Last night President Barrack Obama confirmed the death of elusive terrorist Osama bin Ladin. He was killed through a military operation on a private mansion in Abbottabad, a city located 70 miles due north of Islamabad in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province (formerly known as the North West Frontier Province) in Pakistan. Pakistan Military Academy, where all Army soldiers are given their initial training is located just 6 kilometers from Abbottabad.
Not much information is forthcoming at this stage about how it all happened. The actual operation seems to have been an all American one. There may have been some intelligence coordination with Pakistan. General Petraeus' visit to Islamabad and his meeting with General Ashfaq Kiyani a couple of days ago may have something to do with it. The strange thing is that there is no word either from Pakistan Army, the or the Pakistani Government.
The media reports suggest that Osama bin Ladin has been buried at sea. This may well have been done to avoid a shrine being built around his grave giving a focal point to his supporters. However, what is hard to fathom is, how was his body flown to the Arabian Sea. The Chinook Helicopters that took part in the attack would have had at least one hour flight from Bagram to Abbottabad and the trip down to sea would take another four and the return journey to nearest base in Afghanistan (say Kandhar) would take another two hours. The question is, does a Chinook helicopter have the capacity to fly seven hours without refuelling?
Burying Osama bin Ladin at sea raises some questions. Hopefully, the US Administration will soon release pictures of a dead Osama bin Ladin for the satisfaction of American people as well as for the world at large. Knowing how cautious President Obama is in these matter, he wouldn't stake his Presidency on it unless he had checked and rechecked several times with the ground forces, Pentagon and the CIA before his address to the nation last night.
GOOD RIDDANCE Osama bin Ladin. You unleashed terror not just on the West, but also equally ferociously on the Muslim world. The 9/11 attacks, the suicide bombings, the killing of innocent people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Morocco, Yemen and elsewhere is your legacy. You have blood on your soul of thousands of people around the world who did you no harm. The world is a better place today than it was yesterday.
Showing posts with label CIA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CIA. Show all posts
Monday, May 2, 2011
Friday, January 1, 2010
LET IRANIAN SYSTEM IMPLODE ON ITS OWN, ANY HINT OF A CIA INVOLVEMENT COULD BACKFIRE BADLY
The ongoing unrest in Iran, almost daily demonstrations and the death of Mousavi's nephew shows that Iranian clergy is losing its stranglehold over Iran's political system.
Ever since the replacement of Shah's dictatorial rule with an even worse regime imposed by the Mullahs on Iranian public, the question has not been; will it fail, but rather when will it fail?
The Iranian public has been held hostage by religious extremists who see things only their way and no other way. The lack of tolerance, the pressure on young men to grow beards and on women to dress in a certain manner has the public looking for alternatives and freedom of expression.
The recent demonstrations could possibly have been encouraged and supported by outside players. The news coming out of Iran and carried by Western media seems to have a strange similarity to it, be it on CNN, BBC, ABC, NBC or CBS, as if the story is being fed from a single source. However genuine, many in public tend to view authenticity of such stories with some suspicion.
It was always a question of time when the Mullahs would run out of gas and Iranians would want a free and a democratic system of governance with fully restored civil liberties. It is best to let the Iranian public deal with this and not meddle with their internal affairs. Any hint of a CIA involvement in the anti Government demonstrations could backfire badly, possibly resulting in the current regime clamping down even harder and delaying the inevitable.
Ever since the replacement of Shah's dictatorial rule with an even worse regime imposed by the Mullahs on Iranian public, the question has not been; will it fail, but rather when will it fail?
The Iranian public has been held hostage by religious extremists who see things only their way and no other way. The lack of tolerance, the pressure on young men to grow beards and on women to dress in a certain manner has the public looking for alternatives and freedom of expression.
The recent demonstrations could possibly have been encouraged and supported by outside players. The news coming out of Iran and carried by Western media seems to have a strange similarity to it, be it on CNN, BBC, ABC, NBC or CBS, as if the story is being fed from a single source. However genuine, many in public tend to view authenticity of such stories with some suspicion.
