Playing Roulette in Pakistan
It was a very good week for Saudi Arabia. The royal family’s favored Pakistani “president-in-exile,” Nawaz Sharif, returned in a triumphant homecoming, throwing down a major challenge to the rule of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who’s still favored, for the moment, by the United States.
Although Sharif can claim to be the true pro-democracy choice, given that he was deposed as prime minister by Musharraf’s 1999 military coup, the U.S. is hoping to throw the deeply corrupt but Westernized Benazir Bhutto into the mix out of fear that Sharif is soft on Muslim fanatics in his own country as well as on the Taliban.
Those fears are well founded, given that Sharif, inspired by Saudi-style Wahhabism, attempted to introduce sharia, Islamic law, in his last years in office. It was his administration that green-lighted the test of the Muslim nuclear bomb and condoned bomb builder A.Q. Khan’s nuclear proliferation efforts, which aided the nuclear weapons programs of North Korea, Libya and Iran. Finally, it was Sharif who strongly supported the Taliban, sponsors of Osama bin Laden, in securing power in Afghanistan.
Now, to be fair, Musharraf and Bhutto also favored Pakistan’s nuclear program and actively supported the Taliban. I am not referring to the fact that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were the only countries to extend full diplomatic recognition to the Taliban. No, Pakistan’s sponsorship of the Taliban, under all three leaders, goes far deeper than that, as revealed by the release in August of declassified portions of seven years’ worth of cable traffic between the U.S. State Department and its embassy in Pakistan. As the National Security Archive, based at George Washington University, summarized the new information, “the declassified U.S. documents … clearly illustrate that the Taliban was directly funded, armed and advised by Islamabad itself … including the use of Pakistani troops to train and fight alongside the Taliban inside Afghanistan.”
That support for the Taliban is traced in the declassified documents back to 1995, when Bhutto was Pakistan’s prime minister. One cable on Dec. 22, 1995, states that “Pakistan has followed a policy of supporting the Taliban” in its effort to seize power. On Oct. 22, 1996, again with Bhutto very much Pakistan’s prime minister, the U.S. Embassy warned Washington that “U.S intelligence indicates that the ISI is supplying the Taliban forces with munitions, fuel and food.” ISI refers to Pakistan’s hugely powerful and secretive Interservice Intelligence Agency. By the end of Bhutto’s tenure, a U.S. cable reported, “Pakistan’s ISI is heavily involved in Afghanistan,” but the cable added that the mostly Pashtun Pakistan Frontier Corps was also pitching in: “these Frontier Corps elements are utilized in command and control; training; and when necessary-combat.”
Those Frontier Corps fellows are the same folks that Musharraf and Bush are now counting on to capture bin Laden and his gang, operating on Pakistan’s frontier with Afghanistan. The good news, I suppose, is that the religious militant Sharif acted not much differently from U.S.-supported wonders Bhutto and Musharraf. The bad news is that they have all provided decisive support for the Taliban, which harbored bin Laden. But all was forgiven by the Bush administration after 9/11, when President Bush dropped the sanctions against Pakistan (imposed in reprisal for its testing a nuclear bomb) as a reward for Musharraf letting American forces use his air space for the invasion of Afghanistan. We also gave him $10 billion in aid as an incentive to help us catch bin Laden, but that hasn’t quite worked out yet.
In addition, we rewarded the two Arab oil sheikdoms that had supported the Taliban by knocking off their nemesis Saddam Hussein. As a result, the world is much safer, democracy has spread throughout the Muslim world, and the price of oil is so high right now that the Saudis are ordering $20 billion of American-made military hardware.
It’s been a good deal all around. Dick Cheney’s old company, Halliburton, profited so much from the Iraq war that it could afford to relocate its world headquarters from Texas to Dubai. And this Tuesday, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority agreed to help salvage Citigroup by becoming the beleaguered bank’s largest shareholder. Probably not a very smart financial move, given the unknown depths of Citigroup’s liabilities in the sub-prime mortgage scandal, but what are friends for if they can’t help out in tough times? It’s not the sort of thing Saddam Hussein would ever have done-and that’s why he’s now history.
Robert Scheer is editor of Truthdig.com and a regular columnist for The San Francisco Chronicle.
© 2007 TruthDig.com
If it weren’t so sad it’d be funny. I suppose no one ever told the us gov’t that you’re only supposed to use one bullet when playing ‘Russian’ roulette.
With friends like these, who…..yada,yada,yada.
