4:25pm

Does Anyone Object to U.S. Drone Wars in Pakistan? Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
10/04/2010 by Peter Hart

Blasts kill 8 at Sufi shrine in Pakistan; Los Angeles Times
No one claims responsibility for the attacks in Karachi, which injured 65. Militants have targeted shrines and mosques serving adherents of non-orthodox Muslim doctrines.
By Alex Rodriguez, Los Angeles Times
October 8, 2010

Hamburg mosque which links 9/11 to the badlands of Pakistan; London Guardian
Ian Traynor reports from Germany on an abandoned prayer hall in the spotlight again after US terror alerts
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 7 October 2010 19.41 BST

Pakistan criticizes drone strikes
By the CNN Wire Staff
October 7, 2010 -- Updated 1709 GMT (0109 HKT)

Oct. 3 report on drone strike at funeral for drone strike victims

2010-10-05T14:06:00.004-05:00

This illuminating article posted by the Denver chapter of an autonomous political action group, Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement (Denver). Note the lead to these compelling and utterly disturbing source stories:

CIA used 'illegal, inaccurate code to target kill drones''They want to kill people with software that doesn't work'by Chris Williams, TheRegister.co.uk, Sept. 24

And also,

"CIA used pirated, inaccurate software to target drone attacks: lawsuit"by Daniel Tencer, RawStory.com, also dated Sept. 24

Drones kill 28 people, then hit the funeral

www.raimd.wordpress.com

A recent string of bombings, killing dozens in Pakistan, has the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, or “drone,” making headlines once again. So-called “Predator Drones” have become one of imperialism’s favorite tools of oppression. Bombing attacks by these vehicles are being carried out consistently and more frequently than ever. (1).

Predator Drones are center stage as the US ups its assault on Pakistan’s northwest border region. At least 28 people were killed as a result of drone strikes in South Waziristan during the week of September 19 (2). The week’s two bloodiest attacks, responsible for more than a dozen deaths, took place on September 22. The initial strike launched two missiles at a targeted vehicle, killing seven. A funeral was arranged for the victims in the following hours; subsequently, this funeral was also targeted by a drone strike, resulting in more deaths yet. This absurd sequence mirrors an incident that took place last summer. On the morning of Tuesday 23 June 2009, unmanned drones killed more than 45 people in a series of bombings including a strike on a funeral procession for victims of the earlier assault (3).

Violence caused by drone missiles has sparked outrage in Pakistan, where drones have killed at least 1,700 people(4). The mutilation caused by the bombings makes compiling a solid count of the deaths all but impossible. Even so, it is clear that hundreds of those killed have been civilians (5). Drones have been a fixture in Pakistan for over five years; however, US officials do not officially comment on any drone activities. The attacks fall under the veil of CIA secrecy. It is clear, nonetheless, that using drones has become particularly attractive to decision-makers in the past two years. Estimated death tolls clearly show drone attacks being responsible for more deaths in 2009 alone than in the four years between 2004-2008 combined (6).

With mounting numbers of casualties, drone attacks have become known for their haphazard destruction. Missiles fired from the unpiloted vehicles are often grossly off-target. This, and general belligerence have contributed to the high civilian deaths which have, embarrassingly for the US, included Amerikan citizens (7).

Part of the cause of the vehicle’s reckless imprecision is being revealed in an ongoing lawsuit. Accusations and evidence depict the as CIA consciously utilizing faulty targeting software in the unmanned vehicles. IISI, a small, Massachusetts-based software company alleges that IT firm “Netezza” facilitated the CIA with a pirated, and knowingly-unreliable, version of their software to the CIA for use in US drone vehicles. The location-analysis software in turn may have produced locations up to 13 meters off target (8). IISI was pressured to meet a quick deadline to provide the software, when the company voiced reservations, Netezza allegedly went ahead and reverse-engineered the program themselves. The IISI Chief Technology Officer summarized his earliest feelings on the situation, stating, “they want to kill people with my software that doesn’t work” (9). The lawsuit aims to halt use of the pirated software by Netezza and its clients, including the CIA. IISI has expressed concern that the buggy software may lead to loss of innocent life. Unfortunately, the host of civilian deaths cannot be declared a mere “software issue.” Such recklessness is hardwired into the logic of imperialism.

Predator Drones are becoming a standard instrument in the oppression of Third World peoples by . As RAIM has noted (xhttp://raimd.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/imperialism-drones-on/), US drones are now deployed everywhere from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and recently on the militarized US/Mexico border. Israel used US-provided drones in attacks on Gaza in December 2008. The First World is looking to a high technology, impersonal approach of fighting their battles. These machines cause much destruction, but high-tech gadgetry will not defeat Third Wold resistance. As comrade Lin Biao wrote in “Long Live the Victory of People’s War!”

However highly developed modern weapons and technical equipment may be and however complicated the methods of modern warfare, in the final analysis the outcome of a war will be decided by the sustained fighting of the ground forces, by the fighting at close quarters on battlefields, by the political consciousness of the men, by their courage and spirit of sacrifice. Here the weak points of U.S. imperialism will be completely laid bare, while the superiority of the revolutionary people will be brought into full play. The reactionary troops of U.S. imperialism cannot possibly be endowed with the courage and the spirit of sacrifice possessed by the revolutionary people. The spiritual atom bomb which the revolutionary people possess is a far more powerful and useful weapon than the physical atom bomb. (10)

The Third World majority, collectively terrorized by imperialism, must collectively defeat imperialism. The enemy’s extravagant technology cannot hold up against People’s War.

Notes.

1. Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann’s drones database at the New America Foundation
xxhttp://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones
2. xxhttp://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/09/2010921181212227907.html
3. xxhttp://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/06/200962317958264507.html
3. Ibid. Protest
4.xxhttp://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones#2010chart
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. xxhttp://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/09/cia_drones_killed_us_citizens.html
8. xxhttp://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/cia-inaccurate-software-drone-attacks/
9. Ibid.

UK Guardian: U.S. Military drones lent to CIA program for "covert" ops in Pakistan

2010-10-03T23:13:00.006-05:00

At least British newspaper editors believe nation-states are supposed to declare war formally and publicly before breezing into a so-called demilitarized zone (Federally Administered Tribal Areas or FATA; not unlike its meta-linguistic cousin, the convenient geographic designation, "Afpak") to drop 300-pound missiles on designated combatants and their families. In the place of working out a deal with an unstable regime operating in the militarized shell of a former dictatorship-avec-parliament (in reference to General Pervez Musharraf). Doesn't mean David Cameron's government is going to want to help impoverished people living in rural Pakistan.

A caveat: Extraordinary Edition would like to editorially acknowledge Islamabad's politicians ... are politicians. Thusly shall they slither and writhe between their constituents and unimaginable power offered them by their counterparts in stronger states. Guardian article appears below.

US secretly shifts armed drones to fight terrorists in Pakistan

The Pentagon and CIA are stepping up America's secret war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Pakistan by secretly diverting aerial drones and missiles from Afghanistan.

By Toby Harnden in Washington
Published: 5:23PM BST 03 Oct 2010

Predator drones are flown over Pakistan and intelligence gained is passed to Islamabad

Predator and Reaper drones have been lent by the US military to the CIA as part of a shift in strategy that underlines the Obama administration's view that Pakistan is unable or unwilling to target Islamist sanctuaries on its own soil.

Tensions between the US and Pakistan have flared after a key route used to supply American troops in Afghanistan was shut after three Pakistani soldiers were killed in an attack by a Nato helicopter gunship.

On Friday, insurgents attacked fuel tankers in Pakistan in another indication of the increasing vulnerability of Western supply routes.

The additional drones enabled the CIA to increase the number of strikes in Pakistan in September, averaging five strikes a week that month, up from an average of two to three per week.

This increase in drone activity was partly aimed at disrupting a suspected terrorist plot to strike in Western Europe. Americans officials believe Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders are behind plots potentially aimed at Britain, France and Germany.

American surveillance drones are flown over Pakistan and intelligence gained passed to Islamabad. But Pakistan has formally banned US military operations on its soil, citing the country's sovereignty.

But the CIA has secretly conducted missile strikes launched from drones with Pakistani complicity. This has allowed Pakistan to condemn the strikes, which are strongly opposed by its predominantly anti-American population.

"You have to deal with the sanctuaries," said John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, told the Wall Street Journal. "I've pushed very, very hard with the Pakistanis regarding that." Mr Kerry discussed the issue with Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Pakistan's foreign minister, in Washington last week.

The secret arrangement between the Pentagon and CIA underlines the consensus in the Obama administration that safe havens on Pakistani territory near the Afghan border is the major obstacle to success in the war in Afghanistan.

"When it comes to drones, there's no mission more important right now than hitting targets in the tribal areas, and that's where additional equipment's gone," an American official told the Wall Street Journal.

"It's not the only answer, but it's critical to both homeland security and force protection in Afghanistan."

The proposal for the CIA to use military resources emerged during last year's Afghanistan-Pakistan policy review. There was resistance from some at the Pentagon who argued that the drones were needed against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Since taking command in Afghanistan in July, Gen. Petraeus has placed greater focus on the tribal areas of Pakistan, according to military and other government officials.

U.S. agrees to probe of strike that killed 3 Pakistani soldiers

2010-10-02T10:51:00.003-05:00

By Karin Brulliard and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, October 2, 2010

ExEd note: The key significance of these incidents and the story being told is that the U.S. and Pakistan have not been called upon until now to acknowledge or publicly discuss the undeclared U.S. war in Pakistan in a direct way using language that affirms U.S. presence and cross-border operation into Pakistan. Since the victims alleged are said to be soldiers, a new element emerges politically. Between the U.S. and Pakistan, seeming only because a new element emerges between the government in Pakistan and the communities over which it claims to legitimately govern.

An excerpt appears below ...

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, telephoned Pakistan's military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, Friday to discuss the incursion, as the administration moved to calm a potentially critical breach with a key partner in the Afghanistan war. Officials who discussed the sensitive negotiations on the condition of anonymity said that a joint investigation could help soothe feelings on both sides.

Pakistan has said that three of six Frontier Corps soldiers manning a mountaintop post near Pakistan's western border were killed when helicopters launched missiles at them after the soldiers fired their rifles to warn that the aircraft were on the Pakistan side. Pakistan has lodged diplomatic protests and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani told Parliament on Friday that the government "will consider other options if there is interference in the sovereignty of our country."

Lt. Col. John Dorrian, a NATO spokesman in Afghanistan, said Friday that military officials have not yet confirmed that Pakistani border troops were killed in the NATO airstrike. Dorrian had previously said that U.S. helicopters had crossed the border but said they had fired on insurgents who were preparing a mortar attack against troops from the U.S.-led coalition on the other side.

U.S. military officials said it was not clear to them whether the same helicopters were involved in both attacks or whether they were separate incidents. A Pentagon spokesman Thursday suggested the aircraft was within its rights to fire after being fired on.

Pakistani military officials have countered that the soldiers were poorly armed and could never have threatened the helicopters with their rifles. The officials have also dismissed U.S. suggestions that the pilots may not have known where the border or the Pakistani military outpost was, saying that detailed maps and high-technology coordination and surveillance established after a similar incident in 2008 would make such confusion impossible.

The deaths of the Pakistani soldiers came amid a sharp escalation in attacks against insurgent strongholds in Pakistan by unmanned CIA drones. Those attacks are highly unpopular in Pakistan, where the government only privately acquiesces to them. U.S. officials said there is also a private agreement that U.S. aircraft can enter Pakistani airspace, within a narrow band along the border, if acting in self-defense against cross-border attacks. Pakistan denies such agreement exists.

Meanwhile, in response to reports of political upheaval in Pakistan, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that the United States considers Pakistan a "key ally" and believes that "the government of Pakistan is committed to democracy and to the preservation of civilian leadership."

Adding to the complexity of Pakistan's political situation, retired Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup and served as president until elections in 2008, announced in London that he was re-entering Pakistani politics at the head of a newly formed party.

brulliardk@washpost.com deyoungk@washpost.com

DeYoung reported from Washington. Correspondent Ernesto Londono in Kabul and special correspondent Haq Nawaz Khan in Peshawar contributed to this report.

NATO fuel tankers torched in Pakistan

2010-10-02T04:05:00.005-05:00

Related Extraordinary Edition post from May, 2010; a Jeremy Scahill story from his blog at thenation.com

This post created on an alert from AlethoNews, "27 NATO fuel tankers destroyed in Pakistan"

Saturday, October 02, 2010
By Karin Brulliard, The Washington Post

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Armed men torched dozens of NATO fuel tankers in southern Pakistan on Friday, police said, as supply convoys remained blocked at a vital entry point to Afghanistan for a second consecutive day.

Police in the town of Shikarpur said 10 "extremists" shot and set fire to at least 30 NATO trucks stopped at a filling station, destroying the vehicles but injuring no one. Much of the fuel and other supplies bound for coalition forces in Afghanistan arrive at the southern port of Karachi, then are trucked north toward border points at Torkham or Chaman.

In the southeastern province of Baluchistan, a truck driver and his assistant were burned alive in a second attack, which targeted a single tanker in a restaurant parking lot, the Associated Press reported. The agency quoted police officer Mohammad Azam as saying "anti-state elements" were behind the attack. He did not name any particular group.

The Torkham pass, in the northwest, remained closed to NATO trucks Friday, one day after Pakistan blocked their passage in apparent retaliation for recent U.S. air incursions into Pakistan, including an airstrike Thursday that allegedly killed three Pakistani soldiers. The incidents drew a strong rebuke from Pakistan and deepened tensions with the United States, an ally.

Pakistan's ambassador to Belgium lodged a protest over the incursions with NATO on Friday, while Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani told parliament that the government "will consider other options if there is interference in the sovereignty of our country."

Lt. Col. John Dorrian, a NATO spokesman in Afghanistan, said Friday that military officials have not yet confirmed that Pakistani border troops were killed in the NATO airstrike. He said the Pakistani border crossing closure has had minimal impact on NATO operations so far. "We're still bringing in a lot of stuff" via supply routes into the landlocked country from the north and south, he said. "There has not been an immediate impact."

A border security official in Pakistan's northwestern region said passenger vehicles and non-NATO supplies were being allowed to pass at Torkham on Friday. The Chaman border crossing remained open to all vehicles, and Pakistani media reported that the NATO trucks burned in Shikarpur were heading in that direction.

It is not uncommon for Islamist insurgents to attack NATO fuel trucks. But the incidents typically occur in the northwestern mountains, where several militant groups are based and wield influence. In the normally placid Chitral district near the Afghan border Thursday, police officials said 200 militants held a dozen policemen hostage and stole their weapons.

CIA publicly announces its increase in drone attacks in Pakistan

2010-09-28T08:58:00.005-05:00

C.I.A. Steps Up Drone Attacks on Taliban in Pakistan
By MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: September 27, 2010

WASHINGTON — The C.I.A. has drastically increased its bombing campaign in the mountains of Pakistan in recent weeks, American officials said. The strikes are part of an effort by military and intelligence operatives to try to cripple the Taliban in a stronghold being used to plan attacks against American troops in Afghanistan.

As part of its covert war in the region, the C.I.A. has launched 20 attacks with armed drone aircraft thus far in September, the most ever during a single month, and more than twice the number in a typical month. This expanded air campaign comes as top officials are racing to stem the rise of American casualties before the Obama administration’s comprehensive review of its Afghanistan strategy set for December. American and European officials are also evaluating reports of possible terrorist plots in the West from militants based in Pakistan.

The strikes also reflect mounting frustration both in Afghanistan and the United States that Pakistan’s government has not been aggressive enough in dislodging militants from their bases in the country’s western mountains. In particular, the officials said, the Americans believe the Pakistanis are unlikely to launch military operations inside North Waziristan, a haven for Taliban and Qaeda operatives that has long been used as a base for attacks against troops in Afghanistan.

Beyond the C.I.A. drone strikes, the war in the region is escalating in other ways. In recent days, American military helicopters have launched three airstrikes into Pakistan that military officials estimate killed more than 50 people suspected of being members of the militant group known as the Haqqani network, which is responsible for a spate of deadly attacks against American troops.

Such air raids by the military remain rare, and officials in Kabul said Monday that the helicopters entered Pakistani airspace on only one of the three raids, and acted in self-defense after militants fired rockets at an allied base just across the border in Afghanistan. At the same time, the strikes point to a new willingness by military officials to expand the boundaries of the campaign against the Taliban and Haqqani network — and to an acute concern in military and intelligence circles about the limited time to attack Taliban strongholds while American “surge” forces are in Afghanistan.

Pakistani officials have angrily criticized the helicopter attacks, saying that NATO’s mandate in Afghanistan does not extend across the border in Pakistan.

As evidence of the growing frustration of American officials, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Afghanistan, has recently issued veiled warnings to top Pakistani commanders that the United States could launch unilateral ground operations in the tribal areas should Pakistan refuse to dismantle the militant networks in North Waziristan, according to American officials.

“Petraeus wants to turn up the heat on the safe havens,” said one senior administration official, explaining the sharp increase in drone strikes. “He has pointed out to the Pakistanis that they could do more.”

Special Operations commanders have also been updating plans for cross-border raids, which would require approval from President Obama. For now, officials said, it remains unlikely that the United States would make good on such threats to send American troops over the border, given the potential blowback inside Pakistan, an ally.

But that could change, they said, if Pakistan-based militants were successful in carrying out a terrorist attack on American soil. American and European intelligence officials in recent days have spoken publicly about growing evidence that militants may be planning a large-scale attack in Europe, and have bolstered security at a number of European airports and railway stations.

“We are all seeing increased activity by a more diverse set of groups and a more diverse set of threats,” said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano before a Senate panel last week.

The senior administration official said the strikes were intended not only to attack Taliban and Haqqani fighters, but also to disrupt any plots directed from or supported by extremists in Pakistan’s tribal areas that were aimed at targets in Europe. “The goal is to suppress or disrupt that activity,” the official said.

The 20 C.I.A. drone attacks in September represent the most intense bombardment by the spy agency since January, when the C.I.A. carried out 11 strikes after a suicide bomber killed seven agency operatives at a remote base in eastern Afghanistan.

According to one Pakistani intelligence official, the recent drone attacks have not killed any senior Taliban or Qaeda leaders. Many senior operatives have already fled North Waziristan, he said, to escape the C.I.A. drone campaign.

Over all the spy agency has carried out 74 drone attacks this year, according to the Web site The Long War Journal, which tracks the strikes. A vast majority of the attacks — which usually involve several drones firing multiple missiles or bombs — have taken place in North Waziristan.

The Obama administration has enthusiastically embraced the C.I.A.’s drone program, an ambitious and historically unusual war campaign by American spies. According to The Long War Journal, the spy agency in 2009 and 2010 has launched nearly four times as many attacks as it did during the final year of the Bush administration.

One American official said that the recent strikes had been aimed at several groups, including the Haqqani network, Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban. The United States, he said, hopes to “keep the pressure on as long as we can.”

But the C.I.A.’s campaign has also raised concerns that the drone strikes are fueling anger in the Muslim world. The man who attempted to detonate a truck filled with explosives in Times Square told a judge that the C.I.A. drone campaign was one of the factors that led him to attack the United States.

In a meeting with reporters on Monday, General Petraeus indicated that it was new intelligence gathering technology that helped NATO forces locate the militants killed by the helicopter raids against militants in Pakistan.

In particular, he said, the military has expanded its fleet of reconnaissance blimps that can hover over hide-outs thought to belong to the Taliban in eastern and southern Afghanistan.

The intelligence technology, General Petraeus said, has also enabled the expanded campaign of raids by Special Operations commandos against Taliban operatives in those areas.

Rod Nordland and Alissa J. Rubin contributed reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan, and Ismail Khan from Peshawar, Pakistan.

Reminder from the desk of General Musharraf: don't criticize Pakistani military

2010-09-27T13:58:00.003-05:00

Associated Press story

Pakistani minister resigns after criticizing army

By ZARAR KHAN (AP)

ISLAMABAD — Pakistan's federal minister for defense production resigned after being summoned by the prime minister to explain comments he made criticizing the army and accusing it of killing prominent politicians.

Abdul Qayyum Khan Jatoi accused the army of killing several high-profile Pakistani figures, including former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and ethnic Baluch tribal leader Nawab Akbar Bugti.

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani later summoned Jatoi to explain his comments. He told reporters Sunday the minister made his statements "in his personal capacity, and within five or six hours he resigned."

Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira told local TV that Jatoi's comments were "against our policies."

The army is widely considered the most powerful institution in Pakistan and it is risky for officials to criticize it. The military has carried out three coups against civilian governments in Pakistan and has ruled the country for much of its 63-year history.

Bugti, the Baluch tribal leader, was killed in an August 2006 military operation. The 79-year-old's remote cave hide-out collapsed in an unexplained explosion while security forces were searching for tribal insurgents who fight for a larger share of natural resources extracted from impoverished Baluchistan. The exact details of Bugti's death are disputed.

Bhutto was assassinated in December 2007 after speaking at an election rally in a garrison city just outside Islamabad. The military-led government at the time blamed the killing on the Pakistani Taliban, which stage attacks throughout the country from their sanctuary in the tribal areas near the Afghan border. Critics in Pakistan speculated the nation's military or intelligence apparatus could have been involved in the killing, which the government refuted.

The tribal areas also host a range of militant groups focused on battling NATO troops in Afghanistan. The U.S. has stepped up pressure on these groups this month by carrying out 19 missile strikes, including two on Sunday — the most intense barrage since the attacks began in 2004.

In the first strike Sunday, a drone fired three missiles at a house in Datta Khel, part of the North Waziristan tribal area, killing three suspected militants, said Pakistani intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

Minutes later, a drone fired two missiles at a vehicle in the same area, killing four suspected militants, the officials said.

The exact identities of the seven people killed in the attacks were not known, but most of this month's airstrikes have targeted forces led by Jalaluddin Haqqani, a commander once supported by Pakistan and the U.S. during the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Haqqani has since turned against the U.S., and American military officials have said his network — now effectively led by his son, Sirajuddin — presents one of the greatest threats to foreign forces in Afghanistan. Another militant commander, Hafiz Gul Bahadur, and his forces also hold sway in North Waziristan.

The U.S. wants Pakistan to launch an army offensive against insurgents in North Waziristan, but the government has resisted. Analysts believe Pakistan wants to maintain its historic relationship with the Haqqani network, which could be an ally in Afghanistan after foreign forces withdraw.

The 19 missile strikes this month have killed around 90 people, according to an Associated Press tally based on Pakistani intelligence reports.

U.S. officials do not publicly acknowledge the drone attacks but have said privately they have killed several senior Taliban and al-Qaida militants in the region, which is largely out of the control of the Pakistani state.

Pakistan often criticizes the attacks as violations of the country's sovereignty, but the government is widely believed to help the U.S. carry out the strikes. Criticism of the missile attacks has been more muted in recent months.

Associated Press writer Ishtiaq Mahsud contributed to this report from Dera Ismail Khan.

To be clear, US forces still in Iraq to the tune of 50,000

2010-09-23T14:07:00.002-05:00

From Aletho News

The End of Combat My Eye
aletho | September 23, 2010 at 10:33 am | Categories: "Hope and Change", Deception | URL: http://wp.me/pIUmC-3Zt
Soothing Falsities

By JOHN LaFORGE | Counterpunch | September 23, 2010

The press made a big deal of it. The president even starred in an Oval Office TV show about the “end to U.S. combat” in Iraq, which was announced on August 31. Mr. Obama said he’d fulfilled a promise to end the war.

Obama’s bit of theater cost less than George Bush’s May 1, 2003 shameless declaration of “mission accomplished,” his circus-act-in-military-flight-suit-to-the-flight-deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. Yet the president’s speech was just as dishonest.

Just listen to Army Brig. Gen. Jeffery Buchanan, who told National Public Radio for Sept. 19, “Our rules of engagement have not changed.” Indeed, since the “end of combat,” U.S. soldiers have been in at least two fierce shoot outs involving the use of U.S. warplanes. A Sept. 15 battle included “at least” four U.S. helicopter gunships. Another, in Diyala province, saw U.S. planes dropping two 500-pound bombs.

Gen. Buchanan told NPR he “… understands why most people would call this combat.” Most people, general?

Two days after the President’s “combat’s over” routine, Col. Malcolm Frost, the commander of the “advisory” brigade in Diyala, wrote in a note to soldiers’ families, “We will move around Iraq fully protected in armored Strykers and other armored vehicles, wearing full body armor, and fully loaded with ammunition to deal with the enemy …” the New York Times reported.

Col. Frost currently has the same combat soldiers as a combat brigade -- but supplied with 51 “advisers.” Since his unit arrived in Iraq in July, in an “advisory” capacity, two of his soldiers have been killed and 13 wounded. Tell the families of the dead that the war is over.

Another soldier was killed Sept. 16 while detonating seized explosives. If these aren’t combat fatalities, I’m the Queen of Moravia.

Today—among the 50,000 U.S. soldiers still occupying Iraq—there are 4,500 “Special Forces” commandos. These Green Berets, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, and “unconventional” or secret assassination (known for PR purposes as “targeted killing”) squads still storm Iraqi houses and villages at night trying to kill “insurgents” and “suspected members of other armed groups,” according to Baghdad reporters for the Times.

As the GoArmy website says, “missions are … sometimes classified.” You might say that the war in Iraq is now entirely classified, since fighting has been declared over by the Commander-in-Chief himself.

Bombings, firefights, nighttime raids and covert operations might be viewed by most people as combat. But with the feel-good peacewash of presidential speech writers, our military occupation of Iraq can be transformed for the deluded into foreign aid.

Mark Twain described our situation well: “Statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those concise, soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.”

