12/29/07 Bhutto Bump-Off: Cui Bono?


Context: Carter democrat Brzezinski's geostrategic analysis & agenda is still the basic bipartisan strategic blueprint --disagreements are tactical
1997 A Geostrategy For Eurasia, by Zbigniew Brzezinski Foreign Affairs,76:5, September/October 1997 Council on Foreign Relations Inc.
1997 THE GRAND CHESSBOARD: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski


U.S. Fears Greater Turmoil in the Region
President Bush held an emergency meeting of his top foreign policy aides yesterday to discuss the deepening crisis in Pakistan, as administration officials and others explored whether Thursday's assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto marks the beginning of a new Islamic extremist...could affect war in Afghanistan...

U.S. Special Forces to Head to Pakistan
William M. Arkin
Beginning early next year, U.S. Special Forces are expected to vastly expand their presence in Pakistan, as part of an effort to train and support indigenous counter-insurgency forces and clandestine counterterrorism units, according to defense officials involved with the planning... These Pakistan-centric operations will mark a shift for the U.S. military and for U.S. Pakistan relations. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the U.S. used Pakistani bases to stage movements into Afghanistan. Yet once the U.S. deposed the Taliban government and established its main operating base at Bagram, north of Kabul, U.S. forces left Pakistan almost entirely. Since then, Pakistan has restricted U.S. involvement in cross-border military operations as well as paramilitary operations on its soil. But the Pentagon has been frustrated by the inability of Pakistani national forces to control the borders or the frontier area. And Pakistan's political instability has heightened U.S. concern about Islamic extremists there.
According to Pentagon sources, reaching a different agreement with Pakistan became a priority for the new head of the U.S. Special Operations Command, Adm. Eric T. Olson. Olson visited Pakistan in August, November and again this month, meeting with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, Pakistani Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Chairman Gen. Tariq Majid and Lt. Gen. Muhammad Masood Aslam, commander of the military and paramilitary troops in northwest Pakistan. Olson also visited the headquarters of the Frontier Corps, a separate paramilitary force recruited from Pakistan's border tribes. Now, a new agreement, reported when it was still being negotiated last month, has been finalized...
U.S. Central Command Commander Adm. William Fallon alluded to the agreement and spoke approvingly of Pakistan's recent counterterrorism efforts in the past several months in an interview with Voice of America last week....
http://snipurl.com/1vw84 http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/12/musharrafs_woes_have...

Puppet's limits--Pakistani peoples' hatred for his doing u.s. dirty work: Musharraf refused new invasion of U.S. special forces
John Chuckman
...Once Americans mired themselves in Afghanistan ----- after all the hoopla over a "victory" which amounted to little more than massive bombing while the Northern Alliance warlords did most of the fighting against their rival, the Taleban ---- the extent of the mess into which they had put themselves slowly dawned. This is particularly true regarding the almost non-existent border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, a huge area that forms almost a de facto third country of Pashtuns. Intense pressure started being applied to Musharraf to allow American special forces to conduct the kind of brutal and socially-disruptive operations they have maintained in the mountains of Afghanistan. The American approach to rooting out the dispersed Taleban, following its initial "victory," amounted to going from village to village in the mountains, crashing down doors, using stun grenades, holding men at gunpoint in their own homes, separating the village's women from the men's protection, plus many other unforgivable insults in such a tradition-bound land....
Recently, Musharraf's position vis-à-vis the U.S. has undergone a dramatic change. Overnight, the State Department changed him from valiant ally to enemy of democracy, and the American press obliged with the appropriate stories and emphasis.
The reason for this change was simply Musharraf’s refusal to cooperate enough with Bush's secret demands to extend America’s special-forces operations into Pakistan's side of the Pashtun territory: that is, to allow a foreign country into his country to terrorize and insult huge parts of its population.... to Pakistan’s fully embracing the "war on terror," ...but for many Pakistanis, the "war on terror" is only one more aspect of American interference in their part of the world. The Taleban is viewed by millions there as heroic resisters, standing up to American arrogance, a view not without some substance.
In trying to accommodate Bush, Musharraf launched various showy operations by Pakistan’s army, but his efforts were viewed in Washington as weak. The U.S. kept pushing the limits, trying to force Pakistan to internalize the "war on terror," and Musharraf resisted. There was a horrific incident in which the U.S. bombed a madrassah (a religious school) in rural Pakistan, succeeding only in killing eighty children, falsely claiming it was Pakistan’s work against a terrorist center....
Ms. Bhutto was regarded in Washington as more amenable to American demands in Pakistan. She had the double merit of being able to give Pakistan’s government the gloss of democracy while serving key American interests. But it couldn’t be clearer that democracy is not what the U.S. was really concerned with, because Musharraf was just a fine ally so long as he did as he was told.... [emphases added] http://www.uruknet.de/?p=39607

Pak nukes already under US control: Stratfor Report
20 Nov 2007
Chidanand Rajghatta ,TNN
... In a stunning disclosure certain to stir up things in Washington's (and in Islamabad and New Delhi's) strategic community, the journal Stratfor reported on Monday that the "United States delivered a very clear ultimatum to Musharraf in the wake of 9/11: Unless Pakistan allowed US forces to take control of Pakistani nuclear facilities, the United States would be left with no choice but to destroy those facilities, possibly with India's help."
"This was a fait accompli that Musharraf, for credibility reasons, had every reason to cover up and pretend never happened, and Washington was fully willing to keep things quiet," the journal, which is widely read among the intelligence community, said.
The Stratfor commentary came in response to an earlier New York Times story that reported that the Bush administration had spent around $100 million to help Pakistan safeguard its nuclear weapons, but left it unclear if Washington has a handle on the arsenal. Over the past fortnight, even since the crisis in Pakistan broke and eclipsed every other geopolitical story, including Iraq, US officials and analysts have been speaking in different voices on the subject of a jihadi takeover of Pakistan's nuclear weapons....On Monday, a State Department official once again addressed the issue and hinted that Washington was in control of the situation."... ultimately, the major responsibility for that falls with the Pakistani government. They have made public comments to the effect that the arsenal is secure, that they have taken a number of different steps to ensure that," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. "We ourselves see no indication to indicate to the contrary. It is secure. We obviously have an interest in seeing that it is secure," McCormack added.
Stratfor , too, appears confident that the Bush administration has a handle on Pak's nukes.
Not everyone is so sanguine. In a separate commentary over the weekend that had some US and Pakistani analysts blowing their gasket, two prominent Washington commentators detailed a US military action plan inside Pakistan, possibly with the cooperation of moderate Pakistani forces, to seize the nuclear arsenal if there was imminent danger of an extremist takeover. "As the government of Pakistan totters, we must face a fact: the United States simply could not stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss," proposed Frederick Kagan and Michael O'Hanlon, analysts at two Washington DC think-tanks. "One possible plan would be a Special Forces operation with the limited goal of preventing Pakistan's nuclear materials and warheads from getting into the wrong hands."

