+1.KrishnaK wrote: Sorry to poke your EH AND DEE, but it does. If the US wanted to, an embargo as tight as the one around China will have been up by now.
? Not forgotten except by the "Blind Men of Hindoostan". Ironic he thought he was sailing to India. JLN wanted the Indian Army disbanded. Today, the Pols are slowly disarming India even as we spend more. The history that is forgotten is ours. If we accuse the pakis of inventing Pakistan in 1200 ad (Bin Quasem), we should also be know that our Pols want us to have pre-1947 amnesia.akashganga wrote:http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/11/ ... all_street
Today is columbus day in the US. Watch this to see what Columbus did to native people of americas. Columbus and his harsh brand of catholism wiped out completely native religions, destroyed their places of worship, and almost wiped out their culture and population. This is a forgotten history nobody even acknowledges. Even now soft power is used to make sure the native religions of americas are not revived as hard power is no longer an option.
There is an embargo around China (that too a "tight" emabargo?) Yeah sure, India would want a tight sinombargo.KrishnaK wrote: Sorry to poke your EH AND DEE, but it does. If the US wanted to, an embargo as tight as the one around China will have been up by now.
China's rise in one generation as a global player under authoritarian rule has come to epitomise the qualitative reordering of power in Asia and the wider world. Not since Japan rose to world-power status during the reign of the Meiji emperor in the second half of the 19th century has another non-Western power emerged with such potential to alter the world order as China today. As the 2009 assessment by the US intelligence community predicted, China stands to more profoundly affect global geopolitics than any other country. China's ascent, however, is dividing Asia, not bringing Asian states closer. A fresh reminder of that came when provocative Chinese actions prompted the new Japanese Government to reverse course on seeking a "more equal" relationship with the US and agree to keep the US military base in Okinawa island. That outcome is similar to the way Beijing has been pushing India closer to the US through continuing military and other provocations.
Given that the balance of power in Asia will be determined by events as much in the Indian Ocean rim as in East Asia, Tokyo and New Delhi are keen to work together to promote Asian peace and stability and help safeguard vital sea lanes. Japan and India indeed are natural allies because they have no conflict of strategic interest and share common goals to build institutionalised cooperation and stability in Asia. There is neither a negative historical legacy nor any outstanding political issue between them. If anything, each country enjoys a high positive rating with the public in the other state.
Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama's visit to India last December, soon after coming to office, showed he is keen to maintain the priority on closer engagement with India that started under his four immediate predecessors, especially Junichiro Koizumi, Shinzo Abe, Yasuo Fukuda and Taro Aso of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), now in the Opposition. Hatoyama and his Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) came to power vowing to reorient Japanese foreign policy and seek an "equal" relationship with the United States. But events have forced a rethink.
How unstable the security environment is in Japan's own neighborhood has been brought home by two recent incidents with China and the renewed tensions on the Korean Peninsula.
One incident involving China occurred less than two months ago, on 8 April, when a helicopter from a Chinese naval vessel in international waters south of Okinawa flew to within 92 metres of a Japanese defence force escort ship — so close that Japanese sailors could clearly see a gun-wielding Chinese soldier. To compound matters, not only was Tokyo's diplomatic protest summarily dismissed, but Chinese naval ships less than two weeks later, on 21 April, sailed between Okinawa and another Japanese island chain to conduct a large-scale exercise. Once again, a Chinese naval helicopter buzzed a Japanese escort ship. A Chinese military analyst called on Japan to get used to China's Navy appearing in Japan's exclusive economic zone.
The second incident happened last month. Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi flew into a rage after his Japanese counterpart, Katsuya Okada, politely suggested that China cut its nuclear arsenal. At the 15 May meeting in the South Korean city of Gyeongju, Yang yelled that his relatives had been killed by Japanese forces in northeastern China during Japan's occupation of China. He almost walked out of the meeting. The upshot of such incidents and the volatility in the regional security environment is that Prime Minister Hatoyama and his Cabinet are now convinced that this is not the time to move the Futenma air base off Okinawa, even if it means breaking one of his DPJ's election campaign promises.
Significantly, there also have been a number of incidents that suggest that China is starting to muscle up to India. The renewed Sino-Indian border tensions have resulted from growing Chinese assertiveness on several fronts — border (Chinese cross-frontier incursions have increased in a major way); diplomatic (resurrecting its long-dormant claim to India's Arunachal Pradesh, which is three times bigger than Taiwan); and multilateral (launching an international offensive to undercut Indian sovereignty over Arunachal, for example, by successfully blocking the Asian Development Bank from identifying that region as part of India in its $1.3 billion credit package last year). As the resistance to its rule in Tibet has grown since last year, Beijing has sought to present Tibet as a core issue to its sovereignty, just like Taiwan. Tibet now holds as much importance in Chinese policy as Taiwan. In ratcheting up the Arunachal issue with India, Beijing seems to be drawing another analogy: Arunachal is the new Taiwan that must be "reunified" with the Chinese state.
In fact, the incidents with Japan and India serve as another reminder how Chinese policies and actions are counterproductively pushing these countries closer to US.