It was always a question of time when the Mullahs would run out of gas and Iranians would want a free and a democratic system of governance with fully restored civil liberties. It is best to let the Iranian public deal with this and not meddle with their internal affairs. Any hint of a CIA involvement in the anti Government demonstrations could backfire badly, possibly resulting in the current regime clamping down even harder and delaying the inevitable.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
IS THIS THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THEOCRACY'S STRANGLEHOLD ON IRAN?
The initial movement to dispute the results of Iran's Presidential elections has now morphed into a struggle for freedom and a rebellion against theocracy's 30 year stranglehold.
The unelected Guardian Council headed by the Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was imposed upon Iran following the revolution of late Ayatollah Khomeini. This body of clerics and jurists has bestowed upon itself the ultimate power to veto any laws passed by the elected Majlis - the Iranian parliament. The Council also has the bestowed upon itself the power to stop any candidate from taking part in elections. This structure has nothing to do with Islam and is a draconian powerhouse created by Iranian theocracy to keep a stranglehold on Iran's body politic.
The cracks that appeared immediately after the Presidential election are not so much because Iranians want Mousavi to be their President, but because they are sick and tired of the draconian rule by the mullahs for the last thirty years.
Prior to the Islamic revolution, Iranians suffered under the brutal and self serving regime of Shah of Iran and his vicious secret service - Savak. The 1979 revolution was not so much pro Khomeini but an anti Shah uprising. However, the people did not bargain for a theocratic led stranglehold on their daily lives. The frustration spilling out on Iranian street today is because of restriction on personal liberties and imposition of harsh rules on daily lives of Iranians especially on women.
For the first time clergy's power and the Guardian Council's stranglehold has been seriously challenged. The question is, where do things go from here? Continued confrontation will lead to more bloodshed. The chances are that clergy and Ahmadinajed will win this round and keep their hold on power, but for how long that is the question? This may not be the end but the beginning of the end for the clergy.
Also, at this time there is no apparent alternative to the system in place. The mullahs were clever enough to have enshrined their powers in the constitution which they wrote and had Majlis approve it.
Will the Iranian Military take over and throw out the clergy and the constitution with it? That may get rid of the mullahs, but will not be a good thing in itself. Both Ahmadinajed and Khamenei have support in rural areas and in the mosque and that could lead to a major unrest and possibly a civil war in Iran and that is no one's interest.
It has to be seen how all this plays out. Beyond moral support and electronic enabling, the Iranian people must be left alone to fight their battle for freedom and democracy. Any hint of behind the scenes involvement of CIA, MI6 or any other western intelligence agency will severely damage the cause of the people. The Iranian Government will use that as an excuse to label protesters as American/Western backed and crack down on them even more severely. So however tempting it may be, my suggestion to CIA and MI6 is to back off
The unelected Guardian Council headed by the Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was imposed upon Iran following the revolution of late Ayatollah Khomeini. This body of clerics and jurists has bestowed upon itself the ultimate power to veto any laws passed by the elected Majlis - the Iranian parliament. The Council also has the bestowed upon itself the power to stop any candidate from taking part in elections. This structure has nothing to do with Islam and is a draconian powerhouse created by Iranian theocracy to keep a stranglehold on Iran's body politic.
The cracks that appeared immediately after the Presidential election are not so much because Iranians want Mousavi to be their President, but because they are sick and tired of the draconian rule by the mullahs for the last thirty years.
Prior to the Islamic revolution, Iranians suffered under the brutal and self serving regime of Shah of Iran and his vicious secret service - Savak. The 1979 revolution was not so much pro Khomeini but an anti Shah uprising. However, the people did not bargain for a theocratic led stranglehold on their daily lives. The frustration spilling out on Iranian street today is because of restriction on personal liberties and imposition of harsh rules on daily lives of Iranians especially on women.
For the first time clergy's power and the Guardian Council's stranglehold has been seriously challenged. The question is, where do things go from here? Continued confrontation will lead to more bloodshed. The chances are that clergy and Ahmadinajed will win this round and keep their hold on power, but for how long that is the question? This may not be the end but the beginning of the end for the clergy.
Also, at this time there is no apparent alternative to the system in place. The mullahs were clever enough to have enshrined their powers in the constitution which they wrote and had Majlis approve it.
Will the Iranian Military take over and throw out the clergy and the constitution with it? That may get rid of the mullahs, but will not be a good thing in itself. Both Ahmadinajed and Khamenei have support in rural areas and in the mosque and that could lead to a major unrest and possibly a civil war in Iran and that is no one's interest.
