U.S. tempting new cold war in Asia

Just when we thought Asia was settling down the U.S. seems to want to get things stirred up again. Pakistan is already upset and it may not be too long before China and North Korea have something to say too. The Pentagon, it would seem, is a little too eager.

Washington is giving serious consideration to selling F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jets, a very advanced military tool to India. While selling military materials to allies is in itself not wrong, the timing is. Immediately, Pakistan, India’s long-time nemesis, declared that it will begin a new nuclear arms race if the planes are delivered. Islamabad, already smarting from Wahington’s recent diplomatic oversights, knows full well that it cannot defeat India in conventional warfare. The addition of such highly advanced stealth fighters only makes India more frightening. Should Pakistan begin again to escalate nuclear arms production then, as is always the case, India will follow suit. It would seem that the U.S., eager for big foreign sales as it tries to pull out of an economic slump, moved too fast. Or did they?

Meanwhile, with 25,000 troops in South Korea and approximately another 50,000 in Japan, Washington would like to increase its military presence in Asia. This is a follow-up to Obama’s warning to Chinese President Hu to pressure North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

North Korea is seen as a potential threat to the U.S. within five years and is already a threat to American allies in Asia. However, does Washington really believe that placing more troops in Asia will calm tensions there?

Promising to help Japan defend the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu Islands in Chinese) from China last year already laid down the foundations for Cold War II. In Chinese culture direct confrontations by threat are to be avoided. China cannot back down from a threat without losing face. In the past month Beijing has calmed down diplomatically. The act of bolstering the American military in Asia will only be seen as confrontational. It is not likely that this will force Beijing to crack down on its ally, North Korea.

If anything, China will be highly concerned about a stronger U.S. position in South East Asia. Consequently, it will believe that it more than ever needs a buffer zone between itself and the South Korea/Japan zone. Therefore, it will maintain stability in North Korea. Stability does not infer that Beijing will eliminate Kim Jong-il, the North Korean dictator.

China, in an effort to save face will, however, continue to beef up its defences. Seeing East Asia and South Asia as possible security threats it is likely proceed to increase its defence budget and commit to further military modernization programs.

This is risky for Washington as Beijing has been deliberately putting more and more younger people into senior positions within the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). It is the younger generation which has a more anti-American sentiment. The older senior officers who are being phased out had a much more realistic view of the world. Their replacements have come up the ranks believing that the U.S. is pretty much destined to be their enemy in battle.

Why then is America aggravating China and its ally, Pakistan? It almost seems a deliberate process to destabilize Asia. Does the U.S., with its commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq have the means to expand militarily in Asia? While those military engagements are being wound down it seems that it could still be a strain logistically and financially for the Pentagon.

Of course, the Pentagon would enjoy seeing its budget continuing at its present high level. And President Obama and his party would love to North Korea “defeated” by having its nuclear weapons program squashed by China.

Still, destabilization of Asia by provoking China and Pakistan can have long-term and negative effects. Beijing could reassume its threatening posture to its many neighbours. Unlike the U.S., China will not abandon Pakistan because of both its friendship and its need for stability in South Asia which is becoming a pivotal point in energy supplies for the Middle Kingdom.

It is so very much about saving face.

It is time for the U.S. to realize that it does not have an inherent right to act as the world’s policeman. China’s recent frustrations diplomatically are, in part, based on its desire to deal with Asian problems through Asian countries, not a Western outsider.

Japan, South Korea, and other nations must wean themselves from dependence on America for defence. Any Asian country that thinks having U.S. military bases in their territory would be wonderful should check with the people of Okinawa, Japan. They would love to see all American bases in their prefecture closed.

The world should also remember that while a cold war may be profitable it is a high risk situation. The first cold war was survived. There is no guarantee that Cold War II will not be deadly.

Enough evidence of Indian involvement in Balochistan, Waziristan

The News International

WASHINGTON: A cable from US Embassy in Islamabad leaked by whistle-blower website WikiLeaks disclosed that there were enough evidences of Indian involvement in Waziristan and other tribal areas of Pakistan as well as Balochistan.

The Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Ahmed Shuja Pasha’s extension in services was termed as a good omen in one such cable and it was added that his further presence on the scene would enhance the agency’s abilities to combat anti-terror war.

An earlier cable ruled out any direct or indirect involvement of ISI in 26/11 under Pasha’s command while Mumbai’s dossier, based on prime accused Ajmal Kasab’s confessional statement was termed funny and “shockingly immature”.

WikiLeaks revealed that a cable sent from a US mission in India termed former Indian Army chief General Deepak Kapoor as an incompetent combat leader and rather a geek.

His war doctrine, suggesting eliminating China and Pakistan in a simultaneous war front was termed as “much far from reality”. Another cable indicates that General Kapoor was dubbed as a general who was least bothered about security challenges to the country but was more concerned about making personal assets and strengthening his own cult in the army. The cable also suggested that a tug-of-war between Kapoor and the current Indian Army chief had divided the Indian Army into two groups.

General Singh has also been described as “Pakistan, China centric”, with an added aggression towards China. The cable mentioned General Singh as an egotist, self-obsessed, petulant and idiosyncratic general, a braggadocio and a show-off, who has been disliked (and barely tolerated) by all his subordinates.

An earlier cable described Indian Army involved in gross human rights violations in Indian-held Kashmir while some Lt Gen HS Panag, the then GOC-in-Chief of the Northern Command of the Indian Army, was equated with General Milosevic of Bosnia with regard to butchering Muslims through war crimes.

The cable urged Washington to secretly divert UN attention towards the genocide of innocent civilians in held Kashmir at the hands of Indian Army and also suggested that US should avoid holding any joint drill with Indian Army until it stops inhuman activities in Kashmir. The cable termed one Lt Col AK Mathur as “devil’s advocate” at Srinagar.

Another cable indicated involvement of top Indian Army leadership in engaging Hindu extremist militants to carry out certain terror operations to keep Indian Muslims on the back foot and to keep pressure on neighbouring Pakistan’s Army and intelligence agencies, particularly the Inter-Services Intelligence.

