Pakistani officials have contradicted each other on whether the suspect is Adam Gadahn, 31, who has appeared in videos threatening the West. Two intelligence officers and a senior government official identified the detained man Sunday as Gadahn. However, a different official Monday said the suspect was an American, but not Gadahn.

“We are trying to work out who he is,” said the official, who like all Pakistani intelligence agents does not allow his name to be used. “He is an American, but he is not Adam.”

The suspect was arrested recently in Pakistan’s largest city, Karachi, the officials said.

Pakistan is under intense U.S. pressure to arrest al-Qaida and Taliban leaders living on its soil.

Last month, the country arrested the Afghan Taliban No. 2 commander, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, in Karachi. Unnamed officials have also claimed to have detained other leaders in the movement. News of the arrests has been murky, coming primarily through Pakistani and Afghan officials speaking anonymously. None have been presented before a court or charged.

Baradar’s detention and the other reported arrests have been seen as a sign that Pakistan, which has been criticized in the past as an untrustworthy ally in the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban, was cooperating more fully with Washington.

Pakistani agents and those from the CIA work closely on some operations in Pakistan, but it was not clear if any Americans were involved in the recent operation in Karachi or the questioning of the suspect. In the past, Pakistan has quietly handed over some al-Qaida suspects arrested on its soil to the United States.

The arrest of an American militant in Pakistan, even if it turns out not to be Gadahn, would be another example of U.S. citizens traveling abroad to join al-Qaida and the Taliban. Security analyst say such militants, while small in number, are especially dangerous because of their ability to travel the world easier on a Western passport.

In December, Pakistan police arrested five young U.S. Muslims who they allege were trying to link up with militant groups.

Gadahn, the first American to face treason charges in more than 50 years, has appeared in more than half a dozen al-Qaida videos, taunting the West and calling for its destruction. The video that surfaced Sunday showed him urging American Muslims to attack their own country.

He has been on the FBI’s most wanted list since 2004 and there is a $1 million reward for information leading to his arrest. He was charged with treason in 2006 and faces the death penalty if convicted. He was also charged with two counts of providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.

As AFP tells us, the Institute for Science and International Security just published a report on Pakistan’s nuclear program that seems designed to pour gasoline on the “the Pakistani nuclear program is outta control” story.

And, when you look at the story, there isn’t a whole lot of there there.

The commercial [satellite] images reveal a major expansion of a chemical plant complex near Dera Ghazi Kahn that produces uranium hexalfuoride and uranium metal, materials used to produce nuclear weapons.

Big whoop, I must say. The Pakistanis love their nuclear weapons, and it’s not surprising—as a sovereign state outside the NPT—they might decide to make some more.

The only conceivable takeaway from this report is muddled alarmism, which ISIS obligingly provides.

Given turmoil in Pakistan with the army waging war against Taliban militants in the northwest, the ISIS said the “security of its nuclear assets remains in question.”

“An expansion in nuclear weapons production capabilities needlessly complicates efforts to improve the security of Pakistan’s nuclear assets,” it said.

I don’t get it. How are things suddenly more complicated by an expansion in capacity?

Washington, apparently believing that it doesn’t have enough on its plate with al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistan Taliban, is suddenly awash with dramatic plans to add a self-created problem to the mix: a quixotic effort to wrest Pakistan’s nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Army if the situation deteriorates.

And selling that idea seems to require fomenting an irrational panic concerning Pakistan’s nuclear program, as a metastasizing cancerous problem that’s getting BIGGER and BIGGER if we don’t DO SOMETHING.

You know what it smells like to me?

It smells like an effort by some to put a radical U.S. nuclear counterproliferation doctrine on the table now, so when it’s the end of the year and it’s time to deal with that other Muslim country with the destabilizing nuclear capability—you know, the one on the other side of Afghanistan, the one that the Israelis are so upset about—public opinion has been primed to accept the idea that some combination of air strikes, special ops, and insertion of U.S. forces is needed to save the world from an Islamic nuclear program that’s…outta control!

A crisis in Pakistan—and high-profile U.S. handwringing over those dangerous Muslim nukes—might be the best thing that happens to Benjamin Netanyahu this year.

We’ll see.

Anyway, I don’t think we have a Pakistan nukes problem.

We have a reckless and cynical fearmongering problem that should ring alarm bells for anybody who remembers the Iraq war.

In a small way, I think we also have a David Albright problem.

ISIS is run by David Albright.