It has to be seen how all this plays out. Beyond moral support and electronic enabling, the Iranian people must be left alone to fight their battle for freedom and democracy. Any hint of behind the scenes involvement of CIA, MI6 or any other western intelligence agency will severely damage the cause of the people. The Iranian Government will use that as an excuse to label protesters as American/Western backed and crack down on them even more severely. So however tempting it may be, my suggestion to CIA and MI6 is to back off
Friday, March 27, 2009
U. S. Policy is Flawed in Afghanistan
President Obama's new policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan is seriously flawed and sending more American and Nato troops is fraught with danger.
The question is, who is the U.S. fighting in Afghanistan, the Afghan people? How can a foreign force fight the locals and on what basis - they are fundamentalist fanatics? But aren't there fundamentalist fanatics around the world including the U.S.? If the U.S. is fighting Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, didn't the U.S. have ample opportunity to eliminate them in the past. According to some of the members of CIA's advanced team of operatives (well documented on CNN) they had Osama bin Ladin within sights at Tora Bora even before the Afghan invasion started but Donald Rumsfeld refused to order air raids! Perhaps OBL was needed alive to provide a reason for Iraq invasion.
There is no doubt that Taliban are extremist religious fanatics who wish to impose their archaic view of Islam over Afghanistan. There is also no doubt that this extreme view of religion is rejected by a vast majority of 1.3 billion Muslims around the world. But Taliban have never attacked the U.S. forces until they invaded Afghanistan, so why is the U.S. fighting them and to what end? If the purpose is to bring Taliban into mainstream fold so they moderate their views and become a useful member of the society, bombing and killing them is not going to accomplish the objective.
It is important to understand the ethnic mix of Afghans which is comprised of Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Shias and the majority Pashtuns. All of the Taliban come from majority Pashtun tribes. Pashtuns straddle across the Pakistan border in Baluchistan and North West Frontier province. The ties between Pashtun tribes go back thousands of years and artificial borders are meaningless to them. In its invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. was misled by the Northern Alliance (comprising minority non-Pashtun groups) that Taliban is the enemy. Though Hamid Karzai is a Pashtun, but minority non-Pashtuns have held sway over the Afghan Government ever since the U.S. invasion. This has caused a massive backlash amongst Pashtuns who feel they are being deprived of their fair right by the U.S. and its allies. As a result they support and finance the Taliban because they feel they are fighting their battle.
Some brilliant minds in Rumsfeld's Pentagon and the CIA also exacerbated the problem by allowing Afghans to re cultivate poppy, which was completely eradicated by previous Taliban Government. The thinking perhaps was that if Afghans are happy with their cash crop, they will not attack U.S. and Nato forces. But guess what, the cash from poppy crops is flowing into the hands of Taliban with which they are buying weapons to kill U.S. and Nato soldiers.
The solution of Afghanistan does not lie in war, drone attacks or in killing Taliban. Didn't the Soviet Union try this already with a much larger and a more equipped force and failed miserable at it? If the U.S. continues to follow this course, the outcome will be no different. In addition, U.S. drone attacks on Pakistan border areas are radicalizing the Pashtun belt to such an extent that they are becoming a menace to the Pakistan Government to the extent of destabilizing Pakistan. Many in Pakistan believe that sooner or later U.S. will walk away from Afghanistan and leave this enormous problem in their lap, just as it did after the withdrawal of Soviet forces leaving a destabilized Afghanistan in Pakistan's lap.
What Afghanistan needs is peace and security and that will be achieved by dialogue. Pashtuns need a fair share of power and Taliban need to be brought to the negotiating table. A Government of national unity needs to be formed in Afghanistan and foreign troops need to leave soon thereafter. Foreign troops are the main cause of fighting, Pashtuns & Taliban look at them as foreign invaders just as they did the Soviet troops. Only the United Nations troops should be stationed in Afghanistan to ensure stability and peace between various tribes.
Afghanistan has been at war since 1979 and it is time to stop. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan need peace. The drone attacks on Pakistan have accomplished absolutely nothing (regardless of Pentagon's convoluted claims) except for killing poor villagers in the border areas.
