Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 2012

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 16 Jan 2012 01:51

CRamS wrote:
anupmisra wrote: CS:Boss, are you naive or what? What the f$%ck is "international law" BS?

CRamS, what's your problem?

Really! Can you not indulge in a decent discussion with others without shooting off your mouth first? Although your point was clearly spelled out in the second half of your response, and it almost matches mine, do you have to, at the first get-go, go out of your way in all your opening arguments to convince others that you are a jerk? Can you not accept others' points of view as theirs and state yours, and leave it at that? You seem to have made it your goal in life to get on the wrong side of almost everyone on this fora.
My goodness, a simple comment made in jest gets your goat. Jeez, get a sense of humor. As much as people like you call me a jerk for no reason, there several more on this fora who agree wholeheartedly with me. Thank you very much. International law, my bloody foot. Only abject novices like you will believe that there exists some such thing. A TFTA Nazi like Imran Khan whose hatred is directed against India but against the west will find more favor in US, who is the judge and jury when it comes to so called international law, than an SDRE like you. Get that into your thick skull and then come and argue with me on "international law".

CRSji, leaving your crass "judgement" on Amishraji's actual thought process with regard to his comment aside,

Wouldn't there be some utility if some sdre petitions on IK, in one of the tfta international courts knowing all too well that it will be rejected , but in the process expose some more of the real nature of "rule of law" as practiced in the TFTA states to more sdres in Desh - not including you, me and the sundry enlightened junta in beeaaref ?

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 16 Jan 2012 01:52

svenkat wrote:For once,I agree with CRSji.

For once

? Next time I give you some of my insight, and you don't agree, I'd like to hear why so.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 16 Jan 2012 02:53

Referencing Shiv ji's response to my question to him from old thread:

Satya anveshi, as far as I can tell the only thing that requires reconciliation is the exact nature and identity of the people who conduct terror attacks in Shitistan and exactly who is fighting the Pakhana army. I have some unclear areas in my mind but will state what I think I know

1. The Pakistan army has been fighting and insurgency in NWFP and Baluchistan for decades. In these areas there have been numerous assaults by the Pakistan army and they have built up some "karma" in this region where there is a culture of hatred of "central rule" from Islamabad. Martial law in Pakistan has always assisted the suppression of news of killings and disappearances from these areas. The "war on terror" in which the Pakhana army did "intel sharing" with USA very likely ensured that the US or the Pakis themselves hit the old anti-Pak insurgents and called it "Success in the war on terror". The US never knew if it was hitting real Taliban or some anti Paki insurgents as long as Pakistan gave them the intel, and Pakistan used their F-16s and LGBs against these people. These are the people who are kidnapping an killing Paki rangers on a regular basis in the border areas. They are also the people who are blowing up Paki army or government buildings in Quetta/Peshawar

2. If you look at detailed reports of the worst terrorist massacres inside "Pakistan proper" - i.e Pakjab and Sindh, you find that the worst of them are sectarian, targeting Ahmedis and Shias. These sectarian killings have the blessing of the army. The Sunni groups supported by teh army get satisfaction and succor by targeting Ahmedis and Shias while the Pakis claim that "We are also victims of terror". It suited the Sunni Wahabi_Deobandi ("Wahabandi") Paki army and Pakistan polity to allow these anti minority attacks to continue. These were terror, but not anti-establishment terror. This was "good terror".

3. Karachi attacks/killings come under a different category. Karachi is a separate lawless state with its own long runing insurgency. The army does not want to clean it up, but possible cannot clean it up without damaging its own assets.

4. This leaves a few "genuine" terror attacks not sponsored by the army leadership but targeting army bases, ISI offices and the attack on Musharraf. These are the only genuine worry for the Pakhana army. They indicate deep inroads made by Islamists into the system and an awareness among some sections of the armed forces of the multiple separate "double games" played by the Pakistani armed forces.

So by and large the "jihadi groups" who are attacking India and NATO forces are allies of the Pakistani army. The so called "bad Taliban" are merely the old insurgencies that Pakhanaland has been fighting without success since the 1950. Even Air Cmdre Sajad Haider describes attacks by the PAF on these tribals in the 1950s (using US supplied aircraft) in his biography and recent reports have stated that even the 1947-48 attack on Kashmir was a way of getting these restive tribals to attack someone and get off Paki army backs.

Since the USA has been Pakistans richest, most generous and most naive sponsor, the US and the world dominating US media have been filling the airwaves with exactly the story that the Pakistani army made the US swallow. The Pakistani army claimed that it was fighting jihadis and losing thousands of men and wanted more and more and more aid. In actual fact the terror was mostly army sponsored sectarian inside Pakistan, and attacks against groups that the Pakistani army wanted eliminated anyway - like the independence seeking tribals in NWFP or Baluchistan.

If there is a civil military split in Pakistan where the civilians want to hold India's hand, the US must be encouraged not to play spoiler by supporting the Pakistan army. The Obama government knows that, I think. Can't say what any other admin will do.

There is such a deep empathy for the US (on here) that there is cognitive dissonance and a great inertia to believe how big a role the US has been made to play by a clever Pakistan. The US's stupidity was one of trust. The US trusted Pakistan because they wanted trustworthy allies in a genuinely difficult game. We praise the US so much as a superpower that we do not want to concern ourselves with US weaknesses. The US has sought to strengthen its weak spots by alliances - and an alliance with the Paki army was one such. The Paki army has milked the US to the fullest extent and makes the US people involved look like complete idiots. No American who has been fooled so badly will ever want to admit how much they have been taken for a ride - because inevitably it will lead to damaging court cases in the US - like the man who is suing BAe for supplying night vision devices. Only black man Obama, who probably understands the deep bhenchodgiri that is possible did a good job.

Even today the US can be a spoiler. If the US suddenly begins to feel that the Pakistani army is "good" - they will set back a solution to the Pakistan problem by another 10 to 20 years by arming, funding and supporting the Pakistan army while writing off/hiding/ignoring/dismissing as trivial its own losses. When India does something like that it is called "dhimmitude", "spinelessnes' and "capitulation". It is called "great power games" when the US does it. A rose by any other name..

By and large I don’t disagree with this view, however, depart slightly that I don’t much care whether we term those who are against puki army as “jihadis” or not. What matters is recognition of the fact that there are anti-pukarmy elements that have inflicted heavy toll and that non-uniformed forces are not unified but fragmented. This is an opportunity area to exploit in different ways if paki army refuses to come to terms.

Brad Goodman · Post by **Brad Goodman** » 16 Jan 2012 03:33

'Drunk' Yahya hinted at India attack 10 days before '71 war

NEW DELHI: Around 10 days before war broke out between India and Pakistan in 1971, the then President of Pakistan Yahya Khan had given an inkling of his intentions to attack this country after taking a few drinks with an American journalist.

Next day, the then US envoy to India Kenneth Barnard Keating called foreign secretary T N Kaul to talk and mentioned how Khan had told Bob Shapley, a New Yorker correspondent, that Pakistan would be at war with India in 10 days, MEA files show.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 16 Jan 2012 04:41

Brad Goodman wrote:
Anurag wrote:Someone posted this in the previous thread, just making sure it comes through.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26lC3A7d ... r_embedded#!
One interesting comment he made was. Pakjabis hate Punjabi language and which translates into them hating every one who loves their mother tongue (Sindhi, Baloch & Pashtu). They have inferiority complex with Punjabi language. We should explore this point. Bajwa ji, Surinder ji you guys are much closer to Punjab & culture to dissect this than most of us can you please take a look

Another point was Zardari is a man of his word. He is ready to die rather than compromise. Now the point I remember is MMS once insulted 10% when he met him ( I guess it was SAARC meet) are we betting onn wrong horse.
Can someone with command of Urdu & Punjabi produce a transcript?
Paki army surrenders when officers get killed they dont care about hawaldars

About Lawyers movement he says that lawyers are more talibanazied than bearded jihadis.

