6 NATO oil tankers torched in Pakistan

Peshawar, April 10, 2009.
Six NATO oil-supply tankers have been torched in Pakistan following an attack by local militant armed with guns and petrol bombs.

The predawn assault on Thursday took place in the Chamkani area of Peshawar, the capital of the North-West Frontier Province, a Press TV correspondent reported.

Fire engulfed the NATO terminal which was filled with at least 50 tankers. Six tankers were destroyed and another seven were damaged in the attack.

NATO forces frequently use the main land routes through Peshawar to ferry supplies meant for troops fighting in war-torn Afghanistan and insurgents are mounting attacks on the lines used by the coalition's vehicles.

Police cordoned off the area and were searching for the gunmen, as five fire brigade vehicles struggle to bring the flames under control.

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=92313&sectionid=351020401

Pakistan: We're ready for war with India

Pakistan warned it is ready for war with India if it is attacked following the strike by the Mumbai terrorists.

A peace vigil in honour of those who died in the Mumbai attacks is held in the Indian city of Bhopal Photo: Reuters
The remarks by Pakistan's foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, who also insisted he would not hand over any suspects in the Mumbai attacks, come amid mounting tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbours.

India has said it is keeping all options open following last month's carnage by the Mumbai terrorists, who killed more than 170 people.

"We do not want to impose war, but we are fully prepared in case war is imposed on us," said Mr Qureshi.

"We are not oblivious to our responsibilities to defend our homeland. But it is our desire that there should be no war."

Indian officials say the hardline Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) group, which is based in Pakistan despite being banned by the government, is behind the bloodshed, and Indian media have suggested there could be Indian strikes on militant camps.

Mr Qureshi said he was sending "a very clear message" that his country did not want conflict with India.

"We want friendship, we want peace and we want stability - but our desire for peace should not be considered Pakistan's weakness."

The minister also said that India's demands for the extradition of suspects in the Mumbai attacks were out of the question and that Pakistan, which has arrested 16 people since Saturday, would keep them on home soil.

"The arrests are being made for our own investigations. Even if allegations are proved against any suspect, he will not be handed over to India," Qureshi said. "We will proceed against those arrested under Pakistani laws."

India and Pakistan have fought three wars since independence from Britain and nearly came to a fourth in 2001 after an attack on the Indian parliament that was blamed on LeT.

Under international pressure to act, Pakistan raided a camp run by a charity, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, that many believe has close links to LeT, and arrested 15 people.

The authorities are questioning Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, the alleged mastermind of the Mumbai attacks, who was among those arrested at the weekend.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/3688288/Pakistan-Were-ready-for-war-with-India.html

Pakistan, United States: Brink of War?

As the United States steps up border raids into Pakistan, troops from both countries have commenced a deadly game of brinksmanship. Although aimed at asserting each other's military presence along the Pakistan-Afghan border, the skirmishes risk outright hostilities.

U.S. strikes in Pakistan are nothing new. Washington has conducted unilateral missile strikes since soon after its invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001. American pilotless surveillance planes have been flying over the restive border with near impunity for much the same time.
From Air to Ground

But the tone of the U.S. presence changed this year. In July, President George W. Bush approved covert ground raids into suspected militant hideouts in the Waziristan region of Pakistan, much of which is a Taliban stronghold. Militants use the region as a sanctuary from which to strike foreign and Afghan troops in neighboring Afghanistan. Thus far, U.S. forces attempted at least three ground assaults. The only confirmed ground invasion of Pakistan, on September 3, led to the deaths of around 20 civilians, including women and children. No militant leaders were believed captured or killed in the raid.

This ground assault led to unprecedented rhetoric from Pakistan condemning the United States. Even Chief of Army Staff Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, normally quite evasive with the media, said that the Army would defend Pakistan's territory. The Pakistani government summoned the U.S. ambassador to the foreign office and blocked NATO supplies vital to the multinational force's continued operation in Afghanistan.

Pakistan averted two other attempted ground raids when its border forces fired warning shots at U.S. helicopters ferrying commandos into Waziristan. On the most recent occasion, Pakistan and U.S. troops exchanged fire for five minutes. Pakistan’s government later claimed that its army fired flares, not bullets, at the helicopters, but this explanation did not sound very convincing.

Ostensibly, Washington fears that Waziristan — and other tribal regions — could become a staging area for further attacks on the United States if the Pakistani army doesn’t root out pro-Taliban forces. But Washington doubts whether Islamabad is capable of doing the job.

More broadly, U.S. policy in the region is increasingly shaped by its failure to establish unequivocal dominance in Iraq. With the War on Terror overshadowing U.S. foreign policy for the foreseeable future, the next U.S. president will have to deliver victory in some form to a skeptical public. That is the ultimate legacy of the September 11 hijackers, and the Bush administration.
The Next Target

That victory will most likely not come out of the violence and political mess of Iraq. Although the Bush administration and both presidential candidates support a significant, continued military presence in Iraq, the United States has accepted that it can’t control the entire country by direct military force. It may have had some success in marginalizing al-Qaeda in Iraq — after initially spurring its growth — but it has also been forced to accept Shia domination of domestic politics.