Pentagon says Pakistan nuclear arsenal secure: "... the Pakistani nuclear arsenal is under control," said Pentagon spokesman Col. Gary Keck. "At this time, we have no need for concern.http://snipurl.com/1vy7y

snapshots of 'SPECIAL FORCES' in Pakistan
Foreign Policy In Focus | Special Report | U.S. Foreign Military ...
Special Concerns About Special Operations Forces ... arming and training local anticommunist forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan,

Afghanistan Watch: British commander opens fire on US Special Force - The US retains a Special Forces presence in Helmand-

US Forces: The World's Best Relief Group - NGOs - Global Policy Forum
There is no better example than Pakistan, a country always on the brink of dissolving into chaos, which would result in America having to place Special Forces...

New target: US special forces trainers may be headed for Pakistan's unruly border in a desperate bid to win support among Islamist tribals ...
yaleglobal.yale.edu/article.print?id=10010 - 17k

Special Operations.Com
In march 1964 a Mobile Training Team from the US Army Special Forces Group (Airborne) went to Pakistan to set up a new airborne school at Peshawar ...

U.S. Considers Enlisting Tribes in Pakistan to Fight Al Qaeda ...
The United States now has only about 50 troops in Pakistan - In the past, American Special Forces have gone into foreign countries to work ...

Pakistan’s Collapse, Our Problem - Brookings Institution
One possible plan would be a Special Forces operation with the limited goal of preventing Pakistan’s nuclear materials and warheads from getting into the ...

"...Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama unambiguously define the fight against terrorist networks as a global war, and John Edwards, who has condemned the phrase "war on terror" as a "bumper-sticker slogan," adds that "there is no question that we must confront terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda with the full force of our military might."..."

Anglo-American Ambitions behind the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the Destabilization of Pakistan
By Larry Chin
It has been known for months that the Bush-Cheney administration and its allies have been maneuvering to strengthen their political control over Pakistan, paving the way for the expansion and deepening of the “war on terrorism” across the region. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto does not change this agenda. In fact, it simplifies options.

Seeding chaos with a pretext
“Delivering democracy to the Muslim world” has been the Orwellian rhetoric used to mask Bush-Cheney’s application of pressure and force, its dramatic attempt at reshaping of the Pakistani government (into a joint Bhutto/Sharif-Musharraf) coalition, and backdoor plans for a military intervention. Various American destabilization plans, known for months by officials and analysts, proposed the toppling of Pakistan's military.

The assassination of Bhutto appears to have been anticipated. There were even reports of “chatter” among US officials about the possible assassinations of either Pervez Musharraf or Benazir Bhutto, well before the actual attempts took place. As succinctly summarized in Jeremy Page’s article, "Who Killed Benazir Bhutto? The Main Suspects", the main suspects are
1) “Pakistani and foreign Islamist militants who saw her as a heretic and an American stooge”, and
2) the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, a virtual branch of the CIA. Bhutto’s husband Asif Ali Zardari directly accused the ISI of being involved in the October attack.
The assassination of Bhutto has predictably been blamed on “Al-Qaeda”, without mention of fact that Al-Qaeda itself is an Anglo-American military-intelligence operation....

ISI, a virtual branch of the CIA. Bhutto’s husband Asif Ali Zardari directly accused the ISI of being involved in the October attack.The assassination of Bhutto has predictably been blamed on “Al-Qaeda”, without mention of fact that Al-Qaeda itself is an Anglo-American military-intelligence operation.

Page’s piece was one of the first to name the man who has now been tagged as the main suspect: Baitullah Mehsud, a purported Taliban militant fighting the Pakistani army out of Waziristan. Conflicting reports link Mehsud to “Al-Qaeda”, the Afghan Taliban, and Mullah Omar (also see here). Other analysis links him to the terrorist A.Q. Khan.

Mehsud’s profile, and the reporting of it, echoes the propaganda treatment of all post-9/11 “terrorists”. This in turn raises familiar questions about Anglo-American intelligence agency propaganda involvement. Is Mehsud connected to the ISI or the CIA? What did the ISI and the CIA know about Mehsud? More importantly, does Mehsud, or the manipulation of the propaganda surrounding him provide Bush-Cheney with a pretext for future aggression in the region?

Classic “war on terrorism” propaganda
While details on the Bhutto assassination continue to unfold, what is clear is that it was a political hit, along the lines of US agent Rafik Harriri in Lebanon. Like the highly suspicious Harriri hit, the Bhutto assassination has been depicted by corporate media as the martyring of a great messenger of western-style “democracy”. Meanwhile, the US government’s ruthless actions behind the scenes have received scant attention.

The December 28, 2007 New York Times coverage of the Bhutto assassination offers the perfect example of mainstream Orwellian media distortion that hides the truth about Bush/Cheney agenda behind blatant propaganda smoke. This piece echoes White House rhetoric proclaiming that Bush’s main objectives are to “bring democracy to the Muslim world” and “force out Islamist militants”....

In fact, the central and consistent geostrategy of Bush-Cheney, and their elite counterparts around the world, is the continued imposition and expansion of the manufactured “war on terrorism”; the continuation of war across the Eurasian subcontinent, with events triggered by false flag operations and manufactured pretexts.

In fact, the main tools used in the “war on terrorism” remain Islamist militants, working on behalf of Anglo-American military intelligence agencies---among them, “Al-Qaeda”, and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, the ISI. Mehsud fits this the same profile....

Each successive Pakistani leader since the early 1990s---Bhutto, Sharif and Musharraf---have bowed to Western interests. The ISI is a virtual branch of the CIA. While Musharraf has been, and remains, a strongman... questions about his “reliability”, and control---both his regime’s control over the populace and growing popular unrest, and elite control over his regime---have driven attempts to force a clumsy (pro-US, Iraq-style) power-sharing government... playing “Russian roulette” with Musharraf, Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif---each of whom have been deeply corrupt, willing fronts for the US. The return of both Bhutto and the other former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has merely been an attempt by the US to hedge its regional power bets.

What exactly were John Negroponte and Condoleeza Rice really setting up the past few months?
Who benefits from Bhutto’s murder? The “war on terrorism” geostrategy and propaganda milieu, the blueprint that has been used since 9/11 to impose a continuing world war, is the clear beneficiary of the Bhutto assassination. Bush/Cheney and their equally complicit pro-war/pro-occupation counterparts in the Democratic Party enthusiastically support the routine use of “terror” pretexts to impose continued war policies.

True to form, fear, “terrorism”, “security” and military force, are once again, the focuses of Washington political rhetoric, and the around-the-clock media barrage. The 2008 US presidential candidates and their elite campaign advisers, all but a few of whom enthusiastically support the “war on terrorism”, have taken turns pushing their respective versions of “we must stop the terrorists” rhetoric for brain-addled supporters. The candidates whose polls have slipped, led by 9/11 participant and opportunist Rudy Guiliani, and hawkish neoliberal Hillary Clinton, have already benefited from a new round of mass fear.