During the debate with Tharoor pakis had a big takleef abt cement exports Tarek Fateh tells us cement production is monopoly of TSPA same with textile exports to europe & massaland

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 16 Jan 2012 05:59

Lilo wrote: Wouldn't there be some utility if some sdre petitions on IK, in one of the tfta international courts knowing all too well that it will be rejected , but in the process expose some more of the real nature of "rule of law" as practiced in the TFTA states to more sdres in Desh - not including you, me and the sundry enlightened junta in beeaaref ?

Too late for that, IMO best option was to leave these 100,000 Pakbarian savages in Mukti Bahini jails instead of bringing them over to India. Justice would have been served that way.

Nandu · Post by **Nandu** » 16 Jan 2012 06:19

Altair wrote:Check out India map in http://maps.google.co.in/
There is no LOC. Entire J&K state is shown as part of India.

Google follows local laws. That is all. The same map, if seen through maps.google.com from outside India, will show the dotted lines.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Jan 2012 06:33

g.sarkar wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/world ... &ref=world
Bomb Targets Shiite Muslims at Service in Pakistan

These are pro-Pakistani army, Pakjabi terrorists who did this. Paki army will claim they need money to fight this. F-16s, AMRAAMs etc. In the past the US has actually given them this.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 16 Jan 2012 06:56

Someone posted this in the previous thread, just making sure it comes through.

For those who understand Hindu/Urdu, this is a MUST watch! This guy really speaks out and paints the TSPA the way it really is, finally for the first time someone has spoken openly.

Please watch this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26lC3A7d ... _embedded#!

Thank you for posting!! I just finished watching it!! Tarek Fateh for prime minister of India (united)!!! GREAT GUY!!!

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 16 Jan 2012 07:02

Pakistan deports three Iranian border guards

QUETTA: Pakistan deported three Iranian border guards on Sunday after they were pardoned in court by the family of a man killed in a cross-border attack, officials said.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Jan 2012 07:02

Satya_anveshi wrote: I don’t much care whether we term those who are against puki army as “jihadis” or not. What matters is recognition of the fact that there are anti-pukarmy elements that have inflicted heavy toll and that non-uniformed forces are not unified but fragmented. This is an opportunity area to exploit in different ways if paki army refuses to come to terms.

I have two concerns here.

The first is that the Pakistan army has had every incentive to claim far higher losses than it actually incurred simply to show how much they were helping the GWOT. The second is that the Paki army proper has been "protected" in the sense that the main people tasked to do Pakistan's pretend fighting against jihadis are paramilitary forces like the Frontier Constabulary and other police force. The "regular army" may have just been kept in barracks. So I would not believe all that the Pakis claim.

However some reports are consistent over months or years and those include figures starting from 90,000 men and increasing to 140,000 Paki men in the west, morale issues and yes, definitely some loss of life as well.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 16 Jan 2012 07:14

Riyadh helped thaw the frost in Islamabad
From comments section....

Emergency help lines:
1. Military and non military aid – USA
2. Security threat – China
3. Internal disputes – Saudi Royals
4. Suicide hotline – Afghanistan

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 16 Jan 2012 07:15

Ambar wrote:Hakimullah Mehsud reportedly killed in drone strike!

The last time they claimed the death of Mehsud, he was immediately seen in the video of the murder of Col. Imam. Let us wait to see what happens now.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Jan 2012 08:07

So today, the courts give the first kick-off notice to the incumbent civilians? Are the TSPA and Imran ready?

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 16 Jan 2012 08:28

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/magaz ... wanted=all#
The Pakistanis Have a Point
By BILL KELLER
Published: December 14, 2011
"As an American visitor in the power precincts of Pakistan, from the gated enclaves of Islamabad to the manicured lawns of the military garrison in Peshawar, from the luxury fortress of the Serena Hotel to the exclusive apartments of the parliamentary housing blocks, you can expect three time-honored traditions: black tea with milk, obsequious servants and a profound sense of grievance.
Talk to Pakistani politicians, scholars, generals, businessmen, spies and journalists — as I did in October — and before long, you are beyond the realm of politics and diplomacy and into the realm of hurt feelings. Words like “ditch” and “jilt” and “betray” recur. With Americans, they complain, it’s never a commitment, it’s always a transaction. This theme is played to the hilt, for effect, but it is also heartfelt.
“The thing about us,” a Pakistani official told me, “is that we are half emotional and half irrational.”
For a relationship that has oscillated for decades between collaboration and breakdown, this has been an extraordinarily bad year, at an especially inconvenient time. As America settles onto the long path toward withdrawal from Afghanistan, Pakistan has considerable power to determine whether the end of our longest war is seen as a plausible success or a calamitous failure.
There are, of course, other reasons that Pakistan deserves our attention. It has a fast-growing population approaching 190 million, and it hosts a loose conglomerate of terrorist franchises that offer young Pakistanis employment and purpose unavailable in the suffering feudal economy. It has 100-plus nuclear weapons (Americans who monitor the program don’t know the exact number or the exact location) and a tense, heavily armed border with nuclear India. And its president, Asif Ali Zardari, oversees a ruinous kleptocracy that is spiraling deeper into economic crisis.
But it is the scramble to disengage from Afghanistan that has focused minds in Washington. Pakistan’s rough western frontier with Afghanistan is a sanctuary for militant extremists and criminal ventures, including the Afghan Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban, the notorious Haqqani clan and important remnants of the original horror story, Al Qaeda. The mistrust between Islamabad and Kabul is deep, nasty — Afghanistan was the only country to vote against letting Pakistan into the United Nations — and tribal. And to complicate matters further, Pakistan is the main military supply route for the American-led international forces and the Afghan National Army.
On Thanksgiving weekend, a month after I returned from Pakistan, the relationship veered precipitously — typically — off course again. NATO aircraft covering an operation by Afghan soldiers and American Special Forces pounded two border posts, inadvertently killing 24 Pakistani soldiers, including two officers. The Americans said that they were fired on first and that Pakistan approved the airstrikes; the Pakistanis say the Americans did not wait for clearance to fire and then bombed the wrong targets......."
Gautam

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 16 Jan 2012 08:57

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... 05817.html
Memogate': Pakistan's evolving politics
As state institutions clash in Pakistan, they also appear to be evolving beyond historical precedents.
Asad Hashim Last Modified: 15 Jan 2012 11:15
"Everything is coming to a head for the ruling Pakistan People's Party (PPP). It is faced with a judiciary that has seemingly lost patience with its government, a vocal opposition clamouring for early parliamentary elections, a growing civilian-military divide, and a relationship with Washington that blows more cold than hot.
Even so, analysts believe there is an interesting, and not entirely negative, shift at play within Pakistan's complex political dynamics.
In the latest wave of crises, all intersecting in the past week, Pakistan's state institutions appear to be evolving in their responses to challenges.
For example, the Supreme Court has taken on an independent, activist role and the army has assumed a more withdrawn position. The political opposition has put forth vocal, at times vitriolic, criticism that targets the ruling party, but simultaneously leaves no room for an undemocratic transition, such as the military coup d'etats seen in the past.
The situation is complex, but no matter which way you slice the data, it looks bad for the PPP.
Legal challenges
The Supreme Court is taking on the government on two fronts, both of which could see Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani's legitimacy as the leader of the parliament challenged.
The first challenge is a case before the court regarding the recent "Memogate" scandal.
It is alleged that a secret memorandum was written by Hussain Haqqani, Pakistan's former ambassador to the United States, in which the US was asked for its aid in averting a possible military coup in the aftermath of the US raid that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad on May 2, 2011.
In the purported memo, the Pakistani government allegedly agreed to re-tool its national security establishment in line with US policy, in exchange for US support.
The second case before the Supreme Court centres on the controversial National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO). Passed in 2007, the NRO allowed a blanket amnesty on corruption cases for leaders of the PPP, including Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister and the party's chairperson at the time, who was killed in a suicide attack later that year.
The Supreme Court later struck down the NRO as being unconstitutional, but its rulings were never widely implemented, particularly when it came to pursuing legal cases against Asif Zardari, the PPP's co-chairperson - and now president of Pakistan - along with other senior officials.
On January 10, a partial bench of the Supreme Court issued a warning to the government over its continuing failure to implement the NRO decision. It outlined six possible options, to be finally decided by a full bench of the court at a hearing on January 16.
Included in those options was the option of ruling the prime minister as "not … an ‘honest' person" and as such ineligible to hold his seat in parliament......."
Gautam