The cable confirmed the active presence of ISI in India but it refused to confirm any involvement of ISI in any terror incident across India and did confirm intelligence collection by its agents and operatives. Another cable confirmed that there was a nexus of top Indian Army officials and extremist Hindu outfits. This cable suggested that an Indian police officer, a counter-terror specialist with the name of Hemant Karkare, had exposed this nexus to some extent when he arrested a serving colonel of Indian army, Lt Colonel Purohit, for blazing a Pakistan bound train (Samjhota Express).

The cable suggested that Hemant Karkare held a secret meeting with a senior US diplomat in New Delhi during the national day reception of a friendly country and briefed him about the gravity and the growing depth of the nexus between top Indian Army leadership and the militant Hindu fanatic groups. Karkare sought security for him and his family from the said American diplomat as he feared that the army and establishment would eliminate him as he intended to move further to expose the network. He had further briefed the said US diplomat that a former commander-in-chief of the Central Command of the Indian army, Lt Gen PN Hoon, was heading the militancy wing of the Hindu extremists and was getting full tactical, logistic and financial support from senior army officers. The day, Karkare was eliminated in a pre-planned ambush during the Mumbai attacks, a cable sent to the US read “we have lost an important link and a vital evidence”.

Another cable sent to Washington termed Hindutva brotherhood in general and Shiv Sena in particular, as ticking time bombs with regard to militancy and terrorism. It was suggested that fundraisers like Hindu Students Council of America etc should be banned to raise funds as they were generating funds for the Hindu militant outfits under the garb of charity. Another file dubs Hindutva Brotherhood as a far bigger threat to regional and global peace than Taliban, al-Qaeda and LeT and the later three were declared as “peanuts” if equated with Hindutva Brotherhood and Sangh Parivaar and Washington was urged to take up the issue with New Delhi. Another cable expressed grave concern over the Indian government’s ability to handle Naxal insurgency movement as 80 per cent of Indian nuclear and missile facilities were present in the insurgency hit areas of India while the Indian security forces were totally helpless in ensuring the writ of the government in that particular area, known as the “Red Corridor of India”.

A cable sent from Israel described the then Israeli Military Intelligence chief, Major General Amos Yadlin as an aggressive general. He was quoted in the cable as a dire seeker of “annihilation” of Islamic Republic of Iran. In a meeting with an American diplomat, General Yadlin dubbed Iranian, Syrian and Hezbollah’s weapons as “tools of terrorism” and not war weapons. He also showed immense eagerness to attack Syrian nuclear facilities.

General Yadlin also told American diplomat that timeframe of Iran nuclear weapons preparation and timeframe to attack Iran were to be totally different issues. He also differed with Americans over the ability of Iran to prepare nuclear weapons and instead said that Iran had sufficient enriched uranium to manufacture a single nuclear device and may soon have enough for making another bomb.

Iran is busy setting up two new nuclear installations, Yadlin told the US diplomat adding that M-I has indications that work has began on the installations, but did not comment on the sources. Yadlin, who was later-on replaced by Brigadier General Aviv Kochav, also spoke of Iran as the greatest threat facing Israel, not only in the nuclear respect. “Iran is sending its long arms to aid anyone who is working against Israel,” Yadlin said. “Such assessments are undoubtedly weighing on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s mind as he considers the possible need for an Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran,” the cable said.

Mossad chief Meir Dagan very proudly told Americans that his special team had eliminated Hamas top military strategist Izzadin Sheikh Khalil through a terror plot. The cable informed Washington that in fact Dagan had established a number of “hit teams” through which he was getting engaged in non-intelligence operations and also used these hit men for certain personal vendettas as well.

Dagan, in a meeting with US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, William Burns, proposed Americans a five point agenda to fix Iran. The focus of the agenda was to change the regime at Tehran and to launch an ethnic movement throughout Iran to destabilise the country before launching the final attack.

A cable from Kabul termed Afghan President as the “patron-in-chief” of the Afghan drug mafia. The cable, citing certain verified UNODC figures, stated that Karzai was living at the mercy of Afghan warlords who, with the passage of time, had transformed into drug lords. The cable stated that there was an annual drug trade of 3 trillion dollars from Pakistan while the Karzai administration was keeping mum over the same.

Another cable stated that Indian involvement in Afghanistan was increasing considerably and all was going on with the consent and knowledge of President Karzai and his administration. The cable further reads that growing Indian influence and presence in Afghanistan was focused towards Pakistan and China, both simultaneously.

Saudi Arabia proposed setting up an Arab force to fight Hezbollah militants in Lebanon with the help of the US, UN and Nato, according to a leaked document. In a meeting in May 2008 with a US diplomat in Iraq, David Satterfield, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said a “security response” was needed to the “military challenge” posed to Beirut by the Iran-backed militants.

The Saudi prince feared a Hezbollah victory against the Lebanese government, led by then prime minister Fuad Siniora, would eventually lead to Iran’s takeover of the country.

There was a need for an “Arab force” to create and maintain order in and around Beirut, he argued, saying the Lebanese army was “too fragile to bear more pressure,” according to the cable from the US embassy in Riyadh.

Such a force would be aided by UNIFIL troops deployed in southern Lebanon, while the “US and Nato would need to provide movement and logistic support, as well as naval and air cover,” the cable added.

According to a leaked document, Saudi armed forces killed Yemeni civilians when fighting Shia rebels in a brief border war despite assurances that only rebel targets were hit.

Saudi Arabia fought Yemeni rebels for several months in a border war that ended with a ceasefire in February.

In public statements during the fighting, Saudi Arabia said that only rebel positions in the border area were attacked. But the leaked cables suggest civilians died.

“Obviously some civilians died, though we wish that this did not happen,” the prince, who is also assistant defence minister, said in the meeting requested by the ambassador to relay US concerns about civilian casualties in the conflict.

Prince Khaled confirmed that Saudi forces hit a building the United States believed to be a clinic but the Saudis thought it was being used as a base by rebels.

He also said the Yemeni military had helped recommend rebel targets, the cable said.The Saudi military used “massively disproportionate force” in a campaign last year against guerrillas seen by the army as “embarrassingly long,” according to another leaked cable.

“Day and night aerial bombardment and artillery shelling have been the main instruments of what is increasingly regarded within the Saudi military as an embarrassingly long campaign,” said the memo from the US embassy in Riyadh.

The three-month operation against the lightly armed Huthi guerrillas on the border areas with Yemen was also seen as “poorly planned and executed” and “brought unexpectedly high Saudi casualties”.