Musharraf benefits from the removal of a bitter rival, but now must find a way to re-establish order. Musharraf now has an ideal justification to crack down on “terrorists” and impose full martial law, with Bush-Cheney working from the shadows behind Musharraf---and continuing to manipulate or remove his apparatus, if Musharraf proves too unreliable or broken to suit Anglo-American plans.

The likely involvement of the ISI behind the Bhutto hit cannot be overstated. ISI’s role behind every major act of “terrorism” since 9/11 remains the central unspoken truth behind current geopolitical realities. Bhutto, but not Sharif or Musharraf would have threatened the ISI’s agendas.
Bhutto, militant Islam, and the pipelines Now that she has been martyred, many unflattering historical facts about Benazir Bhutto will be hidden or forgotten. Bhutto herself was intimately involved in the creation of the very “terror” milieu purportedly responsible for her assassination. Across her political career, she supported militant Islamists, the Taliban, the ISI, and the ambitions of Western governments.

As noted by Michel Chossudovsky in America’s “War on Terrorism”, it was during Bhutto’s second term that Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) and the Taliban rose to prominence, welcomed into Bhutto’s coalition government. It was at that point that ties between the JUI, the Army and the ISI were established. While Bhutto’s relationship with both the ISI and the Taliban were marked by turmoil, it is clear that Bhutto, when in power, supported both---and enthusiastically supported Anglo-American interventions.

In his two landmark books, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia and Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia, Ahmed Rashid richly details the Bhutto regime’s connections to the ISI, the Taliban, “militant Islam”, multinational oil interests, and Anglo-American officials and intelligence proxies.

In Jihad, Rashid wrote: “Ironically it was not the ISI but Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the most liberal, secular leader in Pakistan’s recent history, who delivered the coup de grace to a new relationship with Central Asia. Rather than support a wider peace process in Afghanistan that would have opened up a wider peace process in Afghanistan, Bhutto backed the Taliban, in a rash and presumptuous policy to create a new western-oriented trade and pipeline route from Turkmenistan through southern Afghanistan to Pakistan, from which the Taliban would provide security. The ISI soon supported this policy because its Afghan protégé Gulbuddin Hekmatyar had made no headway in capturing Kabul, and the Taliban appeared to be strong enough to do so.”

In Taliban, Rashid provided even more historical detail: “When Bhutto was elected as Prime Minister in 1993, she was keen to open a route to Central Asia. A new proposal emerged backed strongly by the frustrated Pakistani transport and smuggling mafia, the JUI and Pashtun military and political officials ... The Bhutto government fully backed the Taliban, but the ISI remained skeptical of their abilities, convinced that they would remain a useful but peripheral force in the south... The US congress had authorized a covert $20 million budget for the CIA to destabilize Iran, and Tehran accused Washington of funneling some of these funds to the Taliban---a charge that was always denied by Washington . Bhutto sent several emissaries to Washington to urge the US to intervene more publicly on the side of Pakistan and the Taliban.”

Bhutto’s one mistake: she vehemently supported the pipeline proposed by Argentinean oil company Bridas, and opposed the pipeline by Unocal (favored by the US). This contributed to her ouster in 1996, and the return of Nawaz Sharif to power. As noted by Rashid:
“After the dismissal of the Bhutto government in 1996, the newly elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, his oil minister Chaudry Nisar Ali Khan, the army and the ISI fully backed Unocal. Pakistan wanted more direct US support for the Taliban and urged Unocal to start construction quickly in order to legitimize the Taliban. Basically the USA and Unocal accepted the ISI’s analysis and aims---that a Taliban victory in Afghanistan would make Unocal’s job much easier and quicken US recognition.”

Her appealing and glamorous pro-Western image notwithstanding, Bhutto’s true record is one of corruption and accommodation.... every major Anglo-American geostrategic crime has been preceded by a convenient pretext, orchestrated and carried out by “terror” proxies directly or indirectly connected to US military-intelligence, or manipulated into performing as intelligence assets. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is simply one more brutal example. This was Pakistan’s 9/11... Contrary to mainstream corporate news reporting, chaos benefits “war on terrorism”. Calls for “increased worldwide security” will pave the way for a muscular US reaction, US-led force and other forms of “crack down” from Bush-Cheney across the region. In other words, the assassination helps ensure that the US will not only never leave, but also increase its presence.

The Pakistani election, if it takes place at all, is a simpler two-way choice: pro-US Musharraf or pro-US Nawaz Sharif ... who now emerges as the sole competitor for Musharraf ... like Musharraf and Bhutto, is legendary for his accommodation to Anglo-American interests---pipelines, trade, and the continued US military presence. As Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie noted in the book Forbidden Truth, the October 1999 military coup led by Musharraf that originally toppled Sharif’s regime was sparked by animosity between the two camps, as well as “Sharif’s personal corruption and political megalomania”, and “concerns that Sharif was dancing too eagerly to Washington’s tune on Kashmir and Afghanistan”.

"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media"
former CIA Director William Colby (died suddenly after freak canoe accident) Bernstein's 1977 Oct. Rolling stone article.

U.S. Brokered Bhutto's Return to Pakistan: White House Would Back Her as Prime Minister While Musharraf Held Presidency
By Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler
Friday, December 28, 2007; A01
For Benazir Bhutto, the decision to return to Pakistan was sealed during a telephone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just a week before Bhutto flew home in October. The call culminated more than a year of secret diplomacy -- and came only when it became clear that the heir to Pakistan's most powerful political dynasty was the only one who could bail out Washington's key ally in the battle against terrorism. It was a stunning turnaround for Bhutto, a former prime minister who was forced from power in 1996 amid corruption charges. She was suddenly visiting with top State Department officials, dining with U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and conferring with members of the National Security Council. As President Pervez Musharraf's political future began to unravel this year, Bhutto became the only politician who might help keep him in power...By entering into the legendary "Great Game" of South Asia, the United States also made its goals and allies more vulnerable -- in a country in which more than 70 percent of the population already looked unfavorably upon Washington...

