American-Pakistani Diplomatic Crisis: Pakistani Federal Interior Minister Says CIA Created Haqqani Terrorist Network

IntelHub
Madison Ruppert

Federal Interior Minister, Rehman Malik:
Haqqani network is a creation of the CIA

The state of U.S.-Pakistani relations is growing increasingly grim as a covert and overt diplomatic crisis develops between America and Pakistan, represented by heated rhetoric coming from both sides and the growing involvement of outside entities like China and the Saudis.

This is emerging in several ways including a meeting between Pakistani Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir and U.S. Ambassador Cameron Munter, meetings between senior Saudi intelligence authorities and the chief of the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI), meetings between Chinese Vice Prime Minister Meng Jianzhu and senior Pakistani civilian and military leaders, and most notably the accusation coming from Pakistan’s Federal Interior Minister, Rehman Malik, that the Haqqani network is a CIA creation, not a Pakistani one.

Furthermore, a meeting between Pakistani Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and British Defense Secretary Liam Fox has been “postponed indefinitely” due to “the current situation [in Pakisan]”.

A Pakistani news outlet, The Express Tribune, chalks this up to continued in-house talks about the American pressure on Pakistan regarding alleged ISI support for the Haqqani terrorist network.

The critiques coming from America have been harsh, including a statement at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace by Admiral Mike Mullen just days before he is to step down as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in which he said that the ISI has “been supporting proxies for an extended period of time. The Haqqani piece of this has got to be reversed.”

In no uncertain terms, Mullen accused the Pakistani version of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of directly supporting terrorists for an extended period of time.

He also stated before the Senate Armed Services Committee that, “The Haqqani network … acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency. With ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted that truck bomb attack, as well as the attack on our embassy.

We also have credible intelligence that they were behind the June 28 attack on the Inter-Continental Hotel in Kabul as well as a host of other smaller but effective operations.”

This type of language marks a significant new stage in the deteriorating diplomatic relationship between Islamabad and Washington.

In fact, a September 24^th editorial published by the Pakistani news outlet, The Nation, said that “in the face of a virtual declaration of war by top U.S. officials, unity and solidarity among all segments of [Pakistani] society is the only thing that can avert the danger.”

Clearly the people of Pakistan, right or wrong, perceive these statements from Mullen and other U.S. officials as a direct threat against their sovereign nation.

Some are now saying that the Saudis are now being leveraged as an intermediary between Washington and Islamabad.

The Pakistani Express Tribune is reporting that Pakistani Lt. General Ahmed Shuja Pasha met with Saudi intelligence officials at the Chaklala Airbase while mentioning that some media reports are claiming that the ISI chief traveled to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia for more consultations after a “crucial” meeting with Saudi intelligence officers.

A senior military official in Pakistan confirmed that there was a delegation of Saudi intelligence officials visiting Islamabad while claiming that it was unrelated to the rift in Pakistani-American relations.

The official also said that the ISI chief did not rush off to Saudi Arabia as some reports posited, saying simply that, “We [the Pakistanis] have counter-terrorism cooperation with the US and the visit was part of that cooperation”.

There is clearly some backpedaling going on after the clearly harsh statements regarding Pakistani ties to the Haqqani network.

In describing a meeting between the American Ambassador and Pakistani Foreign Secretary Bashir, the US Embassy spokesperson, Mark Stroh, said, “It was a regular meeting but also indicates the fact that Pakistan and the US have a broad-based relationship,” effectively downplaying the diplomatic crisis currently unfolding.

These moves are quite understandable given the fact that the United States is likely attempting to do whatever possible to keep Pakistan and China from getting even closer than they already are amidst fears that Pakistan will break ties with the US in favor of China.

The Pakistani Interior Minister, Rehman Malik, said that “China is always there for us,” something he might not be able to say about the United States.

The spokesman for the Pakistani President, Farhatullah Babar presented similar sentiments by saying, “The Chinese leader reaffirmed China’s continuing support for Pakistan in its fight against militancy and the promotion of regional peace and stability”.

Again, it is not likely that Babar would be able to say that same about the United States given the fact that whenever a possible terrorist attack occurs in the region fingers are quickly pointed at Pakistan.
Babar also stated, “The President said that Pakistan greatly appreciates China’s support for Pakistan on all issues of major concern.

He said that the Chinese role was very important to usher in a new era of peace and stability in the region,” but is America playing an important role in ushering in a new era of peace or are we playing an important role in maintaining an era of war and violence?