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 16 Jan 2012 09:09

SSridhar wrote:
Ambar wrote:Hakimullah Mehsud reportedly killed in drone strike!
The last time they claimed the death of Mehsud, he was immediately seen in the video of the murder of Col. Imam. Let us wait to see what happens now.

Isn't it interesting that in a one or two drone strikes after the apparent resumption of drone strikes, it managed to get Emir of TTP, Hakimullah Mehsud? How convenient for Puki army to float this propagandu?

[*]This essentially demoralizes the anti pukarmy jihadi forces
[*]Brings the jihadi forces to the Puke Army point of view of stoppage of drones/sovirginity concerns
[*]Diverts them outwards from Puki Army targets and towards Afghanistan/US and India.

This news may be refuted by TTP as soon as they can probably with a fitting response to Pukarmy.

Also, if the strikes were close to Miranshah, which is Haqqani stronghold/HQ and Haqqani being "veritable arm of Pak Army/ISI", why will Hakimullah be wandering there?

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 16 Jan 2012 09:16

http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2 ... _this_week
Pakistan's government
Generals to the left of us, judges to the right
Jan 12th 2012, 7:16 by S.S. | ISLAMABAD
"A DEBILITATING confrontation between Pakistan’s army and its civilian government, a kind of slow-motion showdown that has persisted through four years of Asif Zardari’s presidency, broke out into open hostilities this week. At the same time, the government is fighting a battle with the courts, which the generals hope will force Mr Zardari (seated to the left, above) and his coterie from power, thus sparing them the trouble of staging a coup. The courts’ threat to the government should reach its climax in the coming week.
The legal case concerns a scandal—“memogate”—that reaches all the way up to Mr Zardari. His close confidante and former ambassador to America, Husain Haqqani, is accused of being behind an anonymous memo that made a “treacherous” offer to Washington: to rein in Pakistan’s army in exchange for America’s fulsome support of the civilian government.
This week the normally mild-mannered prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani (seated to the right), denounced as “unconstitutional and illegal” affidavits that the army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, and the heads of the army’s chief spy agency, Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, filed in December in connection with the memogate proceedings. Mr Gilani was furious that the testimony of the generals, which was at odds with the government’s position, was lodged without consultation.
It didn’t help soothe military tempers that Mr Gilani had made the remarks to a Chinese newspaper—while General Kayani was on a tour of China, perhaps Pakistan’s most crucial ally. Editors at the People’s Daily, incidentally, didn’t dare print the interview. They know too well where the real power lies in Pakistan. It was left to the official Associated Press of Pakistan, a government mouthpiece, to relate the prime minister’s incendiary comment.
The army responded by saying that Mr Gilani’s remark “has very serious ramifications with potentially grievous consequences for the country”, adding that by contrast they themselves had “followed the book”......."
Gautam

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Jan 2012 09:20

shiv wrote:
ramana wrote:Shiv, Try to see the movie "Agora" set in Alexandria Egypt, to understand how silent majority can be browbeaten to let the vocal minority take charge and murder intellect. All this was 300 years before Islam rose in the deserts.

ramana if you look at Pakistan it is already happening there and if you believe Amartya Sen it is happening in India too in a different sense. We curse Amartya Sen for pointing it out because the idea irritates us. But that is a different topic.

Instead of cursing whoever the right way is to consider that as feedback and see if its valid and correct the course and if its not valid to ignore it.

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 16 Jan 2012 09:20

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 7102.story
Pakistan's military, high court both fed up with president
The military appears to be aligning itself with the Supreme Court to loosen Zardari's tenuous grip, analysts say.
By Alex Rodriguez, Los Angeles Times
January 15, 2012, 6:16 p.m.
"Reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan—
In its standoff with President Asif Ali Zardari's administration, Pakistan's powerful military is relying on an institution that experts say is equally antagonistic toward the civilian government: the country's high court.
The Pakistani capital has been awash with rumors that the army, which is fed up with a civilian government defined by corruption and ineffectiveness, is planning a coup. But as the rift between civilian leaders and the security establishment widens, it's becoming clear that a military takeover isn't what the generals envision.
Rather, analysts say the military appears to be aligning itself with the Supreme Court, a body with strong backing from everyday Pakistanis and the legal firepower to endanger Zardari's tenuous grip on governance. An outright coup probably would bring international criticism of the generals; experts say those traditional power brokers would welcome Zardari's ouster through court action.
"Both are acting in a manner in which they are reinforcing each other," said Hasan Askari Rizvi, a Lahore-based political analyst. "They are very quietly and discreetly helping each other … even if there doesn't appear to be a formal arrangement between the two."
Last week, Pakistani news media quoted military sources as saying the army stood ready to enforce any action that the high court took against the government. The remarks came just days after the Supreme Court had warned Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani that it could remove him from office if he did not abide by the court's long-standing demand that he reinstate corruption proceedings against Zardari.
The court's feud with Zardari dates back to the early days of his presidency, when he initially balked at reinstating Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, who had been driven from his post by former ruler Pervez Musharraf. Zardari reportedly feared that Chaudhry would allow old corruption charges against him in Switzerland to proceed......."
Gautam

Shaashtanga · Post by **Shaashtanga** » 16 Jan 2012 09:23

Anurag wrote:Someone posted this in the previous thread, just making sure it comes through.

For those who understand Hindu/Urdu, this is a MUST watch! This guy really speaks out and paints the TSPA the way it really is, finally for the first time someone has spoken openly.

Please watch this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26lC3A7d ... r_embedded#!

Thanks Anurag for re-posting so that everyone sees it. I request Mods to add this to first post of TIRP thread (if there is consensus).

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 16 Jan 2012 09:52

Text of mansoor izaz rejoinder in memogate saga from "thenews"

(Admins please delete it if inappropriate)

NEW YORK - "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." -- John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials', December 1770.

On November 10, 2011, Foreign Policy, a US news journal focused on foreign affairs reporting in Washington DC, published an article in which the author elicited certain statements from Admiral Mike Mullen's spokesman, Captain John Kirby, denying that the Admiral had received a memorandum specifically from me containing certain information and making certain offers from the civilian government of Pakistan to the United States on May 10th, nine days after Osama bin Laden had been killed in a raid on the Abbottabad compound he was hiding in for nearly six years.