Iran was seriously mooted as the next frontline and even now experiences tremendous diplomatic pressure from Washington. But it’s difficult for the United States to promote the Shia state as the next front in the War on Terror, however much Israel or its lobby in the United States may favor this path. Iran doesn’t pose an immediate threat, nor would it afford a quick and easy military campaign. Rather, war with Iran would almost certainly lead to a severe disruption of global energy supplies and the world economy.

Pakistan, in comparison, is an irresistible target. The United States claims to have evidence that the government supports jihadis that wage war against the United States and NATO in Afghanistan. Even a limited, covert war, directed at militants, not the Pakistan Army, is arguably the easiest sell the United States has ever had to make since the 1990 war with Iraq. The only factor preventing all-out conflict is Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
Escalation

U.S. raids and missile strikes may be an attempt to see how far it can go with Pakistan. After Pervez Musharraf stepped down as president, the United States felt uninhibited by the concern that its Pakistan interventions were impairing a staunch ally. There have been as many missile strikes this year as in the previous seven.

Pakistan has engaged in loud rhetoric decrying the attacks and asserted it won’t tolerate intrusions into its territory. Strong public criticism was inevitable to placate a population deeply resentful of the U.S. presence in the region. Both civilian and military leaders have to guard against forces, such as rival politicians or upstart officers, using the crisis to leverage power.

Even internationally, if Pakistan hadn’t condemned the U.S. attacks, it would have tacitly acknowledged that it can’t address the militant problem on its own. That would be an open invitation to more interference from foreign armies and, potentially down the road, international isolation as a failed state.

Pakistan, as it currently exists, relies on U.S. patronage for its survival. There’s very little it can do if the United States decides to step up its military presence in Pakistan. According to the State Department, the United States has given Pakistan $2.4 billion in "security assistance" and $3.4 billion in economic assistance over the past seven years. Pakistan has obtained a raft of loans and credits from international financial institutions like the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank since its rehabilitation by the United States after September 11.

Despite the cold-headed realism, there’s a real danger that future confrontations between Pakistan and U.S. troops could escalate into outright hostilities. The Pakistani army’s rank-and-file is deeply uneasy about military operations that have killed several thousand fellow citizens and Muslims at the behest of Washington, not Islamabad. Pakistan border posts may welcome any future U.S. intrusion into Pakistan as an opportunity to assert their country's independence.

U.S. and NATO commanders in Afghanistan also resent what they see as Pakistan's unwillingness to stop militants from attacking their troops from hideouts in Pakistan. U.S. Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright recently told Congress that 30-40% of the attacks in Afghanistan come from Pakistan, an increasing proportion. American commanders may not need much persuasion to fire on Pakistani forces if they are seen to be getting in the way of militant targets. Even a standoff could accidentally escalate into all-out hostilities.

If substantial casualties ensue, Islamabad and Washington might be hard-pressed to soothe popular calls for revenge.

Mustafa Qadri, a Foreign Policy In Focus contributor, is a freelance journalist from Australia reporting from Pakistan. His website is mustafaqadri.net.

United States in Pakistanis View

Russia under the leadership of a nationalist like Vladimir Putin has deftly pushed back America. The Americans are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan and their threats have more bluster than bite. This does not mean we go to war with Washington, which is still a superpower. It means that Pakistan, too, can deftly handle the cowboys. For starters, U.S. drones entering Pakistan must be a fair game. So should be the Afghan army soldiers who participate in violating our border. Pakistan should not go a step beyond defending our border. The message should be clear. In this case, half the battle is psychological. This is a message to some of the defeatists in Pakistan, a minority, who are advocating surrender in advance.

The U.S. Army's III Corps is in Iraq. The 4th Infantry Division is at Camp Victory. The 3rd Infantry Division is in Baghdad. The 1st Armored Division is in Tikrit. America's 1st, 2nd and 3rd Brigades have been fighting in Iraq. America's 25th Infantry Division and the 172nd Infantry Brigade have been engaged in Iraq. America's XVIII Airborne Corps, 1st Armored Division and the 4th Infantry Division have also been occupied in Iraq. The 10th Aerospace Expeditionary Forces (AEF) and the 386th Air Expeditionary Wing are also busy fighting. The U.S. Navy's aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt has been supporting air operations in the 5th Fleet Area of Responsibility (USS Theodore Roosevelt has since gone back to its homeport of Norfolk, Virginia). The carrier Strike Group USS Ronald Reagan is now in the northern Arabian Sea.


While the war in Iraq goes on, the CIA's paramilitary teams, the U.S. Army Special Forces, Navy Seals and the U.S. Air Force's air commandos are all busy in Afghanistan. America's 173rd Airborne Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, 86th Combat Support Hospital, 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit and 101st Combat Aviation Brigade are all fighting the emboldened Taliban.


To be certain, the Russian Federation, the largest country in the world that covers one-eighth of the world's land area, has been in hibernation since it splintered into Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. Russia's 20-year hibernation made America the lone hegemonic global power.


