Blackwater in Pakistan

From The Nation comes Jeremy Scahill's latest, very important article.  He discusses the "covert operations" perpetrated by Blackwater and other mercenary war opportunists like DynCorp within the framework of official government policies, now exposed by Wikileaks, connecting the dots.  It's all so reminiscent of  our "special advisers" in Vietnam and the terrible toll it took on our country.  We're neck deep in the big muddy, but the big fools say to push on.

The (Not So) Secret (Anymore) US War in Pakistan

Jeremy Scahill

Despite sustained denials by US officials spanning more than a year, US military Special Operations Forces have been conducting offensive operations inside Pakistan, helping direct US drone strikes and conducting joint operations with Pakistani forces against Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in north and south Waziristan and elsewhere in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, according to secret cables released as part of the Wikileaks document dump. According to an October 9, 2009 cable classified by Anne Patterson, the US ambassador to Pakistan, the operations were "almost certainly [conducted] with the personal consent of [Pakistan's] Chief of Army Staff General Kayani." The operations were coordinated with the US Office of the Defense Representative in Pakistan. A US special operations source told The Nation that the US forces described in the cable as "SOC(FWD)-PAK" were "forward operating troops" from the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the most elite force within the US military made up of Navy SEALs, Delta Force and Army Rangers.

The cables also confirm aspects of a Nation story from November 2009, "The Secret US War in Pakistan," which detailed offensive combat operations by JSOC in Pakistan. In response to the Nation story, Pentagon spokesperson Geoff Morrell called it "conspiratorial" and explicitly denied that US special operations forces were doing anything other than "training" in Pakistan. More than a month after the October 2009 cable from the US embassy in Pakistan confirming JSOC combat missions, Morrell told reporters: "We have basically, I think, a few dozen forces on the ground in Pakistan who are involved in a train-the-trainer mission.  These are Special Operations Forces.  We've been very candid about this.  They are—they have been for months, if not years now, training Pakistani forces so that they can in turn train other Pakistani military on how to—on certain skills and operational techniques.  And that's the extent of our—our, you know, military boots on the ground in Pakistan." According to the October 2009 cable, Morrell's statement was false.

[...]  The ability of US special operations forces to operate in Pakistan is clearly viewed as a major development by the US embassy. "Patient relationship-building with the military is the key factor that has brought us to this point," according to the October 2009 cable. It also notes the potential consequences of the activities leaking: "These deployments are highly politically sensitive because of widely-held concerns among the public about Pakistani sovereignty and opposition to allowing foreign military forces to operate in any fashion on Pakistani soil. Should these developments and/or related matters receive any coverage in the Pakistani or US media, the Pakistani military will likely stop making requests for such assistance."

Such statements might help explain why Ambassador Richard Holbrooke lied to the world when he said bluntly in July 2010: "People think that the US has troops in Pakistan, well, we don't."

A US special operations veteran who worked on Pakistan issues in 2009 reviewed the Wikileaks cables for The Nation. He said he was taken aback that the cable was not classified higher than "SECRET" given that it confirms the active involvement of US soldiers from the highly-secretive, elite Joint Special Operations Command engaging in combat—not just training—in Pakistan. And offensive combat at that. JSOC operations are compartmentalized and highly classified.

[...]  In 2006, twelve "tactical action operatives" from Blackwater were recruited for a secret JSOC raid inside Pakistan, targeting an Al Qaeda facility. The operation was code-named "Vibrant Fury." Which raises another issue: the activities described in the October 2009 cable very closely align with what a US military intelligence source, a US special forces source and a former Blackwater executive told The Nation in November 2009, namely that JSOC was running an operation in Pakistan where "members of an elite division of Blackwater are at the center of a secret program in which they plan targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, 'snatch and grabs' of high-value targets and other sensitive action inside and outside Pakistan.… The Blackwater operatives also assist in gathering intelligence and help direct a secret US military drone bombing campaign that runs parallel to the well-documented CIA predator strikes." The arrangement, which involved a web of subcontractors, allowed the Pakistani Frontier Corps—the force cited in the cable—to work with JSOC operators while simultaneously denying that Americans were involved.[...]