John LaForge is on the staff of Nukewatch, a nuclear watchdog group in Wisconsin, and edits its quarterly newsletter.

North Waziristan motorcyclists latest to be killed by UAV

2010-09-21T15:37:00.004-05:00

From the Long War Journal ...

US Predators strike again in North Waziristan
By Bill Roggio September 20, 2010

Excerpts appear here—

"Four 'militants' were reported killed in the strike, but their affiliation to terror groups is unclear. No senior Taliban or al Qaeda commanders have been reported killed."

"The areas controlled by Bahadar and by the al Qaeda-linked Haqqani Network have been hit especially hard this year. Despite the fact that Bahadar and the Haqqani Network shelter al Qaeda and other South and Central Asian terror groups, the Pakistani government and military refuse to take action in North Waziristan. Bahadar and the Haqqanis are viewed as 'good Taliban' as they do not attack the Pakistani state."

Mainstream news mechanics evaluated, more money allocated to drone warfare for next year

2010-09-20T15:14:00.003-05:00

From Ceasefire Magazine online Sept. 19, 2010

Piece by Musab Younis

An excerpt ...

The drone issue is an interesting one. A typical report from the BBC this week, for example, mentions that “twelve people were killed” in a drone strike, probably “militants”, in what is “the 12th drone strike this month in the region”, before adding: “The American military does not routinely confirm drone operations.”

The report is striking by virtue of omission. Nothing is mentioned of the civilian casualties of drone strikes – which were reported by Pakistani authorities to have reached 700 in January of this year (the figure now is surely higher), since the drone war began. Nothing is mentioned of the Gallup poll conducted for Al Jazeera which suggests that less than one in ten Pakistanis support the drone strikes. The same poll asked Pakistanis who they considered to be the greatest threat to their country – the Taliban, India, or the US. A majority of 59 percent said the US. 11 percent said the Taliban.

None of this is mentioned by the BBC. Why should we care what Pakistanis think about the military attacks taking place in their country? And the suggestion that most of them consider the US a greater threat than the Taliban is a difficult one, because it would undercut the central narrative of the news coverage of drone strikes: that though they at times entail unfortunate consequences, they are conducted for the security of the West and Pakistan. The idea that the US could be making the region less secure is, in this context, inconceivable.

Statistics have also vanished: such as the fact that this year, the US has allocated fifteen times more money to Predator drones than to the Pakistan floods relief effort ($2.2bn versus $150m). And there is no question of the reader being subjected to any uncomfortable suggestions, such as that made by the New Yorker last year that assassination, euphemistically termed “targeted killing”, is now “official US policy”, despite the violation of international law, and even the US constitution, that it entails.

$51.5 M contract for drone producer General Atomics

2010-09-18T13:04:00.004-05:00

General Atomics gets $51.5 million Predator contract

By Gary Robbins

Thursday, September 16, 2010 at 10:34 a.m.

The Defense Department has awarded General Atomics Aeronautical Systems in Poway $51.5 million for spare parts, deployment readiness packages and ground support equipment for the MQ-9 Reaper, an unmanned aerial vehicle that’s also known as the Predator B drone. The company designs and develops the Reaper at its plants in Poway and Sabre Springs. The drone is heavily used for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. The new contract will be carried out behalf of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio.

It’s unclear whether the contract will affect General Atomic’s workforce, which now stands at 4,500 in San Diego County. But the company is in the midst of a hiring spree due to steady growth in the UAV market.

Tom Engelhardt on the Perfect American Weapon

2010-09-16T00:29:00.003-05:00

"When we possess such weaponry, it turns out, there’s nothing unnerving or disturbing, apocalyptic or dystopian about it. Today, in the American homeland, not a single smoking drone is in sight."

Tom Engelhardt

Article dates back to June 24, 2010

America Detached from War
Bush’s Pilotless Dream, Smoking Drones, and Other Strange Tales from the Crypt
Available on Tomdispatch.com

Admittedly, before George W. Bush had his fever dream, the U.S. had already put its first unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drone surveillance planes in the skies over Kosovo in the late 1990s. By November 2001, it had armed them with missiles and was flying them over Afghanistan.

In November 2002, a Predator drone would loose a Hellfire missile on a car in Yemen, a country with which we weren’t at war. Six suspected al-Qaeda members, including a suspect in the bombing of the destroyer the USS Cole would be turned into twisted metal and ash -- the first “targeted killings” of the American robotic era.

Just two months earlier, in September 2002, as the Bush administration was “introducing” its campaign to sell an invasion of Iraq to Congress and the American people, CIA Director George Tenet and Vice President Dick Cheney “trooped up to Capitol Hill” to brief four top Senate and House leaders on a hair-raising threat to the country. A “smoking gun” had been uncovered.

According to “new intelligence,” Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had in his possession unmanned aerial vehicles advanced enough to be armed with biological and chemical weaponry. Worse yet, these were capable -- so the CIA director and vice president claimed -- of spraying those weapons of mass destruction over cities on the east coast of the United States. It was just the sort of evil plan you might have expected from a man regularly compared to Adolf Hitler in our media, and the news evidently made an impression in Congress.

Democratic Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, for example, said that he voted for the administration's resolution authorizing force in Iraq because "I was told not only that [Saddam had weapons of mass destruction] and that he had the means to deliver them through unmanned aerial vehicles, but that he had the capability of transporting those UAVs outside of Iraq and threatening the homeland here in America, specifically by putting them on ships off the eastern seaboard."

In a speech in October 2002, President Bush then offered a version of this apocalyptic nightmare to the American public. Of course, like Saddam’s supposed ability to produce “mushroom clouds” over American cities, the Iraqi autocrat’s advanced UAVs (along with the ships needed to position them off the U.S. coast) were a feverish fantasy of the Bush era and would soon enough be forgotten. Instead, in the years to come, it would be American pilotless drones that would repeatedly attack Iraqi urban areas with Hellfire missiles and bombs.

In those years, our drones would also strike repeatedly in Afghanistan, and especially in the tribal borderlands of Pakistan, where in an escalating “secret” or “covert” war, which has been no secret to anyone, multiple drone attacks often occur weekly. They are now considered so much the norm that, with humdrum headlines slapped on (“U.S. missile strike kills 12 in NW Pakistan”), they barely make it out of summary articles about war developments in the American press.

And yet those robotic planes, with their young “pilots” (as well as the camera operators and intelligence analysts who make up a drone “crew”) sitting in front of consoles 7,000 miles away from where their missiles and bombs are landing, have become another kind of American fever dream. The drone is our latest wonder weapon and a bragging point in a set of wars where there has been little enough to brag about.

CIA director Leon Panetta has, for instance, called the Agency’s drones flying over Pakistan “the only game in town” when it comes to destroying al-Qaeda; a typically anonymous U.S. official in a Washington Post report claims of drone missile attacks, “We’re talking about precision unsurpassed in the history of warfare”; or as Gordon Johnson of the Pentagon's Joint Forces Command told author Peter Singer, speaking of the glories of drones: “They don't get hungry. They are not afraid. They don't forget their orders. They don't care if the guy next to them has been shot. Will they do a better job than humans? Yes.”

Seven thousand of them, the vast majority surveillance varieties, are reportedly already being operated by the military, and that’s before swarms of “mini-drones” come on line. Our American world is being redefined accordingly.

In February, Greg Jaffe of the Washington Post caught something of this process when he spent time with Colonel Eric Mathewson, perhaps the most experienced Air Force officer in drone operations and on the verge of retirement. Mathewson, reported Jaffe, was trying to come up with an appropriately new definition of battlefield “valor” -- a necessity for most combat award citations -- to fit our latest corps of pilots at their video consoles. “Valor to me is not risking your life," the colonel told the reporter. "Valor is doing what is right. Valor is about your motivations and the ends that you seek. It is doing what is right for the right reasons. That to me is valor."

Smoking Drones

These days, CIA and administration officials troop up to Capitol Hill to offer briefings to Congress on the miraculous value of pilotless drones: in disrupting al-Qaeda, destroying its leadership or driving it “deeper into hiding,” and taking out key figures in the Taliban. Indeed, what started as a 24/7 assassination campaign against al-Qaeda’s top leadership has already widened considerably. The “target set” has by now reportedly expanded to take in ever lower-level militants in the tribal borderlands. In other words, a drone assassination campaign is morphing into the first full-scale drone war (and, as in all wars from the air, civilians are dying in unknown numbers).

If the temperature is again rising in Washington when it comes to these weapons, this time it’s a fever of enthusiasm for the spectacular future of drones (which the Air Force has plotted out to the year 2047), of a time when single pilots should be able to handle multiple drones in operations in the skies over some embattled land, and of a far more distant moment when those drones should be able to handle themselves, flying, fighting, and making key decisions about just who to take out without a human being having to intervene.

When we possess such weaponry, it turns out, there’s nothing unnerving or disturbing, apocalyptic or dystopian about it. Today, in the American homeland, not a single smoking drone is in sight.

Now it's the United States whose UAVs are ever more powerfully weaponized. It's the U.S. which is developing a 22-ton tail-less drone 20 times larger than a Predator that can fly at Mach 7 and (theoretically) land on the pitching deck of an aircraft carrier. It's the Pentagon which is planning to increase the funding of drone development by 700% over the next decade.

Admittedly, there is a modest counter-narrative to all this enthusiasm for our robotic prowess, “precision,” and “valor.” It involves legal types like Philip Alston, the United Nations special representative on extrajudicial executions. He recently issued a 29-page report criticizing Washington’s “ever-expanding entitlement for itself to target individuals across the globe.” Unless limits are put on such claims, and especially on the CIA’s drone war over Pakistan, he suggests, soon enough a plethora of states will follow in America’s footprints, attacking people in other lands “labeled as terrorists by one group or another.”

Such mechanized, long-distance warfare, he also suggests, will breach what respect remains for the laws of war. “Because operators are based thousands of miles away from the battlefield,” he wrote, “and undertake operations entirely through computer screens and remote audio-feed, there is a risk of developing a 'PlayStation' mentality to killing.”

Similarly, the ACLU has filed a freedom of information lawsuit against the U.S. government, demanding that it “disclose the legal basis for its use of unmanned drones to conduct targeted killings overseas, as well as the ground rules regarding when, where, and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, and the number of civilian casualties they have caused.”

But pay no mind to all this. The arguments may be legally compelling, but not in Washington, which has mounted a half-hearted claim of legitimate “self-defense,” but senses that it’s already well past the point where legalities matter. The die is cast, the money committed. The momentum for drone war and yet more drone war is overwhelming.

It’s a done deal. Drone war is, and will be, us.

A Pilotless Military

If there are zeitgeist moments for products, movie stars, and even politicians, then such moments can exist for weaponry as well. The robotic drone is the Lady Gaga of this Pentagon moment.

It’s a moment that could, of course, be presented as an apocalyptic nightmare in the style of the Terminator movies (with the U.S. as the soul-crushing Skynet), or as a remarkable tale of how “networking technology is expanding a homefront that is increasingly relevant to day-to-day warfare” (as Christopher Drew recently put it in the New York Times). It could be described as the arrival of a dystopian fantasy world of one-way slaughter verging on entertainment, or as the coming of a generation of homegrown video warriors who work “in camouflage uniforms, complete with combat boots, on open floors, with four computer monitors on each desk... and coffee and Red Bull help[ing] them get through the 12-hour shifts.” It could be presented as the ultimate in cowardice -- the killing of people in a world you know nothing about from thousands of miles away -- or (as Col. Mathewson would prefer) a new form of valor.

The drones -- their use expanding exponentially, with ever newer generations on the drawing boards, and the planes even heading for “the homeland” -- could certainly be considered a demon spawn of modern warfare, or (as is generally the case in the U.S.) a remarkable example of American technological ingenuity, a problem-solver of the first order at a time when few American problems seem capable of solution. Thanks to our technological prowess, it’s claimed that we can now kill them, wherever they may be lurking, at absolutely no cost to ourselves, other than the odd malfunctioning drone. Not that even all CIA operatives involved in the drone wars agree with that one. Some of them understand perfectly well that there’s a price to be paid.

As it happens, the enthusiasm for drones is as much a fever dream as the one President Bush and his associates offered back in 2002, but it’s also distinctly us. In fact, drone warfare fits the America of 2010 tighter than a glove. With its consoles, chat rooms, and “single shooter” death machines, it certainly fits the skills of a generation raised on the computer, Facebook, and video games. That our valorous warriors, their day of battle done, can increasingly leave war behind and head home to the barbecue (or, given American life, the foreclosure) also fits an American mood of the moment.

The Air Force “detachments” that “manage” the drone war from places like Creech Air Force Base in Nevada are “detached” from war in a way that even an artillery unit significantly behind the battle lines or an American pilot in an F-16 over Afghanistan (who could, at least, experience engine failure) isn’t. If the drone presents the most extreme version thus far of the detachment of human beings from the battlefield (on only one side, of course) and so launches a basic redefinition of what war is all about, it also catches something important about the American way of war.

After all, while this country garrisons the world, invests its wealth in its military, and fights unending, unwinnable frontier wars and skirmishes, most Americans are remarkably detached from all this. If anything, since Vietnam when an increasingly rebellious citizens’ army proved disastrous for Washington’s global aims, such detachment has been the goal of American war-making.

As a start, with no draft and so no citizen’s army, war and the toll it takes is now the professional business of a tiny percentage of Americans (and their families). It occurs thousands of miles away and, in the Bush years, also became a heavily privatized, for-profit activity. As Pratap Chatterjee reported recently, “[E]very US soldier deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq is matched by at least one civilian working for a private company. All told, about 239,451 contractors work for the Pentagon in battle zones around the world.” And a majority of those contractors aren’t even U.S. citizens.

If drones have entered our world as media celebrities, they have done so largely without debate among that detached populace. In a sense, our wars abroad could be thought of as the equivalent of so many drones. We send our troops off and then go home for dinner and put them out of mind. The question is: Have we redefined our detachment as a new version of citizenly valor (and covered it over by a constant drumbeat of “support for our troops”)?

Under these circumstances, it’s hardly surprising that a “pilotless” force should, in turn, develop the sort of contempt for civilians that can be seen in the recent flap over the derogatory comments of Afghan war commander General Stanley McChrystal and his aides about Obama administration officials.

The Globalization of Death

Maybe what we need is the return of George W. Bush’s fever dream from the American oblivion in which it’s now interred. He was beyond wrong, of course, when it came to Saddam Hussein and Iraqi drones, but he wasn’t completely wrong about the dystopian Drone World to come. There are now reportedly more than 40 countries developing versions of those pilot-less planes. Earlier this year, the Iranians announced that they were starting up production lines for both armed and unarmed drones. Hezbollah used them against Israel in the 2006 summer war, years after Israel began pioneering their use in targeted killings of Palestinians.

Right now, in what still remains largely a post-Cold War arms race of one, the U.S. is racing to produce ever more advanced drones to fight our wars, with few competitors in sight. In the process, we’re also obliterating classic ideas of national sovereignty, and of who can be killed by whom under what circumstances. In the process, we may not just be obliterating enemies, but creating them wherever our drones buzz overhead and our missiles strike.

We are also creating the (il)legal framework for future war on a frontier where we won’t long be flying solo. And when the first Iranian, or Russian, or Chinese missile-armed drones start knocking off their chosen sets of "terrorists," we won’t like it one bit. When the first “suicide drones” appear, we’ll like it even less. And if drones with the ability to spray chemical or biological weapons finally do make the scene, we’ll be truly unnerved.

In the 1990s, we were said to be in an era of “globalization” which was widely hailed as good news. Now, the U.S. and its detached populace are pioneering a new era of killing that respects no boundaries, relies on the self-definitions of whoever owns the nearest drone, and establishes planetary free-fire zones. It’s a nasty combination, this globalization of death.

Some history on General Atomics and its Predator drone

2010-09-15T14:22:00.003-05:00

A little background on brothers Neil and Linden Blue, owners and operators of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems and manufacturers of the majority of predator drones. Keen emphasis on the Blues' friendship throughout the '80s with Nicaraguan then-president Anastasio Somoza, who brought you the Contra in Iran-Contra scandal and crack cocaine in Los Angeles (see Dark Alliance, a prize-winning book of journalism by the late Gary Webb). Today's piece is compelling, and adds a curious chapter to a story told in Cover-up, a documentary detailing the subterfuge beneath the story of the Iran-Contra Congressional hearings in 1987.

From Death and Taxes

Predator Drones: The All-Seeing Eye
By DJ Pangburn Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Excerpt-

While the Predator drones are generally considered a success by the Blues, General Atomics, other defense contractors and the U.S. government, their missile-strike record is horrific. According to the Brookings Institution’s Daniel Byman:

“Critics correctly find many problems with this program, most of all the number of civilian casualties the strikes have incurred. Sourcing on civilian deaths is weak and the numbers are often exaggerated, but more than 600 civilians are likely to have died from the attacks. That number suggests that for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died.”

Playing catchup with drone attack stories

2010-09-15T07:00:00.008-05:00

Seattle Post-Intelligencer Sept. 14, 2010

Record level of US airstrikes hit Afghan militants

By ASIF SHAHZAD AND KIMBERLY DOZIER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITERS

Excerpt-

ISLAMABAD -- Drone aircraft unleashed two missile attacks in a lawless tribal region on the Afghan border Tuesday, making September the most intense period of U.S. strikes in Pakistan since they began in 2004, intelligence officials said.

The stepped-up campaign is focused on a small area of farming villages and mountainous, thickly forested terrain controlled by the Haqqani network, a ruthless American foe in Afghanistan, U.S. officials say. There is some evidence the network is being squeezed as a result, one official said.

American officials said the airstrikes were designed to degrade the Haqqanis' operations on the Pakistani side of the border, creating a "hammer-and-anvil" effect as U.S. special operations forces carry out raids against their fighters across the frontier in Afghanistan. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing classified operations.

The missiles have killed more than 50 people in 12 strikes since Sept. 2 in the Pakistani region of North Waziristan, according to an Associated Press tally based on Pakistani intelligence officials' reports. Many struck around Datta Khel, a town of about 40,000 people that sits on a strategically vital road to the Afghan border.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

From Huffington Post Sept. 10, 2010

CIA May Send Predator Drones Into Yemen

Excerpt-

WASHINGTON — The White House, in an effort to turn up the heat against al-Qaida's branch in Yemen, is considering adding the CIA's armed Predator drones to the fight, two U.S. officials said Wednesday.

The drones are among CIA resources that could be assigned to an existing mission by U.S. special operations forces, a senior U.S. official told The Associated Press. The official said such options were in the planning stages and would be done only with the cooperation of the Yemeni leadership in Sanaa.

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

The fact that the White House is considering supplying CIA weapons and other resources to the clandestine counterterrorist fight in Yemen was first reported in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal.

Yemen is the base of operations for al-Qaida of the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, the militant group that claimed responsibility for the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner last Christmas Day and counts American-born rebel cleric Anwar al-Awlaki among its leadership. The U.S. military has been working with the Yemeni counterterrorist forces for years, and that cooperation has increased under the Obama administration.

But officials say the U.S. hasn't yet brought as much pressure to bear against AQAP as they have against its parent organization, Osama bin Laden's Pakistan-based al-Qaida, and that a range of tools and tactics were being considered.

Among the CIA's most lethal tools, armed Predator drones are already hunting high-value militant targets in Pakistan's lawless tribal regions. The idea is to reassign some of those to the U.S. special operations forces assisting local counterterrorist forces in Yemen.

But U.S. officials may have a hard time selling the concept to the Yemeni government in Sanaa, where reports of the potential use of drones has already touched off controversy.

A CIA drone strike made headlines in Yemen, in November 2002, when it killed an American citizen along with a group of al-Qaida operatives. Drones became shorthand in Yemen for a weak government allowing foreign forces to have their way.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

A previously referenced New Yorker article from October, 2009 ...

The Predator War: What are the risks of the C.I.A.’s covert drone program? by Jane Mayer

A brief excerpt of note ...

"Before September 11th, the C.I.A., which had been chastened by past assassination scandals, refused to deploy the Predator for anything other than surveillance. Daniel Benjamin, the State Department’s counterterrorism director, and Steven Simon, a former counterterrorism adviser, report in their 2002 book 'The Age of Sacred Terror' that the week before Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. George Tenet, then the agency’s director, argued that it would be 'a terrible mistake' for 'the Director of Central Intelligence to fire a weapon like this.'

Yet once America had suffered terrorist attacks on its own soil the agency’s posture changed, and it petitioned the White House for new authority. Within days, President Bush had signed a secret Memorandum of Notification, giving the C.I.A. the right to kill members of Al Qaeda and their confederates virtually anywhere in the world. Congress endorsed this policy, passing a bill called the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Bush’s legal advisers modeled their rationale on Israel’s position against terrorism, arguing that the U.S. government had the right to use lethal force against suspected terrorists in “anticipatory” self-defense. By classifying terrorism as an act of war, rather than as a crime, the Bush Administration reasoned that it was no longer bound by legal constraints requiring the government to give suspected terrorists due process."

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Still Killing Without Regard to Target

2010-09-14T13:39:00.005-05:00

Article posted to Counterpunch September 9, 2010

Excerpted below are three reasons to read this article on civilians injured and killed by drones while U.S. military and political policy continues to be an increase in the use of drones and acquiesce to charges of human rights violations.

A Ground Zero Reflection
Indefensible Drones

By KATHY KELLY

"Corporate media does little to help ordinary U.S. people understand that the drones which hover over potential targets in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen create small 'ground zeroes' in multiple locales on an everyday basis."

"Following an alleged Taliban attack on a nearby police station, NATO forces flew overhead to "engage" the militants. If the engagement includes bombing the area under scrutiny, it would be more apt to say that NATO aimed to puree the militants. But in this case, the bombers mistook the children for militants and killed six of them, aged 6 to 12. Local police said there were no Taliban at the site during the attack, only children."

"General Petraeus assures his superiors that the U.S. is effectively using drone surveillance, sensors and other robotic means of gaining intelligence to assure that they are hunting down the right targets for assassination. But survivors of these attacks insist that civilians are at risk. In Afghanistan, thirty high schools have shut down because the parents say that their children are distracted by the drones flying overhead and that it's unsafe for them to gather in the schools."

Bagram AFB not resembling Afghanistan withdrawal so far

2010-08-09T18:08:00.003-05:00

Wired.com story posted to Common Dreams Aug. 9 ...

U.S. Supersizes Afghan Mega-Base as Withdrawal Date Looms
by Spencer Ackerman

BAGRAM AIR FIELD, Afghanistan - Anyone who thinks the United States is really going to withdraw from Afghanistan in July 2011 needs to come to this giant air base an hour away from Kabul. There's construction everywhere. It's exactly what you wouldn't expect from a transient presence.

Perhaps the most conspicuous change of all: fresh concrete T-walls fortifying the northern and southern faces of the base. Step off a C-17 cargo plane, as I did very early Friday morning, and you see a flight line packed with planes. When I was last here two years ago, helicopters crowded the runways and fixed-wing aircraft were -- well, if not rare, still a notable sight. Today you've got C-17s, Predators, F-16s, F-15s, MC-12 passenger planes ... I didn't see any of the C-130 cargo craft, but they're here somewhere.

More notable than the overstuffed runways is the over-driven road. Disney Drive, the main thoroughfare that rings the eight-square-mile base, used to feature pedestrians with reflective sashes over their PT uniforms carrying Styrofoam boxes of leftovers out of the mess halls. And those guys are still there.

But now the western part of Disney is a two-lane parking lot of Humvees, flamboyant cargo big-rigs from Pakistan known as jingle trucks, yellow DHL shipping vans, contractor vehicles and mud-caked flatbeds. If the Navy could figure out a way to bring a littoral-combat ship to a landlocked country, it would idle on Disney.

Expect to wait an eternity if you want to pull out onto the road. Cross the street at your own risk.

Then there are all the new facilities. West Disney has a fresh coat of cement -- something that's easy to come by, now that the Turkish firm Yukcel manufactures cement right inside Bagram's walls.

There on the flightline: the skeletons of new hangars. New towers with particleboard for terraces. A skyline of cranes. The omnipresent plastic banner on a girder-and-cement seedling advertising a new project built by cut-rate labor paid by Inglett and Stubbs International.

I haven't been able to learn yet how much it all cost, but Bagram is starting to feel like a dynamic exurb before the housing bubble burst. There was actually a traffic jam this afternoon on the southern side of the base, owing to construction-imposed bottlenecks, something I didn't think possible in late summer 2008.

Perhaps the most conspicuous change of all: fresh concrete T-walls fortifying the northern and southern faces of the base. Insurgents have launched a number of futile attacks on the base recently, mostly inaccurate small-arms fire and the odd rocket-propelled grenade. They've mostly irritated their targets instead of killing them.

But a definite legacy is the abundance of huge barriers at the most-obvious access points to Bagram. Much of the eastern wing remains surrounded by chicken fencing topped with barbed wire, but the more sensitive points of entry are now hardened.

So, apparently, are the sentiments of local Afghans nearby. Troops here told me of shepherd boys scowling their way around Bagram's outskirts, slingshotting off the occasional rock in hopes of braining an American. Again, something else I wouldn't have believed two years ago.

By next year, the detention facility that's spirited away on a far corner of Bagram is supposed to revert to Afghan control. And maybe someday the Afghan National Army will inherit the entire base.

But two years ago there were about 18,000 troops and contractors living here. Now that figure is north of 30,000, all for a logistics hub and command post that the United States didn't ever imagine possessing before 9/11.

In 2011, the U.S. military probably won't be thinking about turning over the keys to a new, huge base. It'll be thinking about how it can finish up the construction contracts it signed months ago -- if not some it's yet to ink.