There is realisation in Japan and India that each is located in a very dangerous neighbourhood and that their security ties with the US are critical. India and Japan, although dissimilar economically, have a lot in common politically. They are Asia's largest democracies, but with fractured, messy politics. Just as India has progressed from doctrinaire nonalignment to geopolitical pragmatism, Japan — the "Land of the Rising Sun" — is moving toward greater realism in its foreign policy. Their growing congruence of strategic interests led to a Japan-India security agreement in 2008, a significant milestone in building Asian power stability. A constellation of Asian states linked by strategic cooperation and sharing common interests is becoming critical to ensuring equilibrium at a time when major shifts in economic and political power are accentuating Asia's security challenges. The Japan-India security agreement was modelled on the 2007 Australia-Japan defence accord. Now the Japan-India security agreement has spawned a similar Australia-India accord. The path has been opened to adding strategic content to the Indo-Japanese relationship, underscored by the growing number of bilateral visits by top defence and military officials. As part of their "strategic and global partnership," which was unveiled in 2006, India and Japan are working on joint initiatives on maritime security, counterterrorism, counterproliferation, disaster management and energy security. But they need to go much further.
India and Japan, for example, must co-develop defence systems. India and Japan have missile-defence cooperation with Israel and the US, respectively. There is no reason why they should not work together on missile defence and on other technologies for mutual defence. There is no ban on weapon exports in Japan's US-imposed Constitution, only a long-standing Cabinet decision. That ban has been loosened, with Tokyo in recent years inserting elasticity to export weapons for peacekeeping operations, counterterrorism and anti-piracy. The original Cabinet decision, in any event, relates to weapons, not technologies.
As two legitimate aspirants to new permanent seats in the UN Security Council, India and Japan should work together to push for UNSC's long-pending reform. Asian peace and stability would be better served if all the three major powers in Asia — China, Japan and India — are in the UNSC as permanent members. Beijing's provocative actions underscore the risks of China remaining Asia's sole representative among the UNSC's permanent members.
On the bright side, if we are smart, we should hire him as a lobbyist or get him a position in one of the think-tanks to push a pro-India stance. Hope MEA is listening.ramana wrote:Ashton Carter quits.
So back to square one?
Sorry to poke your ivory towers but joos ess did try and fail and that's why it wants to have good relationship with India now since it can't afford to have China as well as India in it's "not so friendly nation" list. By the way ex DRDO chief is on record that US tech. blocking is still very much alive and kicking so I don't know what you are smoking lately.KrishnaK wrote:Sorry to poke your EH AND DEE, but it does. If the US wanted to, an embargo as tight as the one around China will have been up by now.
What exactly is "joos ess"?Sagar G wrote:Sorry to poke your ivory towers but joos ess did try and fail and that's why it wants to have good relationship with India now since it can't afford to have China as well as India in it's "not so friendly nation" list. By the way ex DRDO chief is on record that US tech. blocking is still very much alive and kicking so I don't know what you are smoking lately.KrishnaK wrote:Sorry to poke your EH AND DEE, but it does. If the US wanted to, an embargo as tight as the one around China will have been up by now.
Tried and failed at WHAT ? The US has been pretty successful at using it's leverage to foil any military sales by Israel and EU to China. Said embargo doesn't mean China can't and won't develop it's own technology ever. It is to make it harder for China to develop state of the art.Sagar G wrote:Sorry to poke your ivory towers but joos ess did try and fail and that's why it wants to have good relationship with India now since it can't afford to have China as well as India in it's "not so friendly nation" list. By the way ex DRDO chief is on record that US tech. blocking is still very much alive and kicking so I don't know what you are smoking lately.KrishnaK wrote:Sorry to poke your EH AND DEE, but it does. If the US wanted to, an embargo as tight as the one around China will have been up by now.
A report by Jeremy Scahill in The Nation (Blackwater’s Black Ops, 9/15/2010) revealed that the largest mercenary army in the world, Blackwater (now called Xe Services) clandestine intelligence services was sold to the multinational Monsanto. Blackwater was renamed in 2009 after becoming famous in the world with numerous reports of abuses in Iraq, including massacres of civilians. It remains the largest private contractor of the U.S. Department of State “security services,” that practices state terrorism by giving the government the opportunity to deny it.
I was talking w.r.t India and go take a look at Chinese MIC it's not state of the art right now but it surely is ruffling feathers and with the focus that they have in 2-3 decades they will create a formidable MIC.KrishnaK wrote:Tried and failed at WHAT ? The US has been pretty successful at using it's leverage to foil any military sales by Israel and EU to China. Said embargo doesn't mean China can't and won't develop it's own technology ever. It is to make it harder for China to develop state of the art.
They ALSO successfully lobbied and stopped the Russians from selling us cryogenic technology. That set our space programme back by decades ?
Inspite of the cryogenic case, the US doesn't bracket us with China (not seen as an irresponsible threatening power), forum fantasies notwithstanding. That realization has only continued to get stronger.