The background behind why this denial was solicited from Admiral Mullen, and issued, is important to understand. One month after I published an opinion piece in the Financial Times in which I wrote that I had been asked by a senior Pakistani diplomat to act as a private channel in getting the memorandum into the admiral's hands -- not that I delivered the memorandum myself, but that I made sure it got to him through the right channel in Washington -- there is growing desperation within the government of President Asif Ali Zardari to cover its tracks in what a certain Pakistani official did, apparently with the president's consent or perhaps just in his name, outside the knowledge of the country's military leaders, intelligence department and even its Foreign Office. This cabal within Pakistan's civilian government will stop at nothing to prevent me from telling the truth by attempting to discredit me -- a miscalculation of epic proportions.

As I stated in my previous Press Release, I have the facts -- ALL THE FACTS. And so today, without compromising names or the highly sensitive content of the memorandum, I am providing a sampling of the truth in my possession to set the record straight. My purpose is to give sufficient evidence to insure:

a) that there can be no doubt a request was made of me by a senior Pakistan government official, not that I asked to be involved in this matter. Neither did I offer to do anything until I asked senior current and former US officials whether there was receptivity to what the Pakistani official had authorized me to discuss with them.

b) that there can be no doubt a memorandum was drafted and transmitted to Admiral Mullen with the approval of the highest political level in Pakistan, and that the admiral received it with certainty from a source whom he trusted and who also trusted me. It was a source the admiral would not, and according to e-mail traffic in my possession, did not ignore.

c) that there can be no doubt proof exists of the admiral acknowledging receipt of the memorandum. Whether he chose to do anything with the memorandum or not, I cannot know and do not care -- my responsibility was to see that the memo got into his hands safely. The visible actions of both governments in the aftermath of that memorandum being delivered demonstrate that if it was not a source of content for those actions, the actions taken by both the US and Pakistan even as recently as the past few weeks track closely with the offers made by Pakistan on May 10th.

d) that the public should know a persistent effort has been made by an array of Pakistanis, particularly by the diplomat who fears his name will be divulged, in the weeks following publication of my opinion piece to persuade, pressure, intimidate and even threaten me to not make further disclosures about the events of May 9th and 10th. The solicitation of a denial from Admiral Mullen was their last gasp hope in trying to shut me up. Obviously it did not work.

The data set forth below is divided into three categories. The first deals with dates on which the intervention was requested from me and some of the key communications at points during those three days to give an overview of how the intervention took shape. The second deals with communications I had with the Pakistani official in an effort to stop further disclosures that would compromise the Zardari government. And the third deals with Admiral Mullen's press statement of November 10 disavowing any knowledge of the memorandum or the circumstances in which he got it.

I have withheld, pending an official investigation by certain organs of Pakistan's government, names, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of those involved -- this data will only be provided to the official bodies who request them from me and who demonstrate their independence and concern for learning the truth from these facts. The memorandum will remain out of public view unless the official bodies of Pakistan's government deem it appropriate to release it.

THE MEMORANDUM

From about midday on May 9th until the afternoon of May 12th, I set forth below a sampling of BBM messages and times and dates as well as durations of calls with content to give an overview of the timeline in skeleton form. Much more data exists than has been shown here. The data set is complete. It can withstand any forensic examination required and can be verified if and when the need arises to give official bodies an accounting of what happened on those days. At the outset, the first BBM message sent as set forth below was unsolicited and sent by the Pakistani official to me on Monday, May 9, 2011 at 12:31pm. The timeline develops from this first instance of contact with the Pakistani official -- prior to this unsolicited message, we had not had any material communications for several months. All times noted are Central European Time (with US time calculated to be six hours behind). BBM refers to BlackBerry messages. E-M refers to E-mails.

BBM 05/09/2011 12:31 [PAK OFFICIAL-NAME REDACTED]: Are you in London? I am here just for 36 hours. Can we meet for after dinner coffee or s'thing?

BBM 05/09/2011 12:32 Mansoor IJAZ: I'm in Monaco but it's no problem for me to fly up. Takes 90 minutes. What time did you have in mind? Where do you want to meet?

BBM 05/09/2011 12:35 [PAK OFFICIAL]: Pls call me. I'm at [NAME OF HOTEL, TEL NO. AND ROOM NUMBER REDACTED]

BBM 05/09/2011 12:35 [PAK OFFICIAL]: Waiting for ur call now

TEL 05/09/2011 12:35:49 [TEL# REDACTED] call to Pakistan official at his request during which notes were taken to frame outline of memo. duration of call 16:03

TEL 05/09/2011 12:58:06 [TEL# REDACTED] call to US contact, duration of call 02:25

TEL 05/09/2011 13:54:31 [TEL# REDACTED] call to US contact, duration of call 19:26

Memorandum was formulated, edited and sent for Pakistani approval during the balance of the day of May 9th.

E-M 05/09/2011 18:32 E-MAIL FROM IJAZ to PAK OFFICIAL: first draft of the Memorandum to review, edit and get approved

BBM 05/09/2011 18:38 Mansoor IJAZ: The message I sent is what MM will see. It will be given directly to him and no one else

BBM 05/09/2011 18:59 Mansoor IJAZ: My friend in DC simply said too many people have been burned in the past two years on the US side and he wanted to insure that on such a sensitive subject, the data and proposal are clear. This is you to me, me to him. He trusts me enough to know I won't bring it forward unless it has top level approval. [SENTENCE RELATING TO NAMES REDACTED]. So get whatever message you want delivered back to me and I'll insure it gets in MM's hands. Best. M

BBM 05/10/2011 00:29 [PAK OFFICIAL]: Msg recvd. Tweaking. Middile of road option sounds good. Will call morning.

E-M 05/10/2011 02:04 E-MAIL FROM IJAZ TO US CONTACT with final agreed draft of Memorandum, pending one final approval from Pakistani official to confirm agreement on content and agreement to go ahead with delivery to Admiral Mullen

BBM 05/10/2011 08:47 Mansoor IJAZ: You have mail from two of my mailboxes. Please read, respond and then we have one last short discussion before I put everything in motion. Thanks. M

TEL 05/10/2011 09:06:16 [TEL# REDACTED] call to Pakistan official, duration of call 11:16 -- during this call, the official gave me his consent and told me he had "approval from the boss" to proceed

E-M 05/10/2011 14:04 RETURN RECEIPT of E-mail from US contact sent at 02:04am (at his local time 08:04am) which contained the Memorandum

TEL 05/10/2011 14:51:33 [TEL# REDACTED] call to US contact (at his local time 08:51), duration of call 02:55 -- informed the contact that we had a GO from Zardari and that the memo I had sent him at 02:04am was final and could be delivered to Admiral Mullen

BBM 05/10/2011 14:57 Mansoor IJAZ: Message delivered with caveat that he has to decide how hard to push -- we only set the table. He must decide if he wants one course meal or seven course meal. Ball is in play now -- make sure you have protected your flanks

E-M 05/11/2011 20:06 E-MAIL FROM US CONTACT TO IJAZ stating "Mansoor, message delivered, Best [NAME REDACTED]"

A meeting took place during the afternoon of May 11 in which senior Pakistani officials and senior US officials were present. The purpose of the back-channel memorandum as conceived by the Pakistani official was to give the US side sufficient incentive in the form of the memo's high-quality deliverables that it would appear innocuous to Pakistani intelligence and military officials accompanying certain political officers of the government to the meeting if and when Admiral Mullen delivered a strong rebuke against any military intervention that might displace the civilian government in the days following the raid.

The Pakistani official called me after the meeting had taken place and was almost gleeful that Admiral Mullen had agreed to take certain actions in line with what was asked of him and that it would all remain within the normal course of inter-agency dealings in his role as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

We can no longer exclude the possibility that the civilian apparatus needed to create the specter of a coup -- when none actually existed -- to divert attention away from..... well, let's leave that for another day. We continue with the data and stick to the facts.