“Nonetheless, the conflict has been carefully spun as a heroic and successful struggle to protect Saudi sovereignty,” the memo added.

Britain faced threats from Libya of dire consequences if the ailing Lockerbie bomber died in a Scottish prison. Threats included the cessation of all British commercial activity in Libya and demonstrations against British facilities, as well as suggestions Britons in the country could be put at risk, according to the cables.

And despite London’s attempts to publicly distance itself from the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi – which was made by the devolved Scottish government – the cables show enormous British relief at the move.

Libyan officials warned their British counterparts that “consequences for the UK-Libya bilateral relationship would be dire were al-Megrahi to die in Scottish prison,” read one dispatch from the US ambassador to Tripoli in January 2009.

And if Washington publicly opposed the release, “the US Embassy and private Americans in Libya could face similar consequences,” read the cable from the ambassador, Gene A Cretz.

Megrahi was the only person ever convicted over the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am Jumbo jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people, most of them US nationals.

He was released in August, 2009, on compassionate grounds after doctors diagnosed him with prostate cancer and gave him just three months to live, sparking outrage in the United States. More than a year later he remains alive in Tripoli, however, renewing anger in the US.

One cable showed Britain’s then justice minister, Jack Straw, told US diplomats that although Megrahi might have up to five years to live, the Scottish government appeared inclined to release him. “Megrahi could have as long as five years to live,” said the correspondence, cited in Britain’s Guardian newspaper.

FM urges US role in solution to Kashmir issue

The News International

WASHINGTON: Pakistan on Wednesday praised US President Barack Obama for saying he would visit the country next year, calling it a sign of commitment between the troubled war partners.

Obama, meeting with a senior Pakistani delegation, said he would not visit when he travels to neighboring India next month. But he committed to visiting Pakistan in 2011 and invited Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to Washington.

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, speaking afterward at the Brookings Institution think-tank, called his meeting with Obama “very satisfying.”

“The fact that he has agreed to visit Pakistan next year, the fact that he has decided to invite the president of Pakistan to the United States of America, that is the level of engagement that is taking place,” Qureshi said.

The United States has played a delicate balancing act, seeking to show Pakistan it seeks a relationship beyond cooperation on Afghanistan while also trying to broaden its ties with India, the world’s largest democracy.

But Qureshi acknowledged “obviously there are concerns” that remain between Pakistan and the United States.

In a recent report to Congress, the White House said bluntly that, though it had made sacrifices in the US anti-terror campaign, Pakistan could do more to crack down on extremist safe-havens in lawless tribal areas.

Pakistan this month temporarily shut down its main land crossing for war supplies into Afghanistan, outraged after a NATO helicopter killed Pakistani troops along the border.

“Fighting terrorism remains a strategic and moral imperative for us,” Qureshi said, insisting that “our nation has suffered the most” from extremism and was committed to international cooperation.

But Qureshi warned: “Actions are required that reinforce and not undercut such counter-terrorism cooperation.”

“I reiterate again — Pakistan’s sovereignty is and will remain non-negotiable,” he said.

Musharraf accuses India of supporting terrorist activities inside Pakistan

WASHINGTON: Former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has reportedly accused India’s external intelligence agency, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), of supporting terrorist activities inside Pakistan.

Musharraf said that India was involved in carrying out terrorist activities inside Pakistan, and is also supporting terrorists in Balochistan, the Daily Times reports.

He also claimed that Balochistan’s Jamhoori Watan Party leader Brahamdagh Bugti was receiving aid from India and Afghanistan.

It is pertinent to mention that the former President had earlier admitted that Pakistan trained underground militant groups to fight against India in Kashmir.

During his interview to German magazine Der Spiegel, Musharraf said: “The West was ignoring the resolution of the Kashmir issue, which is the core issue of Pakistan. We expected the West — especially the United States and important countries like Germany — to resolve the Kashmir issue. Has Germany done that?”

When asked if that (the West ignoring the Kashmir issue) gave Pakistan the right to train underground fighters, Musharraf had replied, “Yes, it is the right of any country to promote its own interests when India is not prepared to discuss Kashmir at the United Nations, and is not prepared to resolve the dispute in a peaceful manner.”

However, Musharraf has also done a volte-face on the controversial statement, saying that he had never said so!

“All these ‘Mujahideen’ groups got created on their own. I’ve never said that and there was a little misunderstanding in what I was saying, that got politicised in Pakistan and then people writing in India. But that’s not the case,” Musharraf said.

“I’m not that naive to pass such a comment. There is no question of the army, intelligence or the ISI creating ‘Mujahideen’ groups, training them and sending them in. That’s not the case and it does not require to be done,” he added.

U.S. Tries to Calm Pakistan Over Airstrike

By HELENE COOPER and ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration scrambled to halt a sharp deterioration in its troubled relationship with Pakistan on Wednesday, offering Pakistani officials multiple apologies for a helicopter strike on a border post that killed three Pakistani soldiers last week.

Militant gunmen in Nowshera, Pakistan, attacked a convoy of NATO oil tankers that were headed to Afghanistan on Wednesday.

But even as the White House tried to mollify Pakistan, officials acknowledged that the uneasy allies faced looming tensions over a host of issues far larger than the airstrike and the subsequent closing of supply lines into Afghanistan.

American pressure to show progress in Afghanistan is translating into increased pressure on Pakistan to crack down on terrorist groups. It is also running up against Pakistan’s sensitivity about its sovereignty and its determination to play a crucial role in any reconciliation with the Taliban.

American and NATO officials said privately that the Pakistani government’s closing of a crucial border crossing might have made it easier for militants to attack backed-up tanker trucks carrying fuel through Pakistan to Afghanistan to support the American war effort.

Still, the unusual apologies, officials and outside analysts said, were intended to clear away the debris from the explosive events along the border, in hopes of maintaining Pakistani cooperation.

“We have historically had astonishing sources of resilience in our relations with Pakistan,” said Teresita Schaffer, a South Asia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “One should not too quickly assume we’re in a breakpoint. But having said that, the time we’re in right now, the intensity of anti-American feeling, the antipathy of militants, all of these things make new crises a little more complicated to get through than the old ones were.”