Make up your mind whether US tech embargo has hurt us deeply or not because what you are saying here is exactly opposite of what you said previously.KrishnaK wrote:Even during the Cold War, India has always been free to purchase top of the line military equipment from both the EU and the former Soviet Union. The fact that the rest of the world also sees India as a responsible democratic and non-threatening power just makes it a lot harder for the US to try and pull that off even if they wanted to.
One of the most striking features of U.S. and Indian foreign policy during the last decade has been their strategic engagement with each other. Today, these estranged democracies of the Cold War era have become engaged democracies. Both have come a long way to construct a mutually beneficial relationship. The demise of the Soviet Union has jettisoned the historical and ideological baggage of the Cold War period. Subsequently, the growing influence of the Indian-American community, lobbying in the U.S. Congress backed by the India Caucus, the information and technology revolution in India, and the increasing interaction between the American and Indian business and professional communities have provided a positive environment for restructuring their relationship. Following domestic economic liberalization, and in light of a drastically changed unipolar world, India focused on reformulating its foreign policy, with engaging the United States as a top priority.
The Soviets had a far more formidable MIC than the Chinese and yet the Soviets were hungry enough for western technology as was displayed in the Toshiba machine tools case. The very fact that the Soviet submarine technology took a leap after that incident means said embargoes worked.Sagar G wrote:I was talking w.r.t India and go take a look at Chinese MIC it's not state of the art right now but it surely is ruffling feathers and with the focus that they have in 2-3 decades they will create a formidable MIC.
They use whatever power at their disposal to their advantage. Whatever happened to the "no permanent friends or enemies, only interests" dictum that I see bandied about on this forum. Or does that apply only to India while the US ought to be judged through the prism of morality ? Those who can do, those that can't get outraged.Your pet fantasies notwithstanding US brackets each and every nation as "an irresponsible threatening power" which doesn't bend over backwards to please them, the tantrums of US is there for everybody to see.
It is not contradictory. To the extent that it was enforced, it did set us back. I wonder how we'd have fared if we were denied access to western launch vehicles ? Or instruments that go into our satellites....What setback in our space programme ??? Instead of launching the heavier sats indigenously we are sending them for launch from foreign countries and even that won't be required in a few years plus we would have developed the technology that was denied. So things are being done one way or the other and technologies denied is being developed. I won't classify it as "setback" but more of an opportunity.
Make up your mind whether US tech embargo has hurt us deeply or not because what you are saying here is exactly opposite of what you said previously.
It'd be more useful if somebody articulated what would constitute a "Strategic Partnership" and what India would be willing to give for the same.nachiket wrote:^^The "Strategic partnership" nonsense is just a case of using big words to hide a lack of substance.
Was suprised to know that John McCain's father was the admiral who brought the 'Enterprise' to Bay of Bengal during 1971.The Enterprise, a nuclear aircraft carrier from the US Seventh Fleet, was accompanied by the rest of its formidable task force: the helicopter carrier USS Tripoli, seven destroyers, and an oiler. (They were under the Honolulu-based command of Admiral John McCain Jr., the father of John McCain III, the Arizona senator and 2008 Republican presidential candidate.) With alarming symbolism, the carrier group set sail not merely from the Vietnam war zone, but, as the Indian government unhappily claimed, from the Gulf of Tonkin.
to whom if I may ask?KrishnaK wrote:It'd be more useful if somebody articulated what would constitute a "Strategic Partnership" and what India would be willing to give for the same.nachiket wrote:^^The "Strategic partnership" nonsense is just a case of using big words to hide a lack of substance.
Never heard of MiG 25 pilot defecting to US vis Japan or the numerous such other incidents going both ways ??? If you think that US/west is the only creator of all "cutting edge" tech then I can't help you.KrishnaK wrote:The Soviets had a far more formidable MIC than the Chinese and yet the Soviets were hungry enough for western technology as was displayed in the Toshiba machine tools case. The very fact that the Soviet submarine technology took a leap after that incident means said embargoes worked.
The idea isn't that "technology would be denied and the denied would never be able to take the next step". It is to create an advantage or sustain and even increase it, even if temporary.
Oh please save your lecture about morality for somebody else, you are wasting it on me. I have no moral obligations w.r.t. US whether it's about engaging them or backstabbing them in broad daylight but what I won't do is suck up to them if you are happy doing that and are in awe of them then be my guest I have no problem with that as well but then don't try and drag me into it. I have no outrage towards them and at the same time no empathy or mercy to spare for them.KrishnaK wrote:They use whatever power at their disposal to their advantage. Whatever happened to the "no permanent friends or enemies, only interests" dictum that I see bandied about on this forum. Or does that apply only to India while the US ought to be judged through the prism of morality ? Those who can do, those that can't get outraged.