BBM 05/12/2011 00:36 [PAK OFFICIAL]: Call me on my cell

BBM 05/12/2011 00:37 [PAK OFFICIAL]: Also, M in ur msgs above referred to the Admiral, right?

BBM 05/12/2011 00:37 Mansoor IJAZ: Yes

BBM 05/12/2011 00:54 Mansoor IJAZ: Clarification. M at the end of a message is Mansoor. M or MM in the text of a message is the admiral. Apologies for any confusion.

E-M 05/12/2011 01:44 E-MAIL FROM US CONTACT TO IJAZ confirming time of delivery when Admiral Mullen received the Memorandum and that Admiral Mullen had called the US contact (the remaining content of this e-mail is not for public disclosure)

BBM 05/12/2011 02:47 [PAK OFFICIAL]: Thanx. On way to [LOCATION REDACTED]. Will touch base on return

BBM 05/12/2011 02:54 Mansoor IJAZ: Good luck. Let me know at any time if you need any help

ORCHESTRATING THE ADMIRAL'S DENIAL

I wrote the FT opinion piece, ultimately published on October 10th, back in September, a few days after Admiral Mullen testified in Congress at his final hearing about the complicity of Pakistan's military and intelligence services in certain attacks on United States and NATO interests. I wrote the piece because I felt Admiral Mullen, whom I do not know personally but have admired greatly for his steady hand in dealing with a tough bunch, had been harshly mistreated by Pakistan's press corps for stating an essential and existential truth.

I felt it was important for the public at large to understand that he had genuinely tried to do something about the problem as he navigated the complex relationship between Washington and Islamabad, and that the failures cropping up in the bilateral relationship were not for a lack of trying to fix things. I opened the piece with the brief anecdote of what had been done in May to highlight the tangible actions that had been taken to deal with the growing interference and threat posed by extremist segments of the military and intelligence communities in Pakistan.

I did not imagine at the time I wrote the piece that Pakistan's press corps would only latch on to the issue of a secret memorandum being issued without public (or at least wider government agency) knowledge or that the Pakistani official who asked me to make sure it got into Admiral Mullen's hands could view anything we had done as wrong for the survival of the civilian government. Unfortunately, as I have learned over and over in dealing with Pakistan's leaders through four government changes since 1994, they just cannot avoid dissimulation -- being something other than what they pretend to be.

On October 28th, after a week of press releases, op-ed pieces and editorials in the Pakistani press regarding the Memorandum, my role in delivering it, the expected denials of the Foreign Office and the tongue-lashing of my good name, I and the Pakistani official who started this all shared an interesting exchange of messages via BlackBerry -- perhaps the last communications we will ever have. The full details of that exchange will remain private, except for a few interesting remarks that foretold what was being planned in eliciting the Mullen denial -- which I'll deal with in the next segment.

These exchanges demonstrated the increasing tension, hostility, anxiety and frustration of the Pakistani official in not being able to control a monster of his own making. It also showed the desperation of himself and his bosses to head off a coming storm in accounting for their actions. A review of the partial BBM messenger transcript between myself and the Pakistani official which began on the day after Pakistan's Foreign Office issued its version of the Mullen denial sets the record straight with crystal clarity:

10/28/2011 21:37 [PAK OFFICIAL]: Basically you don't get it

10/28/2011 21:37 [PAK OFFICIAL]: You have given hardliners in Pak Mil reason to argue there was an effort to get US to conspire against Pak Mil

10/28/2011 21:38 [PAK OFFICIAL]: I will make sure FO shuts up

10/28/2011 21:38 Mansoor IJAZ: Okay, well I know my IQ is pretty low so you are probably correct in saying I just don't get it.

10/28/2011 21:39 [PAK OFFICIAL]: The Pak press be damned

10/28/2011 21:39 [PAK OFFICIAL]: I stand by you as a man of integrity werving his country

10/28/2011 21:40 Mansoor IJAZ: But from my point of view, if there was a real threat, as you stated at the time, it is clear you were trying to save a democratic structure from those hawks

10/28/2011 21:41 [PAK OFFICIAL]: You get to write the book on how you changed US-Pak dynamic and won the war in A'tan (w/ some help from a Paki nerd)

10/28/2011 21:42 Mansoor IJAZ: I was happy to get the message in the back door because it served American interests to preserve the democratic civilian setup and the offers made, if achieved, were very much congruent with American objectives in the region

10/28/2011 21:42 [PAK OFFICIAL]: True that, friend. But you know premature revelation ain't good

10/28/2011 21:43 Mansoor IJAZ: As far as I can see, we did right. Unless there is something I don't see here. But then I'm sorta dumb from down on the farm where them hillbillies live

10/28/2011 21:43 [PAK OFFICIAL]: Hey! Don't run down hillbillies

10/28/2011 21:44 [PAK OFFICIAL]: Even the smartest can miss a piece of the puzzle

10/28/2011 21:46 [PAK OFFICIAL]: Let this one go. There is much to do. MUCH. [REDACTED]

10/28/2011 21:47 [PAK OFFICIAL]: We'll make things happen and if we can't, we'll write a book about it

10/28/2011 21:48 [PAK OFFICIAL]: The debate abt your oped has caused my detractors to put pressure on my boss

********************************

10/28/2011 21:54 [PAK OFFICIAL]: It is folks at State who got pissed off by your mission

10/28/2011 21:54 Mansoor IJAZ: Which mission? Sudan, Kashmir, there were so many they got pissed off about. [REDACTED

10/28/2011 21:54 [PAK OFFICIAL]: The latest one

10/28/2011 21:55 Mansoor IJAZ: Yeah, I got it. You're right!

10/28/2011 21:58 Mansoor IJAZ: Anyway, State will always hate me because I don't accept their muddling way of doing things

10/28/2011 22:03 [PAK OFFICIAL]: I don't know for a fact but I won't be surprised if the FO statement was prompted by someone here

10/28/2011 22:11 [PAK OFFICIAL]: And now they hate me more when folks [REDACTED] who hate me tell them you and I might have been together on s'thing (whether we were or not is irrelevant to them)

10/28/2011 22:12 [PAK OFFICIAL]: That's why I have been requesting you to let this one go

10/28/2011 22:12 [PAK OFFICIAL]: That takes attention off me

10/28/2011 22:13 Mansoor IJAZ: Hmmmmmmmmm....... Not sure anything could take attention off you

10/28/2011 22:16 Mansoor IJAZ: Did we really solve a true problem or was this all smoke and mirrors?

10/28/2011 22:16 Mansoor IJAZ: I mean on those days of stress...

10/28/2011 22:23 [PAK OFFICIAL]: Too early to say re solution

10/28/2011 22:28 [PAK OFFICIAL]: I think we save the situation from an extremely violent outcome

*******************************

11/01/2011 22:06 Mansoor IJAZ: Hi buddy, I understand you/ your foreign office hacks are commissioning hatchet pieces against me. Unfortunate.... very unfortunate

11/01/2011 22:31 [PAK OFFICIAL]: I will enquire and stop them. There's no need for any of this.

11/01/2011 22:31 [PAK OFFICIAL]: You haven't helped by engaging so much w/ Pak media.

11/01/2011 22:32 [PAK OFFICIAL]: What happened to the 'silent soldier'?

11/01/2011 22:34 Mansoor IJAZ: Roger that

11/01/2011 22:38 [PAK OFFICIAL]: Are you sure your side won't deny?

11/01/2011 22:38 Mansoor IJAZ: No, maybe they will. But that would also be a mistake. Too much proof on that side as well.