 [...]  In November 2009, Capt. John Kirby, the spokesperson for Adm. Michael Mullen, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told The Nation, "We do not discuss current operations one way or the other, regardless of their nature." A defense official, on background, specifically denied that Blackwater performs work on drone strikes or intelligence for JSOC in Pakistan. Captain Kirby told The Nation if it published the story it would "be on thin ice." The US embassy and Pakistan's interior Minister Rehman Malik both denied Blackwater was operating in Pakistan.

In January 2010, on a visit to Pakistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, appeared to contradict that line, telling a Pakistani TV station, "They [Blackwater and another private security firm, DynCorp] are operating as individual companies here in Pakistan," according to a DoD transcript of the interview. As Gates's comments began to make huge news in Pakistan, US defense officials tried to retract his statement. As the Wall Street Journal reported, "Defense officials tried to clarify the comment…telling reporters that Mr. Gates had been speaking about contractor oversight more generally and that the Pentagon didn't employ [Blackwater] in Pakistan."[...]

[...]  Since the Nation story originally ran, Blackwater has continued to work under the Obama administration. In June, the company won a $100 million global contract with the CIA and continues to operate in Afghanistan, where it protects senior US officials and trains Afghan forces. Earlier this year, Blackwater's owner, Erik Prince, put the company up for sale and moved to the Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. Whether Blackwater or former Blackwater operatives continue to work in Pakistan is not known. What is clear is that there is great reason to believe that the October 2009 cable from Ambassador Anne Patterson describing US special operations forces activities in Pakistan represents only a tiny glimpse into one of the darkest corners of current US policy in Pakistan.

I urge you to read the full story here:  

http://www.thenation.com/blog/156765/not-so-secret-anymore-us-war-pakistan 

Right to Life for ALL Humans

It would be wonderful to espouse the right to life not just for pregnant American teenagers but demand it for the lives within the wombs of women in war, and the women themselves! How can one pick and choose who gets the right to life? I have been completely bewildered by the mental gymnastics some folks must perform to justify bombing Iraq, or permitting economic blockades for Palestinians, even Cuba. What was it Jesus said about blessed be the poor ....?
The Rights of Women as Casualties of War
Written by Ramzy Baroud
Sunday, 30 November 2008
-Bibi and Nahil Abu-Rada are two women, one Afghan and the other Palestinian, who made news with similar tragedies. But their losses also helped further delineate the plight of millions of women in war zones and poor countries.
The United Nations news service reported on the troubles of Qurban-Bibi, a pregnant woman who simply needed to reach a hospital. Doctors had instructed that she must deliver in an equipped medical facility, considering her previous Caesarean delivery. The desperately poor husband and her brothers opted for a delivery at home, citing the unaffordable taxi ride. The woman almost bled to death. When the delivery turned for the worst, the family rushed her to Faizabad hospital in a nearby province. Her life was saved, but, evidently not that of her baby.
Nahil’s story also fails to deviate from the ever-predictable norm. The pregnant Palestinian woman was joined by her family on their way to a hospital in the West Bank city of Nablus. The hospital was so close, yet so far. Between their ambulance and salvation was an Israeli army checkpoint, Hawara. “Nothing helped. Not the pleas, not the cries of the woman in labor, not the father's explanations in excellent Hebrew, nor the blood that flowed in the car. The commander of the checkpoint, a fine Israeli who had completed an officers' course, heard the cries, saw the woman writhing in pain in the back seat of the car, listened to the father's heartrending pleas and was unmoved,” reported Israeli journalist Gideon Levy in Haaretz. He added, “Nahil Abu-Rada is not the first woman to lose her baby this way because of the occupation, and she won't be the last.”
The bearings of the painful losses of Qurban-Bibi and Nahil bring to mind two recently published reports pertaining to the rights of women and gender equality around the world: The State of the World Population 2008 report, produced by the United Nations Population Fund and The Global Gender Gap Report, published by the World Economic Forum.
The State of the World Population aims at development strategies that are sensitive to the uniqueness of particular cultures, for it found that culture is central to people’s lives as are ‘health, economics and politics’.
As for the Global Gender Gap report, it was a largely statistical study co-authored by researchers from Harvard and University of California-Berkeley, and published by the World Economic Forum. Researchers examined definite factors, such as jobs, education, politics, health, etc, to determine how improvements, or lack thereof in these areas have affected, or failed to affect, the equality between the sexes in 130 countries, that represent 90 percent of the world population. The outcome was predicable for the most part, but with notable deviations. “Out of 130 countries, Canada ranked 31 while the United States came in at 27. Canada also ranked behind Namibia, Sri Lanka, Mozambique, Cuba, Trinidad and Tobago, Lithuania and the Philippines, among other countries,” reported Canada’s Globe and Mail.