Over those 20 years, here's what America did to Russia: Three Soviet Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were inducted into NATO. Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania were also brought into NATO. In 1994, the former Soviet state of Georgia was coaxed into joining the NATO-run 'Partnership for Peace'. Israeli trainers, along with a hundred U.S. 'military advisers', began training the Georgian military. In 2003, the CIA displaced President Eduard Shevardnadze (in what is referred to as the 'Rose Revolution'). In 2004, the CIA financed the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. In 2008, at the Bucharest Summit, Georgia was invited to join NATO. At the Caucasus, a mere thousand miles from Moscow, America has been stitching a pro-America belt comprising Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh. To top it all, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan crude oil pipeline was built to capture Caspian Sea's oil wealth away from Russian influence. Imagine; eight of the fifteen former Soviet states are now part of NATO.


On 8 August 2008, the carnivoran Russian bear came out of its 20-year hibernation. Ten thousand Russian troops, tanks, armored personnel carriers, towed artillery, truck-mounted rocket launchers of the 58th Army, 76th Air Assault Division, 98th Airborne Division, Russian Air Force's Sukhoi all-weather Su-24s, 25s, 27s, Tupolev Tu-22 supersonic bombers and the Russian Black Sea Fleet invaded Georgia in a lightning, efficiently executed campaign (Georgian army, navy and air force were completely destroyed).


The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan crude oil pipeline is on fire. America, pinned down in Iraq and Afghanistan, is left with little to challenge a resurging Russia. The reality of a powerful, assertive Russia is dawning on Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The American foreign policy establishment has been caught napping.


On September 1, Dmitry Medvedev, the 43-year old President of Russia, was at his presidential residence in the Black Sea resort of Sochi. President Medvedev told Russian television Channel One that "Russia will never yield to the world order where all decisions are taken by the United States exclusively; the world should be multicolor."


What's next? Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania or the Black Sea? On August 26, the destroyer USS McFaul, carrying humanitarian aid supplies, docked at the Georgian Black Sea port of Poti. With most of their boots in Iraq and Afghanistan, all that American destroyers can now do is deliver humanitarian aid. Imagine; in another direct blow to America's foreign policy establishment, Azerbaijan has now shipped 200,000 barrels of oil to Iran.


With $600 billion in reserves, Russia is 'resurging' and America is left with little to block that resurgence. On September 10, two Tupolev Tu-160s, Russia's supersonic, nuclear-capable, variable-geometry heavy bombers, landed in Venezuela, a mere thousand miles from Florida. In November, elements of Russia's Northern Fleet are going to be in the Caribbean. The American foreign policy establishment has been caught sleeping!


Postscript: Pakistan's foreign policy establishment was also shocked when the Indian army announced the completion of a road by virtue of which Afghanistan's Nimroz province now stands connected to the Iranian free-trade port of Charbahar. Landlocked Afghanistan will no longer be dependent on Pakistan.

http://www.daily.pk/politics/politicalnews/7333-america-is-retreating-everywhere-except-in-pakistan.html

Local Officials: Pakistani Soldiers Force US Helicopters Back to Afghanistan

Pakistani officials say their soldiers forced U.S. military helicopters to turn back to Afghanistan, after the aircraft crossed into Pakistani territory.

Local officials Monday said Pakistani soldiers fired warning shots at the U.S. helicopters overnight in the tribal region of South Waziristan.

A Pakistani army spokesman confirmed that there had been shooting. But he said the U.S. helicopters had not crossed Pakistani airspace and that Pakistani soldiers were not responsible for the gunfire.

The U.S. military has not commented on the incident.

Last week, Pakistan's army chief warned foreign forces not to conduct operations inside the country, saying he will defend its sovereignty "at all costs."

General Ashfaq Kayani issued the warning after a series of apparent U.S. raids on militant targets in Pakistani tribal regions.

U.S. officials have said American forces based in Afghanistan carried out a helicopter-borne assault into Pakistan's South Waziristan region two weeks ago. Pakistani officials said the raid killed at least 15 people including civilians, prompting them to file a protest with Washington.


Kayani said there is no agreement that allows the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan to cross the border into Pakistan to carry out attacks.

Kayani added that such operations risk fueling militancy in the region and create mistrust among allies fighting terrorism.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-09-15-voa33.cfm?rss=united%20states

Pakistan cuts supply lines to NATO troops in Afghanistan

Posted September 5, 2008

In a move seen as the latest fallout from Wednesday morning’s US attack on South Waziristan, the Pakistani government has ordered that supply lines to NATO troops in Afghanistan be immediately severed for an indefinite period of time.

The move comes as thousands of protesters marched through South Waziristan’s capital of Wana chanting “death to America”. Officials cited repeated attacks which had made it difficult to provide security for transportation across the only border crossing, but Pakistani media cited other sources who said the move came as the government feared retaliation from South Waziristan tribesmen if they didn’t respond to the US attack.