11/01/2011 22:39 [PAK OFFICIAL]: But does "proving" help anything?

11/01/2011 22:39 [PAK OFFICIAL]: Is it not the nature of a private mission that officials deny it?

11/01/2011 22:41 Mansoor IJAZ: Don't know. Don't care. My point is simple -- I've said what I was going to. Attacks on my person will not be tolerated. And my statement stands. Stop telling lies about me and I might just stip telling the truth about you

11/01/2011 22:42 [PAK OFFICIAL]: If you were to listen to my advice, you would let this blow over and prove yourself afterwards. You are the one who will outlast the flying s***

11/01/2011 22:43 [PAK OFFICIAL]: That is usually my strategy: be there when the others have self-destructed or blown over

The most alarming exchange was on November 1st when the diplomat asked me, presciently as it turned out when Foreign Policy published its article 9 days later, whether my side (meaning the US officials with whom we had communicated) would not deny the existence of the memorandum, etc. It was a threat in plain sight -- a polite reminder that this Pakistani expert in media management would insure a denial by Pakistan would be matched by a denial in the US with the messenger damned in between. Meanwhile, his name would remain hidden. And his role in all this would be left for further expounding on in his new book.

One final note on this entire episode. Once the Pakistani official figured out I was not one he could cow down, intimidate, persuade or threaten, he deleted me from his BlackBerry contact list in the hopes that any conversation between us would automatically get deleted as well. He did this on or about November 6, three days before the Foreign Policy piece was published. An interesting coincidence.... trying to erase history as if it never happened....

I leave it to the readers to decide who did what to whom, when and for what purpose -- the facts are now sufficiently enunciated to give anyone who views this story with an unjaundiced eye a clear view of the events that took place in May, and the Herculean effort to cover it all up during the past one month since I wrote my views in the FT.

ADMIRAL MULLEN'S STATEMENT & FOREIGN POLICY'S ARTICLE

Josh Rogin wrote: "Ijaz also alleged in his op-ed in the Financial Times that Zardari communicated this offer by sending a top secret memo on May 10 through Ijaz himself, to be hand-delivered to Adm. Michael Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a key official managing the U.S.-Pakistan relationship." -- I never said I delivered anything to Adm Mullen. What I wrote was -- the memo was delivered to Adm Mullen at 1400 hrs on May 10.

Captain John Kirby told FP, "Adm. Mullen does not know Mr. Ijaz and has no recollection of receiving any correspondence from him," -- it is true that I do not know Admiral Mullen and have never met him. But the person I asked to take the memorandum to him -- that person knew him about as well as anyone can. And that person knows me pretty well too.

Captain Kirby: "I cannot say definitively that correspondence did not come from him -- the admiral received many missives as chairman from many people every day, some official, some not. But he does not recall one from this individual..." It surely did not come directly from me, and we have proof that Admiral Mullen received the memorandum and acknowledged it to the person who delivered it to him.

The entire Rogin article was written with a slant to discredit me personally because whoever put him up to writing the article could not avoid the facts -- facts that the hidden hand behind Rogin's article knew full well because he, along with myself, are the only two people who know precisely what we did.

Rogue operations in governments have no place in our world today. The people of Pakistan deserve better. They deserve to know the truth. And it is alone for the Pakistani people to decide whether their political leaders deserve their faith and trust after learning the truth of what has been done in their names. Equally, the American people deserve to know the truth. Our patience for the misdeeds and machinations of Pakistan's political leaders is now all but lost, and we do not need the aggravation of further manipulation at the hands of Islamabad's disingenuous rulers, or disingenuous US bureaucrats who hide the sins of foreign diplomats so they can get any sliver of America's agenda executed. Bad policy is bad policy. It cannot be sugar-coated with diplomatic niceties.

I end where I started. Facts are stubborn things. If the Pakistani government's vicious cabal stops telling lies about me, I might just stop telling the truth -- the whole truth -- about it. The whole truth, once it comes out, will not be easy for anyone to swallow. I remain as adamant as ever that the truth be told fairly, justly and without revisionists and hypocrites doing all they can to avoid the judgment of history.

ENDS--

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 16 Jan 2012 09:54

Militants storm police station in northwest Pakistan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ogwLJz1a3A

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 16 Jan 2012 10:21

Content of CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM delivered through M Izaz Published in Daawn on 18h Nov.2011

BRIEFING FOR ADM. MIKE MULLEN, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

During the past 72 hours since a meeting was held between the president, the prime minister and the chief of army staff, there has seen a significant deterioration in Pakistan's political atmosphere. Increasingly desperate efforts by the various agencies and factions within the government to find a home - ISI and/or Army, or the civilian government - for assigning blame over the UBL raid now dominate the tug of war between military and civilian sectors. Subsequent tit-for-tat reactions, including outing of the CIA station chief's name in Islamabad by ISI officials, demonstrates a dangerous devolution of the ground situation in Islamabad where no central control appears to be in place.

Civilians cannot withstand much more of the hard pressure being delivered from the Army to succumb to wholesale changes. If civilians are forced from power, Pakistan becomes a sanctuary for UBL's legacy and potentially the platform for far more rapid spread of al Qaeda's brand of fanaticism and terror. A unique window of opportunity exists for the civilians to gain the upper hand over army and intelligence directorates due to their complicity in the UBL matter.

Request your direct intervention in conveying a strong, urgent and direct message to Gen Kayani that delivers Washington's demand for him and Gen Pasha to end their brinkmanship aimed at bringing down the civilian apparatus - that this is a 1971 moment in Pakistan's history. Should you be willing to do so, Washington's political/military backing would result in a revamp of the civilian government that, while weak at the top echelon in terms of strategic direction and implementation (even though mandated by domestic political forces), in a wholesale manner replaces the national security adviser and other national security officials with trusted advisers that include ex-military and civilian leaders favorably viewed by Washington, each of whom have long and historical ties to the US military, political and intelligence communities. Names will be provided to you in a face-to-face meeting with the person delivering this message.

In the event Washington's direct intervention behind the scenes can be secured through your personal communication with Kayani (he will likely listen only to you at this moment) to stand down the Pakistani military-intelligence establishment, the new national security team is prepared, with full backing of the civilian apparatus, to do the following:

1. President of Pakistan will order an independent inquiry into the allegations that Pakistan harbored and offered assistance to UBL and other senior Qaeda operatives. The White House can suggest names of independent investigators to populate the panel, along the lines of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, for example.

2. The inquiry will be accountable and independent, and result in findings of tangible value to the US government and the American people that identify with exacting detail those elements responsible for harboring and aiding UBL inside and close to the inner ring of influence in Pakistan's Government (civilian, intelligence directorates and military). It is certain that the UBL Commission will result in immediate termination of active service officers in the appropriate government offices and agencies found responsible for complicity in assisting UBL.

3. The new national security team will implement a policy of either handing over those left in the leadership of Al Qaeda or other affiliated terrorist groups who are still on Pakistani soil, including Ayman Al Zawahiri, Mullah Omar and Sirajuddin Haqqani, or giving US military forces a "green light" to conduct the necessary operations to capture or kill them on Pakistani soil. This "carte blanche" guarantee is not without political risks, but should demonstrate the new group's commitment to rooting out bad elements on our soil. This commitment has the backing of the top echelon on the civilian side of our house, and we will insure necessary collateral support.

4. One of the great fears of the military-intelligence establishment is that with your stealth capabilities to enter and exit Pakistani airspace at will, Pakistan's nuclear assets are now legitimate targets. The new national security team is prepared, with full backing of the Pakistani government - initially civilian but eventually all three power centers - to develop an acceptable framework of discipline for the nuclear program. This effort was begun under the previous military regime, with acceptable results. We are prepared to reactivate those ideas and build on them in a way that brings Pakistan's nuclear assets under a more verifiable, transparent regime.