Bhutto's assassination during a campaign stop in Rawalpindi might even work in favor of her Pakistan People's Party, with parliamentary elections due in less than two weeks, Coleman said. "From the U.S. perspective, the PPP is the best ally the U.S. has in terms of an institution in Pakistan."
Bhutto's political comeback was a long time in the works -- and uncertain for much of the past 18 months. In mid-2006, Bhutto and Musharraf started communicating through intermediaries about how they might cooperate. Assistant Secretary of State Richard A. Boucher was often an intermediary, traveling to Islamabad to speak with Musharraf and to Bhutto's homes in London and Dubai to meet with her. Under U.S. urging, Bhutto and Musharraf met face to face in January and July in Dubai, according to U.S. officials. It was not a warm exchange, with Musharraf resisting a deal [note: initially, then agreed to u.s. "diplomacy" to save his quisling-ass] to drop corruption charges so she could return to Pakistan. He made no secret of his feelings....
A turning point was Bhutto's three-week U.S. visit in August, when she talked again to Boucher and to Khalilzad, an old friend. A former U.S. ambassador in neighboring Afghanistan, Khalilzad had long been skeptical about Musharraf, and while in Kabul he had disagreed with then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell over whether the Pakistani leader was being helpful in the fight against the Taliban. He also warned that Pakistani intelligence was allowing the Taliban to regroup in the border areas, U.S. officials said. When Bhutto returned to the United States in September, Khalilzad asked for a lift on her plane from New York to Aspen, Colo., where both were giving speeches. They spent much of the five-hour plane ride strategizing, said sources familiar with the diplomacy.... "She had been prime minister twice, and had not been able to accomplish very much because she did not have power over the most important institutions in Pakistan -- the ISI [intelligence agency], the military and the nuclear establishment," he said. "Without controlling those, she couldn't pursue peace with India, go after extremists or transfer funds from the military to social programs," Galbraith said. "Cohabitation with Musharraf made sense because he had control over the three institutions that she never did. This was the one way to accomplish something and create a moderate center."
The turning point to get Musharraf on board was a September trip by Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte to Islamabad. "He basically delivered a message to Musharraf that we would stand by him, but he needed a democratic facade on the government, and we thought Benazir was the right choice for that face," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and National Security Council staff member now at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy..."Musharraf still detested her, and he came around reluctantly as he began to recognize this fall that his position was untenable," Riedel said. The Pakistani leader had two choices: Bhutto or former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, whom Musharraf had overthrown in a 1999 military coup. "Musharraf took what he thought was the lesser of two evils," Riedel said. Many career foreign policy officials were skeptical of the U.S. plan. "There were many inside the administration, at the State and Defense Departments and in intelligence, who thought this was a bad idea from the beginning because the prospects that the two could work together to run the country effectively were nil," said Riedel.

As part of the deal, Bhutto's party agreed not to protest against Musharraf's reelection in September to his third term. In return, Musharraf agreed to lift the corruption charges against Bhutto. But Bhutto sought one particular guarantee -- that Washington would ensure Musharraf followed through on free and fair elections producing a civilian government. Rice, who became engaged in the final stages of brokering a deal, called Bhutto in Dubai and pledged that Washington would see the process through, according to Siegel. A week later, on Oct. 18, Bhutto returned. Ten weeks later, she was dead. Xenia Dormandy, former National Security Council expert on South Asia now at Harvard University's Belfer Center, said U.S. meddling is not to blame for Bhutto's death. "It is very clear the United States encouraged" an agreement, she said, "but U.S. policy is in no way responsible for what happened. I don't think we could have played it differently."
U.S. policy -- and the commitment to Musharraf -- remains unchanged. In a statement yesterday, Rice appealed to Pakistanis to remain calm and to continue seeking to build a "moderate" democracy. "I don't think it would do any justice to her memory to have an election postponed or canceled simply as a result of this tragic incident," State Department spokesman Tom Casey told reporters. "The only people that win through such a course of action are the people who perpetrated this attack."

A Hero for Democracy? As Pakistan threatens to fall into chaos, the martyred Benazir Bhutto may become in death what she never achieved in life
By Michael Hirsh, Newsweek Web Exclusive, Dec 27, 2007, http://www.newsweek.com/id/82139
from Pakistan After Bhutto, Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/publication/15130/pakistan_after_bhutto.html, quoted in:
...Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official and key South Asia policymaker in the 1990s, told CFR.org he believes Bhutto’s assassination “was almost certainly the work of al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda’s Pakistani allies... Bhutto’s death means that the United States will have to rethink its strategy for nudging forward democratization in Pakistan. It had been pushing for a deal between Musharraf and Bhutto in the hope that Bhutto’s return to power would lend legitamacy to Musharraf’s increasingly unpopular government....Facing a great deal of criticism for its support of Musharraf, the United States condemned the attack. President George W. Bush called it an attempt to “undermine Pakistan’s democracy.” U.S. presidential candidates also expressed concern about the region’s stability...The U.S. Congress ...has questioned the effectiveness of nearly $10 billion in aid to Musharraf in the war against terrorism. Last week, it imposed new restrictions (AP) on U.S. assistance to Pakistan... Washington has no choice but to back Musharraf now [...]

U.S. did not comply with Bhutto's specific request for Blackwater protection
NPR TV newsreport 12/28

Editorial, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/opinion/28fri1.html?th=&emc=th&pagewan...
After Benazir Bhutto
... Ms. Bhutto’s death leaves the Bush administration with no visible strategy for extricating Pakistan from its crisis or rooting out Al Qaeda and the Taliban, which have made the country their most important rear base. Betting America’s security (and Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal) on an unaccountable dictator, President Pervez Musharraf, did not work. Betting it on a back-room alliance between that dictator and Ms. Bhutto, who had hoped to win a third try as prime minister next month, is no longer possible. That leaves Mr. Bush with the principled, if unfamiliar, option of using American prestige and resources to fortify Pakistan’s badly battered democratic institutions. There is no time to waste.With next month’s parliamentary elections already scrambled, Washington must now call for new rules to assure a truly democratic vote.... That means a relatively brief delay to allow Ms. Bhutto’s party, probably the country’s largest, to choose a new candidate for prime minister and mount an abbreviated campaign. Washington must also demand that Pakistan’s other main opposition leader, Nawaz Sharif, be allowed to run. And it must insist that Mr. Musharraf reinstate the impartial Supreme Court judges he fired last month in order to block them from overturning his rigged election.Mr. Musharraf is stubborn. Washington will need to send the same message to Pakistan’s military leaders, perhaps the ex-general’s only remaining backers...
The United States cannot afford to have Pakistan unravel any further. The lesson of the last six years is that authoritarian leaders — even ones backed with billions in American aid — don’t make reliable allies, and they can’t guarantee security. American policy must now be directed at building a strong democracy in Pakistan...