Scott Ritter delivered a devastating rip job on Albright in Truthdig last year, entitled The Nuclear Expert Who Never Was.

He characterized Albright as a dilettante wannabe nuclear weapons guy, who has self-promoted himself, his honorary doctorate, and his institute using the flimsiest of pretexts.

More importantly, Ritter identifies Albright’s key credential as a willingness to offer up uninformed and tendentious alarmism when the situation demands it.

Ritter’s conclusion sums up his feelings about Albright’s role in the nuclear non-proliferation debate:

Albright, operating under the guise of his creation, ISIS, has a track record of inserting hype and speculation about matters of great sensitivity in a manner which skews the debate toward the worst-case scenario. Over time Albright often moderates his position, but the original sensationalism still remains, serving the purpose of imprinting a negative image in the psyche of public opinion. This must stop. It is high time the mainstream media began dealing with David Albright for what he is (a third-rate reporter and analyst), and what he isn’t (a former U.N. weapons inspector, doctor, nuclear physicist or nuclear expert). It is time for David Albright, the accidental inspector, to exit stage right. Issues pertaining to nuclear weapons and their potential proliferation are simply too serious to be handled by amateurs and dilettantes.

Amen to that.

Peter Lee is a business man who has spent thirty years observing, analyzing, and writing on Asian affairs. Lee can be reached at peterrlee-2000@yahoo.

KARACHI, Pakistan: Pakistan has complained to United States military leadership and the Central Intelligence Agency’s involvement with terrorism inside Pakistan was inconsistent with Washington’s declared commitment to the war against terror.

Impeccable official sources have said that strong evidence and circumstantial evidence of American acquiescence to terrorism inside Pakistan was outlined by President Pervez Musharraf, Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani and Director General Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) Lt. Gen. Nadeem Taj in their separate meetings with US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen and CIA Deputy Director Stephen R Kappes on July 12 in Rawalpindi.

The visit by the senior US military official along with the CIA deputy director — carrying what were seen as India-influenced intelligence inputs — hardened the resolve of the Pakistani establishment to keep supreme Pakistan’s national security interest even if it meant straining ties with the U.S. and NATO.

A senior official with direct knowledge of these meetings said that Pakistan’s military leadership and the president asked the American visitors “not to distinguish between a terrorist for the United States and Afghanistan and a terrorist for Pakistan.”

For reasons best known to Langley, the CIA headquarters, and the Pentagon, Pakistani officials say the Americans were not interested in disrupting the Kabul-based fountainhead of terrorism in Balochistan nor do they want to allocate unmanned Predators to eliminate Baitullah Mehsud, the undisputed kingpin of suicide bombings against Pakistan who currently hiding near the Pak-Afghan border.

The most intriguing moment for the two senior U.S. officials while visiting Rawalpindi was when their Pakistani hosts presented them with evidence of American link to terrorists in Balochistan. Pakistani officials proved Brahmdagh Bugti’s presence in Afghan intelligence safe houses in Kabul, his photographed visits to New Delhi and his orders for terrorism in Baluchistan.

The top U.S. military commander and the CIA official were also asked why the CIA-run Predators and the U.S. military did not swing into action when they were provided the exact location of Baitullah Mehsud, Pakistan’s most wanted terrorist and the mastermind of almost every suicide attack against the Pakistan Army and the ISI since June 2006.

One such precise piece of information was made available to the CIA on May 24, 2008, when Baitullah Mehsud drove to a remote South Waziristan mountain post in his Toyota Land Cruiser to address the press and returned back to his safe abode. The United States military has the capacity to direct a missile to a precise location at very short notice as it has done close to 20 times in the last few years to hit al-Qaeda targets inside Pakistan.

Pakistani official have long been intrigued by the presence of highly encrypted communications gear with Baitullah Mehsud. This communication gear enables him to collect real-time information on Pakistani troop movement from an unidentified foreign source without being intercepted by Pakistani intelligence.

Admiral Mullen and the CIA official were in Pakistan on an unannounced visit on July 12 to show what the U.S. media claimed was evidence of ISI’s ties to Afghan Taliban commander Maulana Sirajuddin Haqqani and the alleged involvement of Pakistani agents in the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul.

Pakistani military leaders squarely dismissed the American information and evidence on the Kabul bombing. Instead, the Pakistani officials explained why it was necessary for Islamabad to maintain some form of communication with Haqqani, just as the British government had decided to open talks with some Taliban leaders in southern Afghanistan last year.