5. The new national security team will eliminate Section S of the ISI charged with maintaining relations to the Taliban, Haqqani network, etc. This will dramatically improve relations with Afghanistan.

6. We are prepared to cooperate fully under the new national security team's guidance with the Indian government on bringing all perpetrators of Pakistani origin to account for the 2008 Mumbai attacks, whether outside government or inside any part of the government, including its intelligence agencies. This includes handing over those against whom sufficient evidence exists of guilt to the Indian security services.

Pakistan faces a decision point of unprecedented importance. We, who believe in democratic governance and building a much better structural relationship in the region with India AND Afghanistan, seek US assistance to help us pigeon-hole the forces lined up against your interests and ours, including containment of certain elements inside our country that require appropriate re-sets and re-tasking in terms of direction and extent of responsibility after the UBL affair.

We submit this memorandum for your consideration collectively as the members of the new national security team who will be inducted by the President of Pakistan with your support in this undertaking.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 16 Jan 2012 11:19

Hilary wants new team in pakistan and is throwing current civvies under the bus ....satisfying Pashtuns by making one of their's as PM of pakistan. No wonder the speed and the team that is consolidating under IK have folks like the following. Incidentally this will also work to the satisfaction of Pakarmy. The only puzzling question is why so much hurry and why not a more nuanced approach?

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 16 Jan 2012 11:34

Shahzain announces bounty for Musharraf

PIR JO GOTH: Shahzain Bugti, a grandson of slain Bugti chieftain Nawab Akbar Bugti, on Sunday announced head money for former military ruler Pervez Musharraf.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 16 Jan 2012 11:37

Mansoor Ijaz seeks time till Jan 25 to appear before court

ISLAMABAD: Pakistani American businessman Mansoor Ijaz, at the heart of the Memogate scandal, asked the court to give him time till January 25 to come to Pakistan, reported Express News on Monday.

According to recent reports, legal experts in the country expressed that Ijaz can be charged with ‘high-treason’ on his return to Pakistan, despite his American nationality.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 16 Jan 2012 11:40

Oh oh...I was expecting Maulana Abdul Aziz of the Lal Masjid, which has recently won the court case in the real estate case, and the kendo sistas of Jamia Hafza announcing to receive Mushy at the airport.

Guess Bugti's are too proud to outsource anything to the more capable/needy/eager enemies of mushy. If not Shahzain Bugti, Brahmdaag Bugti would certainly be after him.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 16 Jan 2012 11:44

Zardari-Kayani meeting shows ‘limited options’ for all

ISLAMABAD: The face-to-face meeting between President Asif Zardari and army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani might have helped the two sides pull back from the brink, but the worst is not over yet, according to a senior member of the embattled Pakistan Peoples Party-led government.

A PPP veteran and close aide of the president has acknowledged the civilian government’s ‘limitations’ in asserting its authority over the powerful military establishment.

But what has emerged, in the wake of a widening rift between the civil and military leadership, is that all stakeholders have ‘limited options’ to exercise.

Meanwhile, it is learnt that the main reason behind Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s outburst against the military and intelligence chiefs is the army’s ‘backtracking on an understanding’ reached over the memo scandal.

A well-informed government official claimed that the army agreed not to pursue the issue after former Ambassador Husain Haqqani’s resignation on November 22. “The Director General of the ISI was in contact with Husain Haqqani before he was summoned back to the country and there was an understanding that the matter would stand closed after his resignation,” the official said.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 16 Jan 2012 11:48

chaanakya wrote:Content of CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM delivered through M Izaz Published in Daawn on 18h Nov.2011

BRIEFING FOR ADM. MIKE MULLEN, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

During the past 72 hours since a meeting was held between the president, the prime minister and the chief of army staff, there has seen a significant deterioration in Pakistan's political atmosphere. Increasingly desperate efforts by the various agencies and factions within the government to find a home - ISI and/or Army, or the civilian government - for assigning blame over the UBL raid now dominate the tug of war between military and civilian sectors. Subsequent tit-for-tat reactions, including outing of the CIA station chief's name in Islamabad by ISI officials, demonstrates a dangerous devolution of the ground situation in Islamabad where no central control appears to be in place.

Civilians cannot withstand much more of the hard pressure being delivered from the Army to succumb to wholesale changes. If civilians are forced from power, Pakistan becomes a sanctuary for UBL's legacy and potentially the platform for far more rapid spread of al Qaeda's brand of fanaticism and terror. A unique window of opportunity exists for the civilians to gain the upper hand over army and intelligence directorates due to their complicity in the UBL matter.

Request your direct intervention in conveying a strong, urgent and direct message to Gen Kayani that delivers Washington's demand for him and Gen Pasha to end their brinkmanship aimed at bringing down the civilian apparatus - that this is a 1971 moment in Pakistan's history. Should you be willing to do so, Washington's political/military backing would result in a revamp of the civilian government that, while weak at the top echelon in terms of strategic direction and implementation (even though mandated by domestic political forces), in a wholesale manner replaces the national security adviser and other national security officials with trusted advisers that include ex-military and civilian leaders favorably viewed by Washington, each of whom have long and historical ties to the US military, political and intelligence communities. Names will be provided to you in a face-to-face meeting with the person delivering this message.

In the event Washington's direct intervention behind the scenes can be secured through your personal communication with Kayani (he will likely listen only to you at this moment) to stand down the Pakistani military-intelligence establishment, the new national security team is prepared, with full backing of the civilian apparatus, to do the following:

1. President of Pakistan will order an independent inquiry into the allegations that Pakistan harbored and offered assistance to UBL and other senior Qaeda operatives. The White House can suggest names of independent investigators to populate the panel, along the lines of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, for example.

2. The inquiry will be accountable and independent, and result in findings of tangible value to the US government and the American people that identify with exacting detail those elements responsible for harboring and aiding UBL inside and close to the inner ring of influence in Pakistan's Government (civilian, intelligence directorates and military). It is certain that the UBL Commission will result in immediate termination of active service officers in the appropriate government offices and agencies found responsible for complicity in assisting UBL.

3. The new national security team will implement a policy of either handing over those left in the leadership of Al Qaeda or other affiliated terrorist groups who are still on Pakistani soil, including Ayman Al Zawahiri, Mullah Omar and Sirajuddin Haqqani, or giving US military forces a "green light" to conduct the necessary operations to capture or kill them on Pakistani soil. This "carte blanche" guarantee is not without political risks, but should demonstrate the new group's commitment to rooting out bad elements on our soil. This commitment has the backing of the top echelon on the civilian side of our house, and we will insure necessary collateral support.

4. One of the great fears of the military-intelligence establishment is that with your stealth capabilities to enter and exit Pakistani airspace at will, Pakistan's nuclear assets are now legitimate targets. The new national security team is prepared, with full backing of the Pakistani government - initially civilian but eventually all three power centers - to develop an acceptable framework of discipline for the nuclear program. This effort was begun under the previous military regime, with acceptable results. We are prepared to reactivate those ideas and build on them in a way that brings Pakistan's nuclear assets under a more verifiable, transparent regime.

5. The new national security team will eliminate Section S of the ISI charged with maintaining relations to the Taliban, Haqqani network, etc. This will dramatically improve relations with Afghanistan.

6. We are prepared to cooperate fully under the new national security team's guidance with the Indian government on bringing all perpetrators of Pakistani origin to account for the 2008 Mumbai attacks, whether outside government or inside any part of the government, including its intelligence agencies. This includes handing over those against whom sufficient evidence exists of guilt to the Indian security services.