What !!!! First you say that the embargo hurts us then you do an Ajay Maken and say that " The fact that the rest of the world also sees India as a responsible democratic and non-threatening powerKrishnaK wrote:It is not contradictory. To the extent that it was enforced, it did set us back. I wonder how we'd have fared if we were denied access to western launch vehicles ? Or instruments that go into our satellites....
just makes it a lot harder for the US to try and pull that off even if they wanted to.". So clear your head first about what you want to state and then post a reply instead of doing a volte-face. PRAISE FOR NO EXIT FROM PAKISTAN:Ahead of President Barack Obama's meeting with Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif next week, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Senior Fellow for India, Pakistan, and South Asia Daniel Markey explains how the United States should prepare for the worst, aim for the best, and avoid past mistakes in its relations with Pakistan.In his new book, No Exit From Pakistan: America's Tortured Relationship with Islamabad, Markey likens the frustration of American and Pakistani policymakers to that of the sinners in Jean-Paul Sartre's play No Exit, who discover hell is a room where they torment one another forever. "Both sides believe they have been sinned against. Even at high points in the relationship there were still underlying irritations and disagreements that got in the way of building any sort of strong, sustainable cooperation," Markey writes.He explains that the United States is concerned about terrorist threats emanating from Pakistan, its nuclear arsenal, growing military ties with China, and history of tensions with India. Together these issues are too large and complicated for the United States to resolve quickly—or perhaps ever—yet they are also too important to neglect; there is no exit.To best achieve its goals with Pakistan, Markey concludes that the United States will need to pick carefully among aspects of the following three strategic approaches:Defensive insulation. Protecting the United States from Pakistan-based threats, such as nuclear proliferation and terrorism.Military-first cooperation. Providing technical and financial assistance to Pakistan's military to address top security concerns.Comprehensive cooperation. Supporting Pakistan's military and civilian leadership, as well as its civil society, to build a more stable Pakistan over time.
In addition to recommendations for policymakers, Markey analyzes the main trends in Pakistani society that will determine its future; traces the wellsprings of Pakistani anti-American sentiment from 1947 to 2001; assesses U.S. policy toward Pakistan since the September 11, 2001, terror attacks; and shows how regional dynamics, especially the rise of China, will shape U.S.-Pakistan relations.
From 2003 to 2007 Markey held the South Asia portfolio on the secretary of state's policy planning staff at the U.S. Department of State. Prior to government service, he served as executive director of Princeton University's research program in international security. He is the author of a forthcoming Council Special Report on a new U.S. strategy for Pakistan in a broader Asian context.
On the one hand the US will pressure India to handle TSP with care and on the other pressure India to deal with China with more pressure. And, India would prefer the exact opposite (with some nuances with china). It is rather predictable.No Exit from Pakistan, Argues U.S.-Pakistan Ties a Condition to Be Managed, Not a Problem to Be Solved
The people who are talking about "Strategic Partnership" should be doing that, no? I can't articulate something that I consider meaningless verbal symbolism in the first place.KrishnaK wrote:It'd be more useful if somebody articulated what would constitute a "Strategic Partnership" and what India would be willing to give for the same.nachiket wrote:^^The "Strategic partnership" nonsense is just a case of using big words to hide a lack of substance.
By Greg Miller, Julie Tate and Barton Gellman, Published: October 17
It was an innocuous e-mail, one of millions sent every day by spouses with updates on the situation at home. But this one was of particular interest to the National Security Agency and contained clues that put the sender’s husband in the crosshairs of a CIA drone.
Days later, Hassan Ghul — an associate of Osama bin Laden who provided a critical piece of intelligence that helped the CIA find the al-Qaeda leader — was killed by a drone strike in Pakistan’s tribal belt.
(The Washington Post)
The U.S. government has never publicly acknowledged killing Ghul. But documents provided to The Washington Post by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden confirm his demise in October 2012 and reveal the agency’s extensive involvement in the targeted killing program that has served as a centerpiece of President Obama’s counterterrorism strategy.
An al-Qaeda operative who had a knack for surfacing at dramatic moments in the post-Sept. 11 story line, Ghul was an emissary to Iraq for the terrorist group at the height of that war. He was captured in 2004 and helped expose bin Laden’s courier network before spending two years at a secret CIA prison. Then, in 2006, the United States delivered him to his native Pakistan, where he was released and returned to the al-Qaeda fold.
But beyond filling in gaps about Ghul, the documents provide the most detailed account of the intricate collaboration between the CIA and the NSA in the drone campaign.
The Post is withholding many details about those missions, at the request of U.S. intelligence officials who cited potential damage to ongoing operations and national security.
The NSA is “focused on discovering and developing intelligence about valid foreign intelligence targets,” an NSA spokeswoman said in a statement provided to The Post on Wednesday, adding that the agency’s operations “protect the nation and its interests from threats such as terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”
In the search for targets, the NSA has draped a surveillance blanket over dozens of square miles of northwest Pakistan. In Ghul’s case, the agency deployed an arsenal of cyber-espionage tools, secretly seizing control of laptops, siphoning audio files and other messages, and tracking radio transmissions to determine where Ghul might “bed down.”
The e-mail from Ghul’s wife “about her current living conditions” contained enough detail to confirm the coordinates of that household, according to a document summarizing the mission. “This information enabled a capture/kill operation against an individual believed to be Hassan Ghul on October 1,” it said.
The file is part of a collection of records in the Snowden trove that make clear that the drone campaign — often depicted as the CIA’s exclusive domain — relies heavily on the NSA’s ability to vacuum up enormous quantities of e-mail, phone calls and other fragments of signals intelligence, or SIGINT.