The reports raise many questions, present many challenges, but on their own fail to address the struggles and tragedies of women like Qurban-Bibi and Nahil Abu-Rada.
The Global Gender Report ignited media frenzy more appropriate for a beauty contest – winners and losers - not a pressing issue that continues to victimize millions of women worldwide. This was hardly the intent of the report, one would fairly assume. Expectedly, it was later turned into an opportunity to settle political scores, stereotype religion and, at times, disparage entire cultures.
The State of the World Population was largely sensible in its view of culture: non-Western cultures were not simply chastised as the problem, but cultural sensitivity was recommended as part of the solution.
But addressing women’s rights and cultural patterns (as if these issues are not unique in time and space) without examining the underpinnings of the inequality is also a mistake.
Culture is hardly the summation of rational choices made by individuals in a specific time and easily demarcated space. It’s an innate collective response to internal and external factors, changes and events - political, economic or social. Chances are Palestinian women in villages surrounded by Israeli checkpoints tend to deliver their babies at home or in an unfit local clinic, a natural response to risking losing one’s baby altogether. Such a practice could eventually develop into a cultural pattern.
Many Afghan women are caught between the lethal occupation of foreigners and the extremism and vengeance of the Taliban. Early marriages are often the only available opportunity for women in some parts of the country, once they reach a certain age, sometimes as young as 9-years-old.
The same can be said about Iraq, where women, who comparatively achieved high status in pre-war years; have since endured untold humiliation. Thanks to the US ‘liberation’ of their country, they now constitute a large percentage of regional prostitution, a phenomenon alien to Iraqi society of yesteryear.
This hardly means that the suffering of women is always the outcome of foreign military interventions – masked as ‘humanitarian’ in some instances – nor does it render blameless local cultures, outdated customs and interpretation of religion. But what is missing from the reports, and subsequent analyses is how conflict, war and military intervention often jeopardize, more than anything else, the rights and welfare of women.
The issue of women’s rights is a pressing one, not just because of the horrifying statistics. (Women and girls are the poorest, least educated and most victimized the world over.) But also because no real progress, development or sound governance can ever take place when half of the society is marginalized and mistreated. Equality between the genders is not an act of virtue, but also a sound strategy for a brighter future for any nation, rich or poor. To address the issue correctly, studies and reports must delve into the roots of women’s suffering, and not be satisfied with numerical indicators that tell half of the story.
Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).
http://www.ramzybaroud.net/articles.php?id=f4fd73a3f36da633c3f561154f5de622#f4fd73a3f36da633c3f561154f5de622