IF Bin Laden was involved, his getaway seemed planned. There was no genuine attempt to capture him. He was used as some kind of totem to draw all attention towards that murky collage of “bad Muslims” or “Islamofascists.” The plan (as per Project for a New American Century) was always the oil, and the lands housing the “soft loan from Allah.” It’s also beyond peculiar that as Moore’s film revealed, Saudi family members were flown out; the “suspects” were as quickly defined as are our pre-sorted political contenders; and evidence of many sorts was done away with. There are so many unanswered questions about 911, so much smoke and mirrors, that even if the high-tech arguments do not hold, the pattern of events defies mere coincidence. I doubt that any benign universe would have allowed such an event when the Supreme Court was hanging by a judicial thread, when lobbies already had most congress people by the balls (or related organs), when the press was entirely sycophantic (i.e. loyal to its paymasters), and when someone without a wit of international understanding, but a legacy proving him quite fond of vengeance, was at the wheel. The whole thing was a planned basis for a coup. THAT is what we are experiencing, as we watch the evisceration of The Bill of Rights, the Constitution (in particular, its all-important checks and balances), The “Patriot Act,” the closing of our borders, the inflation of military budget at home and abroad, the narrowing protections against dissent, ETC. AD NAUSEUM!
Let us not forget the full history. All 3 leaders in Pakistan have been fully supported by the US. You people had better get a long term view of the history of Pakistan because ever since it was carved from India, the real LOSERS have been the commoners in that country who have had nothing to gain from all this mess. The West will go down in flames in the history books for supporting the worst kinds of rogue regimes in Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Also notice that in those four countries, there is NO MIDDLE CLASS WHATSOEVER !
Maxpayne wrote: “You people had better get a long term view of the history of Pakistan because ever since it was carved from India…”
The Muslims of 1940s India are the ones responsible for carving Pakistan and Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan), inspired by Ali Jinnah’s All India Muslim League. If Gandhi had had his way, India would have remained united. Whatever else it is responsible for, the US did not create Pakistan or force dictators upon it.
I can’t figure out why Sharif and Bhutto would fly into a country where their enemy’s still in charge.
I’m not always sure how much an intelligence agency is ever under the control of a civilian government these days.
What’s been known for some time is that the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence agency, definitely supported and funded the Taliban. But whether either of the PM’s had any say over that might be more open to question.
Think of Afghanistan like its always been. Kind of a neutral ground between Russia coming down from the north, Iran from the west and Pakistan\India\British Empire from the east. Each group has always looked for allies and warlords in Afghanistan. And usually Afghanistan is split between various warlords supported from these different directions.
The Pashtun tribes live on both sides of the artificial border line drawn between Afghanistan and Pakistan. So Pakistan’s influence in Afghanistan was always largely based on the influence with the Pashtuns.
The Pashtuns were the base of support for the Taliban. I’m not sure whether the ISI helped start the Taliban, but certainly once it was becoming a powerful force in Pakistan the ISI supported the Taliban. This had the general impact of a Pakistani friendly government on the other side of that border … something Pakistan has always desired.
This was the alternative to the warlords known now as the Northern Alliance, which were Russias players in this game. Then the US came in and assisted the Northern Alliance in tossing out the Taliban.
The warlords in the Northern Alliance were severely brutal. They weren’t saints either.
Read Naomi Klien’s book … one of the general consequences of US supported dictators around the world since Nixon and Kissinger supported the overthrow of Allenda in Chile has been the destruction of the middle clase in order to create corporate profits\theft.
Our masters helped create Communism and Islamism, both of which gave us the excuse to have phony long wars to feed the monster.
Our allies one day become our enemies the next, and vice versa, and usually our allies have totalitarian rulers as opposed to democracies. Good example is Venezuela. Was just reported today that Operation Pincer is in play to bring down Chavez, after we install a puppet regime that does our bidding, Venezuela can become our friend again.
I have not figured out Pakistan yet, but the goal of installing a Democracy is not consistent with our usual MO. Bhutto and Sharif being allowed to come back makes me think Pakistan is soon to be broken up to separate the Extremist sections (Sharif) from the Moderates (Bhutto). The new head of the Army replacing Mush was the former director of the ISI which may be meaningful, or not.
As pointed out, most of the borders in the Middle East are arbitrary and have no historical basis, a product of the Mandates that followed the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. Our strategy may be to break up the Middle East into regions and sections which are compatable with each other (Shia - Sunni, Arab - Persian - Pashtun - Kurds, Muslim - Non Muslim, Islamist Extremists - Secular Moderates) and more easily controlled. The Lebanonization of the Middle East has been an idea floated around for 25 years or longer. If so, it may have a new chapter. Divide and Rule baby!
“Those Frontier Corps fellows are the same folks that Musharraf and Bush are now counting on to capture bin Laden and his gang…”
WHO, exactly, is that supposed-to-kid? [Like BushCo, American/Israeli-’Interests’, and Puppets like Musharraf ever WANTED bin Laden & ‘friends’ made less-useful or “captured”?]