The strike, which was the first confirmed use of US ground forces in Pakistan since the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, killed 20 civilians and received widespread condemnation in Pakistan’s government. American officials have suggested that the attack is just the first of many cross-border missions to be expected in the coming months, as the US has expressed growing discontent with Pakistan’s inability to control its long and mountainous border with Afghanistan. The Defense Minister of key NATO ally Germany was also critical of the US attack during his visit to Pakistan, and warned that “Pakistan’s territorial integrity has to be respected”.

With Pakistan’s sole ground link to Afghanistan now closed to them, NATO may be more reliant than ever on Russia for the transportation of non-military supplies to the war-torn country at a time when US-Russian relations are at a post-Cold War low. And while Russia has promised not to block NATO’s overland transport, President Bush’s threat to “punish” Moscow over the recent war with Georgia may put the route in further jeopardy.

Taliban push has US on defensive

July 16, 2008
WASHINGTON: The US's ability to defeat insurgents in Afghanistan has been thrown further into doubt after Sunday's deadly Taliban attack on a US outpost in the east of the country - an area recently touted as a counter-insurgency success.

Increasingly bold attacks on US and NATO forces have forced them on to the defensive and analysts say coalition forces are now stretched to deal with deteriorating fronts both in the south and the east.

The spike in attacks has raised alarm with Afghan officials, who yesterday accused neighbouring Pakistan of being an "exporter of terrorism".

Afghanistan said yesterday it would boycott a series of meetings with Pakistan unless "bilateral trust" was restored.

The cabinet decision was announced soon after President Hamid Karzai directly accused Pakistan's intelligence agency and military officials of involvement in the latest series of deadly attacks, including Sunday's killings and the bombing of the Indian embassy last week.

"The murder, killing, destruction, dishonouring and insecurity in Afghanistan is carried out by the intelligence administration of Pakistan, its military intelligence institutions," Mr Karzai said in a statement. "We know who kills innocent people. We have told the Government of Pakistan and the world, and from now on it will be pronounced by every member of the Afghan nation."

A cabinet statement released shortly afterwards supported Mr Karzai's comments. "The people of Afghanistan, the world, know very well that Pakistan's intelligence agency and military have turned that country to the biggest exporter of terrorism and extremism to the world, particularly Afghanistan," it said.

Afghanistan regularly accuses Pakistan of supporting militants who have waged a deadly insurgency in the nation since the 2001 ouster of the Taliban regime in a US-led invasion. But Mr Karzai's statement was one of the harshest, and comes at a time when the two countries are officially trying to repair a relationship strained by mounting violence.

On Sunday, about 200 Talibani fighters surrounded and then stormed the newly built US base in the Kunar Province, near the Pakistan border, with some briefly entering it.

Nine US soldiers were killled and 15 wounded in the attack.

Hours of fighting, including air strikes, prevented the militants from taking over the base, with Taliban casualties in the "high double figures", NATO said.

"It's very serious because NATO is already under a lot of pressure," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer now at the Brookings Institution.

"There used to be one deteriorating front, the front in the south. Now that we see the situation in the east is heating up too, it really stretches NATO and American resources very far."

Increasingly concerned about the rising violence, the Pentagon has begun shifting the weight of its combat operations to Afghanistan. It has repositioned an aircraft carrier from the Gulf to the Arabian Sea to support military operations in Afghanistan, extended the deployment of 2200 marines in the south and is weighing deeper troop cuts in Iraq to free more soldiers.

Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made an unannounced visit to Islamabad over the weekend to urge the Pakistan military to do more to stem the flow of insurgents into Afghanistan.

But Pakistan has shown little willingness to get tough with the insurgents.

US military officials say the attacks are becoming more sophisticated. Last month, Taliban insurgents blasted open a jail in the southern city of Kandahar, freeing hundreds of prisoners.

Rumors of al-Qaidah's Death May Be Highly Exaggerated

Whether said about the aging process or the implacable approach of writing deadlines, the old saw about “time flying” is certainly true. But seldom has it been truer than in the three weeks since this author last wrote for Terrorism Focus. At dawn on May 29, the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that said al-Qaeda was a major and gradually increasing threat to the United State was still valid; by late that afternoon, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had announced that Lebanese Hizbullah was now the “ ‘A’ team of terrorism” and that it made “al-Qaeda look like a minor league team” (Fox News, May 29). Then, on May 30, the CIA director said that al-Qaeda was strategically defeated in several important venues; that it was “facing setbacks globally,” and that, overall, the United States was doing “pretty well” against its Islamist nemesis (BBC, May 30). The next morning, the DHS secretary one-upped the CIA director by issuing a “don’t-worry-be-happy statement” that greatly downplayed the chances of al-Qaeda acquiring and using a nuclear device (AP, May 31).