Pakistan faces a decision point of unprecedented importance. We, who believe in democratic governance and building a much better structural relationship in the region with India AND Afghanistan, seek US assistance to help us pigeon-hole the forces lined up against your interests and ours, including containment of certain elements inside our country that require appropriate re-sets and re-tasking in terms of direction and extent of responsibility after the UBL affair.

We submit this memorandum for your consideration collectively as the members of the new national security team who will be inducted by the President of Pakistan with your support in this undertaking.

No wonder that there is so much of khujli in the paki army's langote.

The memo neatly slices off their fragile marbles at the very root.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 16 Jan 2012 11:55

Iran’s Bomb and Pakistan

What about Pakistan? Where does it picture in a conflict shaping across its borders?

But Pakistan’s enthusiasm for Iran’s bomb has been subdued. The local media — which happily takes up anti-American causes — has been remarkably silent. Officially, Pakistan defends Iran’s right to nuclear technology. Further, as Iran acknowledges, Pakistan had secretly helped Iran’s nuclear weapon programme until the mid-1990s through the A Q Khan network. But, even at that time, voices within the Pakistani establishment spoke against giving nuclear support to Iran. US pressure was partly the reason but so was the discomfort with Iran, a Shi’ite state.

These suspicions were confirmed by confidential American cables revealed by Wikileaks. They detail Pakistan’s efforts to dissuade Iran from pursuing its weapons program. General Pervez Musharraf, prime minister Shaukat Aziz and foreign minister Khurshid Kasuri held at least seven meetings, whether face-to-face or by telephone, with the Iranians. There were 11 meetings with the Americans in 2006 alone. Pakistani officials also served as interlocutors between Iran and the US. Mr Kasuri provided a list of other reasons why Pakistan was so keen to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. “We are the only Muslim country [with such weapons],” he said, ‘“and don’t want anyone else to get it.”

Pakistan’s real dilemma comes not primarily because of America — with which it is now rapidly cutting off ties — but Saudi Arabia. It knows that if Iran chooses to cross the nuclear threshold, the Saudis would seek to follow suit. Pakistan would then have to choose sides between a Shia neighbour and a Sunni state that has been its benefactor. Former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Sultan was on the mark when, speaking about Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, he said “It’s probably one of the closest relationships in the world between any two countries”. The Saudi opposition to Iranian nuclear weapons is intense. Again, thanks to WikLleaks, it is now well known that that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia had repeatedly urged the US to destroy Iran’s nuclear program and “cut off the head of the snake” by launching military strikes. Last June, the influential former head of Saudi intelligence and ambassador in London and Washington, Prince Turki bin Faisal, spoke to an audience from the British and American military and security community at Molesworth air force base in England where he described “Iran as a paper tiger with steel claws”. He accused Iran of using these claws for its “meddling and destabilising efforts in countries with Shi’ite majorities”. After saying that “in a certain sense, Saudi Arabia and Iran are uniquely positioned to be at odds”, Faisal went on to warn that his country could embark on the path to nuclear weapons if Iran made them.

So what happens if Iran goes nuclear and Saudi Arabia wants to follow? What could be the Saudi path and what role is Pakistan likely to play? This shall be taken up next week.

Added later: An interesting point in the following report
S. Arabia, China sign energy agreements

They also signed a cooperation agreement for the “peaceful use of nuclear energy,” it added without elaborating.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 16 Jan 2012 12:00

chetak wrote:No wonder that there is so much of khujli in the paki army's langote.

The memo neatly slices off their fragile marbles at the very root.

If indeed the memo is real (which I doubt), the civvies also got their langots into twist confusing enacting the OBL drama for Omaba's political credentials vs US's actual long term defence/foreign policy and their "national security". They may have gone too far and offended US more than Pak army and hence lose of confidence. all IMO.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 16 Jan 2012 12:13

Mullen has accepted that he had received some Memorandum from paki sources though he did not reveal its content. If it was not real, PPP would have been hell bent on discrediting it. Izaz is poison pill for PPP in the wake of OBL to help Army come out of its ignominious situation post OBL and regain its credibility.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 16 Jan 2012 13:17

The Supreme court has ruled that Groper is in contempt of court and asked him to appear on Jan 19

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 16 Jan 2012 13:29

In return of civvies agreeing to early elections after budget, civvies will be let go. Memogate seems to have taken a bit of back seat per the news above (MI's visit to be postponed for 25th)...which means from here on..it will be taarikh pe taarikh..hajam sethi too mentioned this in yesterday's show. Groper will pay paki Rs 35 as penalty for contempt of court in addition to saying sorry in parliament.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 16 Jan 2012 15:10

Ab tera kya hoga kaliya?

11 million bounty on Musharraf's head

Islamabad: Just days ahead of former Pakistan president General Pervez Musharraf's planned return to Pakistan from self-exile, a grandson of slain Baloch nationalist leader Akbar Bugti has put a bounty worth Rs. 101 million (USD 1,118,370) on the former military ruler's head.

"We will give Rs. 1 million (USD 11, 070) in cash and a bungalow worth Rs. 100 million (USD 1,107,300) to anybody who kills Musharraf. And we'll also provide him full security," Shahzain Bugti told reporters at Pir Jo Goth in Sindh province on Sunday.

Akbar Bugti and several of his companions were killed in a military operation in Kohlu district of Balochistan in 2006.

The operation was ordered by Musharraf, who was then both army chief and President.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 16 Jan 2012 15:15

Pakistani Taliban denies reports of Hakimullah Mehsud's death

Islamabad: A day after reports that Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud was killed in a US drone attack in North Waziristan, the militant group has said he is alive and the speculation about his death was a ruse to locate his whereabouts.

Unnamed Pakistani security and intelligence officials were quoted by a section of the media on Sunday as saying that Mehsud had died in a drone attack in Dattakhel area in North Waziristan Agency on January 12.

The region has witnessed numerous drone strikes. Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan told reporters in the country's northwest that reports of Mehsud's death were false.

"There is no truth in reports about his death. However, he is a human being and can die any time. He is a mujahid and we wish him martyrdom," he said.

Two unnamed senior Taliban commanders and close aides of Mehsud told The News daily that the Taliban chief was alive.

They said reports about his death were part of a "plan to provoke Hakimullah to surface and approach the media".

Other Taliban sources in North Waziristan told the paper that the January 12 drone attack had killed nine people. The sources said a majority of those killed were Turkmen.

"As far as I know, most of the victims of the January 12 attack were foreigners. There was nothing for Hakimullah to do in a remote area like Dattakhel," a source was quoted as saying.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 16 Jan 2012 16:33

If Groper or even PPP survives beyond this month or so, TSPA's yechendi is seriously compromised...unless something else overtakes coverage in front pages...and that gets me worried.

BTW have you notice how whenever green goes against less green, it is the green that always wins. In Turkey the not-green army loses to green civies in TSP the purer green wins against the not-so-green civvies but then loses to even greener Talibs.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 16 Jan 2012 16:47

Groper has offered to resign as Prime minister and face charges in a meeting with the PPP committee and Zardari. Dont know if it is serious or just a show.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 16 Jan 2012 18:04

Suppiah wrote:If Groper or even PPP survives beyond this month or so, TSPA's yechendi is seriously compromised...unless something else overtakes coverage in front pages...and that gets me worried.

BTW have you notice how whenever green goes against less green, it is the green that always wins. In Turkey the not-green army loses to green civies in TSP the purer green wins against the not-so-green civvies but then loses to even greener Talibs.

Taliban being more purer is black. So green loses to black.