Pakistan War Launched on 9/11

It's just a matter of time before the mainstream media start to use the words "Pakistan War." Just like Afghanistan and Iraq, we will be busy with our lives and yet feel a vague discomfort. Someday I hope we become conscious of the suffering of innocent people, and put an end to it.
September 11, 2008
BUSH SAID TO GIVE ORDERS ALLOWING RAIDS IN PAKISTAN
By ERIC SCHMITT AND MARK MAZZETTI
President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government, according to senior American officials.
The classified orders signal a watershed [my bold] for the Bush administration after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and after months of high-level stalemate about how to challenge the militants' increasingly secure base in Pakistan's tribal areas.
American officials say that they will notify Pakistan when they conduct limited ground attacks like the Special Operations raid last Wednesday in a Pakistani village near the Afghanistan border, but that they will not ask for its permission.
''The situation in the tribal areas is not tolerable,'' said a senior American official who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the missions. ''We have to be more assertive. Orders have been issued.''
[...] Pakistan's top army officer said Wednesday that his forces would not tolerate American incursions [my bold] like the one that took place last week and that the army would defend the country's sovereignty ''at all costs.''
It is unclear precisely what legal authorities the United States has invoked to conduct even limited ground raids in a friendly country. A second senior American official said that the Pakistani government had privately assented to the general concept of limited ground assaults by Special Operations forces against significant militant targets, but that it did not approve each mission.
The official did not say which members of the government gave their approval.
[…] Details about last week's commando operation have emerged that indicate the mission was more intrusive [my bold] than had previously been known.
According to two American officials briefed on the raid, it involved more than two dozen members of the Navy Seals who spent several hours on the ground and killed about two dozen suspected Qaeda fighters in what now appeared to have been a planned attack against militants who had been conducting attacks against an American forward operating base across the border in Afghanistan.
Supported by an AC-130 gunship, the Special Operations forces were whisked away by helicopters after completing the mission.
[…] Pakistan's government has asserted that last week's raid achieved little except killing civilians and stoking anti-Americanism in the tribal areas.
''Unilateral action by the American forces does not help the war against terror because it only enrages public opinion,'' said Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, during a speech on Friday. ''In this particular incident, nothing was gained by the action of the troops.''
As an alternative to American ground operations, some Pakistani officials have made clear that they prefer the C.I.A.'s Predator aircraft, operating from the skies, as a method of killing Qaeda operatives. The C.I.A. for the most part has coordinated with Pakistan's government before and after it has launched missiles from the drone. On Monday, a Predator strike in North Waziristan killed several Arab Qaeda operatives.
[…] Spokesmen for the White House, the Defense Department and the C.I.A. declined to comment on Wednesday about the new orders. Some senior Congressional officials have received briefings on the new authorities. A spokeswoman for Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who leads the Armed Services Committee, declined to comment.
[…] The commando raid last week and an increasing number of recent missile strikes are part of a more aggressive overall American campaign in the border region aimed at intensifying attacks on Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the waning months of the Bush administration, [my bold] with less than two months to go before November elections.
State Department officials, as well as some within the National Security Council, have expressed concern about any Special Operations missions that could be carried out without the approval of the American ambassador in Islamabad.
The months-long delay in approving ground missions created intense frustration inside the military's Special Operations community, which believed that the Bush administration was holding back as the Qaeda safe haven inside Pakistan became more secure for militants.
The stepped-up campaign inside Pakistan comes at a time when American-Pakistani relations have been fraying, and when anger is increasing within American intelligence agencies about ties between Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, known as the ISI, and militants in the tribal areas.
Analysts at the C.I.A. and other American spy and security agencies believe not only that the bombing of India's embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, in July by militants was aided by ISI operatives, but also that the highest levels of Pakistan's security apparatus -- including the army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani -- had knowledge of the plot.
''It's very difficult to imagine he was not aware,'' a senior American official said of General Kayani. […]
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E7DD163EF932A2575AC0A96E9C8B63&fta=y