Excellent blog post on ABC News tribute to the murderous glory of UAV drones

2010-08-09T10:05:00.003-05:00

Nice work from whoever is behind http://www.spider-topihitam.com
This excerpt cuts to the core of the issue (at this point I wish there was one):

"In the particular instance highlighted in Tuesday’s report, the drone spots a number of individuals carrying heavy objects. Weir, somewhat disappointed that the suspicious Afghans are not immediately blown to bits, comments on the military’s remarkable 'restraint.' They turn out to be four boys and a girl collecting firewood. They were fortunate on this occasion. how many have not been?"

By David Walsh
14 January 2010

American television news becomes more and more unwatchable, especially in its reports on the expanding wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. Perfectly coiffed, interchangeable news and anchor people repeat White House and Pentagon lies. “In-depth” reports provide nothing in the way of meaningful commentary or analysis. In general, everything is done to hide the truth from the American people.

Diane Sawyer, promoted to hosting ABC’s prime time evening news program a few weeks ago, and the rest of that network’s news personalities are in the forefront of the government’s disinformation campaign. it is worth noting that Sawyer, who began her television career doing the weather in Louisville, Kentucky, went to work for the Nixon administration in 1970 in the midst of the Vietnam War and stayed with the disgraced former president through his forced resignation, helping him write his memoirs.

US drone in flight On Tuesday night’s evening news, Sawyer and two colleagues, David Muir and bill Weir, spent six or seven minutes extolling the merits of the US Air Force’s Predator drones and their deadly attacks in Afghanistan. The Predators, according to Pakistani government and media sources, murdered some 700 civilians in that country in 2009, but the CIA-US military program of killings by drone attack on that side of the border is “covert,” without the official sanction of the Islamabad regime (emphasis ExEd).

Thus, Sawyer and company had to be satisfied with covering the US military’s increased use of drones in Afghanistan. According to a companion piece by Weir on its web site, ABC News was “granted exclusive access to the ground control station at the California [Air Force] base, one of six in the country where the planes are flown.” In other words, the broadcast report was a component part of the military’s official propaganda effort, prepared and vetted with the collaboration of Pentagon officials. A drone control station Sawyer introduced the story from Kabul, alerting her viewers to “the war you do not see, the skyrocketing use of drones.”

She went on to explain in Orwellian fashion that the “potentially lethal” drones were “another new strategy against the rising tide of violence in this country.” Yesterday, Sawyer told her audience, “drones assisted in taking out 16 of the enemy.” she noted that airmen 8,000 miles from Afghanistan were pushing the buttons, sending 500-pound bombs or Hellfire missiles hurtling to the ground. The Obama administration has overseen a sharp increase in the drone program, notes ABC, to “400 hours a day, a 300 percent increase.” From 100 three years ago, the number of drones in use has jumped to 1,200.

Muir writes on the ABC web site: “On this one California base alone, over the last six months, not one hour has gone by when Air Force pilots haven’t been watching over Afghanistan through the eyes of a at least one Predator drone. the technology has been such a game-changer that over the next year, the Air Force will now train more drone pilots than fighter and bomber pilots combined.”

Sawyer proudly tells us that the drone is a “high-tech symbol of American might.”

About one minute of the segment is devoted to the moral issues involved in bombing people from halfway around the world. it raises, the ABC anchorwoman notes, “new questions about what’s right and wrong,” before she quickly passes on to the “exclusive” footage shot in the California control center. Here, Muir explains, “Each drone is controlled by a two-man team, seated in front of a video screen clutching a joystick. On the screens, the men see live video from the drones in Afghanistan, picking out armed enemies on the ground who have no idea they’re being watched. The pilot can launch a missile simply by pulling a trigger. “The drones send back images in the blink of an eye—it takes just 1.7 seconds for the imagery to travel through 12 time zones. The video travels from the drone to a satellite and then down to a classified location in Europe. From there, it flows through a fiber optic nerve across the Atlantic Ocean to reach the California base. But it’s not finished—the signal then branches out to other bases, the Pentagon, and right back to the ground commander in Afghanistan.” He goes on: “We watched as a pilot monitored insurgents planting an IED [improvised explosive device] in northern Afghanistan. It made a good target, and with the punch of a button, a Hellfire missile launched, taking the insurgents out.”

As the WSWS has noted on more than one occasion in recent years, US government officials and media personalities have had no difficulty in adopting the lingo of the Mafia. ABC’s Weir reports on efforts by the American military team on the ground to determine whether a given group of Afghans seems an appropriate target to be wiped out. In the particular instance highlighted in Tuesday’s report, the drone spots a number of individuals carrying heavy objects. Weir, somewhat disappointed that the suspicious Afghans are not immediately blown to bits, comments on the military’s remarkable “restraint.” They turn out to be four boys and a girl collecting firewood. They were fortunate on this occasion. how many have not been?

As a final comment, Weir declares, “Even if he could have proven it [the potential slaughter of the children] was an honest mistake, the captain tells me that killing these five children would have undone months of work winning over local elders, and that has become the key battle in this war.”

What can one say? This is the moral state of the American media: the murder of poverty-stricken children by missiles or bombs might, after all, be no more than an “honest mistake” (and therefore pardonable), but, on the downside, it could prove an inconvenience to US war aims (and therefore should be avoided, if possible).

Bill Weir’s résumé indicates that he is well suited to deal with life-and-death questions in Central Asia. A graduate of Pepperdine University in Malibu, California (where a typical student, according to one commentator, “tends to be devoutly Christian, right-wing, Republican,” and wealthy), Weir began his career as a weekend sportscaster at a radio station in Austin, Minnesota. He worked his way up to sports anchor at KABC-TV in Los Angeles from 1998 to 2002, where he hosted a weekly program that aired after Monday Night Football. He has also written and developed three television pilots for the USA and FX networks.

On the ABC web site, Muir concludes that “the drone pilots know their work is important. Every minute in the cockpit helps defend their military colleagues on the battlefield and improve their chances of getting home alive.” The entire “news report” Tuesday was nothing more nor less than a defense of neo-colonial warfare and mass murder by well-paid hirelings of the American establishment.

Benazir Bhutto's niece on Asif Ali Zardari's presidency in Pakistan

2010-08-05T01:29:00.002-05:00

Assassinated former Pakistani president Benazir Bhutto is survived by Asif Ali Zardari, who has taken her place as president, and also a niece, Fatima Bhutto, who is now publishing books and speaking on book tours.

In this London Evening Standard commentary, Fatima levels her criticisms clearly against a president she finds to be a threat to democracy and a collaborator with terrorist groups.

This is dated April 8 and has been appearing on sites this week that follow politics in Pakistan.

The London School of Economics published a report two months ago on Pakistan’s dealings with extremists, based on scores of interviews. It said Pakistan’s president Asif Ali Zardari met 50 high-ranking imprisoned Taliban leaders in April 2010 to assure them of his government’s support.

Zardari denied the meeting through unelected spokespeople who struggle to present the president as a premier ally of democracy and Western interests. David Cameron’s recent lambasting of the current Pakistani government seems to fall short.

In 2010 alone, the Zardari government has allowed 70 American Predator drone flights to cross its airspace and kill its citizens (more than 200 dead, no top terrorists confirmed among the nameless victims), all the while asking the Obama White House for drone technology that he may use himself.

He has banned 500 websites — including YouTube, Facebook and Google — under the pretence of protesting against anti-Islamic material on the web, and has presided over a breakdown of law and order in Karachi so severe that 300 politicians and political activists have been murdered in the past eight months, according to human rights groups. In the past 48 hours, 45 people have been killed in Karachi following the assassination of a member of parliament and more than 100 people have been wounded.

The fact that Facebook has countless anti-Zardari groups was not proffered as a reason for its shutdown. Nor was the coincidence that Pakistan’s legal community, including the deputy attorney general, called for Mark Zuckerberg, the social networking site’s founder, to be arrested. No one bought the president’s Islam excuse — censorship by another name smells as foul, unfortunately for him.

President Zardari is considered one of Pakistan’s most venal figures. His nicknames run from Mr Ten Per Cent to the updated Mr Hundred and Ten Per Cent. Zardari has come under massive criticism for choosing to traipse across Europe via his usual five-star hotels while floods in northern Pakistan have killed upwards of 1,400 people, displaced 100,000 households and affected three million Pakistanis.

Zardari’s alleged corruption — in the $2-3 billion range, according to The New York Times — has not stopped Cameron or Obama’s governments from funding, supporting and propping up the government of a man whose legacy has been marked by political unpopularity, instability, large-scale graft and violence. The Pakistan People’s Party that Zardari took over after the murder of his wife Benazir Bhutto (my aunt) is referred to as the Permanent Plunder Party.

Zardari does not have the will or the understanding to cope with Pakistan’s escalating volatility. Just last year he said that his government was hard at work fighting “extremists from Aung San Suu Kyi to the Taliban”, mistaking the Burmese democracy campaigner for a terror outfit. How does Britain expect Zardari to fight terror when he’s not even sure of what the word means?

The longer Zardari and his coterie are funded in the billions and welcomed by democratic governments, the longer Pakistan will remain hostage to obtuse political posturing, corruption and violent instability. Pakistan and the world cannot afford much more of the Zardaris in power.

(Fatima Bhutto is a writer and author of Songs of Blood and Sword, published in the UK by Jonathan Cape. She is the niece of the late Benazir Bhutto)

Back from the Dead: Summer Vacation

2010-08-02T23:02:00.004-05:00

Extraordinary Edition had virtually no posts for the month of July. Explanation: summer hiatus.

This was a family affair. Seven people rented this home for four nights. Editor could not afford to rent a closet in a spot like this on his own for half a night.

Understanding South Asia: Kashmir

2010-08-02T22:56:00.006-05:00

The following piece is provided entirely by Aletho News from its comrade site, Axis of Logic

KASHMIR – The Dispute That Continues to Rock South Asia
aletho | August 2, 2010 at 12:20 pm | Categories: Illegal Occupation, Subjugation - Torture | URL: http://wp.me/pIUmC-3qE

By Shahid R. Siddiqi | Axis of Logic | July 18, 2010

A cartoon published in an American newspaper in 2002 showed former president George Bush sitting behind his desk in the Oval Office, utterly confused by a news report he was reading about India and Pakistan going to war over Kashmir. “But why are the two countries fighting over a sweater,” he asked Dick Cheney who stood by with his usual sly smile on his face.

Besides reflecting the intellectual capacity of the American president of the time, the cartoon was a realistic portrayal of the understanding that American leaders have generally shown of this longstanding dispute between Pakistan and India.

The unresolved Kashmir conflict has rocked South Asia for six decades. It has created an environment of distrust and acrimony, forced the people to sink into poverty with the bulk of the resources consumed by the war machines and claimed lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians as well as soldiers who died in the three wars fought between India and Pakistan. India, whose forcible occupation of Kashmir in 1947 created the conflict, refuses to settle it. The other stake holders, the Kashmiri people and Pakistan, insist on a fair solution. The international community including the US and the United Nations played little or no role in diffusing it either. Consequently, the conflict has developed into one of the most intractable problems of international politics that remains a continuing threat to peace of the region.

Indian Brutalities & The International Reaction

India has not hesitated to use brutal force to maintain its hold on Indian occupied Kashmir and suppress revolt. The US, UN and other international organizations failed to take note of grave human rights violations. They failed to provide any specific, actionable proposals for a permanent solution. All they extended were diplomatic courtesies, suggested vague formulas and generalities that are open to multiple interpretations.

Although the US considers South Asia to be a sensitive and strategically important region from its geopolitical, security and economic standpoint and has expressed the desire to see peace prevail, it has so far paid only lip service to finding a permanent solution. It would not chastise India for human rights violations, which would have attracted its immediate attention if these were taking place in a country that it had chosen to punish, for fear of displeasing or alienating India which it has aggressively been courting in recent years.

This situation was compounded by the Indian dreams of regional hegemony that led it to dismember Pakistan in 1971 and go on to become a nuclear power, which forced Pakistan to develop its own nuclear deterrent for safeguarding its security.

Consequently, India has consistently and blatantly refused to honor the will of the people, negotiate Kashmir’s future status or stop the use of brutal force.

The Conflict Leads To The First Kashmir War

In the wake of the August 1947 partition of British India that brought into existence two sovereign states of the Indian Union and Pakistan, the British left after having midwifed the Kashmir dispute that has since bedeviled peace between the two countries. Essentially, the agreed principle that governed partition was that Muslim majority states to the east and west of British India would form Pakistan, while rest of the subcontinent was to form Indian Union.

Decisions by several Muslim rulers for accession of their states to Pakistan that had Hindu majorities (Hyderabad, Junagadh and Manavadar being cases in point) were rejected on the grounds that a Muslim ruler did not have the right to overrule the will of the Hindu majority population. But the decision of the Hindu Raja of the princely state of Kashmir, which was predominantly a Muslim majority state and should have acceded to Pakistan, was immediately accepted by the British viceroy and the Indian government, despite a popular Kashmiri revolt against his decision. Although an agreement of non-intervention in Kashmir had been signed between India and Pakistan, the new Indian government sent troops into Kashmir at the request of the Hindu ruler to enforce the instrument of accession and forcibly occupy the territory, in disregard of the agreed principle of accession applied elsewhere.

This led to the first Kashmir war in 1947 between India and Pakistan. In 1948 India sought cease fire, taking the issue to the UN Security Council, which passed resolution 47 on 21 April 1948 that imposed an immediate cease-fire along the line of actual control of territory by both parties and called on them to withdraw their troops. It also ruled that "the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations." The cease fire was enacted in December 1948, with both governments agreeing to hold the plebiscite in areas under their control. Ever since, India has been rejecting all resolutions of the Security Council and the proposals of the UN arbitrators for demilitarization of the region – all of which were accepted by Pakistan.

The Security Council Steps In

Although the resolutions of the Security Council were regarded as the ‘documents of reference’ for a durable and internationally acceptable solution, no steps were ever taken for their implementation. This was because in technical terms these were not mandatory - not having been based under Chapter VII of the Charter. This allowed India to get away, dashing the false expectations of the Kashmiris as to the possible role of the United Nations as facilitator of a solution to the Kashmir problem.

This injustice to the Kashmiri people was intrinsically linked to the veto privilege of the permanent members of the Security Council and the lack of unanimity between them for enforcement measures according to Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter. Their plight is similar to that of the Palestinians, in whose case also resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) that call upon Israel to withdraw from occupied Arab territories are not based on Chapter VII and have hence enabled the occupying country, Israel, to ignore them.

That the United Nations Organization follows double standards was clearly visible when it adopted compulsory resolutions in other conflict situations, such as in case of the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990-1991, where the US - a permanent member was able to force the hand of other permanent members to do its bidding.

The cease fire line between the Indian and Pakistani sides of Kashmir has since become the Line of Control and continues to be monitored by UN observers.

India Annexes The Disputed Occupied Kashmir

Thereafter, ignoring the Security Council resolutions, disregarding the internationally accepted ‘disputed’ status of the state and defying the will of the people, India went on to annex Occupied Kashmir into the Indian Union through an amendment to its Constitution, claiming it to be an integral part of India. On its part Pakistan continues to regard the part of Kashmir under its control as disputed territory and allows it self rule. It continues to plead for a final settlement taking the position that the people of Kashmir on both sides must get the right to choose their future through self determination.

People of Kashmir Demand The Right Of Self Determination

The people of Kashmir had begun to wage a struggle against the Hindu Raja’s rule as far back as in 1931 and refused to accept Indian occupation from the day it was imposed in 1947. Their struggle has since intensified and they have called for accession of a united Kashmir to Pakistan. Rejecting their demand, successive Indian governments have tried to suppress the struggle by use of force.

Writing in Kashmir Watch of July 11, 2010, a Kashmiri academic, Dr. Manzoor Alam, urged world bodies like the Arab League, OIC, Asia watch, human rights organizations and the European Union to make a paradigm shift in their policies and move from ‘mere condemnation’ to throwing their political weight and resources behind the Kashmiris in their freedom struggle.

“ … we are talking about freedom from India which is our basic and fundamental right and this right was promised to us by Jawaharlal Nehru on June 26, 1952. We make an earnest and urgent appeal to the conscience of the world to act promptly to save Kashmir and her people. It is time for the United Nations to wake up to its responsibilities. It has to assume its duty in saving millions of Kashmiri lives. Enough is enough.”

Grave Human Rights Violations

Indian troops in combination with paramilitary forces and state police have let loose a consistent and massive reign of terror on unarmed civilians. Men, women and children, young and old, are being indiscriminately killed, injured and maimed and women are being raped with impunity.

A recent report on Human Rights violations states that that between 1989 to June 30, 2010 the number of Kashmiris killed at the hands of Indian security forces stands at 93,274. Additionally, there have been 6,969 custodial killings, over 107,351 children have been orphaned, 22,728 women widowed and 9,920 women gang raped. In June 2010 alone, 33 people were killed including four children, 572 people were tortured and injured and 8 women were molested, 117,345 people were arrested and 105,861 houses or structures in the use of the communities were razed or destroyed.

Human rights groups blame the culture of impunity among security forces in Kashmir on a controversial 1990 national law granting soldiers the right to detain or eliminate all suspected terrorists and destroy their property without fear of prosecution. Critics call this provision a license to kill as it does not clearly define "terrorists".

The murky cycle of violence is picking up speed. The killing of innocent civilians draws protests in all nooks and corners of the state by enraged people which in turn provoke the security forces to indulge in more killing. More recently, the state has remained on a knife’s edge since June 11, when angry protests began against the killing by Indian security forces of three 11th grade teenagers without provocation. This continues to happen also because the state or the federal government does not believe in explaining their actions or carrying out investigations and punishing those who use excessive force. Instead, the Indian government proudly calls all of these achievements 'successful counter insurgency' operations.

To punish the Muslim population of Jammu and Kashmir for the uprising, the state machinery is economically strangulating it through the ruthless action of road blockades that have resulted in acute shortages of foodstuff, medicines and other critical items of daily use in the valley. Protestors were fired upon earlier this month, resulting in the loss of hundreds of innocent lives, including some prominent leaders.

Under a well thought out plan, India has brought about a demographic change in Jammu after Hindu rule was imposed in October 1947. Muslims constituted 62% of the population there according to a 1941 census which now stands in the 30s. The Indian government is now focusing on the Kashmir valley where land allotments to Hindus from outside the state are being made to encourage population transfer in order to reduce the Muslim majority.

India Cold Shoulders Pakistan’s Out Of The Box Solutions

Pakistan’s willingness, as stated by Pakistan’s former President Pervez Musharraf, to get away from old paradigms and launch fresh proposals for a just and durable solution, did not draw any bold steps or a concrete response from India. Although he went so far as to say that for the sake of a settlement, options that are “unacceptable to either side” should be set aside and he went on to float the idea in December 2005 of a “United States of Kashmir” that would include all regions, India did not show any interest in engaging in a meaningful dialogue. India has continued hedging the core issue and has instead been raising peripheral issues one after the other as an evasive tactic. It has been demanding confidence building measures before any dialogue could seriously get underway but even these CBMs initiated by Pakistan did not prove enough. The track II diplomacy has also not been able to achieve much. This causes frustrations, not only for Pakistan but also among the Kashmiris, causing a very volatile climate, further raising the political temperature.

In Search Of The Solution

After six decades of bloodshed and armed confrontation, Indian leaders should realize the impossibility of sweeping the issue under the carpet or keeping the Kashmiris subjugated through force, an option which has acquired an entirely new dimension due to India and Pakistan having become nuclear powers. It is now time that India should move, and move with sincerity, towards resolving the dispute with the following in mind:

1. A solution must be pursued not only on the basis of bilateral approach involving India and Pakistan but also on the tripartite level that would take into account the wishes of the people of Kashmir.
2. Kashmir must be treated as an issue of basic human rights, which forms part of the jus cogens of general international law. Kashmir is also an issue of religious rights and identity where the majority Muslim community has been adversely affected by the partition along the “Line of Control”.
3. Kashmir is not only a regional issue in terms of territorial claims by three states, including China, but it is, at the same time, a matter concerning the international community since it has implications for global peace and security. The nuclear potential of the three powers actually controlling parts of the disputed territory can simply not be ignored.
4. The struggle of the people of Kashmir must not be confused with the so-called “global war on terror”, which happens to be a superpower agenda that is alien to this conflict. Instead of falling in this trap and making this issue further intractable, India needs to understand the dictum: “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
5. In the interest of finding a durable solution, India will have to move away from the police and military approach, or as India likes to put it as “a battle against terrorists”. Instead of dealing with symptoms, it must address the root cause of the conflict - the question of self-determination.
6. Police brutalities, rape and other human rights violations will have to come to an end and have to be prosecuted with full determination and without bias. At the same time, deliberate attacks on civilians will have to be terminated once and for all.
7. The legacy of the Security Council resolutions 38 and 47 (1948) as well as the resolutions adopted by the UNCIP in 1948 and 1949 cannot be discarded, in spite of the time that has elapsed since their adoption, as these have neither become obsolete, nor invalid nor have they been recalled by the Council at any stage. On the other hand, ten years after the initial resolutions, Security Council resolution 122 (1957) reaffirmed the same democratic principle as basis of a just solution. India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru is on record fully endorsing this principle when on November 2, 1947 he said:

“We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given […] not only to the people of Kashmir but the world. We will not, and cannot back out of it. We are prepared when peace and law and order have been established to have a referendum held under international auspices like the United Nations.”

It is time for Indian present leadership to listen to its founding fathers, if it does not wish to listen to the rest of the world.

Catching up: Pakistan, drones and international law

2010-07-12T09:01:00.003-05:00

Running a bit behind the calendar, from Foreign Policy magazine's AfPak Channel.

Just to point out: Gul is here concerned with Pakistan's split policy on the legal ramifications of drone attacks. First off, 'split'describes Pakistan as Islamabad does not seem to reach all the way to the Islamist militant groups described below or average folks living in the Federally Administrated Tribal Region. Second, the concern among average Pakistanis is not whether the UAV strikes are legal: it's that they kill civilians indiscriminately in the hunt for suspected militants. Third, the CIA is the primary operator of the drone program. Islamabad has expressed interest in running its own drone programs, but that gesture addresses none of the above as the Central Intelligence Agency would likely continue on its present course rather than relinquish control of a program to Pakistan.

Pakistan's dueling drones debate

By Imtiaz Gul, July 2, 2010

While Pakistan's security forces battle al Qaeda-inspired Pakistani Taliban militants in the volatile tribal regions of Bajaur and Orakzai, CIA-operated drones continue chasing foreign al-Qaeda operatives hiding in the wild Waziristan region. The latest such strike on a hide-out in South Waziristan tribal area near the Afghan border took out eight militants earlier this week, including an Egyptian allied with al-Qaeda, Hamza al-Jufi.

Believed to be operating out of Forward Operating Base Chapman, located across the border in Khost, Afghanistan, drones have struck targets inside Pakistan at least 141 times since 2004, including 45 attacks already this year so far. Regardless of how effective drones may be against al-Qaeda and its affiliates, their use is the subject of widespread debate, due in large part to questions about the legality of the drones.

Condemnation of such attacks and their characterization as a violation of the "sovereignty, solidarity, integrity and defense of Pakistan," in the words of Pakistani parliamentarian Imran Khan, is primarily rooted in the context of the global war against terrorism that began in October 2001 under President George Bush. This association with Bush has in part led many conservative Pakistanis and right-wing political groups such as the Jamaat-i-Islami and Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam to openly oppose the drone strikes.

Even the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the Waziristan-based group that is spearheading the insurgency in the northwestern regions, has justified attacks as a reaction to the drone strikes.

Others object not to the drones, but to Pakistani public opinion on their use. For instance, Ayaz Ameer, an analyst-turned-politician, and an MP from the opposition Pakistan Muslim League-N, said at a recent conference hosted by my Islamabad think tank that Pakistani officials take two contradictory positions on drone strikes: publicly condemning them while endorsing them privately.

Chriss Rogers, research fellow at Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC), said at the forum, "Since Pakistan formally never raised the issue at any international forum nor did it formally and officially issue statement against it, there seemed to be a tacit understanding between the United States and Pakistan over it."

But covert Pakistani consent does not necessarily make the strikes legal. According to Ahmar Bilal Soofi, an expert in international law, "The United States is applying drones in the name of self-defense and the war on al-Qaeda, but even this is a violation of international law and Pakistani sovereignty." Furthermore, he argues, "These means become even more objectionable because the CIA is operating drone strikes, thereby compromising issues such as transparency and accountability."

Some observers have also suggested that a Pakistani operation of the drones could significantly blunt criticism of the strikes. Indeed Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and army leaders have frequently asked that the technology be transferred to Pakistan, and has said that such a transfer would blunt criticism of the strikes..

Increasingly, Pakistani critics have also relied on arguments made by Philip Alston, a New York University law professor and the U.N. special representative on extrajudicial executions, who in a June report recommended that the U.S. military handle drone strikes against the Taliban and al-Qaeda-related militants in Pakistan, and also wrote that, "[i]f a State commits a targeted killing in the territory of another State, the second State
should publicly indicate whether it gave consent, and on what basis."

Set against the backdrop of the recent command change in Afghanistan, U.S. policy on the drone attacks may perhaps also undergo some qualitative changes. Particularly in view of Obama's search for rapid success in Afghanistan, for which Pakistan's support is crucial, the Obama administration may work out a mechanism that, while eliminating al-Qaeda members, also addresses Pakistani concerns on the legality of drone strikes. This change could also erase quite a bit of mistrust of the U.S. in Pakistan and help improve bilateral cooperation. But Pakistan's government must first end its dueling public and private positions on drones and state clearly where it stands on this simmering issue.