Unfortunately for the United States, I believe that many Pakistanis see it as the latter and the statement from the Federal Interior Minister that the CIA actually created and trained the Haqqani network reflects this.

Citing security risks, Pentagon asks nation to 'move on' from bin Laden

WTOL11

WASHINGTON (RNN) - Top Pentagon officials expressed concern Wednesday over the sensitive details revealed to the media about the assault that killed former al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

"It is time to stop talking, and we have talked far too much about this. We need to move on," said Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen during a joint news briefing with Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates. "It's a story that if we don't stop talking, it will never end, and it needs to."
Gates acknowledged that an agreement between the Pentagon and the White House that no one would disclose sensitive operational details of the raid had been breeched, putting the military's ability to carry out future high-level operations at risk.

"We're close to jeopardizing this precious capability that we have, and we can't do that," Mullen said.
"This fight isn't over."

Mullen went as far as calling out retired members of the military who had spoken to the media.
Gates said he spoke with members of Navy SEAL Team 6, who carried out the operation. The soldiers felt their lives were put in danger by the release of so much information, he said.

"They did express concern not just for themselves but for their families," he said.

Gates and Mullen both expressed the belief that the upper echelons Pakistani government did not know the bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, was hiding in their country.

Iraq's own Arab spring

Guardian
Jonathan Steele

A renewed sense of nationalism is uniting protesters over delays to US troop withdrawal

Followers of Muqtada al-Sadr burn US flags during a rally marking
the eighth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad on April 9.

Stretched close to the limit by combat in Afghanistan and determined not to get into a ground war in Libya, the Pentagon is stepping up the pressure to maintain a huge US troop presence in today's largely peaceful Iraq. What might seem at first sight strange and unnecessary is in fact fully in line with the ambitions of those who planned the invasion eight years ago. Whether neocons or "realists", they always wanted to have a long-term political and military footprint in the northern sector of the Middle East, strategically placed between Syria and Iran.

As with so many elements of the geopolitical strategy he inherited from George Bush, Barack Obama has gone along with it. So it should be no surprise that Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chief of staffs, was in Baghdad on Friday urging the government to amend the agreement under which all US forces have to leave Iraq by the end of this year. Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, was in the Iraqi capital on a similar mission a few weeks earlier.

Both Sunni and Shia protesters were on the streets last week to denounce the US plans, united by a common sense of nationalism that has not been seen since the first year of the US occupation, before sectarian divisions were artificially inflamed. In Mosul around 5,000 people, including provincial council members and tribal leaders, rallied against any extension of the US presence, while supporters of the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr marched in Baghdad.

A revival of national pride played a large role in persuading the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, to stand firm against the Bush administration in its last months of office when the White House was forced to agree to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq last summer and accept a deadline of the end of this year for the remaining 47,000 to leave.

Mullen and Gates have been warning the Iraqi government that the risk of Arab/Kurdish clashes over the country's oil deposits around Kirkuk and a lingering threat from al-Qaida require US troops to stay. The counter-argument is that Iraq has survived the withdrawal of US combat troops for nine months without any breakdown of security. At a time when Arabs throughout the region are struggling to win their rights and dignity, why should Iraq submit to the humiliation of a large US ground force that no other Arab country in the region consents to?

Unlike the end of 2008, when the agreement on US forces was reached, Sadr now has a contingent of ministers in government, and it should be easier for Maliki to resist the Americans. He is facing his own "Arab spring" pressures after thousands joined Day of Rage protests in February over unemployment, corruption and lack of electricity. Twenty people died after security forces opened fire. Maliki would be foolish to give them a new cause to oppose him.

The looming row comes hard on the heels of last week's publication of official documents showing that several months before the 2003 invasion Tony Blair's government agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP's behalf. The case it made was that British companies ought to benefit from post-Saddam oil contracts if Britain supported regime change.

The documents were obtained under Freedom of Information requests by the energy industry expert, Greg Muttitt, for his excellent book, Fuel on the Fire, an investigation of western corporate activities in Iraq. Though the documents do not support the simplistic claim that the invasion was "all about oil", they show that taking control of Iraq's nationalised oil sector was an important lure. The book's most interesting sections deal with the post-invasion period, when US and British diplomats and other officials worked closely with the oil majors to get the Iraqi government to privatise the oil fields and give favourable contracts to foreign companies – despite brave resistance from oil workers, trade unions, and Iraq's corps of professional engineers (most of whom were conveniently sidelined for having been Baathists).

