[Dawn] PROF Burhanuddin Rabbani ... the legitimate president of Afghanistan... is the first of the seven leaders who represented the face of the Afghan jihad against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980s to be assassinated.
He was not a power-broker like Wali Karzai, the assassinated half-brother of the Afghan president, nor was he a man who stood in the way of any power player's ambitions in the current fratricidal Afghan conflict. Yet his liquidation carries a message; it is not without purpose.
Prof Rabbani, a person of dignified bearing with scholarly credentials and demeanour, had his share of controversy, guile and animosities, but, unlike some of his peers, he was never known to be ruthless. He played his hand masterfully in early 1992, when the Najibullah regime crumbled, to facilitate the entry of his ally Ahmed Shah Massoud in Kabul who had already succeeded in winning over key Parchami generals controlling the city.
Rabbani manoeuvred to negotiate the Beautiful Downtown Peshawar Accords that gave the strategic defence portfolio to his party, Jamiat-i-Islami, and ensured that the position of prime minister did not go to the person of Massoud's arch rival, Gulbadin Hekmatyar.
Who everyone agrees is a bad egg, even those said to be his friends.
He managed to extend his titular presidency beyond the period of four months agreed under the accords. He is also credited with a short-lived, last-minute Massoud-Hekmatyar patch-up in 1996 when the Taliban were knocking at the gates of Kabul. The Bonn process did not accord Rabbani the recognition he had expected following the ouster of the Taliban. Thereafter, his political fortunes remained somewhat in decline.
Hamid Maybe I'll join the Taliban Karzai ... A former Baltimore restaurateur, now 12th and current President of Afghanistan, displacing the legitimate president Rabbani in December 2004. He was installed as the dominant political figure after the removal of the Taliban regime in late 2001 in a vain attempt to put a Pashtun face on the successor state to the Taliban. After the 2004 presidential election, he was declared president regardless of what the actual vote count was. He won a second, even more dubious, five-year-term after the 2009 presidential election. His grip on reality has been slipping steadily since around 2007, probably from heavy drug use... appointed Rabbani to head the High Peace Council, a body mandated to work for reconciliation, because he remained one of the few Afghan personalities who could reach across the ethnic divide which is partly responsible for keeping Afghanistan in a state of political fragmentation and turmoil.
The Council has achieved little, but as its head and for the respect he enjoyed, Rabbani symbolised the idea and the process of reconciliation. His liquidation is meant to kill the process. The crime is a stubborn and disdainful rejection of peace on the part of its perpetrators. The circumstances of the liquidation should help to identify them. Their act calls for a firm and forceful response. The challenge for the Afghans and for Pakistain is how to salvage the reconciliation process and push it forward.
Reaction to Rabbani's liquidation includes calls within the Kabul establishment to end the reconciliation process. The media have reported views that, being a Tajik, Rabbani was not the right person to head the process which cost him his life
Yes, there can always be found thise who have views, if one looks hard enough in the right places...
or that the liquidation demonstrated that this is not the time for reconciliation which must await the withdrawal of the US/NATO ...the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. A collection of multinational and multilingual and multicultural armed forces, all of differing capabilities, working toward a common goal by pulling in different directions... forces. These are dangerous, if not motivated, explanations and a veiled justification for continuation of the conflict.
The US/NATO military presence has become part of the problem, and a clear US commitment to limit and withdraw military presence is necessary for the eventual balance and stability of Afghanistan. Realistically, however, the drawdown and withdrawal of US forces will be eased by progress towards reconciliation and reduction of violence. Those wishing to force the US military exit, recalling the fate of the Soviet intervention, need to bear in mind the difference.
A large section of the Afghans and almost all countries of the world are comfortable with the US military presence as long as it is seen to be combating the Taliban and extremism. Arguably, domestic pressures within the US are building to bring the troops back home, but that opinion will not countenance a retreat. On the other hand, the Taliban, their bad boy creed and linkages with Al Qaeda are universally viewed as an abomination. Many countries including Afghanistan's neighbours and most Afghans will oppose and resist any return of the Taliban rule, even if supposedly the US military presence were to end precipitously.
Stabilisation in Afghanistan depends on progress towards reconciliation and reduction of violence which requires a three-way cooperation between the Afghan government as the process must be Afghan-led, the United States as the occupation power and Pakistain, not for any claim of a special role but because of the demographics of the area and the presence in Pakistain of many Afghan Taliban elements including leaders.