Imtiaz Gul heads the Center for Research and Security Studies, Islamabad and is the author of The Most Dangerous Place (Viking Penguin USA/UK).

Competition from Lockheed Martin in UAV arms race

2010-07-06T12:13:00.005-05:00

As evidenced by a photo of the prototype named Skunk Works, Lockheed Martin may be getting into the drone business with General Atomics Aeronautical Systems and Northrup Grumman.

With so many hands working to assemble (not to mention market) these devices, it's going to take enormous public outcry to even raise questions about the ethics of using these craft and producing more of them.

Dug up industry story on drone manufacture

2010-07-06T11:29:00.004-05:00

The following story is a business story, meaning ...

NO ETHICAL ANALYSIS SO LONG AS THE NUMBERS LOOK GOOD--YEAAAAAA!!!

Please keep in mind while you read that there are some potentially negative effects to filling the sky with unmanned drones with electronic eyes and radio signal receiver/transmitters on board. How bout a world where 90 percent of the population starves and 10 percent live to get more robots onto the battlefield so they can be on the side of the conflict with the most robots that haven't been destroyed? Personally, I'd like to see that kind of reality safely assigned to science fiction.

The following San Diego Union-Tribune story contains some indispensable facts about unmanned aerial vehicles and the weapons contractors General Atomics Aeronautical Systems and Northrup Grumman.

Prowling for profit
As demand rises for unmanned surveillance drones, Poway’s General Atomics Aeronautical among companies positioned to benefit

By Mike Freeman, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Every minute of every day, about 40 Predator-series unmanned aircraft are flying worldwide, providing “constant stare” surveillance over everything from war zones to U.S. borders to piracy-plagued shipping lanes.

With the U.S. military preparing to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan next year, the number of Predator-family aircraft flying at any given moment is likely to increase. Air Force officials said last week that more drones will be added in Afghanistan as part of the troop buildup. The Army is also fast-tracking its schedule for deploying unmanned vehicles.

All of which has focused a spotlight on Poway-based General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, the maker of the Predator and its more advanced siblings, the Reaper, Sky Warrior and Avenger.

Three years ago, the Predator group had logged 80,000 total flight hours since the first one flew in the mid-1990s.

Today, these aircraft have flown close to 1 million hours — a good portion of that over Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the process, the drones have helped change the battlefield by giving service members — even small groups in isolated areas — their own spy plane. Not only do these aircraft provide surveillance for miles in every direction, they also can pick up enemy communications and transmit video feeds to soldiers’ handheld devices on the ground as well as to operations centers halfway around the world.

“The Predator may be the single most popular new military product introduced in this generation,” said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer with the Lexington Institute, a military think tank. “The versatility and transformational nature of the Predator allows war-fighting ideas that just weren’t feasible in the past.”

Drones have changed the battlefield to the point that insurgents in Iraq have been hacking into video feeds to see what the Predators are monitoring, according to Wall Street Journal reports last week. But U.S. officials said there’s no evidence that militants were able to take control of the drones or otherwise interfere with their flights.

Although General Atomics is getting the most attention, it’s not the only one in the drone business operating in San Diego.

Northrop Grumman has a significant unmanned-aircraft division in Rancho Bernardo. Although its aircraft are assembled elsewhere, the company’s San Diego unit provides software, systems integration, business development and other functions for the high-altitude Global Hawk, the Fire Scout unmanned helicopter, a Navy version of the Global Hawk called BAMS and the stealthy, early-stage drone designed to land on aircraft carriers called the X-47 UCAS, among others.

These two companies have put San Diego near the center of a sea change in military aviation with the rise of ever-more-capable drones.

“They are the two largest by far” in the unmanned-aircraft industry, said Phil Finnegan, director for corporate analysis for The Teal Group, a defense industry research firm.

Teal estimates that the market for drone aircraft will double in the next decade, reaching $8.7 billion in annual sales worldwide. That’s just for the planes. It doesn’t include sensor systems, which often increase costs significantly.

Neither Northrop Grumman nor General Atomics provides specific revenue figures.

The companies control different market segments. Northrop Grumman’s larger, more capable and more expensive Global Hawk dominates the high-altitude, long-endurance segment. It can fly at 60,000 feet for more than 36 hours. No drone competes with it, analysts say.

Northrop Grumman has made roughly 25 of the planes to date, and they’ve flown hundreds of missions over Iraq and Afghanistan. The Air Force eventually plans to buy 54. The company won’t reveal the cost of the Global Hawk, but a Government Accountability Office report in 2006 said the drones cost more than $100 million each, including ground equipment, support, testing and spare parts. Northrop Grumman says that estimate is too high.

General Atomics’ Predator series dominates the medium-altitude, long-endurance market segment. The company has made more than 380 of the planes, mostly for the Pentagon. But they also are being used by the Department of Homeland Security to patrol borders, by NASA for research and by foreign military customers.

“It comes down to this: If I was trying to cover the world with an unmanned surveillance drone, I would definitely pick the Global Hawk,” said Thompson of the Lexington Institute. “But if I was trying to cover the northwest corner of Afghanistan, I would probably pick the Predator.”

Drone aircraft are less expensive to operate than manned aircraft. They also keep pilots out of harm’s way by performing some of the dull but dangerous work on the battlefield.

Some drones, such as the Predator family, can be fitted with missiles and circle a potential target for more than day. Most, though, are used only for surveillance.

Inside its San Diego-area factory, General Atomics builds Predator-series planes from scratch. Frank Belknap, director of composite manufacturing, said local workers who lost their aerospace industry jobs in the early-’90s recession — many of whom found work making composite golf shafts and tennis rackets — are now returning to aerospace to build Predators.

In 1999, Belknap was the 16th employee of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, an affiliate of privately held General Atomics. Today, the company employs more than 4,000 workers.

Over the past decade, Pentagon procurement spending on unmanned aerial vehicles has surged from $500 million to $3.5 billion. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he wants more drones in the field. He told the military to move faster to get those systems deployed, even if they have only 75 percent or 80 percent of their expected features ready for action, military officials said.

General Atomics got into the drone business after acquiring a small company out of bankruptcy in the early 1990s that had been working on the aircraft. By the mid-’90s, it had perfected the technology enough to build prototype planes.

Thomas Cassidy Jr., a retired admiral who heads General Atomics Aeronautical, went ahead without waiting for the Pentagon to come out with specifications for what it wanted. That’s unusual in the defense business, analysts say.

“Tom picked absolutely the sweetest spot in the technology,” said Dave Fulghum of Aviation Week, an aerospace industry magazine. “He essentially made a platform that you can stick almost anything into. That has been the perfect answer, and it’s the cheapest of the high-performance platforms that are out there.”

Predators, Reapers and Sky Warriors — the Army’s version of the aircraft — generally cost $4 million to $12 million each. Sometimes costs are higher, depending on sensors, communications and weapons payloads.

General Atomics makes money not only on building the planes, ground stations and some radar systems, but also gets paid for maintaining the drones.

That has become a lucrative business as use of the aircraft soared in Iraq and Afghanistan, analysts say.

“They understood the importance of the life-cycle part of the business,” said Lindsay Voss, an industry analyst with Frost & Sullivan. “These aircraft are being used at such a high rate and in such extreme environments. General Atomics can make a killing on the back end by supporting it and providing the services that are required to keep these aircraft going.”

The company is repeating the blueprint that worked in the Predator for the next generation of drone. This year, it flew the Avenger for the first time — even though it doesn’t have a customer.

The Avenger has a jet engine, a first for the Predator family, It also has other features for better performance in more contested airspace.

“General Atomics is trying to continue its ‘first mover’ advantage,” said Ryan Peoples, an associate principal with Charles River Associates, a defense industry research firm. “With the Predator, they did all this development on their own dime, so they were best positioned to capture (the Air Force contract) when it came along. And they’re just continuing that trend with the Avenger.”

The Air Force hasn’t set a firm time frame for seeking proposals for the next generation of medium-altitude drone. When it does, however, the Avenger is likely to have competition, analysts say. For example, a previously unknown stealth drone recently was spotted in Afghanistan. It has been declassified as a Lockheed Martin “Skunk Works”-designed plane. Others such as AAI Corp. and Northrop Grumman also could compete, analysts say.

“That program will be really important in the way the future of UAVs is shaped,” said Voss of Frost & Sullivan. “They could really mix it up if they choose a vendor other than General Atomics. It’s pretty unlikely, but it’s something everybody is going to be talking about.”

Mike Freeman: (760) 476-8209; mike.freeman@uniontrib.com

Laura Flanders on The Nation June 23: Drone Attacks to Stimulate Economy?

2010-07-06T00:04:00.003-05:00

Flanders writes, "No mention there—or anywhere—of what peace activist Kathy Kelly described on GRITtv. Namely, the charred flesh of children killed by accident, by remote—or, for that matter, Peter Singer's studies showing that drone pilots suffer PTSD at the same or greater rates as other soldiers

Perhaps the lack of concern is because drones are already flying the Canadian border and Americans are already getting used to them. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson recently told The Hill, 'We are working hard to make round-the-clock aerial surveillance the standard for all 2,000 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border,' too.

Or it could be the impact of all those Northrop Grumman ads on TV. Or maybe it's just the economy. At $4.5 million apiece, the drone program's great for Grumman. Almost everywhere its being sold as good news in a troubled economy."

As US fights, China spends to gain Afghan foothold

2010-07-05T23:58:00.004-05:00

AP story, a tip from Afghan Conflict Monitor July 4

By TINI TRAN (AP)

KABUL, Afghanistan — Gul Akbar's tiny store is crammed from floor to ceiling with rolls of electric cables, plugs of all sizes and piles of extension cords. Virtually everything comes from China, as do most of the appliances and electronics being sold in Kabul's busy Nader Pashtun Market.

Not far away, the sparkling 10-story glass-and brick Jamhuriat Hospital rises in the midst of Afghanistan's war-torn capital. Beijing gave $25 million and the Chinese workers to build it.

Every day, Afghans wait in long lines at the Chinese Embassy for visas to let them cross the border to trade.

As the U.S. and its NATO allies fight to stabilize Afghanistan, China has expanded its economic footprint with several high-profile investments and reconstruction projects. In 2007 it became the country's largest foreign investor when it won a $3.5 billion contract to develop copper mines at Aynak, southeast of Kabul.

The U.S. is in favor of the Chinese investment. "It can be a good thing. As a matter of fact, we encourage all of the international community to take an interest in the economic development of Afghanistan," said U.S. State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid.

"Working with our coalition partners and other interested partners, we are trying to establish a viable market economy in Afghanistan. This is one way to wean people from illicit activities and also to fight the ideology of the terrorists," he said.

For China, the reward is not only expanded trade and access to natural resources, it's also security for its western flank, the vast Xinjiang region that is home to a separatist movement of minority Uighurs, said Liu Xuecheng of the China Institute of International Studies, the Chinese Foreign Ministry's think tank.

"Our interest is clear. We need a peaceful neighbor because we have our own problems in Xinjiang," Liu said. "If we have a friendly country in Afghanistan, they can help us to manage issues on the separatists, security and territorial integrity. We want Afghanistan to be successful."

Though the two countries have always been friendly, the relationship has blossomed in recent years. In March, President Hamid Karzai made his fourth trip to Beijing, bringing back agreements on economic cooperation, technical training and lower tariffs for Afghan goods.

The emerging alliance is giving Kabul an alternative to its sometimes strained ties with the West. The two neighbors share a narrow, mountainous border, the Wakhan Corridor, and links that date back centuries to the caravans of tea, spices and other riches that traveled the Silk Road.

Afghanistan is "well aware that the U.S. is likely to only be a temporary ally so it's looking for a longer-term partner in the region. China would be an obvious choice," said security analyst Christian Le Miere, editor of Jane's Intelligence Review.

China drew worldwide attention with the $3.5 billion winning bid by the state-owned China Metallurgical Group Corp. tap one of the world's largest unexploited copper reserves. That deal — which included commitments to build a power plant, railway, hospital and mosque, and to employ thousands of Afghans as miners — has dwarfed all other countries' foreign investments, including the U.S.

"China is the biggest buyer of raw materials in the world, whether that's in Africa, Asia or any other part of the world. So if China wants to come to Afghanistan, why not?" said Ghullam Mohammad Yalaqi, the Afghan commerce and industry minister. "We just like to do the deal."

The country's untapped minerals, including gold, iron, copper and cobalt, is valued by a U.S. estimate at nearly $1 trillion. Afghan officials say it's triple that amount.

For Yalaqi, who led a group of Afghan government and business leaders to China last month, the Chinese contribution is as important as that of Western troops.

"If we can create jobs, then youths wouldn't turn to the Taliban. A good economy also has the impact of stability," he said.

Trade between the two neighbors has mushroomed over the past decade from $25 million in 2000 to $215 million in 2009, according to Chinese figures. Yalaqi's ministry estimates the actual figure, including unofficial border trade, to be closer to double.

On display in the crowded stalls of Kabul's main electronics market are the fruits of that trade: computers, cell phones, cameras, irons, heaters and washing machines.

Squeezed into a small space is Suliman Electric, the electrical parts business owned by Gul Akbar's family. Akbar and his brother used to travel to Iran and Pakistan to buy merchandise but switched four years ago.

"We started going to China because a socket made in Germany or Iran or the U.S. is more expensive — 200 Afghanis ($4.40). But sockets from China are only one-fifth the price. The quality of Chinese goods is not the best, but it's good enough and the price is the lowest," he said.

"When I started traveling to China, my business increased by 50 percent."

Every four months, he makes the 4,800-kilometer (3,000-mile) flight to eastern China to fill up two 40-foot containers and ship them to Kabul.

"It takes two months to send it to Kabul and then another two months to sell it all. When we finish, I go back to China to buy more," he said. "I pay $50,000 for one container's worth of goods and I sell it for $60,000. I would go more often if I could afford to."

He is one of an estimated 30,000 Afghan traders shuttling between the two countries, said Sultan Baheen, Afghanistan's ambassador to China. Most head to the southern manufacturing hub in Guangzhou province, the far west city of Urumqi in Xinjiang, or the eastern city of Yiwu, home to a massive commodities market, he said.

The need to quickly shuttle goods between countries is huge. On the strength of cargo demand alone, privately owned Safi Airlines plans to launch the first-ever direct passenger and cargo flights between Kabul and Beijing this fall. Currently the only flights are between Kabul and Urumqi.

"What we found out is that the amount of visas being issued from Afghanistan to China, and vice versa, has increased dramatically. This is an indication that there's upcoming traffic, upcoming business," said Werner Borchert, Safi's chief operating officer.

China may be the biggest foreign investor, but its $180 million in development aid over the past eight years lags far behind the U.S.'s $12 billion.

Much of China's aid has gone on projects such as the Parwan irrigation system in the north, a conference hall for Karzai's presidential palace and the Jamhuriat Hospital in Kabul. It has also helped train some civil servants as well as teaching police and army officers in logistics and mine-clearance, said Baheen, the ambassador.

But by focusing on signature construction projects, often built with its own workers, China has made itself visible in a way that the U.S., has not, he said.

"America spends billions and billions of dollars, but they give out projects to contractors from different countries — China, India, Pakistan, etc. because the labor costs are low," Baheen said.

So when the average Afghan looks at an American project, "How does he know this is American money?"

The State Department's Duguid cautioned that while foreign investment is welcome, it should be done "according with Afghan laws and free and fair competition rules that much of the world respects. That would include investment from China."

The Aynak copper mine deal was shadowed by allegations that the Afghan mines minister, who has since been replaced, had collected huge bribes for steering the bid toward China.

China has also benefited by focusing its investments on Afghanistan's relatively safer north, while much of the U.S.-funded effort is in the more violent south and east regions. The Taliban is not known to have made threats against Chinese involved in Afghanistan.

Beijing has reaped admiration for projects such as the 350-bed Jamhuriat Hospital. Inaugurated last summer, it was built in three years by 200 Chinese workers who lived on-site in temporary lodgings, said hospital director Ramazan Karimi. The hospital sits empty, though, because the government hasn't allocated any operating funds, he said.

"The Afghan people prefer this gift from China. The Chinese side has done streets, roads and clinics in Afghanistan," Karimi said. "They didn't bring their troops here."

Liu, the Beijing think tank analyst, said he doubted China would ever send troops. "The war is not China's war," he said. "... But economically and socially, we can try to help."

For Afghans such as Akbar the merchant, China is an example to be emulated.

"When I travel to China, I feel safe. I see good roads and cars," he said. "I don't hear the sound of weapons. I don't worry about someone stealing. I wanted to stay there."

Associated Press writer Matthew Lee in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.

Shrine blast: Pakistan rages against Taliban

2010-07-04T00:47:00.003-05:00

Times of India piece by Omer Farooq Kahn July 4, India

Quick acknowledgement: discrepancies in general slant exist between this piece and the AOL News that preceded it. India recently announced a pact with Pakistan on the systematic apprehension and reduction of terrorist attacks. This is the same India who received green lights from former President Bush on its military nuclear program while Iran faces U.N. sanctions on its claimed-to-be-domestic nuclear program. Plus this one is two days behind the story that claims the Pakistani population is largely lashing out at the U.S. presence in the country as a response to the violence.

ISLAMABAD: The Taliban may have overplayed their hand by attacking Lahore's Data Gunj Baksh shrine with thousands of people, including conservative religious groups, taking to Pakistan's streets on Saturday, to denounce terrorist groups for the first time since the near-daily roll call of suicide attacks in the country.

On Saturday, as thousands demanded a new offensive against the Taliban, shops and businesses were shut in major cities. The protest appeared to reflect Pakistan's deep anger against the second major attack in a month on Pakistan's cultural hub, Lahore and on its famous Sufi shrine.

In one of Lahore's important shopping areas, baton-wielding protesters forced bystanders and passers-by to join in and shops to close . Protests also erupted in Karachi, Rawalpindi, Faislabad, Hyderabad and the northwestern Pashtun-dominated town of Peshawar. Emotions ran high in Karachi.

"We will not end our protest until culprits are punished,'' said Sunni Muslim Council leader Raghib Naeemi. The council was one of the groups which had called for a strike on Saturday. Naeemi urged the government to step up its efforts against extremism.

The council's chief Sahibzada Fazal thanked Pakistanis for holding protests. ''Today's successful strike shows that people behind terrorist acts. People have rejected these hired assassins.''

Authorities also ordered a crackdown on suspects. Police said they had rounded up several suspected militants around Lahore and recovered 20 suicide vests, police uniforms and and large amounts of ammunition on Friday night.

Pakistan prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani visited the scene and vowed to bring the
attackers to justice. ''We've to be united to defeat terrorism and have appealed to the international community to help us,'' he said. This was a rare visit of Pakistan's head of government, who comes from a Sufi family, to a terror attack scene.

The attack on the Lahore shrine has also intensified calls for reigning in extremist seminaries that have mushroomed across Pakistan during the US-backed Jihad in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Pakistan Lashes Out at US After Deadly Shrine Bombings

2010-07-04T00:41:00.003-05:00

AOL News story by Babar Dogar

LAHORE, Pakistan (July 2) -- Pakistanis lashed out Friday at the U.S., blaming its alliance with their government and its presence in Afghanistan for spurring two suicide bombers to kill 42 people at the country's most important Sufi shrine.

The reactions showed the challenge facing Washington and the Pakistani government when it comes to rallying public support against the Islamist extremism that has scarred the South Asian nation, even after an audacious attack on the moderate, Sufi-influenced Islam most Pakistanis practice.

Thousands of people had gathered late Thursday at the green-domed Data Darbar shrine in Lahore when bombs went off minutes apart. The blasts ripped concrete from the walls and left the white marble floor awash with blood. There was no claim of responsibility, but Islamist extremists consider Sufism - a mystical strand of Islam - to be heretical.

But on Friday, few Pakistanis interviewed saw militants at the root of the problem.

"America is killing Muslims in Afghanistan and in our tribal areas (with missile strikes), and militants are attacking Pakistan to express anger against the government for supporting America," said Zahid Umar, 25, who frequently visits the shrine, where 180 people were also wounded.

Pakistanis are suffering because of American policies and aggression in the region, said Mohammed Asif, 34, who runs an auto workshop in Lahore. He and others said the attacks would end if the U.S. would pull out of Afghanistan.

Several other Pakistanis interviewed blamed the Ahmadis, a minority sect that has long faced discrimination in Pakistan. On May 28 in Lahore, gunmen and a suicide squad targeted two Ahmadi mosques, massacring at least 93 people, and some Pakistanis claimed the sect must have been seeking revenge.

Others cast about for additional villains - though America's hand was seen there, too.

Washington "is encouraging Indians and Jews to carry out attacks" in Pakistan, said Arifa Moen, 32, a teacher in the central city of Multan.

Pakistani officials condemned the bombings, using language they have frequently used to try to convince the population that the fight against militancy is not one they can ignore.

"Those who still pretend that we are not a nation at war are complicit in these deaths," said Farahnaz Ispahani, a spokeswoman for Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.

The U.S. Embassy issued a statement Friday condemning the attack and saying it "demonstrates the terrorists' blatant disregard for the lives of the Pakistani people and the future of this country."

The targeted shrine is that of Data Ganj Bakhsh Hajveri, who lived hundreds of years ago and traveled throughout the region spreading a message of peace and love. He eventually settled in the Lahore area, and his shrine is the most revered and most popular of Sufi shrines in the nation.

Lahore, the capital of Punjab province, is a key military, political and cultural hub. The city has witnessed several audacious attacks on diverse targets over the past two years, from crowded markets to Sri Lanka's cricket team.

The Pakistani government has been accused of lacking the will to crack down on militants in Punjab, the country's most populous and most powerful region. Many of the militants are part of now-banned groups launched with government support in the 1980s and '90s to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan and pressure archenemy India.

Some recent attacks in Punjab have been blamed on the "Punjabi Taliban." The group is a relatively new network of al-Qaida-linked militants who have split off from other local insurgent groups but also has ties to the Pakistani Taliban, which has its bases in the northwest tribal regions.

The suicide bombings have fueled anger against Pakistan's weak police forces, who appear helpless to stop the killings. In the hours after Thursday's bombings, demonstrators gathered outside the shrine to protest the security lapse, only to be dispersed after police fired into the air and threw rocks at them.

Senior Lahore government official Khusro Pervez said recent intelligence alerts about possible attacks lacked details.

"The intelligence agencies alerted us that terrorists could target prominent places, shrines and mosques in Lahore. They mentioned names of major places as a possible target, but no specific information was available to us," he said.

Also Friday, militants attacked a security checkpoint on the outskirts of the northwestern city of Peshawar, killing three officers, said Safwat Ghayur, a regional commander of the Frontier Constabulary security force.

He said officers returned fire and killed some of the attackers.

Associated Press Writer Riaz Khan in Peshawar contributed to this report.

July 1 Pakistan incident: Twin Attacks on Sufi Shrine in Pakistan Kill Dozens

2010-07-04T00:32:00.004-05:00

The Pakistani Taliban appears to have engaged in a critical error by attacking Sufi Muslims.

AOL News story by Adnan R. Kahn

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (July 2) -- Two suicide bombers detonated more than 65 pounds of explosives in one of Lahore's iconic cultural landmarks, killing at least 37 people and wounding 175. The attack on the Sufi shrine, locally known as Data Darbar, has sent shockwaves through Pakistan's Sufi community, who have lived in fear of such violence for four years.

Sufism, the mystical strand of Islam, is a largely nonviolent, apolitical religious creed that places an individual's relationship with God above the demands of any single doctrine. It is credited with producing some of Islam's greatest works of art, in poetry, literature and music, as well as some of Islam's leading contributions to science and philosophy.

It is also hated by fundamentalists like the Taliban and al-Qaida.

The attack on the shrine of the Sufi saint Syed Ali bin Usman Hajweri came as pilgrims were gathering for a traditional Thursday night prayer. One suicide bomber reportedly struck devotees as they were performing the washing all Muslims perform before prayer, while the second struck a crowd gathered in one of the shrine's courtyards.

The dead and wounded were rushed to hospitals amid a scene of chaos and carnage. Some are reported to have died during a stampede that immediately followed the blasts, others succumbed to their injuries at hospital, according to doctors there who also warned that the death toll is likely to rise.

Video cameras captured both explosions, showing waves of dust engulfing the crowd and people running in panic.

No group has claimed responsibility, but Sufi devotees are commonly targeted by militants in Pakistan who accuse them of polytheism because of their veneration of the shrines of their saints, a crime in most fundamentalist branches of Islam punishable by death. A similar attack in 2005 at the shrine of Shah Abdul Latif Kazmi in Islamabad, targeting a group of people crowded around a musician singing devotional songs, killed 50. Other, smaller attacks and targeted killings have frightened many of Pakistan's Sufi devotees away from the shrines of their beloved saints.

Sufism reached its apex in the early years of Islam, producing some of its greatest thinkers between the 10th and 13th centuries, men -- and some women -- like Omar Khayyam, Rabia Balkhi, Jelaludin Rumi, and the ecstatic poet Hafiz, who was killed for declaring publicly, "I am the Truth."

Many Islamic experts point to the decline of Sufism as the starting point in the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, arguing that historical evidence clearly places the Golden Age of Islam during its Sufi era, when tolerance and the creative impetus were an integral part of Islamic society.

Its decline coincided with the rise of Taqi ad-Din Ahmad ibn Taymiyya, the 14th-century Islamic scholar considered to be the father of fundamentalist Islam. His arguments have been modified and refined over the centuries to a point now where in Saudi Arabia, the heartland of the Wahabbi branch of fundamentalist Islam, possessing Sufi literature remains a capital crime.