Before opening new channels of communication with the Taliban in Helmand province in March this year, the British and Nato forces were talking to leading Taliban leaders through Michael Semple, the acting head of the European Union mission to Afghanistan, and Mervyn Patterson, a senior UN official, before their unprecedented expulsion from Afghanistan by the Karzai government in January this year.

The American visitors were also told that the government of Pakistan had to seek the help of Taliban commanders such as Sirajuddin Haqqani for the release of its kidnapped ambassador Tariquddin Aziz, after the U.S.-backed Karzai administration failed to secure Aziz’s release from his captors in Afghanistan.

Admiral Mullen and Kappes were both provided information about the activities of the Indian consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad and were asked how the CIA does not know that both Indian consulates are manned by Indian intelligence agents who plot against Pakistan round the clock.

“We wanted to know when our American friends would get interested in tracking down the terrorists responsible for hundreds of suicide bombings in Pakistan and those playing havoc with our natural resources in Balochistan while sitting in Kabul and Delhi,” said a Pakistan official privy to the meetings.

Throughout their meetings, the Americans were told that Pakistan would like to continue its role as an active partner in the war against terror and at no cost would it allow its land to be used by our people to plot terror against Afghanistan or India. However, Pakistan would naturally want the United States, India and Afghanistan to stop supporting Pakistani terrorists.

Pakistani officials have said that the current ‘trust deficit’ between the Pakistani and U.S. security establishments is not serious enough to lead to severing the relationship, but that the element of suspicion is very high, more so because of CIA’s decision to publicize the confidential exchange of information with Pakistan and to use its leverage with the new Pakistani government to try to arm-twist the Army and the ISI.

The Pakistani security establishment, officials said, want a fresh round of strategic dialogue with their counterparts in the U.S., essentially to priorities the objectives and terrorist targets in the war against terror, keeping in mind the serious national security interests of the two allies.

Kamran Khan works for The News International & GEO News. This report was published by The News International.

“… designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime … we will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans. Initially, the terrorists may burrow deeper into caves and other entrenched hiding places … At the same time, the oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and our allies. As we strike military targets, we will also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan …”

During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Obama promised to immediately withdraw troops from Iraq in order to bolster the forces in Afghanistan in order to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda. “It’s time to refocus our attention on the war we have to win in Afghanistan.” I believe that this tactic was taken by the Obama team in order to placate the anti-Iraq contingent in the American electorate, while not leaving himself vulnerable to the “soft on defense” hawkish critics on the other side. As a campaign tactic, this approach proved to be successful. In reality, this may prove to be one of the greatest miscalculations President Obama could make.

After the historic election of President Obama, many historians and others placed this event in the context of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Dream.” Some mistakenly saw this election as the fulfillment of that “Dream”; others mistakenly compared candidate Obama’s “race neutral” approach with Dr. King’s vision. Some even likened Obama’s oratory skills with that of Dr. King’s.

Today, critics are asking the question, “Is the Obama administration’s approach to the problems in Afghanistan/Pakistan going to be their Vietnam?” As America faces its most difficult economic challenges in recent history, compare President Obama’s Afghanistan/Pakistan with President Johnson’s Vietnam. Is the Obama administration making the same mistakes based on arrogance, hubris and a misplaced sense of empire that led us into Vietnam? Here’s what the Reverend Dr. King had to say about US involvement in Vietnam in his speech “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence”:

“There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor – both black and white – through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.”

Today, President Obama is planning to send an additional 4,000 troops and other support personnel into Afghanistan. Like his predecessor, President Obama says, “If the Afghanistan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorists.” The additional 4,000 troops will bring the total US force up to 30,000 by the end of 2009.

President Obama is also ratcheting up the rhetoric and activity in Pakistan. There’s a significant increase in ground forces, Predator drones and air attacks. In his announcement on March 27th, President Obama referred to the border region of Afghanistan/Pakistan as, “the most dangerous place in the world….This is not simply an American problem – far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist attacks in London and Bali were tied to al-Qaida and its allies in Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad and Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city, it, too, is likely to have ties to al-Qaida’s leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake.

President Obama and his advisors should learn from history, some ancient some modern, and not repeat it. This is a region of the world that has never been defeated militarily. It is where empires go to die. The Greeks, Indians, Persians, Mongolians, British, and Russians have tried to hold Afghanistan but never succeeded.