To handle the expanding workload, the NSA created a secret unit known as the Counter-Terrorism Mission Aligned Cell, or CT MAC, to concentrate the agency’s vast resources on hard-to-find terrorism targets. The unit spent a year tracking Ghul and his courier network, tunneling into an array of systems and devices, before he was killed. Without those penetrations, the document concluded, “this opportunity would not have been possible.”
Stunning NASA photos from space
An earlier version of this story included a photograph that purported to show al-Qaeda suspect Hassan Ghul and that was reproduced from a classified document. The photograph is not of Ghul, who was not pictured elsewhere in the document.
Page 2 of 4
Documents reveal NSA’s extensive involvement in targeted killing program
At a time when the NSA is facing intense criticism for gathering data on Americans, the drone files may bolster the agency’s case that its resources are focused on fighting terrorism and supporting U.S. operations overseas.
“Ours is a noble cause,” NSA Director Keith B. Alexander said during a public event last month. “Our job is to defend this nation and to protect our civil liberties and privacy.”
(The Washington Post)
The documents do not explain how the Ghul e-mail was obtained or whether it was intercepted using legal authorities that have emerged as a source of controversy in recent months and enable the NSA to compel technology giants including Microsoft and Google to turn over information about their users. Nor is there a reference to another NSA program facing scrutiny after Snowden’s leaks, its metadata collection of numbers dialed by nearly every person in the United States.
To the contrary, the records indicate that the agency depends heavily on highly targeted network penetrations to gather information that wouldn’t otherwise be trapped in surveillance nets that it has set at key Internet gateways.
The new documents are self-congratulatory in tone, drafted to tout the NSA’s counterterrorism capabilities. One is titled “CT MAC Hassan Gul Success.” The files make no mention of other agencies’ roles in a drone program that escalated dramatically in 2009 and 2010 before tapering off in recent years.
Even so, former CIA officials said the files are an accurate reflection of the NSA’s contribution to finding targets in a campaign that has killed more than 3,000 people, including thousands of alleged militants and hundreds of civilians, in Pakistan, according to independent surveys. The officials said the agency has assigned senior analysts to the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, and deployed others to work alongside CIA counterparts at almost every major U.S. embassy or military base overseas.
“NSA threw the kitchen sink at the FATA,” said a former U.S. intelligence official with experience in Afghanistan and Pakistan, referring to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, the region in northwest Pakistan where al-Qaeda’s leadership is based.
NSA employees rarely ventured beyond the security gates of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, officials said. Surveillance operations that required placing a device or sensor near an al-Qaeda compound were handled by the CIA’s Information Operations Center, which specializes in high-tech devices and “close-in” surveillance work.
“But if you wanted huge coverage of the FATA, NSA had 10 times the manpower, 20 times the budget and 100 times the brainpower,” the former intelligence official said, comparing the surveillance resources of the NSA to the smaller capabilities of the agency's IOC. The two agencies are the largest in the U.S. intelligence community, with budgets last year of $14.7 billion for the CIA and $10.8 billion for the NSA. “We provided the map,” the former official said, “and they just filled in the pieces.”
In broad terms, the NSA relies on increasingly sophisticated versions of online attacks that are well-known among security experts. Many rely on software implants developed by the agency’s Tailored Access Operations division with code-names such as UNITEDRAKE and VALIDATOR. In other cases, the agency runs “man-in-the-middle” attacks in which it positions itself unnoticed midstream between computers communicating with one another, diverting files for real-time alerts and longer-term analysis in data repositories.
Through these and other tactics, the NSA is able to extract vast quantities of digital information, including audio files, imagery and keystroke logs. The operations amount to silent raids on suspected safe houses and often are carried out by experts sitting behind desks thousands of miles from their targets.
The reach of the NSA’s Tailored Access Operations division extends far beyond Pakistan. Other documents describe efforts to tunnel into systems used by al-Qaeda affiliates in Yemen and Africa, each breach exposing other corridors.
(The Washington Post)
An operation against a suspected facilitator for al-Qaeda’s branch in Yemen led to a trove of files that could be used to “help NSA map out the movement of terrorists and aspiring extremists between Yemen, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Libya and Iran,” according to the documents. “This may enable NSA to better flag the movement of these individuals” to allied security services that “can put individuals on no-fly lists or monitor them once in country.”
A single penetration yielded 90 encrypted al-Qaeda documents, 16 encryption keys, 30 unencrypted messages as well as “thousands” of chat logs, according to an inventory described in one of the Snowden documents.
The operations are so easy, in some cases, that the NSA is able to start downloading data in less time than it takes the targeted machine to boot up. Last year, a user account on a social media Web site provided an instant portal to an al-Qaeda operative’s hard drive. “Within minutes, we successfully exploited the target,” the document said.
The hunt for Ghul followed a more elaborate path.
Ghul, who is listed in other documents as Mustafa Haji Muhammad Khan, had surfaced on U.S. radar as early as 2003, when an al-Qaeda detainee disclosed that Ghul escorted one of the intended hijackers to a Pakistani safe house a year before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
A trusted facilitator and courier, Ghul was dispatched to Iraq in 2003 to deliver a message to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda firebrand who angered the network’s leaders in Pakistan by launching attacks that often slaughtered innocent Muslims.