The overall commander of forces in Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus, has been pulling out all the stops – aggressively using the American troop buildup, greatly expanding Special Operations raids (as many as a dozen commando raids a night) and pressing the Central Intelligence Agency to ramp up Predator and Reaper drone operations in Pakistan.

He has also, through the not-so-veiled threat of cross-border ground operations, put pressure on the Pakistani Army to pursue militants in the tribal areas even as the army has continued to struggle with relief from the catastrophic floods this summer.

The fragility of Pakistan – and the tentativeness of the alliance – were underscored in a White House report to Congress this week, which sharply criticized the Pakistani military effort against Al Qaeda and other insurgents and noted the ineffectiveness of its civilian government.

American officials lined up to placate Pakistan on intrusions of its sovereignty. General Petraeus offered Pakistan the most explicit American mea culpa yet for the cross-border helicopter strikes, saying that the American-led coalition forces “deeply regret” the “tragic loss of life.”

Anne W. Patterson, the American ambassador to Pakistan, quickly followed suit, calling “Pakistan’s brave security forces” an important ally in the war. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered a private, but official, apology to Pakistan’s military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, in a telephone call on Wednesday afternoon.

Both American and Pakistani officials said that they expected that Wednesday’s apologies would be effective, at least in the short term, and that Pakistan would soon reopen the border crossing at Torkham, a supply route for the NATO coalition in landlocked Afghanistan that runs from the port of Karachi to the Khyber region. The Pakistani government closed that route last week to protest the cross-border strikes.

“It’s obvious that the situation right now ain’t good,” said a senior NATO official, who agreed to speak candidly but only anonymously. “The best thing we could do is to strip away as many of the relatively smaller things as possible so we can focus on the big issues. And crazy as it may seem, the border crossing is a relatively small issue, compared to the others.”

Those other issues were flagged in the latest quarterly report from the White House to Congress on developments in the region. The assessment, first reported in The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, takes aim at both the Pakistani military and the government.

For instance, “the Pakistani military continued to avoid military engagements that would put it in direct conflict with Afghan Taliban or Al Qaeda forces in North Waziristan,” the report said. It also painted Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, as out of touch with his own populace, a disconnect that the report said was exacerbated by Mr. Zardari’s “decision to travel to Europe despite the floods.” The overall Pakistani response to the catastrophic floods this summer, the report said, was viewed by Pakistanis as “slow and inadequate.”

Frustration with Pakistan is growing in the United States in part because “we’re living in the post-Faisal Shahzad era,” said Daniel Markey of the Council on Foreign Relations, referring to the Pakistani-American who was sentenced to life in prison on Tuesday for the attempted Times Square bombing.

Mr. Markey said that tensions among counterterrorism officials had also mounted because of the unspecified threats of terrorist attacks in Europe. “Frustration has really mounted, so the drumbeat is getting louder,” he said.

Making things worse, the administration is expected to brief Congressional officials on an Internet video, which surfaced last week, that showed men in Pakistani military uniforms executing six young men in civilian clothes, underscoring concerns about unlawful killings by Pakistani soldiers supported by the United States.

A prominent House Democrat warned on Wednesday that American aid to Pakistan could be imperiled. “I am appalled by the horrific contents of the recent video, which appears to show extrajudicial killings by the Pakistani military,” Representative Howard L. Berman, a California Democrat who leads the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement.

“The failure of Pakistani officials to punish those responsible could have implications for future security assistance to Pakistan,” he said.

A joint Pakistan-NATO inquiry on the helicopter strike concluded on Wednesday that Pakistani border soldiers who initially fired on NATO helicopters were “simply firing warning shots after hearing the nearby engagement and hearing the helicopters flying nearby,” said Brig. Gen. Timothy M. Zadalis, a NATO spokesman, in a statement.

“This tragic event could have been avoided with better coalition force coordination with the Pakistani military,” he said.

Alissa J. Rubin and Carlotta Gall contributed reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan, and Jane Perlez from Islamabad, Pakistan.

Case of Accused Soldiers May Be Worst of 2 Wars

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON – Over the last nine years, as the Army has cycled hundreds of thousands of soldiers through combat duty in Afghanistan and Iraq, it has also court-martialed 34 on murder or manslaughter charges in the killings of civilians in those conflict zones. Twenty-two were convicted, and 12 acquitted.

Some cases gained a measure of notoriety, including a rape and multiple killing in Iraq in 2006 that resulted in lengthy sentences for several soldiers. The Marine Corps, too, has dealt with high-profile cases, like the killing by Marines in 2005 of 24 Iraqis in Haditha – though prosecution efforts in that case largely collapsed.

But a case being heard before a military court at Joint Base Lewis-McChord near Seattle could surpass all that have come before in the two wars: an investigation into accusations that a drug-addled Army unit formed a secret self-described “kill team” that repeatedly killed Afghan civilians for sport, posing for pictures with victims and taking body parts as trophies.

The particularly chilling and gruesome details of the accusations make the case different in many ways from the broader universe of publicly known civilian killings in Iraq and Afghanistan, said military law specialists and human rights advocates who track such killings.

“This is a magnitude escalation above anything that has ever happened before” in Afghanistan or Iraq, said Thomas J. Romig, a retired major general who oversaw the Army’s court-martial system as judge advocate general from 2001 to 2005.

The majority of civilian-killing cases that have arisen until now have been connected to combat in some way: soldiers accused of using excessive force or firing indiscriminately when responding to an attack, or who killed prisoners shortly after a bombing or a firefight, when emotions were still raging.

The Haditha killings, for example, followed a bombing that killed one Marine and severely injured two others. Several defendants later claimed that they were shot at after the blast. (Though most of the case collapsed, one defendant still faces a trial on manslaughter charges.)

Similarly, in 2008, the military decided not to bring charges against two Marines who commanded a unit accused of indiscriminately firing on vehicles and pedestrians along a 10-mile stretch of road in Afghanistan. The shootings began after a suicide bomber attacked the unit’s convoy.

An Army investigation later concluded that 19 people were killed and 50 were injured. But the Marines said they had taken hostile gunfire after the explosion and had fired to defend themselves from perceived threats. The case was closed without any prosecution.

It can be difficult to win a conviction, specialists in military law said, when defendants can make a plausible claim that they believed, in the confusion of the “fog of war,” that their lives were in danger and they needed to defend themselves.