It is a textbook example of how international pressures are put on politicians to get them to buckle. Hussain al-Shahristani, the oil minister, emerges as a tragic figure. A nuclear scientist who was tortured for refusing to support Saddam Hussein's ambitions, he fled the country – but unlike other prominent exiles opposed the US invasion. Yet once in power he banned the oil workers' union, ordered police raids on their offices, and seized their assets.

In dealing with the oil companies he also seemed tough by getting BP and other companies to accept lower fees than they had demanded for every barrel of oil extracted. But, as Muttitt points out after close reading of BP's Rumaila contract, several changes agreed after the auction hugely weakened the ministry's original terms.

The lesson is that full transparency and unhurried public debate are as crucial when offering a country's natural resources to powerful outsiders as they are when offering long-term military bases. National sovereignty requires no less.

No plans to halt US military aid to Egypt: Pentagon

AFP/Activist Post

WASHINGTON  - The Pentagon on Thursday said it had no plans to halt weapons deliveries to Egypt in coming months despite a popular revolt against President Hosni Mubarak's rule.

While the US administration was examining its economic and military aid to Egypt in light of political upheaval there, military assistance had not been suspended, a spokesman said.

"There's a difference between halting the aid and reviewing it," said Colonel Dave Lapan.

As senior US officers closely monitored fast-moving events in Cairo, Lapan said Egypt's military continued to display "restraint" in the crisis so far.

"To date we have seen them act professionally and with restraint. Again it's a very fluid situation so we're watching every single day," Lapan told reporters.

The White House has suggested that US assistance for Egypt is under review in the face of a wave of street demonstrations demanding Mubarak step down.

Spare parts for F-16 warplanes, coastal patrol ships and fuses for munitions are among items due to be delivered to Egypt in the early part of this year, Lapan said.

The United States has provided tens of billions worth of arms and training to Egypt over more than three decades, with annual defense assistance at $1.3 billion.

Lapan also said the US military had no immediate plans to redeploy its forces in or near Egypt in response to the crisis, but as always the armed forces were carrying out "prudent planning" for all scenarios.

The majority of the more than 600 US troops stationed in Egypt are part of the multinational observer mission in the Sinai, with the remainder providing security at the embassy or working in a defense cooperation office, he said.

A US aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise, a guided-missile destroyer and other warships are currently in the Mediterranean with tentative plans to sail through the Suez Canal on the way to the Arabian Sea possibly later this month.

US ships in the Arabian Sea back up the war effort in Afghanistan, with fighter jets based on carriers running combat missions for troops on the ground.

Mubarak's government has long provided the US military with access to its air space and safe passage for naval ships through the Suez Canal, which Washington has used to supply troops in the Iraq war.

The US military's top officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, on Wednesday spoke to his counterpart by phone and said in a statement that he had "confidence" in the Egyptian army's ability to provide security for the country and the Suez Canal.

US officials and analysts view the role of Egypt's army as crucial in eventually resolving the crisis, and the administration is hoping that longstanding defense ties with Cairo will provide some leverage.

The White House said Wednesday that US contacts with various levels of the Egyptian armed forces had helped rein in possible violence earlier in the week.

Surge in Military Suicides Tops Pentagon's 'Emergency' Issues

U.S. News and World Report

A dramatic surge in troop suicides has become the Pentagon's top "emergency" issue, though the brass doesn't know how to curb the tragedies. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that while suicides have been on the rise since 2004, the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, they have really jumped recently, forcing he and his top aides to look for a solution.

"The emergency issue for me right now is the suicide issue," he said at a media roundtable breakfast today. Just last week, he added, five Army soldiers took their lives. "It's a very difficult problem. There's not a national solution," he said.

Suicides have always been a problem for the military, but the current war-hardened force is spending more time away from home than ever before and facing mentally stressful situations associated with fighting an urban war and dodging hidden roadside bombs. "I think we're going to see a growth in that before a decline," he said.

What's more, he added, the surge in coming home may encounter troubled families when they arrive back home. "I think we're going to see a significant increase in the challenges that we have in terms of troops and our families because they are going to have some time [together at home] and if things have been pent up or packed in or basically suppressed or sucked up, what ever term you want to use, we're going to see that as well," Mullen said.

Still, he said, his goal is to drop the amount of time the troops spend away from home, returning it to close to a pre-war rate. Over time, he said, that should help lessen the stress troops and military families feel. His goal within a year or two is to "get to a point where we're home twice as long as we are deployed.'