Under the pretext of responding to the September 11, 2001 attacks in America, the United and States and Great Britain invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001. They dubbed this invasion Operation Enduring Freedom. President Bush 41’ told the American people that the US strikes were,

“…designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime…we will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans. Initially, the terrorists may burrow deeper into caves and other entrenched hiding places…At the same time, the oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and our allies. As we strike military targets, we will also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan… ”

During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Obama promised to immediately withdraw troops from Iraq in order to bolster the forces in Afghanistan in order to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda. “It’s time to refocus our attention on the war we have to win in Afghanistan.” I believe that this tactic was taken by the Obama team in order to placate the anti-Iraq contingent in the American electorate while not leaving himself vulnerable to the “soft on defense” hawkish critics on the other side. As a campaign tactic this approach proved to be successful. In reality, this may prove to be one of the greatest miscalculations President Obama could make.

After the historic election of President Obama, many historians and others placed this event in the context of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Dream”. Some mistakenly saw this election as the fulfillment of that Dream”; others mistakenly compared candidate Obama’s “race neutral” approach with Dr. King’s vision. Some even likened Obama’s oratory skills with that of Dr. King’s.

Today critics are asking the question “is the Obama administration’s approach to the problems in Afghanistan/Pakistan going to be their Vietnam?” As America faces its most difficult economic challenges in recent history, compare President Obama’s Afghanistan/Pakistan with President Johnson’s Vietnam. Is the Obama administration making the same mistakes based on arrogance, hubris, and a misplaced sense of empire that led us into Vietnam? Here’s what the Rev. Dr. King had to say about US involvement in Vietnam in his speech Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence,

“There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor — both black and white — through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.”

Today, President Obama is planning to send an additional 4,000 troops and other support personnel into Afghanistan. Like his predecessor, President Obama says, “If the Afghanistan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorists.” The additional 4,000 troops will bring the total US force up to 30,000 by the end of 2009.

President Obama is also ratcheting up the rhetoric and activity in Pakistan. There’s a significant increase in ground forces, Predator drones and air attacks. In his announcement on March 27th, President Obama referred to the border region of Afghanistan/Pakistan as,

“the most dangerous place in the world….This is not simply an American problem – far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist attacks in London and Bali were tied to al-Qaida and its allies in Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad and Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city, it, too, is likely to have ties to al-Qaida’s leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake.”

President Obama and his advisors should learn from history, some ancient some modern, and not repeat it. This is a region of the world that has never been defeated militarily. It is where empires go to die. The Greeks, Indians, Persians, Mongolians, British, and Russians have tried to hold Afghanistan but never succeeded.

According to historians, Alexander the Great in 330 B.C. lost more men and more animals crossing the Hindu Kush than all his subsequent campaigns in central Asia. In 1839 the British invaded Afghanistan; in 1841 after an Afghan revolt, 4,500 British troops withdrew. According to a description published in the North American Review in 1842,

On the 6th of January, 1842, the Caboul forces commenced their retreat through the dismal pass, destined to be their grave. On the third day they were attacked by the mountaineers from all points, and a fearful slaughter ensued…

In most recent history, the Russians invaded Afghanistan. The initial deployment of the Soviet 40th Army began in Afghanistan on August 7, 1978. After nine years of fighting a US, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistani backed mujahideen resistance, the Soviet troop withdrawal began on May 15, 1988 and ended on February 15, 1989.

Since 2001, in spite of President Bush and now President Obama’s noble speeches and military tactics, the US and its allies have not “disrupt(ed) the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations”. The US has not been able to successfully “attack the military capability of the Taliban regime”.

What the US has done is lose 1147 coalition forces; US Air Force data shows that Munitions dropped in Afghanistan have risen 1,100 percent, from 2004 to 2007, tonnage figures jumped from 163 tons to 1,956 tons. According to the United Nations, bombs have killed over 2000 Afghan civilians in 2008, up 40% from 2007. The Associated Press reports the direct correlation between the rise in Afghan civilian deaths and anti-American sentiment.

In terms of dollars, according to recently released pentagon reports, the price tag for running the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan will outstrip the cost of the conflict in Iraq next year. America can not afford this folly. As the Rev. Dr. King would say; then came the buildup in Afghanistan/Pakistan and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war…

The US and its allies could “disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and attack the military capability of the Taliban regime…” if more of this effort and money were spent on winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan and Pakistani people through real humanitarian assistance such as water, food, medicine, blankets, and building supplies.

The problem with this solution is that those who fuel and promote the military industrial complex in America do not profit from the sale of humanitarian assistance. They profit from war. This is why, if America is not smart, Afghanistan/Pakistan will once again be where empires go to die.