To make things even cheerier, all of these glad tidings rode in on the back of other claims that al-Qaeda’s demise was, if not imminent, at least on the horizon. Three U.S. terrorism experts published two articles in the last days of May 2008 which asserted that that Osama bin Laden’s group is increasingly isolated in the Islamic world and alienated from Muslims because of criticisms and theological challenges—some of book-length—authored by repentant Islamic scholars. At least one former “al Qaeda mastermind”—Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, a.k.a. Dr. Fadl—penned a thoroughly damning anti-al-Qaeda tract, but happened to be locked away in an Egyptian prison at the time of publication and so was unavailable to talk to Western journalists. Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank ask why former al-Qaeda allies have turned against al-Qaeda’s leaders:

"To a large extent it is because al-Qaeda and its affiliates have increasingly adopted the doctrine of Takfir, by which they claim the right to decide who is a 'true' Muslim. Al-Qaeda’s critics know what results from this takfiri view: First, the radicals deem some Muslims apostates; after that, the radicals start killing them. This fatal progression happened in both Algeria and Egypt in the 1990s. Its is now taking place even more dramatically in Iraq, where al-Qaeda’s suicide bombers have killed more than 10,000 Iraqis, most of them targeted simply for being Shia. Recently, al-Qaeda in Iraq has turned its fire on Sunnis who oppose its dictates, a fact not lost on the Islamic world’s Sunni majority" 1.

Lawrence Wright in the New Yorker adds:

"This August 2008, al-Qaeda will mark its twentieth anniversary. That is a long life for a terrorist group. Most terror organizations disappear with the death of their charismatic leader, and it would be hard to imagine al-Qaeda remaining a coherent entity without bin Laden. The Red Army Faction went out of business when the Berlin Wall came down and it lost its sanctuary in East Germany. The Irish Republican Army, unusually, endured for nearly a century until economic conditions in Ireland significantly improved, and the leaders were pressured by their own members to reach a political accommodation. When one looks for hopeful parallels for the end of al-Qaeda, it is discouraging to realize that its leadership is intact, its sanctuaries are unthreatened, and the social conditions that gave rise to the movement are largely unchanged. On the other hand, al-Qaeda has nothing to show for its efforts except blood and grief. The organization was constructed from rotten intellectual bits and pieces – false readings of religion and history - cleverly and deviously fitted together to give the appearance of reason. Even if Dr. Fadl’s rhetoric recanting earlier support for al-Qaeda strikes some readers as questionable, al-Qaeda’s sophistry is rudely displayed for everyone to see. Although it likely will continue as a terrorist group, who could still take it seriously as a philosophy?" 2

Amazing. In the 21 days since this author last wrote, bin Laden and al-Qaeda have been transformed from Salafists and Wahhabis to nihilistic, kill-‘em-all Takfiris; have been demoted from veteran and talented insurgents to the level of the whack-jobs who manned the Red Army Faction; and have been defeated in a manner the world has not seen since “Mission Accomplished in Iraq” was declared in 2003. How to explain this stunning turn around? Well, the astounding claims made by senior U.S. government officials that al-Qaeda is reeling from American blows seem easy enough to explain. After the U.S. government was roundly damned for not destroying al-Qaeda before attacking Iraq, the spate of late-May pronouncements by top U.S. officials—if one is permitted to be cynical—may be intended to assure Americans that al-Qaeda is beaten if in the next few months it becomes necessary for U.S. forces to attack Iran.

The contention that there is a fierce debate occurring between and among al-Qaeda leaders and theoreticians and other Islamists is true enough, but hardly new. Passionate, learned, and personally stinging inter-group and even intra-al-Qaeda debate is standard operating procedure among Islamists. What is unusual in the current round of argument is that: (a) It is more public than usual and (b) many heretofore credible Western analysts are indulging in wishful thinking and giving great credence to the words of al-Qaeda critics, even though the two sources they most often and most fully cite are of rather doubtful credibility. One is a Saudi, Shaykh Salman al-Awdah, who wrote a public letter condemning bin Laden for taking the lives of many Muslims in al-Qaeda’s attacks 3. The other is an Egyptian, the above-mentioned and legendary jihadi theorist Dr. Fadl, who, from an Egyptian prison, is publishing—through the Egyptian security service’s good offices—180-degree retractions of pro-jihad works he once claimed were sanctioned by God.

Al-Awdah was once a firebrand Islamist who preached jihad, mentored bin Laden, and spent five years in prison for opposing the U.S. military presence on the Arabian Peninsula and suggesting the al-Saud family is un-Islamic. Today, Shaykh al-Awdah is a member in good standing of the official Saudi religious establishment. He has his own website (islamtoday.net), hosts a television program and he is allowed to travel overseas to condemn violence conducted in the name of religion. Dr. Fadl, while still in jail, has access to a fax machine and is getting special treatment. “His son says he has a private room with a bath and a small kitchen,” complete with a refrigerator, newspaper delivery and a television set (New Yorker, May 26). Interestingly, Dr. Fadl lived freely in Yemen from 1994 until 2001, but it was only after he found himself in prison in Egypt, at some point after 9/11, that he was seized by genuine remorse for his older jihadi writings and felt motivated by God to recant his earlier radical beliefs (New Yorker, May 26).