Bipartisan ruling class unity around U.S. intensifying 'GWOT' strategy for global domination
News Analysis
Salvaging U.S. Diplomacy Amid Division
...On Thursday, officials at the American Embassy in Islamabad reached out to members of the political party of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, according to a senior administration official. The very fact that officials are even talking to backers of Mr. Sharif, who they believe has too many ties to Islamists, suggests how hard it will be to find a partner the United States fully trusts.... the administration had been so fighting hard ...to broker an agreement in which the increasingly unpopular Mr. Musharraf would share power with Ms. Bhutto after presidential and parliamentary elections. American officials viewed the power-sharing proposal partly as a way to force Mr. Musharraf onto a democratic path, and partly to relieve the growing pressure for his ouster. On the basis of that plan, Ms. Bhutto returned to Pakistan in October after eight years of self-imposed exile.
But the power-sharing deal never came to fruition, as the increasingly besieged Mr. Musharraf imposed a series of autocratic measures that left him politically weakened. Administration officials continued to prod Ms. Bhutto toward an arranged marriage with Mr. Musharraf even during the emergency rule. Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte traveled to Pakistan in November, and spoke by telephone to Ms. Bhutto...With both sides balking at the power-sharing deal — an agreement one Bush official acknowledged was “like putting two pythons in the same cage” — Mr. Negroponte continued to push Ms. Bhutto to agree to the plan, according to members of Ms. Bhutto’s political party....hoping that Mr. Musharraf and Ms. Bhutto would form an alliance between their political parties after Pakistan’s Jan. 8 elections, which would bring about as close to a pro-American governing coalition in Pakistan as the United States was likely to get....
“The danger is the centrist elements of Pakistan will be so demoralized,” said Stephen P. Cohen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He criticized the administration for not nurturing Pakistan’s opposition for so long after Mr. Musharraf’s coup in 1999. He expressed hope that the United States could still urge moderate parties to ally themselves with Mr. Musharraf, forming a governing coalition...Ms. Schaffer and other Pakistan experts say the administration was making a mistake by viewing Mr. Sharif with suspicion. They said that he was a moderate who will work with the United States in the fight against terrorism, citing his cooperation with Clinton administration.
Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, was in Islamabad with Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island, on a scheduled trip and preparing to meet Ms. Bhutto at 9 p.m. Thursday when the news of the bombing broke. They watched the news in their hotel, with initial reports that she had escaped injury giving way to confirmation of her death...“Now, without her, we have to regroup.”

Pro-US-democracy- loving Bhutto supporters not stopped by Pak govt./military
Pakistan: Workers burn to death as riot toll hits 32:
Six people were burnt to death when a mob enraged by the assassination of former premier Benazir Bhutto torched a factory in the southern Pakistani city of Karachi, police said. http://snipurl.com/1vy7j
Bhutto’s supporters ransacked banks, and factories, waged shootouts with police and burned trains and stations in a spasm of violence less than two weeks before parliamentary elections. Soldiers patrolled the streets of the southern cities of Hyderabad and Karachi in an effort to quell violence, witnesses said. At least 23 people were killed said Ghulam Mohammed Mohtaram, home secretary for Sindh province. http://snipurl.com/1vy7n
At least 9 persons, including a former minister, were killed and several others injured in an explosion after a public meeting in Pakistan's troubled Swat valley on Friday, witnesses and police said, as Asfandyar Amirzaib, a former provincial minister and pro-Musharraf leader, contesting for a provincial assembly as a candidate of the Muslim League-Q party, came out of the venue of public meeting a powerful explosion occurred killing the victims on the spot. http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0712287286155231.htm

Strategic Non-Violence: Helping hand on the road to reform
initiatives in China, Pakistan, Vietnam and North Korea. .... financial help from the Open Society Institution of tycoon George Soros,

"Gene Sharp started out the seminar by saying 'Strategic nonviolent struggle is all about political power.' And I thought, 'Boy is this guy speaking my language,' that is what armed struggle is about."
Col. Robert Helvey

Washington's New World Order "Democratization" Template: Strategic Non-Violence Strategy
The Democratic party's National Democratic Institute, the Republican party's International Republican Institute, the US State Department and USAID are the main agencies involved in these grassroots campaigns with the Freedom House NGO and billionaire George Soros's Open Society Institute .
Two Americans detained by Iran for alleged spying admitted involvement in US-backed pro-democracy projects.

Pursuant to this approach, UPEACE has worked ...... Union and the United States, India and Pakistan, and North Korea ...
...We also need to fully take stock of new or neglected instruments of power. For instance, "people power," in which massive groups of citizens withdraw their obedience to an illegitimate regime and demonstrate their dissatisfaction through strategic non-violence, can also be part of the solution in regional flashpoints, as recently shown in Belgrade. The United States needs to develop its tools for working with people on the ground, not just imposing solutions from afar. We need to further refine our understanding of how to break the obedience of the governed from tyrannies.
We should make use of our "soft power" dominance, such as how we allow civil society and the business sector to flourish independently of central government control. There is a multiplicity of challenges in the world today, and the United States should expand its toolkit in order to deal with these challenges through the most appropriate and cost-effective means.
The above excerpt is from: USIP 1 December 2000 | Special Report No. 64
Adapting to the New National Security Environment
This report presents the highlights of the annual conference of DACOR (Diplomatic and Consular Officers, Retired Association) held at the World Bank in conjunction with the United States Institute of Peace on October 6.

Pakistan: Student Resistance
BY Joe Rubin
November 22, 2007
It has been a little over two weeks since Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf dismissed the country's Supreme Court and declared a state of emergency. Musharraf has encountered resistance from lawyers, professionals, and ordinary citizens, and from an unexpected place: students at a private college in the city of Lahore. Before the government imposed martial law on November 3, Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) was hardly known as a hotbed of activism. Until recently, said one student, you would be more likely to find a passionate debate about an underground Urdu rock band than about politics...The Emergency Times, a blog started by LUMS students to protest martial law, declares: "No longer are we going to be conformist to our government's policies...no longer are we going to be scared to raise our voice because we are intimidated by the state's power. The LUMS campus was the first in Pakistan to hold organized rallies against the state of emergency. Those protests are spreading to other campuses as well. Last week at Punjab University, the former cricket star turned opposition leader Imran Khan came out of hiding and joined a student protest. In a sign that campuses aren't always sanctuaries from the government crackdown, Islamist students seized Khan and with the help of the university administration turned him over to police. He remains in jail and faces charges of incitement under the "Anti-Terrorism Act." With independent media like GEO TV off the air, the LUMS students are getting their message out by blogging, using YouTube and conducting interviews via Skype video.