“You often see cases of kids who just make dumb decisions,” said Gary Solis, who teaches the laws of war at Georgetown University. “But killings in the heat of the moment, they don’t usually try those guys. The guys you try are the ones who have an opportunity to consider what they are doing.”

Last year, for example, five Army soldiers were convicted or pleaded guilty to charges related to the killings of four blindfolded and handcuffed detainees. The victims were shot in the back of the head and dumped into a Baghdad canal in 2007.

In that case, the soldiers had captured the prisoners shortly after somebody had shot at the soldiers. They were frustrated because they believed their prisoners were insurgents who would be released because the evidence against them was deemed to be too weak.

The accusations in the most recent case are even further removed from the high emotions of combat. In a videotaped interrogation that was leaked to the news media, one defendant said that they would kill civilians without provocation after making it seem as if they were under attack.

Military investigators and prosecutors have faced challenges in assembling evidence in conflict zones, said Eugene R. Fidell, who teaches military law at Yale Law School. In many cases, he said, months have passed by the time an accusation surfaces, and so units have rotated back from the tour of duty, records are poor, and it is difficult to find witnesses.

Moreover, in the Muslim world investigators are deeply reluctant, for cultural reasons, to exhume bodies and perform autopsies. Still, he noted, in some cases troops have taken digital photographs recording their deeds. (Both factors are present in the most recent case.)

Several military lawyers and human rights groups said that of all the known cases that have previously arisen in Iraq and Afghanistan, the current matter most closely resembles a gang-rape and murder in Mahmudiya, Iraq, in 2006.

In that case, soldiers raped a 14-year-old girl and killed her and her family, then set their house on fire. Like the accusations in the current Afghan case, that incident was unconnected to combat: the family lived near a checkpoint staffed by the unit, which conspired ahead of time to undertake the assault and blame insurgents, the trial showed.

By the time that rape and killings came to light, one of the soldiers had already been discharged from the Army. He was tried in civilian court and received life without parole, while several others were convicted in a court-martial and received sentences of 90 and 100 years.

Still, the ability to compare and contrast the present case with others has limits, Mr. Romig and several human rights groups said. It cannot be known whether other questionable civilian killings failed to come to light. Moreover, because the military justice system is decentralized, there is little comprehensive information available about its investigations.

The Marine Corps, for example, was unable to provide numbers about prosecutions and acquittals of its service members for killing civilians in the two wars. The numbers supplied by the Army for its murder and manslaughter cases do not cover other incidents that were labeled with a lesser charge, like negligent homicide or aggravated assault – nor those punished administratively with reprimands.

And many civilian deaths have arisen in contexts – like shootings of cars that failed to stop as they approached checkpoints – that rarely result in criminal charges or any public records.

“The large majority of civilian harm in both Iraq and Afghanistan takes place during legitimate military operations,” said Sarah Holewinksi, executive director of the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict. “But because of very poor record keeping on the part of all the warring parties, we really don’t know who has been harmed, how many have been harmed and how they have been harmed.”

US runs Afghan force to hunt militants in Pakistan: official

WASHINGTON: The Central Intelligence Agency runs an Afghan paramilitary force that hunts down Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants in covert operations in Pakistan, a US official said Wednesday.

Revelations about a US-run unit operating in Pakistan are sure to complicate Washington’s ties with Islamabad as well as Kabul’s difficult relations with Pakistan. -AP Photo

Confirming an account in a new book by famed reporter Bob Woodward, the US official told AFP that the Counterterrorism Pursuit Teams were highly effective but did not offer details.

“This is one of the best Afghan fighting forces and it’s made major contributions to stability and security,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The 3,000-strong paramilitary army of Afghan soldiers was created and bankrolled by the CIA and was designed as an “elite” unit to pursue “highly sensitive covert operations into Pakistan” in the fight against Al-Qaeda and Taliban sanctuaries, according to The Washington Post, which revealed details of the new book.

US President Barack Obama has sought to pile pressure on militant havens in Pakistan through a stepped up bombing campaign using unmanned aircraft as well as US special forces’ operations in Afghan territory.

The administration also has pressed the Pakistani army to go after the Taliban and associated groups in the northwest tribal belt.

Revelations about a US-run unit operating in Pakistan are sure to complicate Washington’s ties with Islamabad as well as Kabul’s difficult relations with Pakistan.

The US military’s presence in Afghanistan and its secretive drone strikes across the border are the subject of sharp public criticism and suspicion in Pakistan.

Based on interviews with top decision makers, including Obama himself, Woodward’s book describes the US president as struggling to find a way to extricate US troops from the Afghan war amid acrimonious debate among advisers and resistance from the military. -AFP

Pakistan withdraws military delegation after ‘unwarranted’ airport checks

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has ordered a visiting military delegation to return from Washington to protest “unwarranted” airport security checks.

A file photo of the Dulles Airport in Washington where the military delegation was detained. PHOTO: EPA

The delegation was visiting the United States after an official invitation to attend a meeting at the US military Central Command, ISPR said in a statement.

According to the ISPR, the delegation was subjected to unwarranted security checks at Washington airport by US Transport Security Agency.

Later, the delegation was cleared and US defense officials regretted the incident. However, as a result of these checks, military authorities in Pakistan decided to cancel the visit and call the delegation back.

New campaign to counter US anti-Islam sentiment

WASHINGTON – A coalition of US Muslims launched a Web-based campaign Monday aimed at countering what they called a rising tide of anti-Islamic sentiment and to show themselves as Americans who love their country.

Front page of MyfaithMyvoice.com

The group launched a website and online video featuring brief clips from American Muslims, including young children, with comments such as “I’m an American,” and “I don’t want to take over this country.”

The campaign is in response to the controversy over plans to build an Islamic center near the site of the World Trade Center in New York destroyed in the September 11, 2001 attacks.

The group said it takes no position on the Ground Zero mosque itself, but wants to counter the anti-Muslim atmosphere stemming from the polemic.

“We are concerned about this rising tide of anti-Muslim sentiment,” said Hassan Ahmad, a Washington lawyer who is one of the coordinators of the campaign.

Ahmad added that “there is no way that this coalition could take a position on (on the New York mosque) because we are just a diverse coalition of ordinary Muslims.”

He added: “There is no organization behind this, there is no mosque that can take ownership of this. This is just the voice of American Muslims, plain and simple.”