What is needed is a massive development effort. A 'Marshall' type plan to pull out Afghanistan and Pakistan's frontier region from the 15th century to the present can bring enormous benefits and change the mindset of the people in that region. Continuation of present policy of more troops and more war will only turn Afghanistan into another Vietnam for President Obama. One hopes he has the foresight not to fall into that trap.
The question is, who is the U.S. fighting in Afghanistan, the Afghan people? How can a foreign force fight the locals and on what basis - they are fundamentalist fanatics? But aren't there fundamentalist fanatics around the world including the U.S.? If the U.S. is fighting Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, didn't the U.S. have ample opportunity to eliminate them in the past. According to some of the members of CIA's advanced team of operatives (well documented on CNN) they had Osama bin Ladin within sights at Tora Bora even before the Afghan invasion started but Donald Rumsfeld refused to order air raids! Perhaps OBL was needed alive to provide a reason for Iraq invasion.
There is no doubt that Taliban are extremist religious fanatics who wish to impose their archaic view of Islam over Afghanistan. There is also no doubt that this extreme view of religion is rejected by a vast majority of 1.3 billion Muslims around the world. But Taliban have never attacked the U.S. forces until they invaded Afghanistan, so why is the U.S. fighting them and to what end? If the purpose is to bring Taliban into mainstream fold so they moderate their views and become a useful member of the society, bombing and killing them is not going to accomplish the objective.
It is important to understand the ethnic mix of Afghans which is comprised of Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Shias and the majority Pashtuns. All of the Taliban come from majority Pashtun tribes. Pashtuns straddle across the Pakistan border in Baluchistan and North West Frontier province. The ties between Pashtun tribes go back thousands of years and artificial borders are meaningless to them. In its invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. was misled by the Northern Alliance (comprising minority non-Pashtun groups) that Taliban is the enemy. Though Hamid Karzai is a Pashtun, but minority non-Pashtuns have held sway over the Afghan Government ever since the U.S. invasion. This has caused a massive backlash amongst Pashtuns who feel they are being deprived of their fair right by the U.S. and its allies. As a result they support and finance the Taliban because they feel they are fighting their battle.
Some brilliant minds in Rumsfeld's Pentagon and the CIA also exacerbated the problem by allowing Afghans to re cultivate poppy, which was completely eradicated by previous Taliban Government. The thinking perhaps was that if Afghans are happy with their cash crop, they will not attack U.S. and Nato forces. But guess what, the cash from poppy crops is flowing into the hands of Taliban with which they are buying weapons to kill U.S. and Nato soldiers.
The solution of Afghanistan does not lie in war, drone attacks or in killing Taliban. Didn't the Soviet Union try this already with a much larger and a more equipped force and failed miserable at it? If the U.S. continues to follow this course, the outcome will be no different. In addition, U.S. drone attacks on Pakistan border areas are radicalizing the Pashtun belt to such an extent that they are becoming a menace to the Pakistan Government to the extent of destabilizing Pakistan. Many in Pakistan believe that sooner or later U.S. will walk away from Afghanistan and leave this enormous problem in their lap, just as it did after the withdrawal of Soviet forces leaving a destabilized Afghanistan in Pakistan's lap.
What Afghanistan needs is peace and security and that will be achieved by dialogue. Pashtuns need a fair share of power and Taliban need to be brought to the negotiating table. A Government of national unity needs to be formed in Afghanistan and foreign troops need to leave soon thereafter. Foreign troops are the main cause of fighting, Pashtuns & Taliban look at them as foreign invaders just as they did the Soviet troops. Only the United Nations troops should be stationed in Afghanistan to ensure stability and peace between various tribes.
Afghanistan has been at war since 1979 and it is time to stop. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan need peace. The drone attacks on Pakistan have accomplished absolutely nothing (regardless of Pentagon's convoluted claims) except for killing poor villagers in the border areas.
What is needed is a massive development effort. A 'Marshall' type plan to pull out Afghanistan and Pakistan's frontier region from the 15th century to the present can bring enormous benefits and change the mindset of the people in that region. Continuation of present policy of more troops and more war will only turn Afghanistan into another Vietnam for President Obama. One hopes he has the foresight not to fall into that trap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)