There is no doubt that the statements and arguments of Shaykh al-Awdah and Dr. Fadl are splashed around all media venues and carry some weight with Islamists; they have and will provoke debate, both polite and bitter in nature. But their words would carry much more weight among Islamists and average Muslims—and would pose a much greater threat to the future of al-Qaeda and the Islamist movement—if it was not so starkly clear that both men are fully under the not-always-gentle thumb of the Saudi and Egyptian regimes, and that each has personally benefited from his willingness to recant former positions by publishing anti-Islamist statements and treatises both regimes want published and widely distributed. The statements by al-Awdah and Dr. Fadl certainly will not help al-Qaeda; indeed, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Yahya-al-Libi have both publicly said that they could deepen the defeatism which is so deeply engrained among Arabs, and which al-Qaeda has been trying to overcome since it was founded in 1988 4. Still, the statements are unlikely to rapidly kill off support for bin Laden and his group in an Islamic world where most Muslims recognize that nine times out of 10, such drastic recantations from previously held positions are prompted by monetary payoffs, threats to family and friends, or severe physical abuse.

More importantly, the theological challenges launched by al-Awdah, Dr. Fadl and others change nothing in regard to the fundamental motivation of al-Qaeda and its allies—the impact of U.S. and Western policies in the Muslim world; the presence of U.S. and Western military forces in the Arab region; and U.S. and Western support for tyrannical Arab regimes. As long as this status quo lasts, al-Qaeda and its allies will continue fighting and their efforts will continue to win broad and probably increasing public support, or at least acquiescence. In the face of this reality, individuals like Shaykh al-Awdah and Dr. Fadl offer Muslims nothing but defeatism, a willingness to see the rule of Arab police states prolonged indefinitely and supine acceptance of what is viewed by much of the Muslim world as a mortally anti-Islamic “Crusader-Zionist” hegemony. The always vituperative British journalist and author Robert Fisk described this reality neatly in the June 1 issue of The Independent. Although putting too much emphasis—as he often does—on the Western-oppression-of-Muslims theme, Fisk otherwise presents a valid and commonsense view of why al-Qaeda is not on the ropes and will not be anytime soon. “So al-Qa’ida is ‘almost defeated’, is it?,” Fisk began:

"Major gains against al-Qa’ida. Essentially defeated. 'On balance, we are doing pretty well,' the CIA’s boss, Michael Hayden, tells the Washington Post. 'Near strategic defeat for al-Qa’ida in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qa’ida in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qa’ida globally – and here I’m going to use the word ideologically – as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam.' Well, you could have fooled me… Yes, we’ve bought ourselves some time in Iraq by paying half of the insurgents to fight for us and to murder their al-Qa’ida cousins. Yes, we are continuing to prop up Saudi Arabia’s head-chopping and torture-practicing regime – no problem there, I suppose, after our enthusiasm for 'water-boarding' – but this does not mean al-Qa’ida is defeated.

Because al-Qa’ida is a way of thinking, not an army. It feeds on pain and fear and cruelty – our cruelty and our oppression – and as long as we continue to dominate the Muslim world with our Apache helicopters and our tanks and our Humvees and our 'friendly' dictators, so will al-Qa’ida continue …" (The Independent, June 1).

Pakistan Tests Long-Range Nuclear-Capable Missile, AFP Reports

By Anil Varma
April 19 (Bloomberg) — Pakistan test-fired a long-range ballistic missile capable of carrying nuclear and conventional warheads, Agence France-Presse reported, citing the military.

The Shaheen II, or Hatf VI, missile with a range of 2,000 kilometers (1,243 miles) was launched from an undisclosed location, the news agency said, citing military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas.

India and Pakistan, both nuclear-capable powers, have tested a series of missiles since 2002, when the two countries came close to a fourth war. The South Asian neighbors have sought to repair relations since April 2003.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNsHp3_EnGyA&refer=home

Angry Pakistanis turn against army

IT IS the most expensive - and talked about - property development in Pakistan, but few can get near it. Hidden behind barbed wire, the new state-of-the-art army headquarter to replace a garrison in Rawalpindi is costing a reputed £1 billion and will cover 2,400 acres of prime land in Islamabad, including lakes, a residential complex, schools and clinics.

Originally intended to represent the best of Pakistan, the new army HQ is now being seen as a symbol of all that is wrong with the country.

Amid nationwide anger over the killing of the opposition leader Benazir Bhutto and a widespread belief that the country’s military or intelligence may have been involved, the population is turning against the army for the first time.

From the wailing rice-pickers at Bhutto’s grave in the dusty village of Garhi Khuda Bakhsh in the southern province of Sindh to the western-educated elite sipping whisky and soda in the drawing rooms of Lahore, the message is the same: General Pervez Musharraf, the president, must go and the army must return to its barracks.

“The interests of the people of Pakistan are now totally at odds with those of the army,” said Asma Jahangir, the head of Pakistan’s Human Rights Commission, who was one of hundreds of lawyers placed under house arrest in November.

“If a civilian president had done what Musharraf has done, he would have been dragged by his hair to the sea.”

It is not just civilians who argue that, if the country is to stay together, power must go back into the hands of the politicians, however corrupt or inept.