When Ghul made another attempt to enter Iraq in 2004, he was detained by Kurdish authorities in an operation directed by the CIA. Almost immediately, Ghul provided a piece of intelligence that would prove more consequential than he may have anticipated: He disclosed that bin Laden relied on a trusted courier known as al-Kuwaiti.
The ripples from that revelation wouldn’t subside for years. The CIA went on to determine the true identity of al-Kuwaiti and followed him to a heavily fortified compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where bin Laden was killed in 2011.
Because of the courier tip, Ghul became an unwitting figure in the contentious debate over CIA interrogation measures. He was held at a CIA black site in Eastern Europe, according to declassified Justice Department memos, where he was slapped and subjected to stress positions and sleep deprivation to break his will.
Defenders of the interrogation program have cited Ghul’s courier disclosure as evidence that the agency’s interrogation program was crucial to getting bin Laden. But others, including former CIA operatives directly involved in Ghul’s case, said that he identified the courier while he was being interrogated by Kurdish authorities, who posed questions scripted by CIA analysts in the background.
he debate resurfaced amid the release of the movie “Zero Dark Thirty” last year, in which a detainee’s slip after a brutal interrogation sequence is depicted as a breakthrough in the bin Laden hunt. Ghul’s case also has been explored in detail in a 6,000-page investigation of the CIA interrogation program by the Senate Intelligence Committee that has yet to be released.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairman of the panel, sought to settle the Ghul debate in a statement last year that alluded to his role but didn’t mention him by name.
(The Washington Post)
“The CIA detainee who provided the most significant information about the courier provided the information prior to being subjected to coercive interrogation techniques,” Feinstein said in the statement, which was signed by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).
The George W. Bush administration’s decision to close the secret CIA prisons in 2006 set off a scramble to place prisoners whom the agency did not regard as dangerous or valuable enough to transfer to Guantanamo Bay. Ghul was not among the original 14 high-value CIA detainees sent to the U.S. installation in Cuba. Instead, he was turned over to the CIA’s counterpart in Pakistan, with ostensible assurances that he would remain in custody.
A year later, Ghul was released. There was no public explanation from Pakistani authorities. CIA officials have noted that Ghul had ties to Lashkar-e-Taiba, a militant group supported by Pakistan’s intelligence service. By 2007, he had returned to al-Qaeda’s stronghold in Waziristan.
In 2011, the Treasury Department named Ghul a target of U.S. counterterrorism sanctions. Since his release, the department said, he had helped al-Qaeda reestablish logistics networks, enabling al-Qaeda to move people and money in and out of the country. The NSA document described Ghul as al-Qaeda’s chief of military operations and detailed a broad surveillance effort to find him.
“The most critical piece” came with a discovery that “provided a vector” for compounds used by Ghul, the document said. After months of investigation, and surveillance by CIA drones, the e-mail from his wife erased any remaining doubt.
Even after Ghul was killed in Mir Ali, the NSA’s role in the drone strike wasn’t done. Although the attack was aimed at “an individual believed to be” the correct target, the outcome wasn’t certain until later when, “through SIGINT, it was confirmed that Hassan Ghul was in fact killed.”
Thirty-three crew members of a US firm owned ship were on Friday arrested by Tamil Nadu Police on charges of illegally carrying arms and ammunition and straying into Indian territorial waters without authorisation.
The Q Branch CID police have seized 35 arms and about 5,680 rounds of ammunition arms smuggling or drop 'shipment' for TN based IM's?from the vessel 'M V Seaman Guard Ohio', which has been impounded since October 12.
Thirty-three out of the 35 members on board the vessel were taken to Muthiahpuram Police Station this morning and questioned after which police completed legal formalities to effect their formal arrest.
An official statement issued by police headquarters in Chennai stated a case for offences under Arms Act 1959, Essential Commodities Act 1955 and Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Prevention of malpractices in supply and distribution order 1990 has been registered against the crew.
The investigation by the Branch police of the state's specialised wing in the last two days has revealed that the vessel was found in the country's territorial waters and was in possession of a huge quantity of arms and ammunition, without valid authorisation of documents, police said.
Police said the two crew members have been permitted to stay on board the vessel to carry out maintenance of the ship till further arrangements were made and they would also be arrested.
The Q Branch CID police have seized 35 arms and about 5,680 rounds of ammunition from the vessel, which was detained off Tuticorin coast on October 12.
Tamil Nadu Police registered an FIR against the crew members on October 14.
The crew face allegations of procuring 1,500 litres of diesel through illegal route, are likely to be brought to Chennai.
Police said the case was registered in Tharuvaikulam Marine Police station on October 13 on the complaint by Assistant Commandant, Indian Coast Guard, Tuticorin.