The six-month battle with Islamist insurgents in the remote Bajaur district is seen as pivotal to the country’s fight against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, after bombings have killed more than 1,600 people in less than two years.

Nuclear-armed Pakistan’s government launched the Bajaur offensive in August amid heavy criticism from US and Afghan officials who say it is not doing enough to stop militants crossing into Afghanistan to attack foreign troops.

Heavy artillery and helicopter gunships have pounded Bajaur, one of Pakistan’s seven federally-administered tribal areas (FATA) along the Afghan border, in a bid to flush out militant bases, killing hundreds.

“We think that we have secured this agency (district),” said Major General Tariq Khan, the commander of forces fighting in Bajaur.

“They have lost. They have lost their cohesion out here,” Khan told reporters flown by helicopters from the capital, Islamabad.

A Pakistani army colonel named Saifullah, who gave only one name, said the military had also beaten back militants in the neighbouring tribal area of Mohmand, also on the Afghan border, where security forces have been waging lower-level offensives.

“Now the people’s minds are clear. They now believe in the strength of the force and the resolve of the government that this militancy is being pursued and is being finished,” he told reporters in Ghallanai.

“The influence of militants has reduced over a major proportion of the population and area,” the colonel added.

Pakistan is facing increased US pressure to clampdown on militant hideouts with President Barack Obama deploying an extra 17,000 troops to Afghanistan as part of a major shift in its action against global terrorist networks from Iraq to south Asia.

There was no independent verification of the Bajaur victory but the Taliban see the district as a key strategic district they cannot not afford to lose, analysts have said.

To the east is Swat, where the Taliban have called an indefinite ceasefire following a nearly two-year insurgency, while on the Afghan side is a long frontier with the Taliban hotspot of Kunar province.

Khan recommended fencing the rugged and porous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan to prevent the cross-border movement of Taliban militants.

He said troops would withdraw gradually but not pull out for some time, speculating that military operations in five of Pakistan’s seven wild tribal districts could finish by the end of the year.

In Bajaur, 97 soldiers from the Pakistan army and the paramilitary Frontier Corps have been killed, while 404 troops were injured, he said.

Khan said about 50 percent of the militants were Afghans and some Sudanese and Egyptians had been killed in Bajaur in the initial stages of operation.

He described a unilateral ceasefire declared by the Taliban on Monday as “a face-saving statement”.

“There was no question of ceasefire, the resistance has melted, dissolved. It is not there,” he said.

Shafir Ullah, the chief of the Bajaur civil administration, said 1,600 militants were killed during the campaign and more than 2,000 injured while some 150 civilians also died and about 2,000 were injured in the fighting.

The pitched battles and bombardment had destroyed about 5,000 homes in Bajaur, which is home to about one million people, Ullah said.

Ullah appealed for international donors to come forward with money for reconstruction and the provision of basic services such as electricity and water to 304,598 people displaced from their homes in Bajaur.

The official said more than 180,000 had returned.

This organization has been crucial in bringing regional stability. Its contribution in the 1980s against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan could not be denied, and it operated cooperatively with multiple US agencies for a decade or more.

After Sept. 11, 2001, the American campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan could not have materialized without the willful support of Pakistan and its security organizations, including the ISI. Scores of key Al Qaeda and Taliban figures were either killed or handed over to the United States through the ISI’s help.

Supporting the United States in Afghanistan and elsewhere while combating extremism, Pakistan has incurred colossal human loss in terms of deaths of its citizens and security officials.

Recurring suicide attacks on Pakistan’s security officials in Rawalpindi and Islamabad and target killing of its members in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and elsewhere illustrate the frustration and damage Pakistan has caused to the militants and terrorists.

Allegations of the ISI’s cadres operating in connivance with the Taliban or Al-Qaeda and portrayals of the agency as an autonomous body are not based on fact. The ISI operates under complete control of the civilian government, and American authorities are convinced of the credibility of this institution following the return of Pakistan to full democracy.

Nadeem H. Kiani
Press attache
Embassy of Pakistan
Washington

Richard Holbrooke, considered the architect of peace in Bosnia, was due to meet President Asif Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and military chiefs, the foreign ministry said.

US President Barack Obama has called Afghanistan the main front in the “war on terror” and plans to send a further 30,000 troops there, doubling the US contingent fighting a Taliban-led insurgency along with NATO forces.

Holbrooke will hold top-level talks in Pakistan, Afghanistan and India before “reporting back” to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Obama.