Asad Durrani, a retired general, headed the notorious Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) bureau during the 1990 elections when, he admits, it spent millions of dollars to prevent Bhutto being voted back into power. Now he believes the army should step back.

“If you’re in charge for such a long time, you can’t blame anyone else for the state of the country,” he said. “You have to take responsibility for the situation.”

“We’re all trying to get across the message to Musharraf that ‘you are the problem’,” said another retired general. “I’m hearing the same from serving generals.”

For decades children in Pakistan have grown up on text-books glorifying the Pakistani army and glossing over its defeat in three wars and loss of half the country in 1971 (to become Bangladesh). When army chiefs have seized power they have generally been welcomed. The news of Musharraf’s takeover in 1999 was greeted with people handing out sweets. But none of Pakistan’s military rulers have stepped down voluntarily and Musharraf, it seems, is no different, picking an unpopular fight with the country’s judiciary when they tried to take him on.

Elections scheduled for last week were delayed after Bhutto’s assassination. The new date is February 18, but there is scepticism about whether they will go ahead. A suicide bomb that killed 22 in Lahore last week was seen as another step in creating a climate of insecurity that makes voting impossible.

Even if they do go ahead, the elections are widely expected to be rigged in favour of Musharraf’s allies. Last Wednesday the head of the European Union observer mission visited the president with a list of 10 concerns about a lack of transparency.

Bhutto’s death has left her one-time rival Nawaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League, as the main opposition figure. Although he emerged on the political scene in the 1980s under the patronage of Pakistan’s last military ruler, General Zia ul-Haq, he now insists the army must stop interfering in politics. “The only way to move forward is for people to defy the army and to realise that these generals who keep staging coups are our real enemies,” he told The Sunday Times in an interview at his heavily guarded farmhouse outside Lahore.

“It is not the job of generals to hold the prime minister, cabinet or parliament accountable,” he added. “They are accountable to the people. The army has to go back to barracks or we’ll never have a functioning state.”

Resentment against the men in khaki is particularly acute in Bhutto’s home province of Sindh. To Sindhis, she was killed not because of her stand for democracy and against terrorism but because of where she came from. After her death many Sindhis went on the rampage, burning lorries, trains and banks.

They have been reined in by Bhutto’s husband, Asif Zardari, who has taken over running her Pakistan People’s party. But he warns: “If elections are rigged or don’t go ahead, this may be impossible to contain.”

Those close to Musharraf say he still believes he is the only person able to sort out Pakistan, even though under his rule suicide bombs have become an almost daily occurrence.

“The problem is that 9/11 went to his head,” said Durrani. “After that I found him a changed man. He went from being a pariah to applause, saviour of Pakistan and the West.”

Washington and London are clinging to Musharraf for want of other options and the belief that he represents the best hope of preventing Pakistan’s 50 or so nuclear warheads falling into militant hands. The West had hoped that Bhutto would be brought in as prime minister to provide his regime with a democratic face, but are now working on co-opting Sharif or Zardari.

Sharif, who has received three calls from David Miliband, the foreign secretary, since Bhutto’s assassination, was the prime minister ousted by Musharraf in 1999. He insists that working with Musharraf is not an option.

Were free elections to go ahead and the opposition parties to achieve a two-thirds majority, they would be in a position to impeach the president. But few believe that, with Musharraf’s hand-picked caretaker government overseeing the elections, this is a realistic possibility.

The only way he might go is if the army were to decide he had outlived his purpose.

More than 700 Pakistani soldiers have been killed in the fight in the tribal areas against militants said to be linked to Al-Qaeda, and officers admit that morale has not been so low since they lost Bangladesh in 1971.

“We’re being asked to bomb our own people and shrug it off as collateral damage,” said a Mirage pilot. “I call it killing women and children.”

Hope rests on General Ashfaq Kayani, who took command of the army in late November when Musharraf succumbed to pressure to take off his uniform and become a civilian president.

Little is known about Kayani apart from his love of golf and his professionalism as a soldier. He is said to be unhappy about the army’s involvement in politics and might pull back if elections proceed smoothly.

“Nobody is anyone’s man once he becomes commander-in-chief with 700,000 soldiers under his command,” says Imran Khan, the former cricketer turned politician.

CIA is blamed for Bhutto assassination

Hilal Ahmad War, chairman Peoples Political Party (PPP) today blamed CIA for the killing of Benazir Bhutto, former Pakistan prime minister.

Addressing a press conference he claimed that America wanted to destabilise Pakistan for taking control over its nuclear installation.

War stated that his party is going to set up- "Bhutto Memorial Trust" in the memory of assassinated Pakistan prime minister.

He said CIA agents have infiltrated into the international militant groups.


He claimed that Islamic militant groups working in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere are in fact the creation of American CIA so that the trouble created by these outfits would give excuse to America for military intervention in the country.

Lockheed to supply 18 F-16s to Pakistan

Lockheed Martin Corp was awarded a $498.2 million contract to supply F-16 aircraft to Pakistan, the Pentagon said on Monday, as Pakistani officials mulled whether to go ahead with a January 8 election after the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.