Media promotes u.s. strategic non-violence', accessory to military aggression in u.s. global domination agenda
Defiance undeterred: Burmese activists seek ways to oust the junta
By Amy Kazmin
December 6 2007
In 1994 a visionary American appeared on the Thai-Burmese border, preaching non-violence to students from Burma who more than five years before had fled a crackdown on a pro-democracy uprising and were committed to armed struggle against their country’s military rulers. Gene Sharp, the Oxford-educated, Harvard-affiliated theoretician on peaceful resistance to repression, urged the rebels to embrace non-violent means to fight the junta. His acolyte, retired colonel Robert Helvey, a US military attaché in Rangoon in the 1980s, expounded on how to use military-style planning and strategising for peaceful dissent... Over the last three years, activists from the exile movement’s “political defiance committee” have trained an estimated 3,000 fellow-Burmese from all walks of life – including several hundred Buddhist monks – in philosophies and strategies of non-violent resistance and community organising. These workshops, held in border areas and drawing people from all over Burma, were seen as “training the trainers”, who would go home and share these ideas with others yearning for change. That preparation – along with material support such as mobile phones – helped lay the groundwork for dissident Buddhist monks in September to call for a religious boycott of the junta, precipitating the biggest anti-government protests in two decades... western help – from the Washington-based National Endowment for Democracy, George Soros’ Open Society Institute and several European countries... In 2006 and 2007, the congressionally funded NED, the largest financial supporter of the democracy movement, spent around $3.7m a year on its Burmese programme – up from $1.2m in 1996 and a mere $290,000 in 1994.
Since then, the generals – citing exiled opposition groups’ western connections, including foreign funding – have fulminated about what they describe as a CIA plot to instigate mass unrest and overthrow them. This week, Brig Gen Kyaw Hsan, the information minister, called protests a western plot to install a “puppet government” in Burma – a theme echoed by some critics of Washington, who have called the protesters a “human stage prop” in a US play for geostrategic control in Asia....
International donors and activists figure Burmese opposition groups received $8m-$10m in 2006 and again in 2007 from American and European funders for pro-democracy activities inside and outside Burma, including health and education projects. The political defiance trainer – asking not to be identified due to concerns about his security – likens western support for the opposition movement as a protective “shield” for dissidents struggling against a regime that monopolises profits from Burma’s rich natural resources, including natural gas...
Many trained activists are lying low inside, awaiting another chance to act, say exiles, who themselves are continuing their defiance training on the border....

Who Really Brought Down Milosevic?
November 26, 2000
...American assistance to Otpor and the 18 parties that ultimately ousted Milosevic is still a highly sensitive subject. But Paul B. McCarthy, an official with the Washington-based National Endowment for Democracy, is ready to divulge some details... McCarthy says, ''from August 1999 the dollars started to flow to Otpor pretty significantly.'' Of the almost $3 million spent by his group in Serbia since September 1998, he says, ''Otpor was certainly the largest recipient.'' The money went into Otpor accounts outside Serbia. At the same time, McCarthy held a series of meetings with the movement's leaders in Podgorica, the capital of Montenegro, and in Szeged and Budapest in Hungary. Homen, at 28 one of Otpor's senior members, was one of McCarthy's interlocutors. ''We had a lot of financial help from Western nongovernmental organizations,'' Homen says. ''And also some Western governmental organizations.''
At a June meeting in Berlin, Homen heard Albright say, ''We want to see Milosevic out of power, out of Serbia and in The Hague,'' the site of the international war crimes tribunal. The Otpor leader would also meet with William D. Montgomery, the former American ambassador to Croatia, in the American Embassy in Budapest. (Washington had by then severed diplomatic relations with Belgrade.)...Just how much money backed this objective is not clear. The United States Agency for International Development says that $25 million was appropriated just this year. Several hundred thousand dollars were given directly to Otpor for ''demonstration-support material, like T-shirts and stickers,'' says Donald L. Pressley, the assistant administrator. Otpor leaders intimate they also received a lot of covert aid -- a subject on which there is no comment in Washington. At the International Republican Institute, another nongovernmental Washington group financed partly by A.I.D., an official named Daniel Calingaert says he met Otpor leaders ''7 to 10 times'' in Hungary and Montenegro, beginning in October 1999. Some of the $1.8 million the institute spent in Serbia in the last year was ''provided direct to Otpor,'' he says. By this fall, Otpor was no ramshackle students' group; it was a well-oiled movement backed by several million dollars from the United States.
But other American help was as important as money. Calingaert's organization arranged for a seminar at the luxurious Budapest Hilton from March 31 to April 3. There a retired United States Army colonel, Robert Helvey, instructed more than 20 Otpor leaders in techniques of nonviolent resistance. This session appears to have been significant. It also suggests a link between the American-influenced opposition base in Budapest and the events in Vladicin Han...Otpor activists listened as Helvey dissected what he called the ''pillars of support'' of the regime. These naturally included the police, the army and the news media, but also the more intangible force of Milosevic's ''authority.'' That is, his capacity to give orders and be obeyed... Find nonviolent ways to undermine authority, Helvey suggested. Look at Myanmar....[see The South China Morning Press - Discreet "Helping hand on the road to reform" by Greg Torode, October 28, 2007, http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsffc4.html]
Organization was intense. Throughout Serbia, activists were trained in how to play hide-and-seek with the police, how to respond to interrogation, how to develop a message in posters and pamphleteering, how to transfer fear from the population into the regime itself and how to identify and begin to infiltrate Helvey's ''pillars of support'' in the police and elsewhere...
Just how effective that infiltration was became clear to Srdja 12 days before Milosevic's July 27 call for a presidential election. Otpor received advance word of Milosevic's intentions in secret e-mailed messages from anonymous dissenters within the regime. As a result, Otpor already had more than 60 tons of electoral propaganda ready on July 27... The Otpor manual of Gene Sharp had been emphatic on this point: ''Defiance strategists should remember that it will be exceptionally difficult, or impossible, to disintegrate the dictatorship if the police, bureaucrats and military forces remain fully supportive of the dictatorship and obedient in carrying out its commands. Strategies aimed at subverting the loyalty of the dictators' forces should therefore be given a high priority.''
They were, says Zoran Zivkovic, the mayor of the southern city of Nis and a close ally of Otpor. ''We had secret talks with the army and police, the units we knew would be drafted to intervene,'' he confides. ''And the deal was that they would not disobey, but neither would they execute. If they had said no, other units would have been brought in. So they said yes when Milosevic asked for action -- and they did nothing.''...
Serbian future, in many respects, lies with Otpor. ''We hope the new generation of leaders will come from Otpor's ranks,'' says Montgomery, the Budapest-based American diplomat, who is set to move to Belgrade as ambassador when diplomatic relations are restored. That would be a fair return on America's investment in the movement.... While the debate on its future rages, Otpor is everything and nothing in the new Serbia. It is not a party; it is not even registered as a nongovernmental organization. Yet, in what is destined to become a capitalist country, it is probably Serbia's most respected brand name. As McCarthy of the National Endowment for Democracy notes, ''Otpor was always as much a state of mind as a movement.'' Some American officials are pressing the group to register and make its budget at least semitransparent. But the response from Otpor leaders is that the situation in Serbia is still too sensitive....
Roger Cohen, the Berlin bureau chief for The New York Times, covered the Balkan wars in 1994 and 1995.