“I am here to listen and learn the ground realities of this critically important country,” Holbrooke was quoted as saying in a statement released by the US embassy after his arrival in Islamabad late Monday.

“The United States looks forward to reviewing our policies and renewing our commitment and friendship with the people of Pakistan,” he added.

The foreign ministry said Islamabad was looking for fresh perspective on security, stability and development, to address “militancy, terrorism and extremism effectively” in a “comprehensive and holistic strategy”.

But Holbrooke will likely face criticism from a civilian government worried that US missile strikes against militant targets on its territory will exacerbate its domestic problems and unpopularity.

Islamabad’s relations with Washington and Kabul have been strained over accusations that Pakistan is not doing enough to eradicate Islamist “safe havens” on its territory.

Pakistan, reeling from attacks that have killed more than 1,500 people in 20 months, has welcomed the US policy review.

Holbrooke’s mission will be further complicated by an escalating blame game between India and Pakistan over the Mumbai attacks, which New Delhi has blamed on Pakistan-based militants.

The United States has also expressed concern that nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan’s atomic bomb who was freed from house arrest last week, will not be involved in nuclear proliferation.

“What is required in my view is new ideas, better coordination within the US government, better coordination with our NATO allies and other concerned countries, and the time to get it right,” Holbrooke said in Germany on Sunday.

“Pakistan’s situation is dire,” he said. “It needs international assistance, international sympathy and international support.”

Pakistan wants the US missile attacks to end, US aid (10 billion dollars under ex-ruler Pervez Musharraf) and renewed diplomacy on Kashmir, an issue at the heart of its troubles with India but which Washington says is not within Holbrooke’s mandate.

Islamabad said Monday its investigators needed more information from India to complete a probe into the Mumbai attacks in November, when 10 gunmen killed 165 people during a 60-hour siege.

New Delhi blamed the attacks on the banned militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is active in Indian-ruled Kashmir, but the outfit has denied responsibility.

We wish you are in the best of health and high-spirits.

Mr. President, we are writing to you as a group of concerned American, foreign, and Pakistani students who would like to bring your attention to the world’s longest-standing flashpoint. It is our belief that a watershed has been reached where some common-sense needs to prevail in South Asia with regards to India-Pakistan relations. We recognize and appreciate some of the statements that you have made with regards to that but we urge you to accept with utmost seriousness that the Kashmir Dispute has lingered on for far too long. We ask you to offer the best of your offices to facilitate and mediate a resolution to the disputed conflict of Jammu and Kashmir.

For over 60 years, the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir has been a source of intense bitterness and discord between India and Pakistan.

In 1947, after the Partition of the British colony of India, Kashmir’s Maharajah ceded to the Indian Union under questionable circumstances. However, the principle enshrined in the Partition of British India was that ascension was to be based on the notion of Muslim-majority provinces & princely states be given to Pakistan while Hindu-majority territories would form India.

There was also the Princely State of Hyderabad, a state with a Muslim Nawab and a Hindu majority. Indian Armed Forces annexed the Princely State of Hyderabad through the illegal use of force on the logic that Hyderabad was Hindu-majority even though the Nawab had expressed his intentions of joining Pakistan. Similar, was the fate of the state of Junagardh.

On hearing the news of the Maharajah of Kashmir joining the Indian Union without the consent of the Kashmiri masses – an undemocratic move indeed – the populace of the state and adjoining areas revolted against the Maharajah. This meant Pakistan and India were juxtaposed for their first war that neither side had wanted. While for India this was tantamount to land grab, for Pakistan this was an attempt to defend its very rationale for existence as a state.

Mr. President, Resolution 47 of the United Nations Security Council, passed in 1948, stands as a source of truth and justice to resolve this dispute between India and Pakistan. This is in line with the long standing principle that has held the international system together since Westphalia – the right to self-determination.

India claims to be the world’s largest democracy, then why, we ask, does it not adhere to the words of its own co-founding father, Jawaharlal Nehru who affirmed his faith in a free and fair plebiscite to let the Kashmiris decide their fate? Why, we ask, has the international community and more importantly America been silent to this gross violation of the ‘self-determination’ principle of International Relations?

Mr President, just like the founding fathers of the United States of America made innumerable sacrifices by raising voice against the tyranny of the monarchy and for exercising their right to self-determination, do the people of Kashmir not deserve that same unalienable right to rid themselves of a tyrannical rule that they have never accepted?