David Hawa, producer of the one-minute video, said it offers a message that is “fresh and unique.”

“We often hear from certain circles that Muslims are trying to take over America of impose our faith on you,” Hawa said. “We are trying to showcase that this not what we are trying to do.”

The group’s Web page, http://www.myfaithmyvoice.com, allows Muslims to upload their own video clips and comments and “speak directly to the American public about what is in their hearts and on their minds.”

For now, the message is distributed only on the Internet, although the group may raise funds to air the ad on television later, organizers said.

The campaign comes amid an increasingly heated campaign over the Islamic center proposed near Ground Zero, which has provoked demonstrations from supporters and opponents and stirred up emotions nearly nine years after the September 11 attacks.

Hassan said the new campaign would not address whether to build the center but that Muslims are “talking about the anti-Muslim rhetoric and fear-mongering that has unfortunately stemmed from that.”

US to step up pressure on Al-Qaeda in Yemen

By Dan De Luce (AFP)

WASHINGTON – The United States is increasingly concerned about the threat posed by Al-Qaeda’s network in Yemen and is moving to pile pressure on the militants, a US counter-terrorism official said on Wednesday.

Yemeni security forces guard the street in the southern city of Aden

While Al-Qaeda’s leadership based in Pakistan had suffered serious setbacks, its affiliates in Yemen had regrouped and emerged as a “virulent” danger, the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told AFP.

“They’re not feeling the same kind of heat — not yet, anyway — as their friends in the tribal areas” of Pakistan, he said.

“And everyone involved on our side understands that has to change.”

The official did not specify how the United States would counter militants in Yemen but in Pakistan, the Central Intelligence Agency has targeted Al-Qaeda and Taliban figures with a major bombing campaign using unmanned aircraft.

The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post reported Wednesday that the new assessment of the threat raised the prospect of expanded US operations in Yemen, including CIA drone strikes.

Asked about the revised assessment of the threat in Yemen and possible stepped up US operations, CIA spokesman George Little said: “This agency and our government as a whole work against al-Qaeda and its violent allies, wherever they appear.”

A US effort to counter militants in Yemen has been led mostly by the US military, but some inside the administration have proposed a larger role for the CIA, similar to the drone strikes in Pakistan, the Journal wrote, citing unnamed officials.

The US counter-terrorism official said the administration would take a “tailored approach” to Yemen and that it was not a case of choosing intelligence agencies over the military.

“When it comes to who carries out that policy, it’s not a zero-sum game or a question of this organization or that. You have to combine and apply the tools and tactics that make the most sense, given the specific situation,” the official said.

“Yemen isn’t Pakistan, and the United States in any case takes a tailored approach.”

The CIA and the US military’s special operations forces have deployed surveillance equipment, robotic aircraft and personnel in Yemen, Djibouti, Kenya and Ethiopia to target Al-Qaeda’s network in Yemen as well as Islamist militants in Somalia’s Shebab movement, the Journal reported.

US officials believe Al-Qaeda in Yemen and Shebab in Somalia are forging stronger links, the paper said.

Yemeni security forces meanwhile have been battling suspected Al-Qaeda militants for control of the southern town of Loder in recent days.

Yemeni authorities said late Tuesday they had gained back control of the town and that more than 12 suspected Al-Qaeda militants were killed in the fighting which started Friday.

US intelligence agencies had raised alarms about Al-Qaeda’s branch in Yemen even before the failed attempt to blow up a US-bound airliner on Christmas Day last year, a plot blamed on the group.

The administration has also confirmed it is actively hunting down Anwar Al-Awlaqi, a US-born cleric in Yemen who has defended the suspect in the Christmas Day plot, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian, and blessed a shooting rampage last year at Fort Hood in Texas by a Muslim US Army officer.

Pakistan No Obedient Ally

WikiLeaks data shows how volatile nation is forced to act against own self interests

By ERIC MARGOLIS, QMI Agency

WASHINGTON – Release of 92,000 U.S. military field reports from Afghanistan by WikiLeaks has revealed the war’s ugly underbelly and embarrassed the hell out of Washington and its NATO allies, including Canada.

They have fired back, claiming release of these old reports from 2004-2009, endangers “our boys.”

Nonsense. The only thing the truth endangers are the politicians who have hung their hats on the Afghan War and some paid informers.

The facts are shocking: Wide-scale killing of civilians by U.S. and NATO forces; torture of prisoners handed over to the Communist-dominated Afghan secret police; death squads; endemic corruption and theft; double-dealing and demoralization of western occupation forces facing ever fiercer Taliban resistance.

I’ve been reporting on the lies and propaganda about the Afghan war since 2001.

The most interesting part of Wikigate was Pakistan’s supposedly duplicitous behaviour in aiding the U.S.-led war while maintaining secret links with the Taliban and its allies.

The U.S. government and media have been blasting Pakistan while downplaying the atrocities – and, charges WikiLeaks, “war crimes” – committed by western forces.

Here’s the bottom line on Pakistan’s “duplicity.”

After 9/11, the U.S. threatened to “bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age” unless it turned against the Taliban, a religious, anti-Communist movement, and opened Pakistan to U.S. military forces and intelligence operations.

This was told to me by a former head of ISI, Pakistan’s intelligence service whose directors I have known since 1985.

Former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf says his nation was forced to reluctantly give in to intense U.S. pressure and abandon the Taliban, which served as Pakistan’s proxy army in Afghanistan battling the still active Afghan Communist Party – Tajik Northern Alliance, also backed by Russia and Iran. Intensifying efforts by India to extend its influence into Afghanistan deeply worry Pakistan.

Pakistan was forced by the U.S. to act against its own vital strategic interests. Southern Afghanistan has long been Pakistan’s sphere of influence.

This column revealed that in 2007, Pakistan and India concluded that the U.S. and its dragooned allies would be defeated and driven from Afghanistan. Both old foes began implementing a proxy war to control strategic Afghanistan.

Pakistan was compelled to follow a dual-track policy: Accepting semi-occupation by the U.S. and $1 billion annually from Washington and paying lip service to the U.S.-led war, while keeping open links to Taliban and tribal militants.

This was basic common sense. No one should have been surprised – particularly not Washington which has a long record of abandoning faithful allies.

Washington and U.S. media are heaping blame for the growing fiasco in Afghanistan on Gen. Hamid Gul, former director general of the ISI intelligence agency.