But in Pakistan, Sufism is considered a national treasure. During the military dictatorship of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, a national campaign to promote Sufism extolled Pakistan as "The Land of the Sufis." But the rising influence of the Wahabbi school, promoted by both the Taliban and al-Qaida, has terrorized the Sufi community here.

"Fear is our natural state now," said Khyber Muhammad, a musical instrument maker and Sufi devotee in Peshawar. "We have always been quietists -- you will never know if you are in the presence of a Sufi master. He could be a shoemaker, or a garbage collector, or even a beggar. But how can we express our love for our dead masters if the militants keep attacking our shrines?"

In Peshawar, the swarming heartland of Pakistan's Islamic militancy, even the word "Sufi" has become dangerous. Men like Muhammad refer to each other only as "seekers" in reference to their spiritual journey to enlightenment. Their gatherings, or dergahs, often marked by music and poetry readings, have virtually vanished or gone deep underground.

But this was not always the case. As little as four years ago, Pakistanis seeking the guidance of Sufi saints frequented the Khyber tribal agency adjoining Peshawar. "Sufism was very strong in both Khyber and Peshawar," said Anwar Shah, a local resident. "There are shrines all over Khyber, and we had peace when we were able to visit them."

In recent years, Khyber has witnessed the rise of a local militant, Mangal Bagh, who has eliminated Sufi practices. Bagh rose to prominence in 2006, after his followers, under the banner of jihad, defeated men loyal to a local pir, or Sufi saint, in fighting that turned Khyber into a battleground. Evidence has emerged over the years that Bagh was supported by Pakistan's spy agency, the Interservices Intelligence, which often backs militant groups they believe can be used to promote Pakistan's interests in India and Afghanistan.

The results have been devastating for Khyber and Peshawar. A significant minority of Sikhs living in Khyber, welcomed by the tolerant Sufi creed, have fled the region, their homes and businesses targeted by members of Bagh's Lashkar-i-Islam militants. Sufi shrines, once cared for by the local people, lie in ruins. In Peshawar, Muhammad's tabla business, thriving when Sufi musicians were prevalent, is nearing collapse.

"If the musicians stop playing," he laments, "what need is there for instruments?"

Anwar Shah is deeply saddened by the loss of Peshawar's Sufi traditions. But he is not alone. Sufi movements around the Muslim world -- and the tolerance they promote -- are under threat. The shrine of Data Ganj Bakhsh was often frequented by Hindu devotees, as are dozens of other Sufi shrines in India and Pakistan. In Turkey, Israelis regularly visit the shrine of Jelaludin Rumi in Konya, praising him as an enlightened human with the mystical knowledge to lead all of humanity on the path of unity.

The suicide blasts in Lahore are a reminder that unity is something militant Islamists fear. "With unity, inspired by a deep love for humanity, comes peace," said Ejazullah Baig, a Sufi mystic in Pakistan's northern mountains. "Intolerance requires disunity for its logic to function. These fundamentalists need chaos for their own survival."

But when asked why Sufis haven't done more to counter the influence of the fundamentalists, Baig fought back tears and struggled to provide an answer. "We are a quiet people," he said at last. "We spend our days studying and meditating. It is part of our creed not to interfere with the spiritual path an individual has chosen, even if it is leading him to violence. But we are talking more about what we can do. It is on our minds."

Amy Goodman: We Can't Afford War

2010-07-03T23:58:00.004-05:00

Truthdig.com piece by Democracy Now's Amy Goodman June 29

The point of this piece, as indicated by the title, is the current economic state of society in America and contradictory eternal strategy in Afghanistan (to put on hold the emerging issue of withdrawal from Iraq).

A separate note by Goodman mid-piece nearly warrants an entirely separate investigation and article. Oftentimes in his work, scholar Noam Chomsky has provided analysis of handling popular opinion when it falls inconsistent with the direction the powerful intend to move in the present. The following excerpt is an example of such late modern propaganda, which some would maintain exists only in the political culture of Soviet Russia or one of its authoritarian leftist side projects ... (excerpt)

The whistle-blower website WikiLeaks.org, which received international attention after releasing leaked video from a U.S. attack helicopter showing the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians and a Reuters cameraman and his driver in Baghdad, has just posted a confidential CIA memo detailing possible public relations strategies to counter waning public support for the Afghan War. The agency memo reads: “If domestic politics forces the Dutch to depart, politicians elsewhere might cite a precedent for ‘listening to the voters.’ French and German leaders have over the past two years taken steps to preempt an upsurge of opposition but their vulnerability may be higher now.”

Goodman's conclusion is a highly rational, morally inexorable argument that perplexes the mind in step with the current official rhetoric ...

(second excerpt)

I just returned from Toronto, covering the G-20 summit and the protests. The gathered leaders pledged, among other things, to reduce government deficits by 50 percent by 2013. In the U.S., that means cutting $800 billion, or about 20 percent of the budget. Two Nobel Prize-winning economists have weighed in with grave predictions. Joseph Stiglitz said, “There are many cases where these kinds of austerity measures have led to ... recessions into depressions.” And Paul Krugman wrote: “Who will pay the price for this triumph of orthodoxy? The answer is, tens of millions of unemployed workers, many of whom will go jobless for years, and some of whom will never work again.”

In order to make the cuts promised, Obama would have to raise taxes and cut social programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Or he could cut the war budget. I say “war budget” because it is not to be confused with a defense budget. Cities and states across the country are facing devastating budget crises. Pensions are being wiped out. Foreclosures are continuing at record levels. A true defense budget would shore up our schools, our roads, our towns, our social safety net. The U.S. House of Representatives is under pressure to pass a $33 billion Afghan War supplemental this week.

We can’t afford war.

Amy Goodman on Truthdig.com June 29, 2010

Drones at home: FAA approves Predator drone to monitor Texas border

2010-07-01T10:25:00.005-05:00

Dallas Morning News AirlineBiz blog
12:53 PM Wed, Jun 23, 2010
by Dave Michaels

Quick note: If we get drones in domestic operation, why would any of us think they wouldn't be used to hunt US: on a bad license plate number in a search for a fugitive or any other number of police operations conducted on poorly gathered intelligence, clerical errors and the like. Blackhawk helicopters are used to patrol the U.S.-Mexico border now, which I have seen with my own eyes east of San Diego. That doesn't mean those helicopters aren't used for other domestic purposes directed at civilians. For the details of my view on drones, do a quick search on this site ... or watch the Terminator movies again. Every action has an equal an opposite reaction. Your government is hunting foreigners with machines. I don't want to be hunted with machines, do you?

Full text ...

We reported earlier today that Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, had held up the nomination of the FAA's #2 official over aerial surveillance of Texas border. It seems that hold is now moot: the FAA today approved an unmanned aircraft to monitor 1,200 miles of the border, from El Paso to Brownsville, according to Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo.

"Today marks a critical next step in securing the Texas-Mexico border. By permanently positioning this aircraft in Texas, CBP can further combat illegal activity along our southern border," Cuellar said in a statement. "For five years, other southern border states have benefited from this technology and this will ensure Texas has the same tools in the box to combat the spectrum of threats we face."

Cuellar's press release says the plane will be based in Corpus Christi. Read on for more from the congressman about the FAA's decision:

Earlier this month, CBP began flying a remotely-piloted aircraft based in Arizona over a portion of West Texas. FAA's most recent approval will allow CBP to fly over the remainder of the Texas-Mexico border between El Paso and Brownsville along the Rio Grande.

In addition, CBP will patrol the state's coastline along the Gulf of Mexico. The remotely-piloted aircraft, known as a Predator B, can fly for up to 20 hours and provide to CBP real-time critical intelligence information from attached cameras, sensors and radar systems.

"Increasingly these aircraft will become a familiar means for providing homeland security," said Congressman Cuellar. "By putting eyes in the sky, we can provide real-time information to our law enforcement on the ground. This combination of technology and manpower keeps our law enforcement a cut above the challenges they face."

According to CBP, since 2005 Predator Bs have flown more than 1,500 hours in support of border security missions and have assisted in the apprehension of more than 4,000 illegal aliens, in addition to the seizure of more than 15,000 pounds of marijuana.

For more information on the CBP UAV program, visit cbp.gov

Reconciliation efforts with Afghan militants face major obstacle

2010-06-30T18:10:00.003-05:00

LA Times Story by Julian E. Barnes, Laura King and Alex Rodriguez. Rodriguez reported from Islamabad and King reported from Kabul. Times staff writer Julian E. Barnes in Washington contributed to this report.

Excerpt--

Experts say both Pakistan and Afghanistan realize that breaking the Haqqani network's ties with Al Qaeda is a prerequisite to any deal. They question whether it would ever happen.

Amir Rana, one of Pakistan's leading analysts on militant groups, said it's not possible for many militant groups, including the Haqqani network, to completely separate from Al Qaeda.

"What the Haqqani network and the other Taliban groups can offer is a guarantee that they will influence Al Qaeda to not attack U.S. or NATO forces, and a guarantee that their soil would not be used in a terrorist attack against the West," he said. "This is the maximum concession that the Taliban can offer."

Numbering in the thousands of fighters, the Haqqani network has a strong relationship with Pakistan's military and intelligence community that stretches 30 years, back to the time when Pashtun warlord Jalaluddin Haqqani organized mujahedin fighters against Soviet troops in the 1980s. Haqqani has now delegated authority over his network of fighters to his son, Sirajuddin.

The group moves freely between Afghanistan's eastern provinces and its headquarters in North Waziristan, where it has been left untouched by Pakistan's military. Experts believe the Haqqani network continues to provide Al Qaeda leaders and commanders sanctuary there.

U.S. leaders have frequently urged Pakistan to launch an offensive against Haqqani hideouts, recently backing those entreaties with evidence that the network was behind major attacks in Kabul and at Bagram air base, the U.S. facility north of the capital. The government in Islamabad, meanwhile, has brushed aside those demands, arguing that its forces are overstretched by extensive military operations against Taliban strongholds in surrounding tribal areas.

Analysts and former Pakistani military commanders, however, say the real reason that Islamabad has avoided military action against the Haqqani network is that it sees the group and other Afghan Taliban elements as a useful hedge against India's rapidly growing interests in Afghanistan.

Haqqani leaders have yet to signal whether they are interested in starting talks with Karzai's government.

Al-Qaida ally reported killed in Pakistan drone strike

2010-06-30T18:03:00.003-05:00

New York Times story appearing in the San Jose Mercury News;
By Pir Zubair Shah June 29

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Eight militants, including an Egyptian allied with al-Qaida, were killed Tuesday in what residents and a Pakistani security official said was a U.S. drone strike in the South Waziristan tribal area near this country's Afghan border.

The United States has intensified its campaign of drone attacks against suspected militants in the border areas of Pakistan, but most have been concentrated in North Waziristan, an area that Western officials consider the most important refuge for militants with al-Qaida and the Taliban.

Tuesday's attack was the second within a few weeks in South Waziristan after a lull that lasted months. Last October, Pakistan invaded part of South Waziristan to drive out militants; many who fled north are now returning south.

The drone was believed to have fired two missiles at a compound in a village near Wana, the regional capital. The Egyptian, Hamza al-Jufi, had lived in Wana for many years, said a fighter in the area who visited the site after the attack and spoke by telephone. Most of the other militants killed in the strike lived nearby, though two came from another province, Punjab, the fighter said.

According to security officials, the militants were working under Jufi, a well-known figure in South Waziristan who was said to have survived a drone attack in 2008.

Whiteman AFB near Columbia, MO is thrilled about the Predator

2010-06-22T20:21:00.003-05:00

"Whiteman Lands Drone Assignment" is the title of T.J. Greaney's piece in the Columbia Daily Tribune. An excerpt of excellent reporting on the details of drone operation appears below.

"The MQ-1 Predator is known as a system, not an aircraft. The system consists of four aircraft with sensors, a ground control station and a Predator Primary Satellite Link, along with operations and maintenance crews deployed for 24-hour operations. Each system is valued at about $20 million.

The basic crew for the Predator includes a pilot, sensor operator and mission intelligence coordinator. The aircraft is equipped with a color nose camera used by the pilot for flight control, a high-resolution TV camera, an infrared camera and other sensors.

Capt. Matthew Reese, public affairs officer for Air Combat Command in Langley, Va., said the team involved in missions is a unique blend of mechanics, pilots and intelligence analysts working in war zones and in the U.S.

'The pilot and sensor operator are only one piece of the puzzle,' Reese said. 'The big picture is that it takes maintainers downrange to keep these in the air, the people who are keeping the mechanical aspects of the birds flying are all downrange.'"

Getting Out in 2011

2010-06-22T18:50:00.002-05:00

From The Nation magazine's The Dreyfuss Report by Robert Dreyfuss, June 17, 2010

Here's the excerpt ...

"Now we know, if Alter [Jonathan, author of The Promise: President Obama, Year One] is right, that Obama sought and won a pledge from the brass that 'no one is going to suggest we stay' if McChrystal can’t succeed in turning over the war to the Afghans by 2011. On Capitol Hill, there’s growing disenchantment with the whole war effort, although the establishment Democrats haven’t yet broken with the White House. That disenchantment will grow as it dawns on official Washington that the Afghan National Army and the police are never, ever going to be able to take control of the war. So the main issue between now and next summer is to hold Obama to his pledge to pull US forces out of Afghanistan starting next July.

[Vice President Joe] Biden told Alter: 'In July of 2011 you're going to see a whole lot of people moving out. Bet on it.'"

Pakistan pledges to abide by US sanctions on Iran

2010-06-21T23:43:00.005-05:00

Agence France Press story dated June 21, 2010

ISLAMABAD — Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani Monday said that his country would abide by US sanctions on Iran which could hit a 7.6-billion-dollar gas pipeline project.

"Pakistan as a member of the international community will follow any sanctions imposed by the US," Gilani told reporters in southern Sindh province in response to a question.

US special envoy to Pakistan Richard Holbrooke Sunday said he had warned Islamabad against signing a deal with Iran on the gas pipeline, saying the US was preparing laws that could affect the project.

Iran and Pakistan last week formally signed an export deal which commits Tehran to selling natural gas to its eastern neighbour from 2014.

Iran has already constructed 907 kilometres (564 miles) of the pipeline between Asalooyeh, in southern Iran, and Iranshahr, which will carry natural gas from Iran's giant South Pars field.

The pipeline was originally planned to connect Iran, Pakistan and India, but the latter pulled out of the project last year.

Pakistan plans to use the gas purchased from Iran for its power sector.

The Obama administration last week added Iranian individuals and firms to a blacklist as part of US and European efforts to tighten the screws on Iran a week after UN approved sanctions against its nuclear programme.

The new US sanctions target insurance companies, oil firms and shipping lines linked to Iran's nuclear or missile programmes as well as the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and Iran's defence minister Ahmad Vahidi.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi also said on Sunday that if the project came under sanctions then Pakistan "will not violate the international law."

US cautions Pakistan over gas deal with Iran

2010-06-21T11:49:00.002-05:00

So it's just legal advice, then? Richard Holbbrooke is saying something like, "You don't know what sanctions against Iran are going to entail, and we need your help with a lot of work in central Asia, so just wait and see before rushing into an agreement with a country where the U.S. has worked strenuously and publicly for regime change."

Something like this, I am imagining. But if you look at all the official instruction Islamabad has received from Washington this year alone--step up the hunt for Taliban leaders in North Waziristan and receive $3 billion in mixed-use aid (military and civilian applications), we are talking about the region where the U.S. military's material is already assembled and countless indications to expand the conflict into surrounded Iran.

Two questions here: The first is about power: who needs whom more? Does the U.S. need Pakistan's cooperation worse than Pakistan needs Washington? The second question is about money: who stands to become (even more) extraordinarily wealthy from the construction of this pipeline? Are they the "right" people, in the eyes of the Washington Consensus?

BBC story posted 5:02 GMT, Monday, June 21 2010

US special envoy Richard Holbrooke has warned Pakistan against committing itself to a gas pipeline project with Iran because of anticipated American sanctions against Tehran.

Mr Holbrooke said Islamabad should wait until it received more details on new US legislation that could affect the multi-billion dollar project.

Iran signed a deal with Pakistan to supply it with natural gas from 2014.

Pakistan says it needs the gas from Iran to ease its growing energy crisis.

The original plan was to carry gas from Iran to Pakistan and then to India, but Delhi withdrew from the project due to differences over prices and transit fees, and also apparently due to pressure from the US.

The US Congress is preparing new legislation which will impose more sanctions on Iran because of concerns over Tehran's nuclear programme.

Mr Holbrooke, who is on a visit to Pakistan, cautioned the country against going ahead with the gas pipeline project.

"We cautioned the Pakistanis to try to see what the (congressional) legislation is before deciding how to proceed because it would be a disaster if... we had a situation develop where an agreement was reached which then triggered something under the law," he said.

He admitted that Pakistan "has an obvious major energy problem" and that the US was "very sympathetic to it".

Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said that the pipeline deal with Iran did not violate existing sanctions against Iran.

Iran signed a deal with Pakistan last week to supply it with natural gas from 2014.

The pipeline was originally planned to transport gas from Iran to India through Pakistan.

The deal with India was stalled by disputes over transit fees and security issues.

Obama Administration Keeping Blackwater Armed and Dangerous in Afghanistan

2010-06-20T22:26:00.004-05:00

Nation magazine story Jeremy Scahill dated June 19

An excerpt appears below ...

"Blackwater is up for sale and its shadowy owner, Erik Prince, is rumored to be planning to move to the United Arab Emirates as his top deputies face indictment for a range of alleged crimes, yet the company remains a central part of President Obama's Afghanistan war. Now, Blackwater's role is expanding.

On Friday, the US State Department awarded Blackwater another 'diplomatic security' contract to protect US officials in Afghanistan. CBS News reports that the $120 million deal is for "protective services" at the US consulates in Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif. Blackwater has another security contract in Afghanistan worth $200 million and trains Afghan forces. The company also works for the CIA and the US military and provides bodyguards for US Ambassador Karl Eikenberry as well as US lawmakers and other officials who visit the country. The company has four forward operating bases in Afghanistan and Prince has boasted that Blackwater's counter-narcotics forces have called in NATO airstrikes."

Most recent drone attack in June

2010-06-20T21:49:00.002-05:00

Missile in Pakistan Kills 16 Militants
By PIR ZUBAIR SHAH

New York Times piece dated June 19, 2010

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A missile strike in North Waziristan killed at least 16 militants on Saturday as they were making plans to go fight NATO forces in Afghanistan, residents and an intelligence official said.

They said a single missile, believed to have been fired from a drone aircraft, struck a government water-supply plant in the village of Haider Khel, near the town of Mir Ali, where the group was meeting.

Most of the concrete, government-built structures in the area, like schools, hospitals and water plants, have been occupied by militants, who use them to meet and for training.

The residents said that 11 of the dead were foreigners, mostly Arabs and some Uzbeks. An additional 19 people were wounded.

The compound is near the border of Haider Khel and Hassu Khel, two villages that are militant strongholds.

The North Waziristan tribal area borders Afghanistan and is a base of Sirajuddin Haqqani, the leader of an insurgent network blamed by the Americans for recent attacks in Kabul, the Afghan capital. North Waziristan is also the place where the American authorities say that Faisal Shahzad, who is accused of trying to bomb Times Square, was trained in explosives.

U.N. report on Afghanistan notes surge in attacks, killings

2010-06-20T11:25:00.002-05:00

Washington Post story by Ernesto Londoño
Sunday, June 20, 2010

As a new U.S. military operation deploys in Afghanistan, reports overwhelmingly reflect a historical quagmire with recurrent insurrmountable challenges in Afghanistan. Excerpt appears below.

"The U.N. report said that at least 395 people died as a result of armed conflict between April and June, a decrease of 1 percent compared with the same period in 2009. Insurgent attacks caused about 70 percent of those deaths, the United Nations said, slightly more than during the last reporting period. The agency recognized NATO's efforts to avoid civilian casualties, which include more judicious use of airstrikes.

However, NATO forces continue to rely on airstrikes. On Saturday, officials said that troops fired "precision airstrikes" in self-defense during clashes with the Haqqani insurgent group along the border of Khost and Paktia provinces, which border Pakistan. The Haqqani group, which has close ties to the Afghan Taliban, has emerged as one of the biggest threats to NATO troops."

Errata: Roston writing for The Nation, in place of Scahill

2010-06-18T01:07:00.002-05:00

Thursday I posted a Nation magazine article from early last October.

Jeremy Scahill was not the investigative reporter and writer of that piece.

Aram Roston, as you can see when you follow the link, is.

Apologies to all for the mistake.

U.S. showed Pakistan evidence on militant faction

2010-06-16T17:57:00.003-05:00

Reuters story by Adam Entous, reporter and Doina Chiacu, editor.

Haqqani faction in the tribal border region of North Waziristan has been linked by the Pentagon to political violence in May.

"Suicide bombers carrying rockets and grenades launched a brazen predawn attack on the base on May 19, killing an American contractor and wounding nine U.S. troops. About a dozen militants, many wearing suicide vests packed with explosives, were killed, the Pentagon said at the time.

A day earlier, a suicide bomber attacked a military convoy in Kabul, killing 12 Afghan civilians and six foreign troops."

The U.S. is insisting Islamabad place more pressure on its military to seek out members of Haqqani and prevent future attacks.

A dimension of complexity presents itself to Pakistan's leadership as future negotiations might be undermined by military missions against Taliban factions.

"But there are strategic reasons for Pakistan's hesitancy to attack the Haqqanis.

Pakistan sees the group as a strategic asset that will give it influence in any peace settlement in Afghanistan so Islamabad will want those militants on its side."

Insistence by the U.S. with Pakistan follows the May 1 attempted bombing in New York City's Times Square.

It's not news; it's just astounding: How U.S. Funds Taliban

2010-06-16T12:56:00.004-05:00

"US military officials in Kabul estimate that a minimum of 10 percent of the Pentagon's logistics contracts--hundreds of millions of dollars--consists of payments to insurgents."

—Aram Roston, The Nation magazine

This information is from November 9, 2009. I just don't understand why it's outside public consciousness that the United States has been paying its enemy to fight our own people in uniform for years while the popular support of the U.S. war in Afghanistan hangs by a tiny thread of the last half-successful hunt for a terrorist or "high-value target." If citizens of the U.S. were told by CNN, Fox, MSNBC and the rest that the Taliban in Afghanistan was being paid by the U.S. to not attack supply convoys, how would there be support for the war? It's like betting against the champ in a boxing match when you've already heard the champ is going to throw the fight. Which, when all of your social programs have been shut down, unemployment is in double-digits, consumer lending has stalled and twenty percent of homes are worth less than the amount owed to the bank, Afghanistan (not even getting into Iraq and saber-rattling plans to invade Iran) seems like a summer vacation that should have been canceled because this year, kids, we just can't afford it.

If you follow the link, you'll see the entire (old) story at thenation.com

NPR, Brookings Institution discuss drone ethics and strategy

2010-06-12T12:54:00.002-05:00

"CIA, Military Rely Heavily On Predator Drones" NPR, June 11, 2010

Audio or transcript available at npr.org

"One issue that Defense Secretary Gates has been pressed on during his global tour, has been drones. Those are unmanned aircraft used to target suspected terrorists along Pakistan's border. A critical U.N. report raised questions about a weapon that is a key part of U.S. war fighting. Peter Singer, of the Brookings Institution, tells Deborah Amos that Predadors are being used more and more."

Bizarro subcontractor situation at BP spill "command center"

2010-06-12T12:30:00.005-05:00

I have an alternative media rule, a personal rule, that when the work of journalists Jeremy Scahill and Naomi Klien lead them to bump into each other--when the topics they are investigating converge--readers are going to get a peek at the seedy underbelly of power, greed and intimidation that lead to questions about what kind of world we actually live in set against an ideal image of the one we think we live in.

Thusly, through their work we encounter the security contractor Wackenhut, AKA British G4S, AKA Danish Group 4 Falck and future-named G4S Secure Solutions--Wackenhut is successful, so a bigger fish swallowed by a bigger fish--swallowed them in 2002. From Wikipedia, "In the U.S., Wackenhut has appeared in the federal courts 62 times since 1999, largely resulting from prisoners' claims of human rights abuses."

If you can figure out from reading this article what might be going on in the Gulf besides a relentless gush of oil and a mega-corporation with no plan to stop it, please share.

An excerpt ...

This is from Jeremy Scahill's column in The Nation magazine, but I found it on naomiklein.com

BP and US Government 'Command Center' Guarded by Company From Afghan Embassy Hazing Scandal
By Jeremy Scahill - May 28th, 2010
Published in The Nation

I just got off the phone with my friends Naomi Klein, author of "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism," and her husband Avi Lewis, host of al Jazeera English's popular program Fault Lines. They are traveling around the devastated US Gulf reporting on the horrific disaster caused by BP's massive oil spill. They described to me a run in that they just had with the private security company Wackenhut, which apparently has been hired to do the perimeter security for the "Deepwater Horizon Unified Command." The "Unified Command" is run jointly by BP and several US government agencies including the US Coast Guard, the Department of Defense, the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security.

Wackenhut, of course, is the notorious private security company that operates in the US and around the globe. It recently became part of the huge British mercenary network G4S. Most recently, Wackenhut gained global infamy for the conduct of guards from its subsidiary Armor Group after it was revealed by whistleblowers that the company created a "Lord of the Flies environment" at the embassy "in which guards and supervisors are 'peeing on people, eating potato chips out of [buttock] cracks, vodka shots out of [buttock] cracks... [drunken] brawls, threats and intimidation from those leaders participating in this activity." According to the Project on Government Oversight, "Multiple guards say this deviant hazing has created a climate of fear and coercion, with those who declined to participate often ridiculed, humiliated, demoted, or even fired. The result is an environment that is dangerous and volatile. Some guards have reported barricading themselves in their rooms for fear that those carrying out the hazing will harm them physically."