Mr. President, Pakistanis and Kashmiris are only seeking what is just and fair. The Pakistani state and people have been long-standing allies of the United States and its peoples. We joined forces with your nation to defeat the threat of Communism in Afghanistan. What did we receive in return? A humiliating Pressler Amendment which crippled our defence needs based on arbitrary, unilateral and comatose efforts by lobbyists.

Mr. President, we consider this our duty to point out to you that Pakistan did not introduce nuclear weapons to South Asia – our neighbour to the east did. Now we watch in deep horror as America gifts our eastern neighbour with nuclear technology and next generation reactors even though India has not ratified either the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty or the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. This is a clear break from tradition when America believed in the power of treaty and customary laws.

Such provisions also challenge America’s long standing position of being ‘fair’ to both nuclear states in the subcontinent. However, now Pakistan is being denied this fairness and just treatment even though we carry the tag of a ‘Major Non-NATO Ally’.

Mr. President, coming to the War on Terror, how many Americans are aware that 8000 Pakistani civilians have lost their lives last year as a result of terrorist attacks? Do the think-tanks that churn out anti-Pakistan rhetoric not see the price being paid by Pakistan or are they oblivious to glaring harsh and documented realities?

Pakistan has become the frontline state in the War on Terror yet we receive a paltry amount of development aid and security aid that is not enough to tackle a hardened Taliban insurgency and growing economic crisis that the world financial crisis has triggered. Pakistan lacks duty-free access to American and European markets. Such provisions would allow for economic liberty to emerge with a new dynamic in our country and hence reduce the threat posed by extremism. We point these issues, along with Kashmir flashpoint out to open some eyes in Washington to the dilemmas that plague South Asia that if left unattended could well converge into a mega issue which can cause rapid destabilization of the region while spiraling in to a major international crisis.

Respected Sir, you may not be aware, but India has defaulted on its pledge to the international community, to Pakistan, to the People of Kashmir, and to human conscience; for it has failed to carry out the plebiscite which it had agreed to under the United Nations Security Council Resolution 47.

Sir, are you aware of what is really happening in Kashmir? Mr. President, 100,000 civilians have lost their lives in the conflict which began in the early 1990’s as a result of a heavy presence of Indian occupying forces and their brutal methods in the occupied state. The Indian mainland has actively engaged in attempts to alter the natural demographics of the Kashmir Valley. Over 50,000 Kashmiri Hindus have fled the valley, as a result of increased communal tensions due to India’s denial of a plebiscite to Kashmiris – communal violence that plagues India proper as well. This is not of Pakistan’s doing, but India’s abject failure; for this adamant daughter of a once wise civilization denies Kashmir her democratic rights.

This past summer of 2008, Kashmiri separatists eschewed violence in favour for peaceful non-violent protests. Hundreds and thousands of Kashmiris, upwards of half a million poured out on to the streets to protest Indian rule. The result? Indian security forces gunned down 70 unarmed protesters in broad daylight. For the past 60 years, India’s Independence Day is marked as a ‘Black Day’ by Kashmiris as they hoist black flags in defiance to illegal Indian rule. One only needs to look at reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to discover the plethora of evidence of Indian atrocities, not to forget the discovery of thousands of unmarked mass graves in Indian-occupied Kashmir in mid-2008.

India also continues to plan and build mega-dam projects that are a blatant violation of the standards laid down by the Indus River Water Treaty between itself and Pakistan. This has resulted in Pakistan’s two most important rivers, the Chenab and the Ravi, being choked as India illegally tampers with the water topography of Kashmir. This has started to pose acute problems and threatens the very existence of Pakistan’s agriculture-based economy. It also threatens two of Pakistan’s provinces with acute water shortages and the Pakistani people at large. This also affects Pakistan’s hydroelectricity generation capacity – already plagued by acute energy crisis – further damaging our capacity to ensure economic liberty and the prospect of upward social mobility. Does the United States not see these violations?

Mr. President, we want the People of Pakistan and the People of Kashmir – whether the latter chooses independence or union with Pakistan – to have every right to exercise their aspirations whether that is to live with human dignity and/or the right to upward social mobility. The current conflict has taken a heavy toll on the Pakistani masses while also resulting in unimaginable suffering for the Kashmiri masses. We can forgive those who have been afraid of the dark in the past and have not embraced rationality, but we cannot forgive those who are afraid to accept the light. The light, Mr. President, is democracy. This has two loose ends that will have to be tied up. America has to give up its love affair with dictatorships in Pakistan and Kashmir has to be entitled to a democratic exercise to determine its own destiny. Freedom beckons for Kashmir as Kashmir bleeds under the yoke of a million-strong illegal Indian military occupation. You alluded to Iran unclenching its fist, but what about India unclenching not just its fist but unloading that shotgun it has placed on the heart of Kashmir?