Gul led the anti-Soviet struggle in Afghanistan in the 1980s and was one of America’s most formidable allies.

I knew Gul well. He is not anti-American. He is pro-Pakistan, a Pakistani patriot at a time when so many Pakistani politicians and generals have been bought like bags of Basmati rice.

Many of the false charges against Gul came from the Communist-led Afghan secret police.

What Washington really wants is a totally obedient, obsequious Pakistan, not a real ally.

But the interests of the two nations must at times diverge

Trying to make Pakistan into a satellite state will result in that vastly important, nuclear-armed nation one day exploding with anti-American hatred, as was the case in Iran in 1979.

The U.S.-led war in Afghanistan is putting the two nations on a collision course.

Here in Washington, the U.S. Congress just ignored the WikiLeaks scandal and voted for yet more billions to fuel the Afghanistan War.

Politicians are petrified to oppose this nine-year war, lest they be accused of being anti-patriotic, the kiss of death in hyper-patriotic America – where flag-wavers root for foreign wars so long as their kids don’t have to serve and they don’t have to pay taxes to finance them.

eric.margolis@sunmedia.ca

Pakistan has better delivery system: US

By Anwar Iqbal

WASHINGTON: Pakistan doesn’t only have more warheads and fissile material than India but also better delivery systems for such weapons, says a report by the Federation of American Scientists.

Pakistan, in comparison to India, has always been ahead in warheads, fissile material and delivery systems: FAS report.-Photo by Reuters

“As far as I can gauge, apart from nuclear testing where India started first, Pakistan has always been a little ahead in warheads, fissile material and delivery systems,” says Hans M. Kristensen, director of the FAS nuclear information project. FAS was founded in 1945 by scientists who worked on the Manhattan project to develop the first atomic bombs.

Later, they dedicated themselves to informing public policy-makers of potential dangers from scientific and technological advances. In his latest write-up for FAS, Mr Kristensen observes that neither India nor Pakistan could claim any nuclear moral high ground.

“Both are increasing their nuclear arsenals, both are producing more fissile material for nuclear weapons, and both are diversifying the means to deliver nuclear weapons and extending their range,” he says.

He notes that the two countries are now at a warhead level about equal to that of Israel (80 warheads). But whereas it took Israel 40 years to reach that level, India and Pakistan have done so in only 12 years, and they’re apparently not done yet. Mr Kristensen is also co-author of the ‘Nuclear Notebook’ column in the ‘Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’, which claims to be the most accurate source of information on nuclear weapons and weapon facilities available to the public.

Mr Kristensen says that Indian and Pakistani security will be served better by trying soon to define just how big a nuclear force is sufficient for minimum deterrence. He urges both to engage in “prudent planning” to avoid taking their nuclear arsenals to a new and more dangerous level.

“Although neither government wants to say so publicly, India and Pakistan are in effect in a nuclear arms race. It might not be of the intensity of the Cold War arms race between the Soviet Union and the United States, but it is a race nonetheless for capability and systems,” he warns.

Separately, Mr Kristensen and a fellow researcher Robert Norris have also published a report, saying that apparently India has assembled 60-80 warheads and produced enough fissile material for 60-105 warheads.

Pakistan is estimated to have assembled 70-90 warheads and has produced fissile material for 90 warheads.

The report, “Global Nuclear Weapons Inventories, 1945-2010″, published in the latest edition of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, notes that the majority of India’s and Pakistan’s warheads are not yet operationally deployed. But both countries continue to increase their stockpiles.

According to the report, of the roughly 22,400 intact nuclear warheads dispersed across the nine nuclear-armed nations, roughly 8,000 are operational to some degree.Roughly 1,880 weapons are on alert: 960 in Russia, 810 in the United States, 64 in France and 48 in the United Kingdom, according to the report.

The US Defence Department is believed to hold 2,468 operational warheads and 2,600 stockpiled weapons. Between 3,500 and 4,500 US warheads are slated for disassembly by 2022 at the Pantex Plant in Texas.

Russia is believed to possess around 12,000 intact warheads, with roughly 4,650 strategic and tactical weapons in operation, according to the report.

Britain has about 225 warheads for delivery by Trident 2 submarine-launched ballistic missiles aboard Vanguard-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines.

The British government, however, says that ‘fewer than 160′ of the warheads are operationally available, and only one ballistic-missile submarine with up to 48 warheads is on patrol at any given time.

France maintains a stockpile of roughly 300 nuclear warheads, with the great majority if not all on operational status.
The report notes that a large portion of China’s strategic nuclear arsenal is intended for “regional use”.

The report, however, points out that the status of a Chinese non-strategic nuclear arsenal is uncertain, and China’s deployed warheads are not thought to be fully operational (that is, mated with delivery systems).

China holds additional warheads in storage, for a total stockpile of approximately 240 warheads.Israel, which has neither acknowledged nor denied keeping nuclear weapons, held around 80 warheads. The nation could possess enough nuclear-weapon material for use in 115-190 warheads.

North Korea has carried out two nuclear tests and generated enough plutonium for use in eight to 12 weapons, but the nation has not proven to date that it has fully incorporated the material into usable bombs.

Islamophobia and the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ Debate

By ISHAAN THAROOR

Muslims pray during the ‘Islam on Capitol Hill 2009′ event at the West Front Lawn of the U.S. Capitol on September 25, 2009 in Washington, D.C.

Opposition to a proposed mosque near Ground Zero swelled into a furor this week after its planners on Aug. 3 passed the last municipal hurdle barring them from building it. New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg spoke passionately in defense of the project. “Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11 and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans,” Bloomberg said in a speech that day. “We would betray our values and play into our enemies’ hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else.”

Bloomberg’s predecessor didn’t agree. The former mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani, claimed that the project, which is partially intended to be an interfaith community center, would be a “desecration,” adding that “decent” Muslims ought not object to his opinion. Other GOP politicians and talking heads who have far less to do with the events of 9/11 – or, for that matter, New York – have joined the chorus, arguing in some instances that a mosque near Ground Zero would be a monument to terrorists.(See the moderate imam behind the “Ground Zero mosque.”)