In other words, Wackenhut is the perfect choice to "guard" the joint BP-US government-US military operation in the Gulf.

Lewis told me that for two weeks his crew has attempted to interview officials from the Unified Command's Joint Information Center. "We had been shut down or dodged for 2 weeks of official requests," he said. Finally, Lewis and Klein, who is on assignment for The Guardian, decided to go to the information center in person "to try to nail something down."

When they pulled up to the front gate, they were greeted by a private security guard working for Wackenhut, the massive security company. "We said we were media and he said, 'No no no. You're going to have to turn around and go back," recalls Lewis. Klein added, "The Wackenhut guard said we couldn't come in without permission, but wouldn't tell us who we needed permission from. When we didn't leave, he radioed for back up and a Wackenhut truck arrived to escort us off the grounds."

[photo of a suspiciously unofficial looking guard turning away said investigative team appears in original story]

... Klein, who spent extensive time in New Orleans during and after Hurricane Katrina documenting the widespread disaster profiteering and privatization that endures to this day said the fact that Wackenhut is guarding a joint operation of the US government and BP is not surprising given what is happening in the Gulf right now. "The whole Gulf Coast is a corporate oil state," she told me. "It's like BP broke it, so now they own the entire Gulf Coast." She added: "We might accept the premise that BP is best positioned to know how to fix the blow up at 5,000 feet, but that also seems to mean they think they should control media access and the entire clean up of a massive national emergency. BP is in charge of everything. We were on the water in open seas the day before the Wackenhut incident and a boat pulls up next to us and asked if we worked for BP and we said, "No," and they said, 'You can't be here.'" It is completely sci-fi. It's a corporate state."

One-fifth of U.S. mortgages "underwater"

2010-06-12T12:03:00.003-05:00

From Bloomberg News; writer is Brian Louis

Amid all this attention on AfPak and the drone strikes, a reminder that the war abroad IS the war at home. Every million we spend "over there" could have been part of the economy "over here." Terrorist threat or no, this is a maxim of war that dates at least to Persia and Greece.

Forgive me if this is oversimplification, but when the banks create a financial crisis (ability to make payments on debts disrupted; said payments still due), homeowners lose their homes and either move in with family or start renting elsewhere, lose the equity that was coming from home ownership (plus any consumer lending power that comes with said equity: see "decreased demand for goods and services") and the government intervenes to help the banks continue to lend, to create more consumer debt ... and who becomes the new property holder (even if the property is sold off to a hatchet man repossession company who re-sells repossessed homes, the owner is still ...): Banks.

Big bank, little bank, most banks are owned by ... other banks. Who ignited the fire? Mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps ... Banks.

It's kind of like paying taxes to maintain a military that, instead of defending the borders within which you live (relying on someone else to protect your property and the lives of your family), armed men come to your house and haul some family members away to camps while shooting the others. "Sorry, your lease on being alive and free ... has expired. We have come to collect."

Agreed that's a little reactionary, but who is protecting these banks from regular people who have nothing left to lose? More importantly, why is a fifth of the population so disenfranchised and disunited that they aren't desperately defending their lives--AND BLAMING THE BANKS?!! Are they clinically depressed and overly medicated? Is every service shut off except for 150 channels of cable? Upon this I dwell, and this confuses me.

Here's an excerpt of the Bloomberg piece:

May 10 (Bloomberg) -- More than a fifth of U.S. mortgage holders owed more than their homes were worth in the first quarter as repossessions climbed to a record, according to Zillow.com.

Twenty-three percent of owners of mortgaged homes were underwater during the period, up from 21 percent in the previous three months, the Seattle-based property data provider said today in a report. More than one in 1,000 homes were repossessed by lenders in March, the highest rate in Zillow data dating back to 2000.

Underwater homes are more likely to be lost to foreclosure because their owners have a harder time refinancing or selling when they fall behind on loan payments. U.S. home values dropped 3.8 percent in the first quarter from a year earlier, the 13th straight period of year-over-year declines, Zillow said.

“Having a lot of underwater homeowners will add to the downward pressure on house prices,” said Celia Chen, senior director at Moody’s Economy.com in West Chester, Pennsylvania. “We do expect that home prices will fall a bit more.”

Bank repossessions in the U.S. rose 35 percent in the first quarter from a year earlier to a record 257,944, according to RealtyTrac Inc., an Irvine, California-based company.

A discussion between two people regarding U.S. drone strikes.

2010-06-06T09:45:00.004-05:00

The individual who tipped ExEd off to the Newsy.com drone ethics debate video had this to say in referencing said video ...

"I agree with questioning the ethics in the use of UAV's. Drones are used to kill "the enemy," while the flyers of the drones are clear and out of any danger. It creates an unfair fight to be "hunted by robots," as you say. No longer is this man against man, but man against machine. It doesn't seem fair for the civilians that lose their lives to this kind of sneak-attack warfare ..."

"The video debates the recent drone attacks in Pakistan. It debates the effectiveness of the drones in finding the enemy, and whether they working to resolve conflicts or just create more anger and hate. The failed Time Square bombing by Faisal Shahzad obviously answers this question. The drone attacks in Pakistan directly influenced his decision to bomb Time Square. He certainly cannot be the only example of this, as I am sure similar images of hate is simmering in the minds of other people who have lost family members to US attacks."

These thoughtful and concerned comments prompted my response, which after writing, I thought worthwhile to share with everyone else here--

"You raise a notion I don't think gets any play at all in the media. You hear an argument that goes, "Attacking civilians in regions where terrorists lives inevitably gives rise to recruitment of more terrorists and attacks like Times Square and the Detroit Christmas attempt." This one sort of fades into the din of "We must stop the terrorists at all costs, never letting up at any point in the day," which is more like what our servicemen and women get to hear all the time.

What you do not hear is a theory or line of reasoning that goes, 'Terrorists [those who use violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims--Oxford English Dictionary] use their precious resources to strike where they can, when they can based on the support they have from populations outside their group dependent on public opinion and recent developments. They cannot strike anywhere they want whenever they want.' What happens when that public support dwindles to a whisper and their resources dry up too far for them to raise airfare for one person beyond 500 miles? These ideas you do not see in the media much of anywhere.

The drone ethics debate, as you've seen, is highly marginalized at present. Why is the debate relegated to blips on the horizon of mainstream media coverage and deep fringes of internet fora? There are reasons. Typical reasons but not necessarily good ones. Military actions are subsidized by taxpayer and citizen support, but they are not beholden to it. Most military actions are classified, and discussing troop movements publicly is speech unprotected by the First Amendment under the definition of sedition. But drone missions come with a special controversy: they are moved further and further from public purview. From U.S. military operations in Afghanistan away to JSOC, the Joint Special Operations Command at the forward operating base in Bagram. From JSOC to the CIA. And we are told CIA agents have a different exposure to U.S. law than U.S. soldiers. And finally from the CIA, who administers the flights into Pakistan, to private contractors like Blackwater/Xe and similar companies, some of Pakistani and Afghan origin.

The way I see it, the push for accountability to the public on killing civilians in the hunt for terrorists whose "high value" is actually quite disputable, profiles of the victims doled out to the media on a need-to-know basis, has to come from the public.

If the public says, 'Drones kill bad guys, our soldiers don't come into harm's way,' then that's the world we live in now. I think it sounds like the last Terminator movie for reasons not rooted in science fiction. But that's my piece.

If the public says, 'I really don't want more women and children killed by unmanned missile strikes, no matter who you're targeting, because I wouldn't want that to happen to me or to my children,' then enough public outcry could actually get the drone program decommissioned and put a stop to some of this Fox News type spin with might-makes-right, the Empire will emerge victorious, the ends justify the means always and we're mandated by our God to win in the Middle East mindless silliness that keeps us damning the torpedoes and lodging U.S. presence further into central Asia and the Middle East with no end in sight."

I welcome readers to this discussion. If you feel moved to post a comment, please help continue the thread and thank you.

U.N. Report: U.S. Drones Do More Harm than Good

2010-06-06T08:59:00.004-05:00

On a tip from a reader who monitors Newsy.com for multiple reverse angles on the same story appearing in television, print and online news media, this video contributes to opening further the debate on the use of drones in situations listed and described on this site.

U.N. official urges U.S. to stop CIA drone attacks on al-Qaeda and Taliban

2010-06-03T11:54:00.004-05:00

This is the battle of our time, between international law and the laws of strongest nations as determined by the powerful (who wield the strength, economic and political) in those nations. International law's only advantage is unity--bringing the strength of all the other represented nations to bear in opposition to some convenient view of justice held by the most powerful people in the most powerful nations and the economic interests their voices represent. The voices of the great masses governed by both the national and international governing bodies sound outside this nexus of power and are able to push into these powerful entities for recognition and cooperation. The question, then, becomes, "How many of us side with international law (typically framed as human rights), how many with national law (typically property rights framed as individual rights) and to what end?"

The legal community within the national government will make skillfully administered attempts to thwart these arguments of human rights against their unmanned aerial vehicles equipped with anti-personnel bombs and do their best to be dismissive of concerns as people meddling in business that isn't theirs, the business of special operations, classified missions, dangerous individuals and hunting irreparably bad people to their deaths. But the unmanned drone program--not just a robotic eye in the sky with no human operator, but an aircraft armed with 300-pound Hellfire missiles and vision limited to optics, a radio signal and available light--is subject to far more debate than it's been made to undergo since its implementation.

Washington Post story; excerpt appears below

By Peter Finn
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 3, 2010

A senior U.N. official said Wednesday that the United States should halt the CIA's drone campaign against al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in Pakistan, charging that the secrecy surrounding the strikes violates the legal principle of international accountability.

But a report by Philip Alston, the United Nations' special rapporteur for extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions, stopped short of declaring the CIA program illegal.

He presented a 29-page report to the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva on Wednesday that focused on "targeted killings" by countries such as Russia and Israel as well as the United States.

"It is an essential requirement of international law that States using targeted killings demonstrate that they are complying with the various rules governing their use in situations of armed conflict," Alston said in a news release. "The greatest challenge to this principle today comes from the program operated by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. . . . The international community does not know when and where the CIA is authorized to kill, the criteria for individuals who may be killed, how it ensures killings are legal, and what follow-up there is when civilians are illegally killed."

Alston said some commentators have argued that CIA personnel involved in drone killings are committing war crimes because, unlike the military, they are "unlawful combatants." But, he said, "this argument is not supported" by international humanitarian law.

U.N. Official To Call For End Of CIA Drone Strikes

2010-05-29T11:59:00.002-05:00

NPR report by Corey Flintoff

An excerpt appears below.

A soon-to-be-released United Nations report will call into question the use of unmanned aircraft for targeted killings in Afghanistan and Pakistan by U.S. intelligence agencies.

The report, to be released next week by the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, will call on the United States to stop allowing the Central Intelligence Agency to carry out drone attacks on suspected militants.

The special rapporteur, New York University law professor Philip Alston, told The New York Times that the CIA does not have the public accountability that's required of the U.S. military. Alston says the use of the drones and their firepower should be restricted to the armed forces.

"They have no legal authority to be killing anyone. They have committed the crime of murder under Pakistan's law."

- David Glazier, a professor at Loyola Law School, on the CIA's risk of criminal prosecution in the use of drones to target suspected militants.
Alston told The Associated Press that he sees "no legal prohibition on CIA agents" piloting the remotely controlled aircraft, but that the practice is undesirable because the C.I.A. doesn't comply with "any of the requirements as to transparency and accountability which are central to international humanitarian law."

US seeks Pakistan crackdown on Taliban

2010-05-27T00:24:00.003-05:00

AP source: US seeks Pakistan crackdown on Taliban

By KIMBERLY DOZIER (AP) May 26, 2010

WASHINGTON — Two top Obama administration officials have told Pakistan that it has only weeks to show real progress in a crackdown against the Pakistani Taliban, a senior U.S. official said Wednesday.

The U.S. has put Pakistan "on a clock" to launch a new intelligence and counterterrorist offensive against the group, which the White House alleges was behind the Times Square bombing attempt, according to the official.

White House national security adviser James Jones and CIA Director Leon Panetta delivered that message to Islamabad last week, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

As first reported by the Los Angeles Times, the high-ranking U.S. delegation presented the Pakistanis with evidence they believe proves that Pakistani-American Faisal Shahzad was trained and funded by the Tehrik-e-Taliban, or TTP, as the Pakistani Taliban are known. Shahzad is accused of attempting to ignite what turned out to be a poorly constructed car bomb in Times Square.

The evidence also showed that two TTP members escorted Shahzad to a training base in the lawless tribal area of Waziristan, where he received some instruction in how to build explosives, the U.S. official said.

Pakistani authorities have already detained two suspects thought to be those TTP escorts, the official said. The U.S. now expects to see Pakistan carry out further independent counterterrorist operations and quietly increase other unspecified cooperation with the Americans, the official said.

The visiting delegation reminded Pakistani leaders that President Barack Obama had sent them a letter in November, asking for a tougher crackdown against al-Qaida and its affiliates like the TTP, the official said.

So far, many U.S. officials have rated Pakistan's progress on that front as mixed because Pakistan has maintained a detente with some of the al-Qaida affiliates that operate in its frontier provinces, like the Haqqani network.

The official said those in the delegation to Pakistan were hopeful the Shahzad case may spell the difference because the U.S. is asking Pakistan to crack down on a group that is a sworn enemy of Islamabad.

The TTP have launched a series of bloody bombings against Pakistani government targets and civilians over the past year.

Flashback to May 12: No Taliban link found

2010-05-27T00:10:00.003-05:00

Looking at comments in the press today regarding Faisal Shahzad, Attorney General Eric Holder's investigation and Miranda rights for terrorism suspects in the balance, you'd never know the link between Shahzad and the Pakistani Taliban (nevermind the link between Tehrik-e-Taliban and Al Qaeda) was unsubstantiated. In fact, in the pages of the New York Times this substantiation is being forgone. From the Philadelphia Inquirer May 12. Retaliatory drone strikes in the last two paragraphs ...

Pakistan: No Taliban link found in N.Y. plot

By Saeed Shah

McClatchy Newspapers
KARACHI, Pakistan - Pakistani investigators have been unable to find evidence linking Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bombing suspect, with the Pakistani Taliban or other extremist groups, Pakistani security officials said Tuesday. Investigators also have been unable to substantiate Shahzad's reported confession that he received bomb-making training in the country's wild Waziristan region.

The lack of evidence found by investigators stands in contrast to forceful statements by top Obama administration officials linking Shahzad to extremist Pakistani groups.

The prime Pakistani suspect, Muhammad Rehan, was detained last week outside a radical mosque in Karachi after Shahzad was arrested in New York. A member of the banned group Jaish-e-Mohammad, Rehan was the only concrete link found so far between Shahzad, 30, and the extremist underworld in Pakistan.

However, the interrogation of Rehan did not provide any solid link to the Pakistani Taliban or another extremist group, officials said. "We have not found any involvement of Rehan [in the New York attempted bombing]. He didn't introduce Faisal Shahzad to the Pakistani Taliban," said a security official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue with journalists. "No Taliban link has come to the fore."

'Intimately involved'
An FBI team that flew into Pakistan after Shahzad was arrested was allowed to question Rehan on Sunday. The investigation continues, and new leads yet could emerge.

In Washington, a U.S. official said there was "information that links Shahzad to the TTP [Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan], and not all of it is coming from him." The official, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject, cautioned that it still wasn't clear how close a relationship Shahzad had to the Pakistani Taliban.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said on a Sunday talk show that the Pakistani Taliban was "intimately involved" in the attempted blast, and he reiterated his stand Tuesday. Also Tuesday, five senators called for adding Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan to the U.S. terror list.

Still, the government in Islamabad is perplexed and angry at Washington's statements and threats about Shahzad links with the Pakistani Taliban. Officials say they believe the Obama administration is exploiting the issue to apply pressure for a new military offensive in Pakistan's tribal border area with Afghanistan, in the North Waziristan region, where Pakistani and Afghan Taliban, as well as al-Qaeda, are holed up.

Taliban denial

"There are no roots to the case, so how can we trace something back?" the security official asked.

Shahzad, a naturalized American citizen of Pakistani origin, reportedly has told U.S. interrogators that he trained in Waziristan before the May 1 attack in Times Square, according to the U.S. charges against him. The Pakistani Taliban released a video in which its chief trainer of suicide bombers, Qari Hussain, seemed to claim responsibility for the U.S. bombing attempt.

The video said nothing specifically about New York or Shahzad. The Pakistani Taliban's official spokesman, Azam Tariq, has denied that his group was involved with Shahzad. The inept construction of the failed bomb has also raised doubts over whether the Taliban could have trained Shahzad.

The U.S. focus on Pakistan's tribal area continued Tuesday with another missile strike from an American drone aircraft, the third such attack since the failed Times Square bombing. The strike, in North Waziristan, reportedly killed at least 14 suspected extremists.

The Obama administration has unleashed an intensive campaign of drone attacks in the region targeting extremist hideouts in the tribal area.

Pentagon Seeks Private Contractor to Move Weapons Through Pakistan/Afghanistan

2010-05-26T09:49:00.003-05:00

From Jeremy Scahill May 25 Rebel Reports & The Nation magazine online

It is not, of course, a secret supplies must be delivered to forward operating bases in Afghanistan. What's interesting here is areas where the provisions of the contract being offered--work that apparently can't effectively be done by the U.S. military itself--differs from verbiage in the White House strategy for Afghanistan which contains a draw-down and eventual withdrawal in 2011. The notion that Pakistan and Afghanistan are too dangerous for the U.S. military to negotiate supplies into in coming months is a grim outlook. It's just a proposal of a contract for services, but plans indicate intent to some degree, do they not?

Excerpt taken from Scahill's Rebel Reports appears below ...

"[The United States military is in the process of taking bids from private war contractors to secure and ship massive amounts of US military equipment through sensitive areas of Pakistan into Afghanistan where it will then be distributed to various US Forward Operating Bases and other facilities. According to the contract solicitation, “There will be an average of 5000” import shipments “transiting the Afghanistan and Pakistan ground lines of communication (GLOC) per month,” along with 500 export shipments.” The solicitation states that, “This number may increase or decrease due to US military transportation requirements,” adding, “The contractor must maintain a constant capability to surge to any location within Afghanistan or Pakistan” within a 30-day period. Among the duties the contractor will perform is “intelligence, to include threat assessments throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

And while it seems the US is trying to put a Pakistani or Afghan face on the work, the terms of the contract mandate that US personnel will be involved with inherently risky and potentially lethal operations. Among the firms listed by the Department of Defense as “interested vendors” are an Afghan firm tied to a veteran CIA officer and run by the son of Afghan defense minister, Gen. Abdul Rahim Wardak, and a Pakistani firm with links to Blackwater.]"

Drones and Democracy

2010-05-24T09:36:00.003-05:00

Story on Truthout.org Sunday, May 23, 2010 by Kathy Kelly and Joshua Brollier

A particularly brutal excerpt ...

"The social worker recalled arriving at a home that was hit, in Miranshah, at about 9:00 PM, close to one year ago. The house was beside a matchbox factory, near the degree college. The drone strike had killed three people. Their bodies, carbonized, were fully burned. They could only be identified by their legs and hands. One body was still on fire when he reached there. Then he learned that the charred and mutilated corpses were relatives of his who lived in his village, two men and a boy aged seven or eight. They couldn't pick up the charred parts in one piece. Finding scraps of plastic, they transported the body parts away from the site. Three to four others joined in to help cover the bodies in plastic and carry them to the morgue.

But these volunteers and nearby onlookers were attacked by another drone strike, 15 minutes after the initial one. Six more people died. One of them was the brother of the man killed in the initial strike.

The social worker said that people are now afraid to help when a drone strike occurs because they fear a similar fate from a second attack. People will wait several hours after an attack just to be sure. Meanwhile, some lives will be lost that possibly could have been saved."

War is making you poor

2010-05-23T12:47:00.003-05:00

From Common Dreams May 21
War Is Making You Poor
by Abby Zimet

... Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida introduces the "War Is Making You Poor Act" to highlight the obscene amounts being spent on Iraq and Afghanistan ...

Plus: Hidden Costs of War video

UK plans to leave Afghanistan

2010-05-23T06:41:00.003-05:00

"We have obligations to deal with poverty and human rights but that is no different in Afghanistan from dozens of other countries."

—British Defense Secretary Liam Fox

From Australian Broadcast (ABC) May 23

"Britain considers policy shift on Afghanistan"

British defence secretary Liam Fox has indicated that the country's new government is reconsidering its approach to the war in Afghanistan.

He is currently on a visit to Kabul, but before he left London, Mr Fox revealed the potential change of policy.

In remarks in a newspaper interview, Mr Fox said Britain should focus less on state-building in Afghanistan and more on speeding up the withdrawal of its troops.

Mr Fox described Afghanistan as a broken 13th century country.

"National security is the focus now. We are not a global policeman," he told The Times.

"We have obligations to deal with poverty and human rights but that is no different in Afghanistan from dozens of other countries.

"We shouldn't deploy British troops unless there are overwhelming humanitarian emergency considerations or a national security imperative."

The comments will dismay those who see the massive expansion of the Afghan education system, funded by donors such as the UK, and the opening of school doors to girls as major successes of the post-Taliban era.

The former head of British forces in Afghanistan, Colonel Richard Kemp, warned against any drastic changes in policy.

"The priority, as Liam Fox says, is to deal with the security situation in Afghanistan and to ensure that the streets of the UK and the rest of the world are safe, safer than they are at present," he said.

"But in order to do that we must rebuild and repair the society in Afghanistan and that does include things like education policy, the economy, governance."

Britain's new foreign secretary, William Hague, also sought to assure Kabul of his government's commitment.

Ahead of a visit by three senior ministers, Mr Hague said that the conflict in Afghanistan is his most urgent priority, and Britain cannot set any kind of date for a withdrawal.

"There isn't going to be an arbitrary or artificial timetable. I don't think it's going to work like that," he said.

"As I say, we have to give the situation, the strategy that has been set out the time and the support to succeed.

"That does need, and require, Britain's continued military involvement. There is no doubt about that."

- ABC/BBC

Also,
Press TV Story taken from Aletho News ...

In a U-turn in Britain’s policy regarding the Afghan war, senior government officials say they want UK soldiers to return home as soon as possible.

In an interview with The Times newspaper before arriving in Kabul on Saturday, Defense Secretary Liam Fox described the Afghan war as Britain’s most urgent priority. He said no more troops will be deployed in Afghanistan, adding that he wants to speed up the withdrawal of UK soldiers and training of Afghan forces.

Fox emphasized that the new government in London will put national security issues on top of its priority list.

“National security is the focus now. We are not a global policeman. We are not in Afghanistan for the sake of the education policy in a broken 13th-century country. We are there so the people of Britain and our global interests are not threatened,” Fox said.

Britain is the second-largest contributor of troops to Afghanistan. It has deployed some 10,000 soldiers in the war-torn country. The number of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan since 2001 stands at 286.

US warns of terror link to Pakistan catering firm

2010-05-21T15:50:00.001-05:00

AP story by KATHY GANNON and ASIF SHAHZAD May 21

ISLAMABAD – The U.S. Embassy warned Friday that terrorist groups may have "established links" to an upscale catering company in Pakistan that security officials said was owned by a suspect arrested over the failed car bombing in Times Square.

The suspect who owned Hanif Rajput Catering Service was among a group of six that have been detained in Pakistan since the May 1 botched attack in New York, said a senior Pakistani intelligence officer who gave details on the identities of those arrested on condition his own name not be used.

The group appeared to be wealthy and educated members of Pakistan's small urban elite.

They included the owner of a large computer shop in Islamabad who allegedly called the prime suspect detained in the United States, Pakistani-American Faisal Shahzad, urging him to flee the country; a man who worked for a cell phone company who had an MBA from the United States; and a retired army major and his brother, who was a computer engineer.

An army spokesman earlier this week denied a media report that the former major had been arrested in the case.

In an unusual statement on its website that was e-mailed to Americans in Pakistan, the embassy said U.S. government personnel had been instructed to avoid using Rajput, a well-known firm that has been used by the American embassy and other foreign missions in the capital.

The message said Rajput was owned by Rana Ashraf Khan and his son Salman Ashraf Khan.

Earlier this week, a senior security official had named a suspect arrested in Pakistan over links to Shahzad as Salman Ashraf, whom the intelligence officer confirmed was the owner of Rajput.

The security official said another arrested suspect was a cousin of Salman Ashraf. He said both men were suspected of having financial links with Shahzad. The official also spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the investigation.

A man who answered the phone at Rajput declined to comment on the allegations made by the U.S. Embassy.

A biography on the Rajput website said Salman Ashraf Khan studied in Houston, Texas, before returning home to help run the family business. It said Rana Ashraf Khan worked for Pakistan International Airlines for 20 years and then started the catering firm.

Rajput cooks for large parties, providing food, cutlery and grand tents at embassy compounds and the homes of the well-to-do in Islamabad and other cities.

Shahzad is accused of leaving an SUV rigged with a homemade car bomb in Times Square on May 1. The bomb failed to explode. He was arrested May 3 at John F. Kennedy International Airport while heading to Dubai.

U.S. authorities suspect he had contact with members of the Pakistani Taliban in their hideouts in the northwest of the Pakistan close to the Afghan border. Pakistan says it is cooperating with the probe, but has released little information about what it is finding.

Shahzad was born in Pakistan but moved to the United States when he was 18. He is the son of former air force vice marshal and led a privileged life. He has family roots in the major northwestern city of Peshawar, but he grew up in at least one other city, Karachi, relatives and officials have said.