Please…now EVERYONE knows that almost ALL of the capital, backing, support and direction of ‘Islamic Militancy’ in the ME was directed through the ISI (since the ’80’s, and increasingly-since) — thanks to Intel in the US and Israel, and their creepy-Allys like Britain. Much of that ‘investment’ was culled from drug-profits, as raked-in by the CIA&similar since WW-II — with the remainder covertly-secured by ‘breaking-arms’ for donations within Gulf-states like Saudi-Arabia and Iran. Hell, even the anti-Western books used in ‘Fundy-Madrases’ throughout the ME carry the “Published by US Printing-Office” fingerprints of our intended/false-flag demonization/Radicalization of the poor within the Muslim/oil-rich ME — and the much-coveted Caspian-Basin.
Sure, all this drug/covert-money/Intel was once-and-initially the distasteful (but ‘necessary’) “Means to our Ends” when fighting our ‘holy’ Cold-War. But since-then, and as we so-desperately needed some compelling ‘rationale’ for the continuance of our profitable-thefts from this ‘developing-world’ (after the USSR ‘failed to serve’), we cabbaged-on to the lame-Myth and ‘Justification’ we’d seen work so-well for Israel since its Founding [this invented ‘GWoT’ and/or “Clash of Civilizations”].
We had the ISI direct our ‘incentivised&Holy-Jihadists’ up into E.Europe to pave the way for Clinton’s ‘progress/groundwork’ there, and all-over the Caspian and ME for ’similar-Interests’. All of this being well-BEFORE the purported ’surprise-blowback’ of 9/11 [and all going rapidly-downhill, yet according-to-overall-plan, ever-since].
Now we fight-Terrorism with our Right-hand, while funding/directing most of it with our-Left…[and all in the name of ‘breaking-eggs to make this (World-Order/Globalized) omelet’?].
As I said: “Please…”
Just TRY to find someone still ignorant-enough today to take all this crap at ‘face value’, and who assumes/hopes that ‘their’-Government is still just ‘doing what it knows is Best’…
What is happening today, and everywhere, is ONLY ‘Good’ for our wealthy/corporate-Interests, and their lick-spittles in Office and as Shareholders.
Shame on them-all…
MiMiCcS — Please re-consider your implicit use of dis-empowering languag, when as you call those despicable ones “Our masters … of the beast”, and possibly change that to simply “the beast masters”.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, we fell away from India for many years, which lead India to bind with the Russians. We likely went into Pakistan to stem that tide - and attempt to balance with USSR.
Namaste
__ __ __ __ We must be the change
__ __ __ __ we wish to see in the world __ Gandhi
following not my words - but very true.
It is unbelievably racist for Mr. Scheer to refer to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon as a “Muslim bomb”. Would he refer to Israel’s nuclear weapons as a “Jewish bomb”? Would he ever say that the United States dropped it’s “Christian bomb” on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? No, of course not. Why do bombs only have a religion when Muslims are involved? This language just appears to be another way to foster fear and prejudice against Muslims.
As for Pakistan’s former support of the Taliban, virtually ever bad thing Pakistan is accused of doing, the United States has done itself. The United States supported Bin Laden and the Mujahadeen against the Soviets. Although the Clinton administration did not recognize the Taliban government, it did initiate negotiations with Taliban officials to set up an oil pipeline in Afghanistan. As Scheer himself writes, the Bush administration was also funding the Taliban just months before the 9/11 attacks:
KALIA — I whole heartedly agree when you say “unbelievably racist for Mr. Scheer to refer to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon as a “Muslim bomb””.
On the other hand, when you say “Pakistan’s former support of the Taliban”, there is an important distinction that you may not be aware of, derived from the region’s geography.
The arc of the Himalayan Mts crowns India, but also heads south to the Indian ocean splitting Pakistan into two distinct parts, where the Indus river valley to the East is the home of the central Pakistani gov’t. The mountainous and climately challenged Western part is home for the Taliban, now and for many years - even more so after the US invaded Afganistan directly to the West of this (and sharing the same Mts).
The officially recognized gov’t of Pakistan (of more liberal Muslims living the life along the river) has been at war with these mountain folks, who are the hardier and much more fundamental Muslims. This gov’t, as you mentioned doesn’t “support … the Taliban”, but the Taliban are un-phased and growing in strength, and all of the more radical Muslims living in the valley likey do support their Mt. and ideological comrades.
Namaste … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Mahatma Gandhi … … … … … … … … … …
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world »
« There is enough to meet everybody’s need, but there is not enough to meet everybody’s greed »