Lockheed will sell 12 F-16C plus 6 F-16D planes to Pakistan under the contract, the Pentagon said in its daily list of defense contract awards. The Defense Department, which oversees sales of military weapons to foreign governments, did not say how soon the fighter jets would be delivered.

Pakistan has received about $10 billion in U.S. funding since 2001 because Washington views Pakistan as a key ally in President George W. Bush's campaign against terrorism.

Bhutto's death on Thursday wrecked U.S. hopes of a power-sharing deal between her and President Pervez Musharraf, who took power in a 1999 military coup but left the army last month to become a civilian president.

The United States has agreed to sell Pakistan up to 36 new F-16 jets together with refurbished F-16s.

Last month, two senior Democratic U.S. lawmakers urged the suspension of some U.S. military sales, including the sale of F-16 fighter jets, if Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf did not revoke emergency rule.

Lockheed, the Pentagon's No. 1 contractor, won a $144 million contract in 2006 for materials needed to build the F-16s.

Benazir Bhutto claimed three senior allies of Pakistan's president General Musharraf were out to kill her

Benazir Bhutto claimed three senior allies of Pakistan's president General Musharraf were out to kill her in a secret email to Foreign Secretary David Miliband written weeks before her death.

Astonishingly, one of them is a leading intelligence officer who was officially responsible for protecting Miss Bhutto from an assassination.

The second is a prominent Pakistani figure, one of whose family members was allegedly murdered by a militant group run by Miss Bhutto's brother. The third is a well-known chief minister in Pakistan who is a long-standing opponent of Miss Bhutto.

Miss Bhutto told Mr Miliband she was convinced that the three were determined to assassinate her on her return to the country and pleaded with him to put pressure on the Pakistan government to stop them.

The disclosure is bound to lead to questions as to whether the Foreign Office did enough to safeguard Miss Bhutto.

Her return was organised in close co-ordination with the UK and US governments, which saw her as the best hope of restoring democracy in Pakistan while preventing it from falling into the hands of Islamic extremists.

The email concerning the three alleged would-be killers identified by Miss Bhutto emerged as rival political factions in Pakistan continued to dispute the details surrounding her assassination.

The Pakistan government said she was killed by Al Qaeda, but her People's Party dismissed that as "a pack of lies" and insisted General Musharraf's regime was implicated.

Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Pakistan's former High Commissioner to the UK and a British-based adviser to Miss Bhutto, said: "She sent an email to the Foreign Office before she returned to Pakistan naming certain people.

"In the email, she said, 'The following persons are planning to murder me and if any harm comes to me they should be held responsible.'"

Miss Bhutto wrote her prophetic email to Mr Miliband in September, shortly after she met him to discuss her return to Pakistan. She named the same three individuals in a letter to General Musharraf in October.

The Mail on Sunday has been informed of the names but has decided not to publish them.

One is a senior intelligence officer and retired army officer who worked for Pakistan's sinister Inter Services Intelligence spy agency, which has close links to the Taliban and has been involved in drug smuggling and political assassinations. He allegedly directed two Islamic terrorist groups and reportedly once boasted that he could pay money to hired killers to assassinate anyone who posed a threat to Musharraf's regime.

He was given another senior intelligence post by Musharraf after his bid to become a senior overseas diplomat for Pakistan failed when the host country refused to let him in because of his past activities.

He was also linked to Omar Sheikh, the former British public schoolboy convicted of kidnapping US journalist Daniel Pearl, who was murdered in 2002 by having his throat cut and being decapitated by Islamic terrorists.

The second individual named by Miss Bhutto is well known in Pakistani political circles and has been involved in a vicious family feud with her for decades.

One of his relatives was said to have been murdered by the militant Al Zulfiqar group run by Miss Bhutto's brother, Murtaza. The organisation was set up to avenge the execution of Miss Bhutto's father Zulfiqar Bhutto by ex-Pakistan dictator Zia ul Haq.

The third individual is a chief minister who has repeatedly denounced Miss Bhutto - and faced political annihilation if she won the elections scheduled for next week. He made an outspoken attack on her only hours before her death.

A senior source said: "She knew the risk she was taking when she decided to go back but also took the precaution of informing the British Government of the names of those she thought presented the biggest danger to her.

"She hoped Mr Miliband would use his influence with General Musharraf to remove certain people from positions where they were able to plot against her. She gave the same names to General Musharraf but she knew there was only a limited possibility of any action being taken.

"She had to rely on Mr Musharraf and countries such as Britain and America, who supported her return and have close connections with Mr Musharraf's government, to take her concerns seriously.

"Events have shown she was right to be worried. If any of the three people she named turn out to have been involved in this assassination, there will be serious repercussions."

The Mail on Sunday has also learned that after an earlier attempt to assassinate her in October, the Foreign Office told Miss Bhutto to stop making wild allegations against Musharraf - or face greater danger.

A Foreign Office spokesman said: "Miss Bhutto had a series of meetings with the Foreign Secretary and other officials. She raised her concerns about particular people and we raised them in turn with the authorities in Pakistan and asked them to put in place more strict security measures to protect her."