Backyard Predator Drones

2010-05-20T09:43:00.004-05:00

"Each Predator and Reaper costs American taxpayers $4 million to $12 million and each Hellfire missile some $70,000, and the drones are causing anti-American sentiment to spread, especially in the Muslim world."

by Chen Weihua
China Daily 05/18/2010
chenweihua@chinadaily.com.cn

I never realized I was so close to the war zone in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border until I went to Syracuse in upstate New York a week ago.

The Hancock Field there has been turned into a base for drones that fly over Pakistan and Afghanistan for bombing missions. This means that someone sitting in the control room is playing a computer game that is killing real people thousands of miles away.

The strikes may have achieved the goals of assassinating some Taliban leaders and militants; yet, high collateral damage has been reported by both Pakistani and US sources. Pakistani authorities reported that in 2009 alone, some 700 civilians died during the drone attacks.

The high casualties - of innocent people - should be a grave concern for "anti-war" President Barack Obama, who authorized more drone strikes in his first year as president than his predecessor George W. Bush did in his last four years in office.

Civilian deaths are clearly a problem. A CNN report last week quoted Tadd Scholtis, spokesman for General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, as saying US and NATO soldiers in Afghanistan could someday win medals for restraint that prevents civilian casualties in combat.

This proposal under consideration simply means that too many innocents are being killed, and that the army has not exercised enough restraint.

Unfortunately, many Americans are unaware of the nature of the drone attacks launched from an air force base near their home, despite numerous protests across the country against the drones.

Just a few days before my trip to Syracuse, peace activists from upstate New York gathered outside the Hancock Air Force base to oppose the unmanned aircraft attacks.

On May 18-19, protesters from across California and some from Nevada will hold a rally in San Diego outside the General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, which builds the Predator and Reaper drones.

Cindy Sheehan, who held a prolonged anti-war protest in 2005 outside George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, led a rally near the CIA headquarters in Virginia early this year, calling the CIA-operated drone bombing "immoral" and "terrorism with a big budget."

Demonstrations were also witnessed last year outside the Creech Air Force Base, only 35 miles from Las Vegas, resulting in the arrests of a number of peace activists.

In contrast to the anti-war activists, mainstream US media and scholars have been relatively quiet on the issue. Most have been talking endlessly about Times Square bomb suspect Faisal Shahzad's ties to the Taliban and whether his legal rights and citizenship should be deprived.

They have largely ignored the rising anger among Pakistanis about the drone Hellfire missile attacks. Shahzad also reportedly claimed that his intention was to retaliate for the drones, which he saw in Waziristan, in northwest Pakistan.

A Gallup poll last August showed that only 9 percent of Pakistanis support the drone attacks, while 67 percent oppose them. The majority saw the US as a bigger threat than the Taliban.

A recent Newsweek report quotes local villagers as saying that every family there has one male member in the Taliban force.

In the war on terror, many Americans seem to be worried that criticizing the US government and military would make them look unpatriotic or un-American.

Each Predator and Reaper costs American taxpayers $4 million to $12 million and each Hellfire missile some $70,000, and the drones are causing anti-American sentiment to spread, especially in the Muslim world.

If that money is used to build schools there to reflect the US' soft power, it will win more hearts and minds and make Americans safer.

Stopping the drones launched from American citizens' backyards is no less urgent than finding the true connection of Pakistani-American Faisal Shahzad.

Aletho News: “What kind of democracy is America, where people do not ask these questions?”

2010-05-19T13:21:00.001-05:00

From Aletho News Tuesday ...

“What kind of democracy is America, where people do not ask these questions?”
By Kathy Kelly and Josh Brollier | Pulse Media | May 18, 2010

Kathy Kelly (kathy@vcnv.org) and Josh Brollier (Joshua@vcnv.org) are co-coordinators of Voices for Creative Nonviolence www.vcnv.org

Islamabad–On May 12th, the day after a U.S. drone strike killed 24 people in Pakistan’s North Waziristan, two men from the area agreed to tell us their perspective as eyewitnesses of previous drone strikes.

One is a journalist, Safdar Dawar, General Secretary of the Tribal Union of Journalists. Journalists are operating under very difficult circumstances in the area, pressured by both militant groups and the Pakistani government. Six of his colleagues have been killed while reporting in North and South Waziristan. The other man, who asked us not to disclose his name, is from Miranshah city, the epicenter of North Waziristan. He works with the locally based Waziristan Relief Agency, a group of people committed to helping the victims of drone attacks and military actions. “If people need blood or medicine or have to go to Peshawar or some other hospital,” said the social worker, “I’m known for helping them. I also try to arrange funds and contributions.”

Both men emphasized that Pakistan’s government has only a trivial presence in the area. Survivors of drone attacks receive no compensation, and neither the military nor the government investigate consequences of the drone attacks.

Bomb attack kills 13 people in NW Pakistan

2010-05-18T14:25:00.002-05:00

May 18, 11:35 AM EDT
By ISHTIAQ MAHSUD
Associated Press Writer

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan (AP) -- A remote-controlled bomb targeting a police patrol killed 13 people Tuesday in an area of northwestern Pakistan where many citizens fled last year to escape an army offensive against the Taliban, police said.

The attack, which killed three police officers and 10 civilians, occurred as the patrol vehicle traveled through the town of Dera Ismail Khan, said Gul Afzal Khan, the police chief in the area. He initially blamed the explosion on a suicide bomber but later said it was a remote-controlled bomb.

The victims included a senior police officer in the area as well as his guard and driver, Khan said. The civilians killed included a couple and their two children who were passing by on a motorcycle.

Another 15 people were injured by the homemade bomb that police explosives expert Inayatullah Khan said contained nearly 9 pounds (4 kilograms) of explosives.

Hundreds of thousands of people fled to Dera Ismail Khan in mid-October when the army launched a big ground offensive against the Pakistani Taliban's main stronghold in the South Waziristan tribal area near the Afghan border.

The displacement added to an already serious problem in Pakistan caused by similar operations launched earlier in the year, especially one in the Swat Valley.

In total, an estimated 3 million Pakistanis fled to other areas of the country to avoid conflict last year, the highest number of internally displaced people anywhere in the world, according to a U.N.-backed report released Monday.

Around two-thirds were able to return to their homes by the end of the year, but some 1.2 million remain displaced, said the report published by the Norwegian Refugee Council, a non-governmental organization.

That number has grown this year as thousands of people have fled smaller operations the military has launched in the tribal areas against militants who fled the offensive in South Waziristan.

One such operation launched in Orakzai in mid-March has killed hundreds of suspected insurgents and caused more than 200,000 people to flee.

Pakistan has also been wracked by political turmoil this year following the Supreme Court's decision to strike down a controversial amnesty protecting scores of government officials, including President Asif Ali Zardari, from corruption charges dating back several years.

The fallout from the decision took a new turn late Monday when Zardari pardoned Interior Minister Rehman Malik only hours after a high court upheld a previous conviction and prison sentence issued against him in absentia in 2004.

Zardari decided to issue the pardon because he believes the original case was part of a politically motivated "witch hunt" by then-President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar said Tuesday.

It is unclear how the Supreme Court, which has a tense relationship with Zardari and has pushed for the old corruption cases to be reopened, will respond to the president's action.

CIA director, national security adviser to meet with officials in Pakistan

2010-05-18T12:33:00.003-05:00

Washington Post story by Karen DeYoung
Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Excerpt - Officials say the administration has been pleased so far with Pakistani cooperation in the investigation, which has focused on any role insurgent groups there might have played in helping to train and otherwise assist bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad.

But officials said that Jones and Panetta intend to reiterate to the Pakistanis the importance that the administration places on more aggressive military action against groups allied with al-Qaeda in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA. Shahzad, a Pakistani American, has said he traveled to the region to train with elements of the Pakistani Taliban, officials say.

The bombing attempt has already given rise to questions from Congress about Pakistan's zeal in confronting radical groups; a successful attack in the United States would severely undermine a bilateral relationship that is a crucial part of the administration's Afghanistan war strategy.

"It's important they hear our latest thinking on the danger to all of us from the tribal areas. That's very, very real," said a U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity about the ongoing investigation and the intelligence relationship with Pakistan.

Tuesday bomb blasts in Afghanistan and Pakistan

2010-05-18T06:31:00.003-05:00

Twelve dead in Pakistan: New York Times "Bomb Kills Pakistani Police Officer" by Pir Zubair Shah May 18, 2010

Eighteen dead in Afghanistan: CNN International "At least 18 dead after Afghan suicide attack" Atia Abawi and CNN wire staff May 18, 2010

Drones and the Ethics of War

2010-05-17T12:53:00.003-05:00

This essay, posted Friday, attempts to briefly address the emerging arguments in what appears to be a debate shaping together over the ethics of using armed unmanned aerial vehicles.

President Obama is quoted as saying in a speech, "We have an interest in reducing civilian casualties because I don’t want civilians killed." This sentiment has manifested itself in the contrary strident legal posturing of State Department legal adviser Harold Koh with no signs of halting, reducing or altering the methods of drone attacks, which have increased following the Times Square bombing attempt.

What's missing here is any human rights argument that human beings--combatants, non-combatants in proximity to or whose lives are entwined with those of combatants--have some kind of right to expect not to be hunted by robots with electric eyes being piloted by indoctrinated nationalists who believe what they are doing--no matter what it is--to be benevolent.

Further complicating this aspect of the issue is the tendency of comments to news outlets following various articles on drone attacks to maintain drones have the ability to "kill the bastards" while service men and women risk no physical danger. This line evades the key issue that children, villagers, farmers, unarmed inhabitants in an agrarian culture are not "the bastards," and the warfare of extermination is, on paper, a part of our past and not our future.

Until these discrepancies are addressed no productive debate on the ethics of UAVs and their use to murder civilians in relentless pursuit of "high-value targets" is going to take place. Rhetorically, we are left with the pre-World War II mentality of "might makes right," and nothing more sophisticated or justified.

From the website Pakistan Defense (defence.pk)

May 14th, 2010

Drones and the Ethics of War

by David E. Anderson

According to news reports, Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani-American charged with trying to use a weapon of mass destruction in the failed Times Square bombing, has told investigators he carried out the attempted bombing to avenge US drone attacks in the North Waziristan tribal region of Pakistan.

Shahzad’s assertion adds more fuel to the simmering controversy over the ethics and effects of increasing reliance by both the CIA and the US military on unmanned drones to launch missile strikes against suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As David Sanger, chief Washington correspondent for the New York Times, asked (“US pressure helps militants overseas focus efforts,” May 7) : “Have the stepped-up attacks in Pakistan—notable the Predator drone strikes—actually made Americans less safe? Have they had the perverse consequence of driving lesser insurgencies to think of targeting Times Square and American airliners, not just Kabul and Islamabad? In short, are they inspiring more attacks on American than they prevent? It is a hard question.”

The Times Square drone connection also follows on last year’s deadly attack on the CIA, when a suicide bomber, a Jordanian doctor linked to al-Qaeda, detonated his explosives at an American base in Khost in eastern Afghanistan, killing himself and seven CIA officers and contractors who were operating at the heart of the covert program overseeing US drone strikes in Pakistan’s northwestern tribal regions.

CIA director Leon Panetta has called lethal drone technology “the only game in town” for going after al-Qaeda, and Obama administration officials have strenuously defended both the legality of the strikes in Pakistan as well as their effectiveness in killing suspected militants. They also deny the drones are responsible for an unacceptable level of civilian deaths.

“In this ongoing armed conflict, the United States has the authority under international law, and the responsibility to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al-Qaeda leaders who are planning an attack,’’ Harold Koh, the State Department’s legal adviser, told an audience of international legal scholars on March 25, according to the Wall Street Journal (“US defends legality of killing with drones”).

Since President Obama took office, the CIA has used drones to kill some 400 to 500 suspected militants, according to intelligence officials, the Journal reported. The officials say only some 20 civilians have been killed—a figure critics sharply challenge. In 2009, Pakistani officials said the strikes had killed some 700 civilians and only 14 terrorist leaders, or 50 civilians for every militant. A New America Foundation analysis of reported US drone strikes in northwest Pakistan from 2004 to 2010 says the strikes killed between 830 and 1210 individuals, of whom 550 to 850 were militants, or about two-thirds of the total on average.

More recently, an April 26 story in the Washington Post reported that the CIA has refined its techniques and made technological improvements that are reducing civilian deaths, and this week, in his joint news conference with President Karzai of Afghanistan, President Obama said, “I am ultimately accountable…for somebody who is not on the battlefield who got killed…and so we do not take that lightly. We have an interest in reducing civilian casualties not because it’s a problem for President Karzai; we have an interest in reducing civilian casualties because I don’t want civilians killed.”

Earlier this month, in a May 6 interview on National Public Radio, David Rohde, the New York Times reporter who was held captive for months by the Taliban in northern Pakistan, spoke about the US drone strikes and said, “I saw firsthand in north and south Waziristan that the drone strikes do have a major impact. They generally are accurate. The strikes that went on killed foreign militants or Afghan or Pakistani Taliban that went on around us. There were some civilians killed but generally the Taliban would greatly exaggerate the number of civilians killed. They inhibited their operations. Taliban leaders were very nervous about being tracked by drones. So they are effective in the short-term I would say…I don’t think the answer is, you know, endless drone strikes. The answer is definitely not sending American troops into Pakistan, into the tribal areas. That would just create a tremendous nationalist backlash. It has to be the Pakistanis doing it.”

Ethicists and religious leaders are beginning to challenge the morality of the drone program, arguing it violates international law as well as key precepts of just war theory. The Christian Century, for example, editorialized in mid-May (“Remote-control warfare,” May 18) that while the drone attacks have no doubt killed terrorists and leaders of al-Qaeda, “they raise troubling questions to those committed to the just war principle that civilians should never be targeted.”

Taking aim at one of the aspects of drone warfare that make it so popular with the military and with politicians—that it is a risk-free option for the US military because it avoids American casualties—the Century editors said: “According to the just war principles, it is better to risk the lives of one’s own combatants than the lives of enemy noncombatants.”

The “risk-free” idea is also being challenged. In a recent piece in the Jesuit magazine America (“A troubling disconnection,” March 15), Maryann Cusimano Love, an international relations professor at Catholic University, wrote that military (as opposed to CIA) drone operators suffer post-traumatic stress disorder at higher rates than soldiers in combat zones. “Operators see in detail the destruction and grisly human toll from their work,” she observed, and she quoted an air force commander who said, “There’s no detachment. Those employing the system are very involved at a personal level in combat. You hear the AK-47 going off, the intensity of the voice on the radio calling for help. You’re looking at him, 18 inches away from him, trying everything in your capability to get that person out of trouble.”

The Christian Century editors also noted that drone attacks on civilians have given militants a recruitment tool, citing an opinion piece by counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen and former army officer Andrew McDonald Exum published last year in the New York Times (May 17, 2009). “Every one of these dead noncombatants represents an alienated family, a new desire for revenge, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially even as the drone strikes have increased,” they wrote.

An even more emphatic critic of the use of drones is Mary Ellen O’Connell, an international law professor at the University of Notre Dame. “Neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration has been persuasive about its legal right to launch attacks in Pakistan,” she wrote in “Flying Blind,” an article also published in America magazine. “Even with the legal right to use military force, drone attacks must also conform to the traditional principles governing the rules of warfare, including those of distinction, necessity, proportion and humanity.’’

O’Connell argues that under the United Nations Charter, resort to military force on the territory of another state, in this case Pakistan, is permitted only when the attacking state is acting in self-defense, acting with U.N. Security Council authorization, or is invited to aid another state in the lawful use of force. “Pakistan did not attack the United States and is not responsible for those who did,” O’Connell wrote. “The United States has no basis, therefore, for attacking in self-defense on Pakistani territory.’’

In addition, she contends that while al-Qaeda is a violent terrorist group, “it should be treated as a criminal organization to which law enforcement rules apply. To do otherwise is violate fundamental human rights principles. Outside of war, the full body of human rights applies, including the prohibition on killing without warning.”

The only basis for the United States to lawfully use force in Pakistan would be if it had the consent of the country’s political leaders. It is not clear whether the US has such a valid invitation, according to O’Connell.

“Pakistan’s president has told US leaders not to attack certain groups that have cooperated with Islamabad,” O’Connell wrote. “The United States has done so anyway, insisting that Pakistan use more military force and threatening to carry out attacks itself if the government refuses. None of this can be squared with international law.”

As recently as May 12, the head of an influential religious party which is a junior partner in Pakistan’s ruling coalition denounced the most recent drone attacks as a violation of Pakistani sovereignty. “The recurring attacks on targets in tribal areas are blatant aggression against Pakistan and the military should shoot down intruding drones,” Maulana Fazlur Rehman, leader of the Jamiat Ulema Islam party told reporters, as reported in the Gulf News.

The case of western Pakistan presents particular challenges, according to O’Connell: “There suspected militant leaders wear civilian clothes, and even the sophisticated cameras of a drone cannot reveal with certainty that a suspect is a militant. In such a situation international humanitarian law gives a presumption to civilian status.”

In an interview, O’Connell suggests that there is confusion about international law versus domestic national security law and that the scarcity of developed ethical analysis and discussion of drone warfare might have to do with the fact that the drone itself is “just a delivery vehicle.” The real ethical issue, she said, is “the greater propensity to kill” made possible by the “video game-like” quality of drone combat.

Gary Simpson, a theology professor at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota and the author of “War, Peace, and God: Rethinking the Just War Tradition” (Augsburg Fortress Press, 2007), acknowledges that although he hasn’t yet thought about ethics and drone warfare, “the ongoing evolution of weaponry always poses new questions. It changes the questions about proportionality”—referring to the just war principle that the benefits of war must be proportionate to the expected harm— “and the protection of one’s own forces over against the vulnerability of civilian populations.”

The House Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs held hearings in March and April on the rise of the drones, the legality of unmanned targeting systems, and the future of war, and US Naval Academy ethics professor Edward Barrett testified that while unmanned weapons systems “are consistent with a society’s duty to avoid unnecessary risks to its combatants,” and they can “enhance restraint” on the part of the soldiers engaged in virtual warfare, they also “could encourage unjust wars” and “could facilitate the circumvention of legitimate authority and pursuit of unjust causes.”

It will be interesting to see whether Congress and the White House continue to involve ethicists and religious thinkers in future deliberations on these issues. Last December, just before President Obama gave his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech on themes of just war, the White House gathered religious leaders at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building for what was described as a briefing and discussion of the morality of war, according to the Washington Post. White House staff members took notes for the president.

For now, the Obama administration insists the use of drones in Pakistan is imperative in the fight against terrorism, and Amitai Etzioni, an international relations professor at George Washington University, writing recently in the Joint Force Quarterly (“Unmanned Aircraft Systems: The Moral and Legal Case”), has enumerated many of the reasons and offered multiple lines of supporting argument: “The United States and its allies can make a strong case that the main source of the problem is those who abuse their civilian status to attack truly innocent civilians and to prevent our military and other security forces from discharging their duties,” he says, and “we must make it much clearer that those who abuse their civilian status are a main reason for the use of UAS [unmanned aircraft systems] and targeted killing against them.”

But others, such as Kilcullen and Exum, argue drone combat exacerbates the problem of terrorism and contributes to the instability of Pakistan. “Having Osama bin Laden in one’s sights is one thing,” write Kilcullen and Exum. “Devoting precious resources to his capture or death, rather than focusing on protecting the Afghan and Pakistani populations, is another. The goal should be to isolate extremists from the communities in which they live.”

Missile strikes launched from the comfort of Langley, Virginia, a half a world away from Waziristan, are unlikely to do that and thus, to critics, remain morally problematic.

David E. Anderson, senior editor for Religion News Service, has also written for Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly on Afghanistan (“The Right War Gone Wrong”) and nuclear disarmament (“Trimming the Nuclear Arsenals”).

US Predators carry out first strike in Khyber

2010-05-16T02:21:00.004-05:00

From The Long War Journal, by Bill Roggio May 15, 2010 12:14 PM

Excerpted material of particular note:

"Both the Taliban and the Lashkar-e-Islam are known to operate bases and training camps in the Tirah Valley, as well as in Bara and Jamrud in Khyber. These safe havens enable these terror groups to launch attacks inside Pakistan as well across the border in Nangarhar province in Afghanistan. In November 2008, the US military attacked Taliban forces in the Tirah Valley after they retreated across the border from Nangarhar in Afghanistan. US strike aircraft and artillery killed seven Taliban fighters during the hot pursuit."

"The Khyber Pass is NATO's main conduit for supplies into Afghanistan; an estimated 70 percent of NATO's supplies move through this strategic crossing point. The Taliban forced the Khyber Pass to be shut down seven times between September 2007 and April 2008 due to attacks."

Decide for yourself: Predator drones on YouTube

2010-05-16T01:44:00.002-05:00

"I'd say the thing I enjoy most about the job is knowing what's going to be in the paper the next day, and, when I read about it, knowing I was involved." Major Clayton Marshall, Predator pilot

"I guess the most rewarding is when I was able to assist with actually employing hellfire weapons."
Major James Ackerman, Predator pilot

Drones at home: UAVs and the border patrol

2010-05-16T01:18:00.003-05:00

The eye in the sky comes home from the battlefields. An El Paso Times story by Maggie Ybara.

"The Federal Aviation Administration announced Friday that it authorized a drone to fly back and forth between Fort Huachuca, an Army installation near Sierra Vista, Ariz., and Big Bend National Park beginning June 1, said Vincent Perez, spokesman for U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas."

Money for the rich, money for war and hard luck for everyone else

2010-05-15T17:51:00.005-05:00

"The Vicious Circle of Debt and Depression: It is a Class War" by Ismael Hossein-Zadeh May 15, 2010
"Schwarzenegger's budget deals blows to the poor" by Shane Goldmacher, Los Angeles Times, May 15, 2010

If you are not making millions, you are getting your ass kicked. In places like Kyrgyzstan, Greece and Thailand, we're seeing people fight back. You have to wonder what circumstances prevent the same from happening in the United States.

Protests in Eastern Afghanistan After US Night Raid Kills 10 Civilians

2010-05-14T16:36:00.001-05:00

From Anti-war.com

US Insists Everyone Killed Was 'Insurgent'

by Jason Ditz, May 14, 2010

Well over a month after promising to serious curtail night raids in Afghanistan, another such US raid in Nangarhar Province has sparked massive protests after relatives reported that the 10 people slain by the US were civilians.

NATO confirmed the US attack, but insisted it targeted a suspected “hideout” and the US insists every person killed inside was an “insurgent.” They also claim to have found rifles in the home.

Nangarhar’s governor’s office reports that the raid was an attempt to arrest one of the people who lived in the house, though most of the people in the house did not appear to be “suspects” until they were killed by US troops in the attack.

The attack was the second high profile night raid by US troops in the tiny province in the past few weeks. Two weeks ago US troops attacked the home of an Afghan MP and killed one of her relatives, a father of five.

Faisal Shahzad introduces us to "Guardrail": a "Minority Report"-style surveillance technology

2010-05-14T10:06:00.003-05:00

Excerpt from Jeremy Scahill's May 4 Nation magazine online story ...

A US Special Operations Force source told me that the planes were likely RC-12s equipped with a Guardrail Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) system that, as the plane flies overland "sucks up" digital and electronic communications. "Think of them as manned drones. They're drones, but they have men sitting in them piloting them and they can be networked together," said the source. "You have many of them--four, five, six of them--and they all act as a node and they scrape up everything, anything that's electronic and feed it back." The source added: "It sucks up everything. We've got these things in Jalalabad [Afghanistan]. We routinely fly these things over Khandahar. When I say everything, I mean BlueTooth would be effected, even the wave length that PlayStation controllers are on. They suck up everything. That's the point."

Guardrail has been used for years by the US military. In recent years, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military has also used the "Constant Hawk" and "Highlighter" aerial sensor platforms. All of these programs have recently undergone a series of upgrades.

So were US special forces involved with Shahzad's arrest?

"My conjecture at the moment is that immediately after this went down and they knew that he was on the loose, parts of the domestic counter-terrorism operations that they had set up during the Bush administration were reactivated," says the Special Forces source. "They're compartmentalized. So they kicked into high gear and were supporting law enforcement. In some cases, law enforcement may not have even known that some of the signals intelligence was coming from covert military units."

Pakistan denies Taliban link to Times Square bomb suspect

2010-05-12T23:13:00.003-05:00

Investigators dismiss US claims that Faisal Shahzad was working under direction of Pakistani Taliban

From the London Guardian Tuesday 11 May 2010 18.57 BST
by Saeed Shah in Karachi

see also Huffington Post: "Pakistan: No Evidence Pakistani Taliban Linked To Shahzad"

Pakistani investigators have found no evidence to support American claims that the failed Times Square bomber was working under the direction of the Pakistani Taliban, the Guardian has learned.

Senior officials in Washington – including the attorney general, Eric Holder, and John Brennan, the White House's special adviser on counterterrorism – have said that the suspected bomber, Faisal Shahzad, conspired with militants in Pakistan, but a Pakistani security official with knowledge of the investigation said: "No Taliban link has come to the fore."

The interrogation of Muhammad Rehan, a friend of Shahzad who was arrested last week outside a radical mosque in Karachi, has not yielded a link to the Pakistani Taliban or any other militant group. Rehan, a member of the banned Jaish-e-Mohammad extremist group, remains the only suspected link found between 30-year-old Shahzad and the militant underworld in Pakistan.

Officials in Islamabad are perplexed and angry at statements from Washington about Shahzad's links with the Pakistani Taliban, believing that the US is exploiting the issue to apply pressure for new military offensives in Pakistan's tribal border area with Afghanistan, in the north Waziristan region.