As I continue to hear, the US has clearly articulated what it wants from a SP: closer defense ties, coordination on climate change, closer India/US/AUS/Japan naval interoperability, counter-terrorism related information exchange and the like. The Indian side has demurred or been unable to deliver and at the same time not articulated what it wants from the US except for H1B visas and lifting of dual use technologies which are not really elements of a SP—they can be dealt with at a working level.KrishnaK wrote:^^The "Strategic partnership" nonsense is just a case of using big words to hide a lack of substance
It'd be more useful if somebody articulated what would constitute a "Strategic Partnership" and what India would be willing to give for the same.
Wooooooo SDRE's go shiber in your dhoti's.Cosmo_R wrote:But those who think that the US cannot hinder India if it chose to, make a dangerous bet. As Jim Croce sang: "You don't tug on Superman's cape, You don't spit into the wind, You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger And you don't mess around with [unkil]"
There is reoccurring talk of a base.......................
India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru allowed the secret U-2s to refuel in Indian airspace after they took off from a CIA base in Thailand.
The first flight occurred on December 5, 1962, with four others taking place in January 1963, prompting a protest from Beijing, according to the document.
After a visit by US president John F. Kennedy, India allowed the United States to build a base in India for the secret spy planes.
..................................
The first U-2 flights from the Indian base, located in Charbatia, south of Kolkata, took place in late May 1964 and continued until July 1967, it added.
I would guess that this is an India-specific LSA alternative that AC was working on and that General Herbie 'Hawk'NRao wrote:
...
There is reoccurring talk of a base.
Carlisle was referring to in Thiruvanthipuram.PS:Note Kerry's mention of "Controlling borders".Now we know why the Pakis are upping the ante on the LOC! The US ha sgiven it sanction to go for J&K.Associated Press in Washington
theguardian.com, Saturday 19 October 2013 14.30 BST
Pakistan aid
A military helicopter lands in south-western Pakistan. The US has resumed its military and economic aid to the country. Photograph: Naseer Ahmed/Reuters
The US has quietly decided to release more than $1.6bn (£1bn) in military and economic aid to Pakistan that was suspended when relations between the two countries disintegrated over the covert raid that killed Osama bin Laden and deadly US air strikes against Pakistani soldiers. Officials and congressional aides said ties have improved enough to allow the money to flow again.
US and Nato supply routes to Afghanistan are open. Controversial US drone strikes are down. The US and Pakistan recently announced the restart of their "strategic dialogue" after a long pause. Pakistan's new prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, is travelling to Washington for talks this coming week with President Barack Obama.
But in a summer dominated by foreign policy debates over the coup in Egypt and chemical weapons attacks in Syria, the US has not promoted its revamped aid relationship with Pakistan. Neither has Pakistan.
The silence reflects the lingering mutual suspicions between the two.
The Pakistanis do not like being seen as dependent on their heavy-handed partners. The Americans are uncomfortable highlighting the billions provided to a government that is plagued by corruption and perceived as often duplicitous in fighting terrorism.
Congress has cleared most of the money, which should start moving early next year, officials and congressional aides said.
Over three weeks in July and August, the State Department and the US Agency for International Development informed Congress that it planned to restart a wide range of assistance, mostly dedicated to helping Pakistan fight terrorism. The US sees that effort sees as essential as it withdraws troops from neighbouring Afghanistan next year and tries to leave a stable government behind.
Other funds focus on a range of items, including help for Pakistani law enforcement and a multibillion-dollar dam in disputed territory.
US-Pakistani relations have weathered numerous crises in recent years. There was a months-long legal battle over a CIA contractor who killed two Pakistanis, in addition to the fallout from Bin Laden's killing in the Pakistani military town of Abbottabad in May 2011. The Pakistani government was outraged that it received no advance warning of the Navy Seal raid on Bin Laden's compound.
Adding to the mistrust, the US mistakenly killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers in November 2011. Islamabad responded by shutting land supply routes for troops in Afghanistan until it received a US apology seven months later.
The State Department told Congress that the US had not conducted any significant military financing for Pakistan since the "challenging and rapidly changing period of US-Pakistan relations" in 2011 and 2012. The department stressed the importance now of enhancing Pakistan's anti-terrorism capabilities through better communications, night vision capabilities, maritime security and precision striking with F16 fighter jets.
The department told Congress on 25 July that it would spend $295m to help Pakistan's military. Twelve days later it announced $386m more. A pair of notifications arriving on 13 August and worth $705m centred on helping Pakistani troops and air forces operating in the militant hotbeds of western Pakistan, and other counterinsurgency efforts.
The administration had until the end of September to provide Congress with "reprogramming" plans at the risk of forfeiting some of the money, which spans federal budgets from 2009-2013.
State Department officials said the renewal of aid was not determined by any single event. But they noted a confluence of signs of greater cooperation, from Pakistan's improved commitment to stamping out explosives manufacturing to its recent counterterror offensive in areas bordering Afghanistan that have served as a primary sanctuary for the Taliban.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to talk publicly about the aid relationship ahead of Sharif's visit. They said the money would start reaching Pakistan in 2014 but take several years to disburse fully.
In its notifications to Congress, the department described fighting terrorism as a mutual concern but said little about the will of Pakistan's government, army and intelligence services to crack down on militant groups that often have operated with impunity in Pakistan while wreaking havoc on US and international forces across the border in Afghanistan.