Pakistain has the ability to put pressure on some of the Taliban, who may be amenable to reconciliation, to accept reasonable and realistic terms. While Pakistain's tolerance for the presence of the Afghan Taliban inside the country and its insistence on choosing its own tactics to deal with Death Eaters and cut-throats is understandable and possible to explain, Pakistain cannot allow the use of its territory for operations and attacks in another country, which negate its claim of illusory sovereignty and attract the charge of complicity.
The opportunity for tripartite cooperation to promote reconciliation, and hence prospects of peace, appears to be all but lost with the recent downturn in US-Pakistain relations. The US defence secretary and chairman, joint chiefs have publicly accused Pakistain of backing the Haqqani group's recent attacks on the US embassy and NATO compound near Kabul. The implicit warning is unprecedented. Official denials or blaming the US military intervention for the violence will not help. In the interest of our national security, we need to take every measure to ensure that Pakistain's generosity towards the Afghan Taliban and the Afghan refugees is abused no more.
The ominous trends in US-Pakistain relations must be tossed in the calaboose through urgent dialogue at the highest political and military levels based on realism and frankness and without false expectations. Positive US-Pakistain relations, but not necessarily an aid relationship, are important for Pakistain and for the region. Advocacy to the contrary is bereft of comprehension of global and regional correlations of forces.
There is no gainsaying that Afghanistan has long suffered and needs peace. The three decades of conflict have spread to Pakistain, inflicting a heavy toll and threatening destabilisation. Insensitivity about continuation of the conflict amounts to acquiescence in its fatal consequences for the future of the country.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
09/26/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Dupe of Part I is because I brought this into two posts from the same source
From blogs, hence the Opinion
This report is done by the two guys who were first given info about Gunwalker, and in fact, was the first to use the term Gunwalker. Mike took the info first to Pete Sessions, then to Grassely and Leahy. And then to Sharyl Attkisson of CBS. They both were in Chicago (some conference) and got lots more info from sources, none to be named. So far, all their info has been on target and has been used in Issa's hearings.
This latest report, with proof and in the hands of Issa and his committee, presents a letter, that guns were brought and delivered by ATF officers.
A letter forwarded on Friday by a proven reliable source to Gun Rights Examiner and Mike Vanderboegh of Sipsey Street Irregulars documents Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives management authorizing the sale of firearms, which sources say were intended for delivery to cartel purchasers as part of the "Fast and Furious" / "Gunwalker" scandal. Written by then-ATF Phoenix Group VII Supervisor David Voth, the June 01, 2010 letter to a Federal Firearms Licensee, whose name is redacted, advises: The Letter
Per Section925(a)(1) of the Gun Control Act (GCA) exempts law enforcement agencies from the transportation, shipment, receipt, or importation controls of the GCA when firearms are to be used for the official business of the agency.
Please accept this letter in lieu of completing an ATF Form 4473 for the purchase of four (4) CAI, Model Draco, 7.62x39 mm pistols, by Special Agent John Dodson. These aforementioned pistols will be used by Special Agent Dodson in furtherance of the performance of his official duties. In addition, Special Agent Dodson has not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. If you have any questions, you may contact me at telephone number 602-605-6501.
A hand-written note at the bottom says:
Picked up guns 6/10/10
Paid Cash [underlined in original]
Dodson is the agent who put a face to the whistleblowers in Sharyl Attkisson's bombshell CBS News interviews. Other sources tell Mike Vanderboegh that this letter indicates Dodson would have been fearful to proceed without documentation to prove management not only knew and approved of this activity, but had directed it.
Per Vanderboegh:
Official ATF documents and sources in both Arizona and Washington D.C. confirm that in at least two instances in 2010, agents of the United States government purchased Kalashnikov-pattern semi-automatic pistols directly from licensed federal firearms dealers with taxpayer money and delivered those weapons directly into the hands of cartel smugglers.
"The existence of this letter," Vanderboegh writes, "coupled with interviews of other sources across the country which put it into context, provides startling proof that the Federal government did not merely 'lose track' of weapons purchased by 'straw buyers' under surveillance by the ATF and destined for the Mexican drug cartels.
In an undercover operation ordered by Fast and Furious supervisor David Voth, the U.S. government purchased firearms with taxpayer money from licensed firearms dealers, instructed them to conduct the sales 'off the books,' and used an ATF agent, John Dodson, to deliver them directly to people that Dodson believed were conducting them across the border."
Under opinion -- Mike talked to lots of people at this Chicago conference and gained further info -- which he passes to Issa's committee. He has been to Washington and met with Issa's committe and with Sharyl Attkisson of CBS. People are talking to him with details.