revving up 'strategic non-violence' 'pro-democracy' forces' 'civil unrest'...
US State Department backs President Musharraf fully
* US hails Pakistan as modernising state committed to economic, political reforms
By Khalid Hasan
June 17, 2007
WASHINGTON: The State Department continued on Friday with its carefully-worded statements on the situation in Pakistan, which at first reading may show a bias in favour of democratisation but closer scrutiny shows that the US government’s support for Gen Musharraf and his continuance in office remains unchanged. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack asked if there had been “some kind of shift in policy” toward Pakistan, going by the Department’s earlier statement that it hoped Gen Musharraf would cast off his uniform, replied that he was only “repeating” what Gen Musharraf had said. “It’s a self-imposed condition by President Musharraf,” he added, making it clear that on its own, the US government was not going to take a position on the uniform issue.The spokesman’s repetition of what has now come to be seen as the “standard mantra” of “free, fair and transparent elections” was next to leave his lips. He went on to call Pakistan “a modernising state ... committed to economic and political reforms” with President Musharraf as “the one who has led that way”. Also mentioned with approval was the fact that Gen Musharraf had “taken the step” of rescinding restrictions he had earlier placed on the media, “which we think is a positive move.”
McCormack went on to mouth the cliché that “ultimately, these are decisions for the Pakistani people.” In the next breath he said, “We believe that President Musharraf is an agent for positive change not only in the region but for Pakistan.” He then went on the compare Pakistan with what it was in its 2001 pro-Taliban phase and what it is today. Since no State Department reference to Pakistan is complete without a reference to “extremism” and Afghanistan, the spokesman having made that reference, added that the Pakistanis recognise that they have a problem but Pakistan remains “a country that is headed in the right direction in terms of its reforms. They are going to define for themselves the pace at which that happens. But we’re going to be right there with them as a partner, as long as they continue along that track, which they are. And we’re going to encourage them along the way. And if there are issues, we’re going to deal with them as friends. We’re going to talk to them in a respectful manner both in public and in private, but we won’t hesitate to speak out.”

When asked how “concerned” the US is with the “very real volatility of the civil unrest that’s going on in the streets at the moment” something that is “kind of turning into a pro-democracy movement.” McCormack, finding himself cornered, replied, “I’ll leave it to others to do the political science evaluation in what’s going on in Pakistan. Look, there are differences of opinion in Pakistan over the handling of the case of the chief justice, and those are going to be worked out within the context of Pakistani politics and specifically with Justice Chaudhry within the confines of Pakistani law and their own constitution. This is what you see in a political system that is beginning to open up, and that is positive; that people are free to express their opinions.” McCormack next advised the questioner not to be swayed by the “unsettling” pictures he sometimes saw on his TV screen, since “this is part of an emerging Pakistani democracy and I think that we should look upon that as something that is positive.” This advice was followed by a ringing endorsement of President Musharraf. “These are – this is the result of changes that President Musharraf has made. It’s part of their opening up,” he said. He also underplayed the significance of the Boucher and Negraponte visits, describing them as of a routine nature and meant as a “regular message of support for continuing political and economic reforms as well as specific discussions on discrete bilateral issues as well as regional issues.”

beware 'peaceful' liberal-imperialist leftgatekeepers...
Cut U.S. Ties to Musharraf
By Medea Benjamin [CODE PINK]
Musharraf's use of US funds to crack down on the country's democratic forces has led to growing anti-American sentiments among the nation's moderate, secular forces. The U.S. government should withhold assistance until Musharraf steps down and a caretaker government restores the independent judiciary, lifts restrictions on the press and sets up the conditions for fair elections.

"...Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama unambiguously define the fight against terrorist networks as a global war, and John Edwards, who has condemned the phrase "war on terror" as a "bumper-sticker slogan," adds that "there is no question that we must confront terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda with the full force of our military might."..."

Bush Will Veto Defense Policy Measure Pelosi Says:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada condemned Bush's veto of the $696 billion defense policy measure. The Democratic leaders noted that the bill includes ``urgent national security priorities,'' a 3.5 percent pay raise for U.S. troops and improved veterans' health care. http://snipurl.com/1vy8a

IRAQ: 'Awakening' Forces Arouse New Conflicts
Ali al-Fadhily and Dahr Jamail*
The controversial move of the U.S. military to back Sunni "Awakening" forces has created another wedge between Sunni and Shia political groups. Following disputes between the tribal groups assembled into Awakening forces and the Iraqi government, the creation of these forces has become also a political issue. U.S.-backed Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who heads a Shia political bloc, has adamantly opposed the U.S.-military policy of backing tribal groups and former resistance fighters.... http://www.uruknet.de/?p=39550

Iraqis divided over Sunni militias
Ahmed Janabi, Aljazeera.net
...Fadil al-Rubei, Iraqi historian, says al-Sahwa might become the de facto army of the intended Sunni region in central Iraq, given the fact that the majority of Iraq's army and police are Shia and the Kurds have their own Peshmerga forces. Al-Rubei said: "I believe the US occupation has started the third phase of its strategy in Iraq. The first was to pit one sect against the other when it brought the Shia religious parties to power at the expense of the Sunnis and others."
"The second phase was to aid the losing sect [Sunnis], to annoy yesterday's winner and sow discord among sects. This was demonstrated by major modifications to the de-Baathification law and the re-employment of many former second rung [Baath] officials."
"The third phase is to strengthen the tribe against the sect. The creation of tribal militia has split the Sunnis. The Iraqi Islamic Party of Tariq al-Hashimi, Iraq's Sunni vice-president, backs the militias, while the Association of Muslim scholars, the highest Sunni authority in Iraq, is against them [the militias]...
Khalid al-Maeini, a senior researcher at the Iraqi Center for Strategic Studies in Jordan, said: "The year 2008 will witness deep divisions among Iraqis, which will weaken the central government, [creating an] ideal environment for the breaking up of a country or the establishment of semi-independent regions." ... www.english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FC2AB9C8-CD70-4D88-85D7-6D5087A6AB2F...

The nationalist version of tribal mobilization
There was a brief reference to the Central Council of the Arab Tribes of Iraq in Al-Hayat last week, where the point was that one of the sources of GreenZone anxiety about the "awakenings" is the fact that they might serve as a vehicle, or an occasion, for the mobilization of pan-Iraqi nationalism, with anti-occupation implications. This has been overlooked in the Western accounts of the whole awakening phenomenon, which talk about GreenZone (and US military) anxiety about the awakenings only in its other form, which is--you guessed it!--the sectarian "Sunni versus Shiia" perspective. The more things change (in Iraq), the more they stay the same (in the Western accounts). Today Al-Hayat reports on another meeting of this tribal council, this one held in Damascus, and the journalist names a number of the participating tribal leaders with their regions of origin, noting that they included Shia and Sunni, from Anbar, Mosul, Basra and other regions, along with some religious leaders... http://www.uruknet.de/?p=39580

More Food Under Saddam Than U.S.
Ahmed Ali and Dahr Jamail*
The Iraqi government announcement that monthly food rations will be cut by half has left many Iraqis asking how they can survive. The government also wants to reduce the number of people depending on the rationing system by five million by June 2008. Iraq's food rations system was introduced by the Saddam Hussein government in 1991 in response to the UN economic sanctions. Families were allotted basic foodstuffs monthly because the Iraqi Dinar and the economy collapsed. The sanctions, imposed after Saddam Hussein ordered the invasion of Kuwait, were described as "genocidal" by Denis Halliday, then UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq. Halliday quit his post in protest against the U.S.-backed sanctions. The sanctions killed half a million Iraqi children, and as many adults, according to the UN. They brought malnutrition, disease, and lack of medicines. Iraqis became nearly completely reliant on food rations for survival. The programme has continued into the U.S.-led occupation. But now the U.S.-backed [SIC] Iraqi government has announced it will halve the essential items in the ration because of "insufficient funds and spiraling inflation."... http://www.uruknet.de/?p=39578