Top American officials have regularly questioned Pakistan's commitment to counterterrorism. In 2011, Admiral Mike Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described the militant Haqqani network as a "veritable arm" of Pakistani intelligence. Lawmakers and administration officials have cited Pakistani support for the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba and other militant groups. In September, the administration sent officials from multiple agencies for closed-doors briefings with the House and Senate foreign relations committees, officials and congressional aides said.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee has cleared all of the notifications. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is reviewing a $280m chunk of military financing, Senate aides said. Aides spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to talk publicly on the matter.
While Washington has publicly challenged Islamabad to step up its fight against militant groups, Pakistan's biggest complaint has been the huge surge in drone strikes on terrorist targets, which Pakistanis see as violations of their sovereignty. The number of attacks has dropped dramatically this year.
The countries say they are now moving past the flaps and mishaps that soured their partnership in recent years. During an August trip to Pakistan, the secretary of state, John Kerry, announced the restart of a high-level "strategic dialogue" with Pakistan on fighting terrorism, controlling borders and fostering investment.
Among the economic aid programmes included in the US package, support for the Diamer-Basha dam near Pakistan's unresolved border with India has the potential for controversy and tremendous benefit.
Pakistan's government has been unable to secure money for the project from the World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank is waiting to hear from the United States and India before providing financing to help construction. The dam faces massive funding shortfalls.
In its 24 July notification to Congress, USAID said the project could cost up to $15bn and take a decade to complete. The agency promised only to provide "financial and technical assistance" for studies, including on environmental and social aspects, while expressing hope the dam could be transformative for a country with chronic power shortages. State Department officials put the bill for the studies at $20m.
If the dam were ultimately built, USAID wrote, it could provide electricity for 60 million people and 1m acres of crop land, and provide a ready supply of water for millions more. It noted that Pakistani officials have sought American support at the "highest levels".
Despite amounting to just a small portion of the overall US aid package, congressional aides said Pakistan's government has lobbied particularly hard for the dam money to be unlocked.
Pakistan's embassy in Washington refused to comment on the aid or say if Sharif would bring up any specific programmes in talks at the White House.
Is there a ref for the Hawk incidence?Cosmo_R wrote:I would guess that this is an India-specific LSA alternative that AC was working on and that General Herbie 'Hawk'NRao wrote:
...
There is reoccurring talk of a base.
Two UH-46 Sea Knights and two MH-60 Knighthawks fly over Andersen Air Force Base, Guam in the western Pacific Ocean. US naval base in Guam in the western Pacific Ocean
Thu Aug 22, 2013
As part of a new strategy to “pivot” increased US military presence in the Asia-Pacific, the United States is encircling China with a chain of small air bases and military ports, a report says.
The US Air Force is planning to lease 33 acres of land on the small Pacific island of Saipan for the next 50 years to build a "divert airfield" on an old World War II airbase there, according to the Foreign Policy magazine.
American jets would use the small airstrip in case access to the US super-base at Guam "or other Western Pacific airfields is limited or denied," according to an Air Force document on the project which was reviewed by the FP.
The Air Force specifically wants to expand the existing Saipan International Airport - built on a military base and used by Japan, and later the US during the World War II - to carry out "periodic divert landings, joint military exercises, and joint and combined humanitarian assistance and disaster relief efforts," according to the documents.
This is in accordance with a new strategy called Air-Sea Battle, under which the Pentagon is combining air and naval forces to counter “the increasingly formidable defenses of nations like China or Iran,” the report said.
Although large parts of the Air-Sea Battle are still in the “conceptual phase,” the strategy is currently being implemented in the Pacific region.
An important component of the strategy is for the US military to operate “from small, bare bones bases” in the Pacific, providing its forces the opportunity to disperse if the main bases come under attack by Chinese ballistic missiles.
China is involved in territorial disputes with US allies in the Asia-Pacific, namely the Philippines and Vietnam in the South China Sea, and Japan in the East China Sea.
While the United States insists that its military's “pivot” to Asia does not concern China, experts say the increased presence is a check against any future Chinese expansion into the Pacific Ocean.
"China will be much more discreet throughout the entire region because U.S. power is already there, it's visible; you're not talking theory, you're already there in practice," said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
China sees the Pentagon’s focus on the Pacific as a strategy to counter China’s increasing global influence.
"This is just the start of the Air Force's plan to expand its presence in Asia, according to Carlisle. In addition to the Australian deployments, the Air Force will be sending jets to Changi East air base in Singapore, Korat air base in Thailand, Trivandrum in India, and possibly bases at Kubi Point and Puerto Princesa in the Philippines and airfields in Indonesia and Malaysia."NRao wrote:
Is there a ref for the Hawk incidence?
No CA relation that I am aware of. The best I can make out is that this talk started around 2010 (could be in 2009). It is part of a US version of string-of-pearls. My feel is that a base should be ready - on a need-basis only - in the Andamans. I doubt it will be on the main land. But, my feel is it will come. But, it will be dictated by what China does or does not do and old rules will not apply.