Mike Vanderboegh conducted these supplemental interviews, and provides this narrative:
According one source close to the Issa committee and knowledgeable of its workings, this revelation "puts a stake in the heart of the 'botched sting operation' lie." He continued, "There never was any 'sting,' there was only a deliberate effort to provide weapons to the DTO's (Drug Trafficking Organizations)." He added, "this was one hundred percent us -- our money, our guy, our (gun)walking."
This source also provided context and explanation of how the letter came to exist in the first place.
(It should be noted that although we would never reveal our sources for any story, it is important in this case for the readers to understand where we did NOT get it. Neither John Dodson nor his lawyer provided us this letter. Nor did they pass it through to us via a third party, as the DOJ has been known to do lately.)
"Dodson was given this undercover assignment by Voth," said the source, "to purchase weapons directly and provide them to the smugglers. He was operating under cover, pretending to be a 'straw buyer.'" He continued, "I think Dodson demanded the letter from Voth to cover both himself and the FFL (Federal Firearm Licensee). He didn't want to be hung out to dry" by Voth.
The source also said that the letter was an effort by Voth to "dirty him (Dodson) up," pointing out that by the time of the undercover assignment that Dodson's vocal opposition to "letting guns walk" was well known to his superiors in the Phoenix ATF office.
Sources also describe a second letter from Voth to another FFL authorizing Dodson to purchase two more Draco pistols. One source stated flatly: "Issa and Grassley have copies of both letters, and have had for a long time."
Subsequent to this undercover weapons buying and transfer to cartel smugglers by Dodson, say the sources, "Dodson just about came apart all over them (his supervisors)." In a "screaming match" that was heard throughout the Phoenix office by many employees, Dodson yelled at Voth and Assistant Special Agent in Charge George Gillett, "Why not just go direct and empty out the ATF arms room" to the cartels," or words to that effect.
After this confrontation, say the sources, Phoenix managers transferred Dodson to a post as "liaison to the intel guys at FBI" in the Phoenix office. For clarification, it is worth noting that the Brian Terry murder investigation was at this time being carried out by the criminal side of the FBI out of the Tuscon office, not Phoenix.
Sources describe continuing harassment of Dodson as his access to the Phoenix office building was restricted. "They removed him from the (Fast and Furious) case as politically unreliable," said another source, adding, "And of course after the Terry murder all the shots were being called by D.C."
After the death of Brian Terry, the "rumor" post on the ATF agent's website, CleanUpATF.org and the initial coverage by these reporters in the early weeks of January, 2011, "things got ugly" for Dodson. Blamed by his immediate supervisors as well as many of his fellow agents in the Phoenix office for "treason" as one source described it, Dodson's existence at the Phoenix office was described as "precarious" by one D.C. source.
The threats to his life were perceived to be so great that "solitary range days" were arranged by a sympathetic supervisor to Dodson could practice marksmanship in safety. "He (the supervisor) didn't want him (Dodson) to eat one in the back" in a range "accident," said the source.
Dodson has not given any more interviews of late. "Not since the hearings as far as I now," said one source, and it is not because he hasn't been asked.
"They're coming at him hard, looking for anything they can use against him," said another. "Can you blame him for keeping his head down?"
Although our sources firmly agree that Senator Grassley and Congressman Issa have both of the Voth/Dodson letters, we have forwarded a copy of the June 1, 2010 to staffers of both men, asking for comment on this story and an explanation as to why they have not previously released the letters.
Given the fact that it is a weekend, these reporters do not expect any reaction until later on Monday morning.
#1
Bottom line is that there never was any sort of "sting" intended. This was a naked, *political* effort to show that US guns were going to Mexico, as part of a national gun control scheme.
[Dawn] AN interesting twist has emerged in the latest story of accusations and counter-accusations between the US and Pakistain. Army chief Gen Kayani ... four star general, current Chief of Army Staff of the Mighty Pak Army. Kayani is the former Director General of ISI... has issued a surprisingly restrained statement in response to Adm Mike Mullen`s blunt allegations about Pakistain`s support for the Haqqani network, describing them as "very unfortunate" and "disturbing". While he claimed they are "not based on facts", his tone still made for a relatively controlled reaction to what some are calling the most serious American accusations against Pakistain since the start of the alliance in 2001. Did it reflect an awareness on the army chief`s part that the US has shared, or at least possesses, concrete proof to back up its claims? If so, the time has come for Pakistain to rethink its approach to the Haqqani network. Quite aside from the demonstrated risks of a defence strategy that involves harbouring handpicked bad boys, one of the last things Pakistain can afford is to be proven a controller of attacks against Americans in Afghanistan.