Afghanistan Body Count Rises

Once again the powers that be have another war to supply, more money to be made by shedding the blood of pawns. Not a mention of who the new soldiers are and where they will come from. Oh, right, we're recruiting from places Americans never would imagine, like Uganda. See my post of 4/9/08–Uganda: The New Face of US Military? for details on what we’re doing to entice that country’s young men to sign up. And there are plenty of Third World Countries where people are willing to risk death in war to escape death from famine, or tribal wars or juntas. Aren't you sick of it?
May Combat Deaths In Afghanistan
Outnumber Those In Iraq
AP, June 13, 2008
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hmt5RrIrR8Kpia74k7R0PNVwVAbQD919ETBO0
via http://www.uruknet.de/?s1=1&p=44859&s2=14
BRUSSELS, Belgium — It's a grim gauge of U.S. wars going in opposite directions: American and allied combat deaths in Afghanistan in May passed the monthly toll in Iraq for the first time.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates used the statistical comparison to dramatize his point to NATO defense ministers that they need to do more to get Afghanistan moving in a better direction. He wants more allied combat troops, more trainers and more public commitment.
[...] But the deterioration in Afghanistan suggests a troubling additional possibility: a widening of the war to Pakistan, where the Taliban and al-Qaida have found haven.
By the Pentagon's count, 15 U.S. and two allied troops were killed in action in Iraq last month, a total of 17. In Afghanistan it was 19, including 14 Americans and five coalition troops. One month does not make a trend, but in this case the statistics are so out of whack with perceptions of the two wars that Gates could use them to drive home his point about Afghanistan.
Even when non-combat deaths are included, the overall May toll was greater in Afghanistan than in Iraq: a total of 22 in Afghanistan, including 17 Americans, compared with 21 in Iraq, including 19 Americans, according to an Associated Press count.
[...] Gates made a point upon taking his Pentagon post in December 2006, amid great and growing U.S. public doubt about Iraq, that he was deeply concerned about backsliding in the less publicized and less unpopular war in Afghanistan. He seems even more troubled now.
And he appears less patient with the allies, aware that much of the European population is unconvinced by the American argument that al-Qaida in Central Asia _ whether it's Afghanistan, Pakistan or the largely ungoverned areas along their mountainous frontier _ poses a grave danger to Europe as well as to the United States.
Gates said that when it came his turn to talk at Thursday's defense ministers meeting on Afghanistan he tossed aside the remarks his aides had prepared for him and stated his case as sharply and directly as he could.
[...] NATO has no direct combat role in Iraq. In Afghanistan, several allies are taking a fighting role, but most have shied away, preferring to contribute in other ways such as humanitarian assistance.
The relatively low U.S. death toll in Iraq in May continues a trend of declining violence against Americans as well as Iraqi civilians, although the situation there remains fragile. If the trend continues _ which is far from a certainty _ then U.S. officials may decide to withdraw more U.S. troops in the second half of the year and perhaps beyond. That would enable the Pentagon to send more troops to Afghanistan _ for combat and for training Afghan forces.
And that's just what the next president may have to do unless things begin turning around in Afghanistan.
United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates speaks during a media conference after a meeting of NATO defense ministers at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Friday June 13, 2008. NATO nations have agreed to broaden their peacekeeping mission in Kosovo to include training for the newly independent nation's security forces. (AP Photo/Virginia Mayo)

More Misery for Afghans

Taliban declares start of new Afghan offensive
Thu 27 Mar 2008, 21:00 GMT
LONDON (Reuters) - The Taliban announced the start of a spring offensive in Afghanistan, promising "painful strikes" to force all enemy soldiers to leave, according to a Web message seen by a U.S.-based monitoring service on Thursday.
[...] The Web message entitled "Taliban declares beginning of spring offensive in Afghanistan" was from Mullah Bradar Akhund, who styles himself deputy emir of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, according to a translation by the SITE Institute terrorism monitoring service seen in London.
[...] The Web statement said the Taliban would employ "new types of operations" across the country, according to the SITE Institute.
Last year saw a record level of violence in Afghanistan that killed nearly 6,000 people, about a third of them civilians. More than 200 foreign troops were killed in Afghanistan in 2007.
(Writing by Alison Williams: Editing by Keith Weir)http://africa.reuters.com/world/news/usnL27199594.html

Will Russia Join NATO to Fight Taliban?

Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979, giving Charlie Wilson & all the cold warriors an excuse to arm tribal leaders (the Taliban) to fight the Russians. Ten years later Russia was defeated and the Taliban took over. Now, European leaders are looking to Russia to fight the Taliban and assist with the “reconstruction of Afghanistan.” As always, [my bold]:
Russia throws a wrench in NATO's works

By M K Bhadrakumar

For the first time in the 60-year history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Russia will attend the alliance's summit meeting on April 2-4 in Bucharest, Romania.
It is clear that NATO will defer to a future date any decision to put Ukraine and Georgia on its Membership Action Plan. This means effectively that the two former Soviet republics cannot draw closer to NATO for another year at the very least, which in turn implies that the earliest the two countries can realize their membership claim would be in a four-year timeframe.

That is a huge gesture by NATO to Moscow's sensitivities. Conceivably, it clears the decks for what could prove to be a turning point in Russia-NATO relations. Russia may be about to join hands with NATO in Afghanistan.
[...] From the feverish pace of diplomatic activity, the expectation of the two sides seems to be that an agreement could be formalized at NATO's Bucharest summit. In an interview with German publication Der Spiegel on Monday, Rogozin confirmed this expectation, saying, "We [Russia] support the anti-terror campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. I hope we can manage to reach a series of very important agreements with our Western partners at the Bucharest summit. We will demonstrate that we are ready to contribute to the reconstruction of Afghanistan."
[...] Given the complicated history of Russia-NATO relations, the issue is loaded with geopolitics. Russian President Vladimir Putin hinted as much at a joint press conference with visiting German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Moscow last Saturday. He said, "NATO is already overstepping its limits today. We have no problem to helping Afghanistan, but it is another matter when it is NATO that is providing the assistance. This is a matter beyond the bounds of the North Atlantic, as you are well aware."
ANP leader Amir Haider Khan Hoti bluntly told Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in an exclusive interview this week, "Our priorities are clear. We first want to move toward peace through negotiations [with the Taliban], jirgas [tribal councils], and dialogue. God willing, we will learn from [failed talks and jirgas in the past] and will try not to repeat the same mistakes. We will try to take into confidence our people, our tribal leaders, and our [clerics] - and together with them, we will try to move toward peace through negotiations."

Hoti didn't speak a word about the "war on terror" or the George W Bush administration's expectations of Pakistani military operations in the tribal areas. It remains a riddle why the Bush administration should have so far kept out of conflict resolution in Afghanistan countries such as Russia and China, whose interests are vitally affected, perhaps even more immediately than the US or European countries. As US statesman Henry Kissinger wrote in an article in the International Herald Tribune on Monday, "A strategic consensus remains imperative ... Pakistan's stability should not be viewed as an exclusively American challenge." [Thanks, Hank!]

[...] The Kremlin has badly cornered the Bush administration. Taking Russia's help at this critical juncture makes eminent sense for NATO. The alliance is struggling to cope with the war in Afghanistan. By the analogy of Iraq, some observers estimate that a force level close to half a million troops will be required to stabilize Afghanistan, given its size and difficult terrain.

[...] Washington faces an acute predicament insofar as Moscow won't settle for selective engagement by NATO as a mere transit route but will incrementally broaden and deepen the engagement, and major European allies might welcome it. Moscow insists on the involvement of the CSTO and even SCO. On the other hand, Russia's involvement could invigorate the NATO mission in Afghanistan and ensure that the mission is not predicated on the highly unpredictable factor of Pakistan's partnership.

[...] At the very least, history comes full circle when Putin arrives in Bucharest in the next 18 days for the gala 60th anniversary summit of the alliance. That would be 54 years since the Soviet Union suggested it should join NATO to preserve peace in Europe.

M K Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for over 29 years, with postings including India's ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and to Turkey (1998-2001). (Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JC15Ag01.html