And the "Show" goes on...
Layla Anwar, An Arab Woman Blues
Conquer, divide, split and fragment. Pit one against the other and one against the same...Yesterday’s foes are today’s friends, and today’s friends are tomorrow’s enemies... And the show goes on... those who pontificate and argue that the seeds of sectarianism/tribalism were already present in Iraq since the times of the British or those who hold the argument that in over 30 years, the Iraqi State had failed to form a national identity... and after all, what is happening now is a natural consequence of those already existing divisions. These same ones "forget" to mention that those who fought on the basis of a "national identity " as opposed to sect, tribe, or ethnicity were either killed or are in prisons, under the pretext of insurgency and terrorism... starting with, the previous legitimate leaders of Iraq....It is mind boggling that these called analysts have not only understood nothing but are also in total denial of the massive, previously unheard of, unseen volume of destruction that Americans have wrought (and continue doing) in Iraq.

Imagine for one moment that any other multi ethnic/sect country has known the same amount of violence and destruction, let us take for example the U.S. Imagine...your government being decimated (not a bad thing in your case, I admit), imagine thousands of foreign troops, contractors, militias, death squads, mercenaries roaming around your streets. Imagine you have no water and no electricity for over 4 years now. Imagine nothing functions anymore. Imagine you are evicted from your home. Imagine you are exiled. Imagine your kids and parents killed. Imagine you lost your job and your unemployment rate is well over 80%. Imagine there is a quisling government that took over the White house and who speaks Zulu as opposed to English, imagine your universities, banks, schools, hospitals ransacked and closed. Imagine...

I can bet you anything that in no time the Protestants will pit against the Catholics, the Whites against the Blacks, the Blacks against the Asians, the Asians against the Hispanics and the Hispanics against the Arabs...Then add to that, special squads and forces whose sole aim is to ignite those tensions until they flare up...and Imagine what you will get....
In Iraq there is NO MORE STATE...when there is no more central state, you can create several small ones...And who do you bring to rule these small states ? Your devotees naturally.... It’s the American (and British and Iranian) occupation, stupid !

Bushco. and Dems Pledge to increase occupation forces in Afghanistan.
Joe Kay, WSWS
The Bush administration is preparing to significantly increase US troop levels in Afghanistan in an attempt to quell growing popular hostility to the US and NATO occupying forces.... it will face no significant opposition from the Democratic-controlled Congress. On the contrary, much of the criticism from leading Democrats of the administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq has been based on the charge that the US preoccupation with Iraq has diverted troops and resources from what they claim is the real center of the "war on terror"—namely, Afghanistan. Leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have pledged, if elected, to increase US troop levels in Afghanistan.... http://www.uruknet.de/?p=39581

Another massacre of civilians by NATO forces in Afghanistan
Prof. Marc W. Herold, The Afghan Victim Memorial Project
In memory of the many civilians killed during December 23-26, 2007in Dosang and Doab, district of Char Chino, in central Uruzgan Province where U.S., Dutch and Afghan forces launched a large clearing operation. The U.S. propaganda machine in Kabul said "…early this week so far 150 rebels have been killed." The Taliban according to the Afghan Islamic Press reported 50 civilians being killed. In August 2007, Iqbal Khattak of Pakistan’s Daily Times reported that Taliban training camps had been established in the districts of Char Chino, Gayzab and Chora in Uruzgan.

As documented in The Afghan Victim Memorial Project, US/NATO raids have been frequent and very deadly for Afghan civilians in these districts. Dutch and Australian occupation forces have been very active in so-called clearing operations. The Dutch also employ heavy artillery (German-built Panzerhaubitze 155mm self-propelled howitzers) capable of hitting targets 40 kms away like Chora from the Dutch main base, Camp Holland, in Tirin Kot. The Dutch also employ Apache helicopter gunships and six F-16s based in Kandahar. Dutch military actions have led to many civilian casualties. On December 19th, an important article appeared in The Netherlands with the title, "Afghanistan is becoming the Netherlands’ Vietnam," which argued that the shortage of ground troops led the US/NATO forces to rely upon air power which, in turn, causes massive civilian casualties. The independent Dutch journalist, Arnold Karstens, reported that 300 Afghan civilians had been killed by NATO actions, five times as many civilians as Taliban fighters!

The physical isolation of districts like Gayzab and Char Chino make it easier for the U.S. and NATO to control information. Few independent persons dare venture off in such regions. The large clearing operation launched in the Char Chino district around December 23rd, no doubt with much close air support, will have certainly caused many civilian deaths which we will only find out about in the months to come. After all, it took months for the details about the "Battle of Chora", June 16-20, 2007, to be revealed (in a report by the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission). That battle resulted in the deaths of 30-88 civilians and the wounding of another 80-100 (details at http://www.rnw.nl/ppp/AIHRCChora.pdf ).


The editor in chief of Ha'aretz: U.S. Should 'Rape' Israel
From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Journalist: U.S. Should 'Rape' Israel
By Staff Reporter of The New York Sun December 27, 2007
The editor in chief of Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper, David Landau, confirmed yesterday that he has pleaded with Secretary of State Rice to "rape" Israel and its neighbors into resolving their problems... during a gathering of 20 Israeli leaders - including academic, military, and press figures - at the home of the American ambassador in Tel Aviv, Richard Jones, "I don't go back on what I said," he said, adding that he had published similar
sentiments for decades.Even as a Jerusalem Post cub reporter in the 1970s, he said, he had pleaded with the then-undersecretary of state, Joseph Cisco, to "squeeze" Israel and the rest of the Middle East's warring parties, so they could achieve peace. ...

genocide AKA 'human rights violations'...
Weekly Report: On Israeli Human Rights Violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory No. 50/2007 ( 13 - 26 Dec. 2007 )
PCHR - Palestinian Centre for Human Rights
Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) Escalate Attacks against Palestinian Civilians and Property in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), Especially in the Gaza Strip:

23 Palestinians, including one civilian, were killed by IOF in the Gaza Strip.
10 of the victims were extra-judicially executed by IOF.
8 of the victims were killed by IOF during an offensive on al-Musaddar village in the central Gaza Strip.
32 Palestinians were wounded by the IOF gunfire in the Gaza Strip, and 9 persons, including an American human rights defender, were wounded by IOF in the West Bank.
IOF invaded al-Musaddar village in the central Gaza Strip
IOF razed 133 donums[1] of agricultural land.....