"Y'all want to listen to those cell phone conversations again, General?"
Or was Gen Kayani`s statement simply an attempt to avoid raising the temperature further in a spat that threatens to derail relations, and worse? Despite the media`s dramatic headlines, Adm Mullen`s remarks have left some room for interpretation about whether Pakistain stands accused of directly facilitating attacks on American targets or of more general support for the Haqqanis that enabled them to carry out those attacks. If America really believed the former to be true, it is unlikely that the two countries would still be talking openly or that the Pak foreign minister would be scoring a photo op with a smiling President B.O.. With a sober calculation of their interdependence, both sides seem to be leaving the door open for continued negotiation -- senior commander Gen James Mattis met with Gen Kayani in Islamabad on Saturday, for example -- a wise move in the face of developments that, if not handled carefully, could have disastrous consequences for the region.
But temperatures are still heated, with public opinion in both countries no doubt being shaped to some extent by their hawks, from former Jamaat-i-Islami chief Qazi Hussain Ahmad preparing the nation for war to those American politicians seeking to cut off all aid and ties. Meanwhile, ...back at the abandoned silver mine, the water was up to Jack's neck and still rising... government officials, although more restrained, continue to convey the irritation of their respective militaries; both Pakistain`s prime minister and its foreign minister have made bold statements about the costs to the US of losing Pakistain`s support. And on the Pak side it is ultimately the military that runs the show when it comes to relations with America. Its next steps will be interesting to watch, because that institution now has some tough choices to make.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/26/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
Rods from God would be a nice option.
Posted by: Water Modem ||
09/26/2011 9:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The pressure from Washington is really on the PAKS. The only way we can get out of Afhganistan with any 'saving of face' before the election is if the smuggling of weapons, explosives, and fighters across the border stops or subsides dramatically. Obama must be seen as victorious, if only for a moment. After the election it can all turn to kak again and no one will say a word.
Heard a story today about a US logistics guy attempting to turn over a major US maintenance shop in the vicinity of Baghdad. Thousands of tools, tool boxes, sets-kits-outfits, jacks, POL, everything. Haji man would not inventory or sign the hand receipt. With USG permission, the logistician had him sign for the building and contents (not further defined). Haji signed for it. Out tax dollars at work.
[Dawn] In Pakistain, certain absurdities are casually treated as being products of clever political pragmatism. Nothing's shocking anymore. As civilians and security personnel build taller and taller walls around their schools, mosques, shrines, markets and offices, a hapless polity and its leadership have no clue how to stop the monsters we call jacket wallahs.
Yet, in the animated electronic media of Pakistain, it is not these mad men with bombs around their waists and visions of paradise in their heads that dominate the discourse on the country's war against Islamists. No, sir, what gets discussed and decried more in this respect are the American drone attacks in the country's tribal, jihad boy-infested north-western areas.
Statistics do not matter. For example, a whooping 34,017 people have died in terrorist attacks since 2004 in Pakistain, whereas 1,968 have been killed by the drones more than half of them jihad boys!
Nevertheless, this hasn't stopped the media and the politicians to sound louder in their condemnation of drone attacks, but strike utterly ambiguous postures about terror attacks. The groaning in this case became so loud at one point that an alternative narrative finally came screaming out from the other side. Amidst all the decrying, some senior journalists and political analysts turned leftwards and became the articulate vassals of this alternative narrative.
They suggest that it is most probably the Pak intelligence agencies who want their various alleged recruits in the media to begin a concerted campaign against the Americans using the drone attack issue as a confrontational plank. Not so absurd a theory, really. CIA accuses the ISI of being selective in targeting the Islamists, killing some but at the same time protecting others.
The drones issue becomes a way for the media and opposition parties to whip up anti-American sentiment in the public only for the agencies to tell their aggravated counterparts in the CIA that America had better listen to the ISI's concerns otherwise the public would eat them up. Yes, Pak intelligence agencies have had a history of propping up whole political parties and politicians and a number of media people to bid for them in a civilian set-up.
But the scenario has become rather bizarre. As the rampaging media's credibility is increasingly coming under scrutiny, it seems those who want to keep this cyclic game against the Americans going, have begun to prop up certain politicians too.
Again, nothing new. But what is new is the fact that it is parties and politicians with a history of being propped up by the agencies in the past who have decided to raise alarm.