"We have not found any involvement of Rehan [in the New York attempted bombing]. He didn't introduce Faisal Shahzad to the Pakistani Taliban," said the security official.

"There are no roots to this case, so how can we trace something back?"

An FBI team which flew into Pakistan after the arrest of Shahzad was allowed to question Rehan on Sunday. More than a dozen other suspects taken into custody in Karachi have been released, but the investigation is continuing, so new leads could yet emerge.

Rehan's arrest as he left prayers at the Karachi mosque was seized on by the international press as evidence of Shahzad's involvement with Pakistani militant groups. It emerged that Rehan and Shahzad had last year taken a 1,000-mile road trip from Karachi to Peshawar, on the edge of Pakistan's tribal area, raising further suspicions.

However, Pakistani investigators have found that Rehan was not a very active member of JEM, a violent group primarily against India and with no history of global activities. He knew Shahzad because he is related to Shahzad's wife.

Shahzad, a naturalised American citizen of Pakistani origin, told US interrogators that he had been trained in Waziristan, part of Pakistan's tribal area, according to the court charges laid against him.

After the failed attack, the Pakistani Taliban released a video in which its chief trainer of suicide bombers, Qari Hussain, appeared to claim responsibility. But that video said nothing specifically about New York, Shahzad, or a car bomb.

Since then, the Pakistani Taliban's official spokesman, Azam Tariq, has twice denied that his group was involved with Shahzad. The ineptness of Shahzad's bomb, which did not go off, also raised doubts over whether the Pakistani Taliban could have trained him.

Holder said at the weekend that the Pakistani Taliban were "intimately involved" in Shahzad's attempted bombing. Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, also warned Islamabad of "dire consequences" if a plot originating in Pakistan succeeded in the US.

But David Petraeus, the American general in charge of the Middle East and central Asia, had previously said that Shahzad was a "lone wolf" who was "inspired by militants in Pakistan but didn't have direct contact with them".

A senior Pakistani government official said: "There is a disconnect between the Pentagon and the [Obama] administration. The Pentagon gets it that more open pressure on Pakistan is not helpful."

The US focus on Pakistan's tribal area, thought to be a power base for the Afghan Taliban and al-Qaida, as well as Pakistani Taliban, continued today with another missile strike from an unmanned American drone aircraft, the third such attack since the failed Times Square bombing. The strike, in north Waziristan, reportedly killed at least 14 militants. The Obama administration has unleashed an intensive campaign of drone attacks inside Pakistani territory, targeting extremist hideouts in the tribal area.

Standard military training propaganda

2010-05-12T23:01:00.004-05:00

From a RawStory post by Radioactivegavin ...

In a RealNews interview with conscientious objector to the U.S. military, Josh Stieber, a glimpse of military life is shared with the rest of us. This is not Hollywood, this is how the military prepares citizens for an imperial marching force. If we heard a translation coming out of Nazi Germany that sounded like this, we'd all think, "Oh, yeah. That's because they were supremacists and they were absolutely wrong."

Josh Stieber tells RealNews ...

"One that stands out in my mind is—it goes, 'I went down to the market where all the women shop/I pulled out my machete and I begin to chop/I went down to the park where all the children play/I pulled out my machine gun and I begin to spray.'"

Campaign to push Taliban out of Kandahar has 7 months to succeed

2010-05-12T10:52:00.003-05:00

May 11 article in The Australian comes via Afghan Conflict Monitor ...

THE campaign to drive the Taliban out of Kandahar province has until the end of the year to succeed if it is to capitalise on maximum troop numbers and political unity, Nato commanders and Western diplomats told The Times.

"Our mission is to show irreversible momentum by the end of 2010 - that's the clock I'm using," Brigadier-General Frederick Hodges, the US Director of Operations in southern Afghanistan, said. "We'll never have more capacity than we have by late summer 2010. We'll never have it any better."

The joint Nato-Afghan campaign - codenamed Hamkari, which is the Dari word for co-operation - will use the biggest number of troops and police in the country yet. Thousands of Afghan National Army soldiers and paramilitaries are to combine with the existing coalition force in Kandahar as well as additional units from among the 13,000 troops being sent in the second phase of the US surge.

The military strategy involves combining regular US soldiers and special forces with Afghan police and paramilitaries to establish 32 posts around Kandahar city at every access point along the key route through the province. Afghan army units and coalition troops will then attempt to clear the Taliban from the outlying districts of Arghandab, Zhari and Panjwayi.

President Karzai and Western commanders have avoided calling Hamkari an operation and have emphasised its political and administrative focus. Kandahar is the Taliban's traditional heartland and its population has become disaffected with the nepotism, ineptitude and corruption that have characterised the local government.

"I'm not going to talk about a D-day or an H-hour or even, for that matter, military operations," said Major-General Nick Carter, the British officer commanding coalition forces in the south. "This is much more about getting the population to feel secure in the hands of its own government and its own security forces so that it then begins to work... as an informing population, so that it denies the insurgent the freedom of movement to come in and intimidate and mount `spectaculars'."

The first phase of Hamkari began a fortnight ago and the strategy will include measures such as registering weapons, vehicles, hotels, madrassas and seminaries. Western officials are keen to have a broader range of village and tribal representation in the shuras, or councils, which communicate with officials. They are also keen to bolster the authority of Tooryalai Wesa, the Governor, at the expense of the city's current strongman, Ahmad Wali Karzai, the half-brother of the President.

Nato commanders estimate that up to 75 per cent of Taliban fighters in Kandahar province, most of whom are concentrated in the three districts targeted by the military campaign, are locals who may reintegrate if they are offered the right incentives. The commanders are also encouraged by the absence of foreign fighters. "We've seen no hardcore al-Qa'ida links here," a senior Nato intelligence officer told The Times. "Zero al-Qa'ida."

Yet Nato officers know that they have a tough deadline. By the end of the year troop numbers will decline and Dutch forces will withdraw. In November political attention in Washington will be focused on the midterm elections and critics of the war will remind President Obama of his pledge to start pulling out combat troops in 2011.

"If there's a change in the game and it looks like we can run the table then Obama will gain some political oxygen," noted a senior Western diplomat involved closely with the Hamkari campaign. "But if we can't deliver by Christmas... people at home will remind the President of the deal (to begin the withdrawal of US combat troops in 2011)."

Apart from the need for evidence of success, Nato planners have several other concerns. Officers note that it took the Afghan Government too long to put ministry level representatives in two districts of Helmand that were cleared of the Taliban during Operation Moshtarak this year, and question how it will fare in Kandahar, which is four times the size.

Although the Western officials are keen for the Taliban fighters to reintegrate, as yet there is no plan from the Government to encourage this. "There has to be a carrot at the end of the stick if these fighters are to reintegrate," one officer said, "but as yet we don't see one from Kabul."

Drones attack Taliban targets in Pakistan

2010-05-12T10:15:00.003-05:00

Financial Times story by Farhan Bokhari in Islamabad

Published: May 12 2010 03:10

CIA-flown pilot-less drone aircraft on Tuesday fired more than 15 missiles at a suspected Taliban stronghold in Pakistan’s lawless north Waziristan region killing at least 24 suspected militants.

The attack was the biggest of its kind since the failed attempt by Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-born US national, to blow up New York’s Times Square on May 1.

Tuesday’s attack, said by a Pakistani intelligence official to be “Washington’s payback”, follows claims by US officials that Mr Shahzad is connected to Taliban militants. Mr Shahzad was arrested last week.

The Pakistani intelligence official said the missiles hit two targets – a vehicle driving three militants through a village and a nearby compound used for the training of recruits.

The attack took place in an area known to be controlled by Gul Bahadur, a Taliban commander.

In the past few months, US officials have increasingly acknowledged Pakistan’s growing importance as an ally in Washington’s efforts to secure the Afghanistan-Pakistan region where al-Qaeda and Taliban militants continue to pose a major resistance.

Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Pakistan’s foreign minister, on Tuesday said relations between the US and Pakistan continued to improve, brushing aside concerns over tensions after the failed New York bombing attempt. “There is nothing to worry about, our relationship is smooth and it is moving towards a partnership,” he said.

But a foreign ministry official in Islamabad warned that further US attacks on Pakistani soil of the kind seen on Tuesday will “inevitably bring in frictions of the kind that no one wants to see. You can’t bomb a country increasingly and expect cordial relations at the same time.”

US mulls putting Pakistan Taliban on terrorism list

2010-05-11T18:04:00.003-05:00

This item, should the U.S. decide to follow through, runs distictly counter to the prescription in a previous post here, New York Review of Books piece by Ahmed Rashid Feb. 25, A Deal with the Taliban?, which specifically pores over the history of the Pakistani Taliban.

Maybe it's too late.

US mulls putting Pakistan Taliban on terrorism list
Tue May 11, 2010 4:40pm EDT* Pakistani Taliban tied to failed May 1 Times Square bomb

(EXCERPT)

* 'Terrorist' designation would lead to punitive measures

* Five Democratic senators urge Clinton to make the move (Adds more from State Department spokesman)

By Sue Pleming

WASHINGTON, May 11 (Reuters) - The U.S. State Department said on Tuesday it was looking into putting the Pakistani Taliban, the group tied to the failed car bombing in New York's Times Square, on the U.S. list of "foreign terrorist" groups.

Adding the Pakistani Taliban to the list would trigger punitive measures such as freezing assets tied to the group, barring foreign nationals with links to it from entering the United States and making it a crime to give any material help.

"It is something we are considering in light of what happened, and obviously the investigation will yield information that might give us greater clarity," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters.

Crowley said there was a lengthy legal process before a group could be designated a "foreign terrorist organization" and he did not know when a decision would be made.

"We have been focused on this group for some time and, without being specific, we have been working with our Pakistani counterparts and we have taken appropriate action to diminish the capabilities of this group and others in the region," Crowley said, referring to military action to target Pakistani Taliban leaders.

Faisal Shahzad, 30, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Pakistan, was arrested two days after authorities say he parked a sport utility vehicle packed with a bomb in New York's busy Times Square on May 1.

Poll shows Afghanistan not worth it; Obama handling it well, though

2010-05-11T17:53:00.003-05:00

This poll makes people seem dumb. Or maybe just polls. Or like polls show that people aren't paying attention ... when polled. Or when reading the news.

Let's just say there is a problem in the way you are asking the questions if more than half of your respondents say they're against the endeavor in question, then immediately following that answer, over half of them contend they approve of the way the same endeavor is being handled. Puzzling, troublesome.

Washington Post-ABC News poll featured on Huffington Post May 11

On Afghanistan, a negative shift
Afghan president Hamid Karzai's visit to the White House this week arrives as the public's take on the war there has tilted back to negative, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

A majority says the war in Afghanistan is not worth its costs, marking a return to negative territory after a brief uptick in public support in the wake of the announcement of the administration's new strategy for the conflict.

Despite the shift in views on the war, President Obama's ratings for handling the conflict have remained positive since the unveiling of the new strategy - 56 percent approve, 36 percent disapprove.

Views on the war's value have become more negative among both Democrats and independents. In the new poll, 56 percent of independents say it is not worth fighting, up from 47 percent in December. Among Democrats, 66 percent say it's not worth it, including half who feel that way strongly.

Republicans are solidly behind the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, with 69 percent saying the war is worth its costs.

Q. All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war in Afghanistan has been worth fighting, or not? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

-- Worth it -- -Not worth it-
NET Strongly NET Strongly
4/25/10 45 26 52 38
12/13/09 52 33 44 35
11/15/09 44 30 52 38
10/18/09* 47 28 49 36
9/12/09 46 28 51 37
8/17/09 47 31 51 41
7/18/09 51 34 45 34
3/29/09 56 37 41 28
2/22/09 50 34 47 37
12/14/08 55 NA 39 NA
7/13/08 51 NA 45 NA
2/25/07 56 NA 41 NA
*10/18/09 "was" and "has been" wording half sampled. Previous "was".

By Jennifer Agiesta | May 9, 2010; 4:56 PM ET

Huffington Post story follows ...

Majority of Americans think Afghanistan "not worth it." According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, only 44% of Americans believe the Afghan war is worth its costs, while 52% disagree. This ends a brief jump in popular support for the war that occurred after President Obama announced his new surge strategy.

Support for the war is weakest among Democrats, two-thirds of whom agree the Afghan war is not worth it. A majority of Independents (56%) also feel the war isn't worth fighting. On the other hand, 69% of Republicans surveyed believe the war is worth its costs.

Though Americans seem to be losing confidence in the Afghan war, the poll finds they still approve of Obama's handling of the war by a 20-point margin: 56% approve, while 36% disapprove.

Treat Karzai with more respect, Obama tells officials. In advance of a four-day summit with the Afghan president, Obama has warned his senior staff to stop criticizing the Afghan government, the Washington Post and the Telegraph report.

This follows several months of press leaks and public criticism of Karzai, his family, and top officials for corruption, incompetence, and alleged ties to Afghanistan's opium industry. Karzai retaliated for the diplomatic slights by musing about joining the Taliban during a meeting with Afghan elders.

The Obama administration's divisions over Karzai are well-known. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is regarded as Karzai's "best friend" in Washington, while Vice President Joe Biden and National Security Advisor James L. Jones are known to be among his harshest critics.

The divide extends to Kabul: Gen. Stanley McChrystal has repeatedly urged Obama to identify more closely with Karzai, while Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke have urged him to distance himself from the Afghan president.

But in recent days, most senior U.S. officials have publicly expressed their support for Karzai. This helps Obama achieve the goal he has set for the Karzai summit: to reassure the Afghan President that the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan, and to its president, will extend beyond the withdrawal of U.S troops to the country, set to begin in June 2011.

Pressure mounts on Pakistan to take on North Waziristan militants. The revelation that the Pakistan Taliban are linked to the Times Square bomb plot has contributed to a major reversal in the Pakistan-U.S. relationship, Reuters and the New York Times report.

The U.S. has long lobbied Pakistan to take action in North Waziristan, but pressure has become more direct in the past few days. This past week, U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson relayed a "forceful" message to Pakistan president Asif Ali Zardari, urging him to take action. The top U.S. general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal met with the Pakistani military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, to relay a similar message.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, warned in an interview with CBS that there would be "severe consequences" if the Times Square plot were linked to the Pakistani Taliban.

Pakistani officials have been quick to argue their troops are overstretched after mounting operations in South Waziristan and the Swat valley. But Ahmed Rashid, in a column for the BBC, warns that Pakistan's strategy of leaving North Waziristan alone is not working, noting that "thousands of fighters and their commanders [from Swat and South Waziristan] have regrouped" in there, and have since rolled back much of the progress Pakistan claimed to make elsewhere in the northwest of the country.

Patrick Cockburn in Pakistan 4/22

2010-05-11T13:29:00.003-05:00

"It isn't just journalists but politicians from the rest of Pakistan who never come to see us," said local leaders in Ghazni Khel, a poor agricultural village in the middle of parched farmland.

This Counterpunch piece by Patrick Cockburn from April 22 is another one I just ... missed. It's about trying to live on Pakistan's Northwest Frontier where the Taliban will come after you if they think you are cooperating with the military and the military will come after you if they think you are cooperating with the Taliban.

Reprisal and Revenge
Vicious War on Pakistan's N.W. Frontier

By PATRICK COCKBURN

Staying alive is not a simple business for people in Pakistan's North West Frontier Province. The local Taliban and the army compete mercilessly to establish their authority along the border with Afghanistan. "If we support the army, the Taliban is unhappy and if we support the Taliban then the army is unhappy," lamented one local resident living outside Peshawar.

This unhappiness can have dire consequences for the civilian population. In the case of the army this usually means ordering civilians out of a hostile area and then plastering it with high explosives. The Taliban is on the retreat, but it likes to show it is still a force to be reckoned with by sending its suicide bombers to kill anybody it sees co-operating too enthusiastically with the army.

Mostly the Taliban favors soft targets. I was driving through Kohat district on the main road leading south from the Khyber Pass last weekend when we passed through a small village where a few hours earlier a suicide bomber had driven a vehicle packed with explosives into the gate of the local police station. The explosion had brought down concrete beams and ripped open the fronts of shops. Three police officers and four civilians had been killed. The police had draped brightly colored sheets over the wreckage to hide the extent of the damage suffered by the police station. Some shopkeepers were milling around trying to salvage their goods, but overall nobody looked too surprised at what had happened.

It is a nasty little war that receives little attention in the rest of Pakistan or in the outside world. It is dangerous for journalists to visit the area. When they do come they are usually escorted by the army and police. These are sensible precautions as was recently underlined when a British journalist and his two advisers, two former members of Pakistan's powerful ISI military intelligence, were kidnapped; they are now being held for ransom in North Waziristan.

"It isn't just journalists but politicians from the rest of Pakistan who never come to see us," said local leaders in Ghazni Khel, a poor agricultural village in the middle of parched farmland. It was not difficult to see why. Though everybody agrees that security is better than when the Taliban were roaming freely, life is still dangerous. At a hastily called village meeting one man complained: "It is difficult for us to go out in the evening because we are afraid of kidnappers who pick us up on the road and take us away." A doctor described how he had been kidnapped with his 13-year-old son and held for 70 days until they escaped by digging through the ceiling of the room where they had been kept captive.

I was able to go to Ghazni Khel because it is the village of Selim Saitullah Khan, a powerful local tribal leader, politician and industrialist who was going there with his own well-armed bodyguards. Mr Khan felt that the outside world should get some inkling of what life is like on the north-west frontier of Pakistan. He is deeply conscious of the poverty that afflicts the area, mainly because of the lack of water and electricity. In an impromptu speech to villagers, he said that for all the slaughter caused by suicide bombers in the area a greater number of people were dying because of poor hospitals and bad administration. He says the best plan is to build a dam in a nearby gorge to provide water for irrigation and to generate electricity.

Mr Khan may be right about economic and social deprivation killing more people than political violence, but it must be a close thing. The Pakistan Taliban are being driven back by army offensives. They have lost several of their best-known leaders to US-directed drone attacks. But they are not going down without a fight and are eager to prove that nobody who turns against them will escape their vengeance.

Just how savage this revenge can be is illustrated by the fate of the village of Shah Hassan, not far from Lakki Marwat. At the end of last year the villagers had asked the Taliban, for whom it had been a sanctuary, to leave to avoid an onslaught by the army. The Taliban agreed to go but warned the villagers that they would exact vengeance. On 1 January many of the young men of the village were crowded together playing volleyball when a suicide bomber detonated his explosives killing about 100 of them. The bomber turned out to be from Shah Hassan and two of his victims were his brothers.

The violence in the North West Frontier Province is less reported than that in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in recent weeks more Pakistanis than Iraqis or Afghans have been dying in suicide bomb attacks. The Pakistan Taliban seem to have an endless supply of young men willing to kill themselves for the cause. Almost anybody might be their target. Recently they attacked Shia refugees from an army offensive as they collected food aid. In Peshawar a suicide bomber bizarrely targeted a meeting of the Janaat-i-Islami political party, which supports the Taliban, killing 24 and injuring 45.

But it would be wrong to think of the people of the frontier provinces as passive victims. "Everybody here is armed to the teeth," says one of Mr Khan's assistants with pride.

Even the Taliban have to take account of local public opinion because it is backed up by armed force organized along tribal lines. Mr Khan says that his tribe and its allies could easily raise a fighting force of 2,000 men in the course of a day.

This ability to command a significant armed force helped Mr Khan and other local leaders to get rid of the Taliban in Lakki Marwat, starting in 2006. "Before then we thought the army and the Taliban were in league," says a local leader. "We wanted to stop the army and the Taliban fighting there."
The army also has to keep in mind local feelings, particularly as its main supply route runs through Lakki Marwat. New bridges are being built and it is expected that the route will ultimately be used to support an offensive to drive the Afghan Taliban from their bastion in North Waziristan. We met several military convoys, the first vehicle with its lights on to warn civilian drivers to get off the road.

People are impressed by the ability of US drones to find their targets. There are many conspiratorial explanations for this, such as special electronic chips being covertly slipped into people's pockets so the drone can home in on them. But local leaders say that the Taliban's reputation for ferocity is enough to deter any conscious collusion with the army: "People are so frightened that they don't co-operate with the army because they are convinced the Taliban will come after them," one said.

The retreat of the Taliban is good news for the US-led forces in Afghanistan. The US and Nato convoys on the road are no longer such easy meat for the Taliban as they were when the Islamic militants had checkpoints on the road. Truck drivers used to carry boards bearing the slogan "long live the Taliban" which they would attach to the front of their vehicles when entering Taliban-controlled territory.

Local businessmen recall happy days when they bought pirated Nato containers which on one occasion turned out to be entirely filled with whisky and on another contained a disassembled Apache helicopter. "Unsaleable," remembers one potential broker disgustedly. "We wouldn't have known how to put it together."

The state within a state once created by the Pakistan Taliban is ceasing to exist and can probably never be resurrected in its previous form. But they still have many militants waiting for the army to relax its grip. The people of the north-west frontier, cautious and skilled in personal survival, are not going to write off the Pakistan Taliban just yet.

Patrick Cockburn is the the author of "Muqtada: Muqtada Al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq."

Karzai visit: beneath the veneer of glad-handing

2010-05-11T10:19:00.006-05:00

"Afghanistan's Karzai arrives in Washington for visit intended to ease tensions"

A Washington Post story delves into some of the rifts in the high ranks of the military over strategies and policies in Afghanistan, specifically where it regards how to handle Hamid Karzai. An excerpt of the more compelling aspects of the story (the last half, dealing with military brass in the place of dinner with Joe Biden) appears below ...

(By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 11, 2010)

Tensions in the administration's relationship with Karzai began a year ago, when U.S. officials sought to find a viable candidate to challenge him in presidential elections held in August. Karzai eventually won another five-year term amid widespread allegations of fraud. Although the administration pledged a renewed partnership, sharp exchanges over the last several months have tested both sides.

Although recognizing the need to maintain good relations with Karzai, the administration hopes to dilute his authority and enhance regional stability in Afghanistan by strengthening government at the district and local levels. Strong local governance is viewed as crucial to the success of an upcoming offensive in the southern city of Kandahar -- a Taliban stronghold -- that U.S. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal said Monday would be "decisive" in the overall Afghanistan war effort.

Karzai's visit also comes amid reports of dissension between McChrystal, the overall commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry, a retired three-star general who once had McChrystal's job. As Obama was formulating his new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy late last summer, Eikenberry sent a pair of diplomatic cables to Washington questioning Karzai's competence and whether any strategy could succeed as long as he was president.

Asked at a White House media briefing Monday whether his concerns had been allayed, Eikenberry said that "Karzai is the elected president of Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a close friend and ally, and of course I highly respect President Karzai in that capacity."

McChrystal, who also spoke at the briefing, tried to head off questions about reports of personal and policy disagreements between him and Eikenberry, opening his remarks by saying: "It's good to be here today with my colleague and friend Karl Eikenberry."

Eikenberry returned the favor, beginning his statement by complimenting the remarks of "my friend and partner in Afghanistan over many years, General Stan McChrystal."

The two have disagreed, among other things, on whether to address Afghanistan's energy and agricultural problems with quick-fix solutions proposed by the military or more sustainable projects, favored by Eikenberry, that take longer to show results. In a report released Monday, the Center for American Progress, generally supportive of the administration, charged that "officials are paying too little attention to the sustainability of the programs and the Afghan state we are achieving."

The center, staffed by many former Obama campaign advisers, said that the Karzai government "operates on a highly centralized patronage model in which power and resources are channeled through Hamid Karzai's personal and political allies" in a system that "invites corruption, rent-seeking, and a hemorrhaging of domestic legitimacy."

UK Telegraph: Karzai to ask Obama for billions more to fight Taliban

2010-05-11T10:06:00.004-05:00

A recent visitor to ExEd, C Tuttle, posting to Firedoglake.com, tips us off to this UK Telegraph story from May 7 ...

By Ben Farmer in Kabul
Published: 11:56PM BST 07 May 2010

The Afghan president and ten ministers will tell members of the US Congress they need billions of dollars to end the eight-year-old Taliban insurgency.

Ministers will ask American politicians to fund an ambitious scheme to use jobs, training, aid and amnesties to coax militants from the battlefield.
They will say they need money for their armed forces, farming, education, health and job schemes to win over rural Afghans who still view the Kabul regime as weak, corrupt and ineffective.

Relations between Kabul and Washington plummeted after Mr Karzai railed against foreign interference and blamed his backers for the country's fraud and corruption.

The diplomatic row had at one point appeared to jeopardise Mr Karzai's invitation to the White House. Sources close to Mr Karzai said a successful visit was now considered "extraordinarily important".

The delegation will arrive in Washington on Monday to lobby Congress as it considers a Pentagon request for £22 billion of extra funds for the war in Afghanistan.

Mohammad Masoom Stanekzai, the architect of the plan to persuade Taliban foot soldiers to defect, said securing more money was a key objective of the visit.

He said: "We need their support to build our civil institutions. We need their technical support and we need their financial support. They have promised us money in the past, now we need to see if they will give it."

A Western military officer involved in building the Afghan police and army said the ministries of defence and interior had drawn up "a very long shopping list".

American commanders fighting alongside British forces in Helmand this week admitted the continuing lack of competent Afghan police and administrators had slowed efforts to widen Kabul's grip after the drive to rid the province of Taliban fighters in Operation Moshtarak.

David Sedney, a deputy assistant secretary of defence, told the senate foreign relations committee: "The number of those civilians ... who are trained, capable, willing to go into (Taliban-controlled areas) does not match at all demand."

Mr Stanekzai said the delegation would seek American pressure on Islambad to squeeze Taliban safe havens inside Pakistan.

He said: "We need them to put more pressure on Pakistan to stop this double game. We must stop the organisational support behind the insurgency."