We ask upon you to fix this historic injustice and to allow the people of Kashmir to exercise their unalienable right to self-determination and democratic exercise to choose their own destiny, whether it be with India, Pakistan, or as a free nation-state in the comity of Nations – such as Kosovo has done. Sir, you are in a position to act. Mr. President, prove to us the merit of playing by the rules and set a strong precedent that the international system can work for the weak as well and not just the strong. Because sooner or later, if the prospect is not shown to the masses that the international system supports justice and not just narrowly defined self-interests and profits, then playing by the rules will seem distasteful and paradoxical as we would have come to the realization that we are not considered part of the game.

P.S: Please see the thousands of signatures and more profoundly a light we have lit for you on this website; www.plebiscitekashmir.com

Regards ,

Authors: Haroon S. Ellahi Shaikh and Saad Syed
Society For Plebiscite Against Occupation

“Yes, the President‑elect does support the legislation that you (Kerry) were part of, Vice President‑ elect (Joseph) Biden and Senator (Richard) Lugar also. We want to try to begin to some extent to separate our military aid from our non military aid.”

“The tripling of non‑military aid is intended to provide resources that will both support the Pakistani people and also give some tools to the democratically elected government to try to start producing results for the people of Pakistan,” she told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at her confirmation hearing.

The former first lady appeared for her hearing exactly a week before the Obama Administration takes charge on January 20.

Clinton was asked by Senator Kerry if she could affirm that the new administration remains absolutely committed to the Biden‑Lugar measure (now likely to be named Kerry‑Lugar) that seeks to enhance economic assistance for Pakistan to $ 1.5 billion annually over a number of years.

On the military aid aspect of the legislation, she said, the Administration wants to “look hard and see whether we can condition some of that on the commitment for the counter‑insurgency, counterterrorism missions.”

“So we certainly are inclined to support, where appropriate, the legislation you are referring to,” she added.

The New York senator, who has been a member of the influential panel, told her fellow lawmakers that Pakistan faces the complex problem of extremism but its government is determined to curb the menace. 

“Pakistan has a particular complexity because of its nuclear weapons capacity. But the democratically elected government has been saying a lot of the right things with respect to the threat posed by extremists and terrorists particularly along the border and in the FATA region in Pakistan.”

“So, I am hopeful that we will have a very active, positive relationship with the new Pakistan government. I know that there is a lot of work being done by the outgoing Administration to deepen ties between our country and various institutions in Pakistan,” she stated in answer to a question from a member of the panel.

At the same time, she reminded that the menace of violent extremism is a complicated problem in the region.

“But this is a tough problem. It is a very complicated problem.  It has many dimensions to it. As you pointed out, the relationship with India, the relationship with Afghanistan. The role that Iran and others are playing in that region.”

“We have to approach this with the same level of attention and comprehensive understanding that our military is attempting to do as it ramps up our troop commitment in Afghanistan and works more closely with the government of Pakistan to protect them from violent extremists as well as to root out al‑Qaeda and other remnants of the terrorists network so that they don’t find safe haven in Pakistan to plan attacks against us or any other country.” 

Chairman Senate Kerry, who has succeeded Vice President‑elect Joseph Biden, underscored the need for supporting Pakistan in overcoming its economic challenges.

He raised his concern on a number of counts with respect to pursuance of the war on terror in Afghanistan and pointed out the need for clear definition of the U.S. goals. He suggested a review of the terms like war on terror and their possible replacement with counter‑insurgency.

Clinton sounded agreeable to chairman of the panel Senator John Kerry’s call for examining efficacy of targeting and taking out suspected terrorists in tribal areas along Pakistan‑Afghanistan border in the face of counterproductive impact of such actions on hearts and minds campaign. -APP

Yousuf Raza Gilani’s remarks will likely anger New Delhi, which says the dossier provides evidence that Pakistani militants staged the November slaughter of 164 people.

Pakistan has detained some suspects alleged linked to the attacks and admitted the only gunman who survived was Pakistani.

But it has remained careful not to characterize the dossier as anything approaching proof of Pakistani involvement.

In his late Tuesday statement, Gilani said Pakistan was still examining the dossier.

He also urged “pragmatic cooperation” between the countries. -AP