About two months ago, leader of the opposition, Chaudhry Nisar, thumped his desk at the National Assembly for three consecutive days, accusing the ISI of funding cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan ... who isn't your heaviest-duty thinker, maybe not even among the top five... . Though there is every likelihood that Nisar is right, it is ironic that he belongs to a party, the Pakistain Mohammedan League-Nawaz (PML-N), which, in the 1990s, was the most gracious recipient of agency tinkering and maneouvers.
But why is PML-N making the most hue and cry about Imran's new-found status? After all it shares Imran's largely right-wing views and concerns about drone attacks, and has sounded equally apologetic about the Taliban as has Imran? Well, Imran's almost non-existent party is now said to be all set to suddenly emerge into an organised unit. But his enigmatic backers also know, that no matter how much shine they give his party, his vote-bank will remain rooted in central Punjab.
Central Punjab is also the PML-N's traditional constituency. But since the PML-N has washed its hands of whatever history it has had as being an establishment-backed party, the establishment has gone looking for those who not only have similar right-wing views, but can easily be maneuovered. Thus, Imran becomes an attractive choice. Though still a minnow, some of his backers see a lot of promise in him. They feel he can be molded into the next big right-wing thing in the populous Punjab, and someone whose rampant quasi-reactionary views can be an asset to help the military-establishment continue to play footsie with the Americans.
In another bizarre twist, Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani ... Pakistain's erstwhile current prime minister, whose occasional feats of mental gymnastics can be awe-inspiring ... has dismissed Nisar's anti-ISI tirades. This is bizarre because unlike the PML-N, Gilani belongs to a party (PPP) that is perhaps the only mainstream party that had no links whatsoever with the agencies. In fact, it had been the target of the establishment for over 30 years.
But look at it this way. The PPP is in the government. It is barely surviving, but has done well to stay put. Come next election it is bound to lose a lot of votes, especially in Punjab. But if Imran is able to make a dramatic impact in Punjab, he will be cannibalising the PML-N vote, not the PPP's. Why should then the PPP be worried about what ISI is supposedly up to with Imran? In fact, Gilani, a southern Punjabi/Seraiki, seems to be saying, 'ISI's propping up a new alliance in Punjab? Sou bismillah! (by the grace of God, do it a hundred times).
Posted by: Fred ||
09/26/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[Dawn] DISPELLING fears that he may succumb to pressure, the ineffectual Mahmoud Abbas ... a graduate of the prestigious unaccredited Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow with a doctorate in Holocaust Denial... on Friday handed his letter to the UN secretary general to demand state status for Paleostine. Instant endorsement of his plea came from the world community when the General Assembly gave the Paleostinian president a standing ovation. While this must have been a source of satisfaction for him, there is a long way to go, for America, a permanent member of the Security Council, is seen to guard Israeli interests.
On Wednesday, President Barack B.O. Obama made clear to the world audience which way his country would go on an issue whose implications for America`s domestic politics overshadow the justness of the Paleostinian cause, as Democrats prepare their campaign blueprint for the president`s second term. Once again, the American president`s speech constituted a virtual reiteration of the Israeli position, for he uttered words and phrases which have been repeated ad nauseam over decades with only one aim -- to obfuscate the real issue: the withdrawal of Israel from the West Bank and Gazoo so that an independent Paleostinian state can emerge. To be on record, the president pledged his support for a two-state solution -- something that at least two of his predecessors had also committed themselves to. But beyond this lip service to the idea of a Paleostinian state, the president gave no indication how he would make Israel give up its intransigence and quit the occupied territories. Calling for direct negotiations, the president repeated that the Paleostinians and Israelis themselves could clinch a peace deal -- "not us".
As Mr Obama spoke, his audience knew how Israel has made a mockery of direct negotiations, including the bout the president himself launched last year. On Sept 2, 2010, President Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met at the White House and were given one year in which to settle core issues -- the final borders, the return of Paleostinian refugees, settlements and the status of Jerusalem. The 12-month deadline has long passed, the `direct negotiations` have fizzled out, and the status quo drags on for Israel to `create facts`, build more settlements and alter the occupied territories` demography.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/26/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Palestinian Authority
#1
Well, the general assembly can vote some sort of status for Paleostein, the US can than cancel all UN funding and as the UN to get out of NY NY in one week.
Posted by: Water Modem ||
09/26/2011 1:18 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
09/26/2011 9:35 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Too much BS in this article: core issues -- the final borders, the return of Paleostinian refugees, settlements and the status of Jerusalem utterly and maliciously omits the real core issue.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
AN interesting twist has emerged in the latest story of accusations and counter-accusations between the US and Pakistain. Army chief Gen 
Punjab