Such Islamophobia is unsurprising in the post-Cold War age of al-Qaeda and sleeper cells. And Islam, of course, has long been a bogeyman for the West. For centuries, a more advanced, more powerful Islamic world haunted the imagination of snow-bitten Christendom. When the Spanish arrived in the Americas, they brought the language of the Reconquista with them, sometimes referring to Aztecs and Mayans as “Moors” and to their ziggurats as “mosques.” The Sultanate of Morocco was the first government in the world to recognize the existence of an independent United States, in 1778. But it was America’s naval expeditions to North Africa – the two early-19th century Barbary Wars – that first marked the U.S.’s arrival on the global stage and crystallized a new American patriotism at home.(See pictures of the richness and diversity of Muslims in America.)

The early history of Muslims in the U.S. was a lonely one. While there are isolated reports of “Moorish” sailors and even an Egyptian dwelling in corners of the colonies, the first significant populations were slaves from West Africa. Bilali Mohammed was born in Guinea in roughly 1770 and died in 1857 on a plantation on Sapelo Island in Georgia, leaving behind a 13-sheaf document in Arabic. It’s a treatise of religious jurisprudence specific to the society of Muslim West Africa and one of the earliest classic slave narratives. Abdulrahman Ibraheem Ibn Sori, like the literary figure of Oroonoko in Aphra Behn’s famous 1688 novel of the same name, was royalty from a Guinean kingdom before being abducted and whisked away to slavery in Mississippi. As word of a lettered, regal “Prince of Slaves” spread across the country, Ibn Sori won allies and friends and was eventually freed in 1828 by an order from President John Quincy Adams. He left the U.S. for the former slave republic of Liberia in Africa but died of fever soon thereafter, never to return to the land of his birth.

Most Muslim African slaves were far less lucky, and memory of their varied cultural heritage dissipated over generations of enslavement. Black Islam would be revived in the first half of the 20th century as a creed of empowerment and redemption. The Nation of Islam, founded in 1933, sought to step away from the indignity of the past with a wholesale rejection of the predominantly white, Christian nation that surrounded them; to this day, the website of the now much diminished group identifies black Americans as descendants of a “Lost Nation of Asia.” For prominent activists like Malcolm X, Islam was a badge of otherness, of distinction and pride in the face of old injustices.

On the sidelines of these struggles, other Muslims were more than happy to try to fit in. By the end of the 19th century, immigrants from the Ottoman Empire began settling in pockets across the U.S. Some of the first active Muslim congregations in the country began in towns like Cedar Rapids, Iowa (led by Lebanese), and Biddeford, Maine (led by Albanians). In 1926, Polish-speaking Tatars opened one of the first mosques in Brooklyn. By the latter half of the 20th century, the majority of Muslims moving to the U.S. were from South Asia and Arab states. Today, there are an estimated 7 million Muslims living in the U.S., from myriad communities and all walks of life. To speak of them in generalities would be pointless.

Nevertheless, since 9/11, a spotlight has fallen on American Islam and the potential extremists in our midst. There are villains: from Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind Egyptian imprisoned for life for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, to New Mexico-born Anwar al-Awlaki, an Islamist lecturer who is thought to have preached to a few of the 9/11 hijackers and is now in hiding in Yemen, the first U.S. citizen to wind up on a CIA

targeted kill list. Curiously, a conspicuous number of U.S. jihadists have come from non-Muslim backgrounds, like the “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh, who grew up in a prosperous San Francisco suburb, and David Headley, a half Pakistani born in Washington who, before allegedly planning the Mumbai terrorist attacks in November 2008, was running a bar in Philadelphia. Concerted Homeland Security measures seem to rope in occasional terrorism suspects – like the 14 arrests this week of U.S. residents allegedly linked to the al-Shabab militant group in Somalia. But many Muslim communities have come under siege, facing a barrage of media scrutiny and xenophobic bluster.

In this context, figures like Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf – the Arab-American cleric behind the mosque project near Ground Zero – stand out. A consummate moderate who has made a career preaching about the compatibility of Islamic and American values, Rauf has been cast as a dangerous radical by the mosque’s opponents. Few of them are moved by the name of Rauf’s proposed building: Cordoba House, named for the city in Spanish Andalucia where Muslims, Jews and Christians once co-existed for centuries in an extraordinary flourishing of culture and science. In these times, the richness and diversity of Muslim experience, in the U.S. and elsewhere, seem far from the minds of most Americans.

Military aid to Pakistan not a threat to India: US

PTI

Washington, DC: Days after India voiced concern over the misuse of the massive US military aid by Pakistan, the Obama administration has said that the security assistance to Islamabad, including the supply of sophisticated F-16 jets, should not be seen as a threat to New Delhi.

“In giving military assistance to Pakistan, we have systems of accountability to be sure that it is being employed in accordance with the agreements that we have with Pakistan,” state department spokesman PJ Crowley said at his daily news briefing last evening.

“Where we have questions about the nature of Pakistani employment of US assistance, we raise those questions directly with the Pakistani government. We have in the past and we will continue to do that,” he said.

So, building up the capability of Pakistan to deal with the threat within its own borders “should not be seen as a threat to India,” Crowley said.

He argued that a stable Pakistan is not a threat to India and a stable India does not need to be a threat to Pakistan.

His remarks came five days after India expressed concern over the misuse of US military aid by Pakistan and asked America to set up a monitoring mechanism as a remedial measure.

During the visit of US joint chiefs of staff committee chairman Admiral Mike Mullen to New Delhi on July 23, defence minister AK Antony told him about India’s worries that Pakistan was diverting the American military assistance to building capacities against India.

Antony said that the arms aid to Pakistan, worth billions of dollars annually, was “disproportionate to the war on terror” for which it was intended and the US should ensure it was used only for the purpose meant for.

Pakistan has also recently acquired sophisticated air-to-air missiles from the US for its newly inducted F-16 fighter jets.

Crowley also strongly recommended Indo-Pak peace talks, while underlining that Islamabad should address New Delhi’s concern with regard to 26/11.

“It is important for Pakistan and India to have a stable relationship. They, likewise, will have to have a relationship going forward, and if it is stable, then the world, including the US, benefits,”

Responding to a question, Crowley said that there are concerns about making sure that Pakistan bring to justice those responsible for the Mumbai attacks.

“We’ve had that conversation with Pakistan and India many, many times. Our concerns about elements within Pakistan and connections that those elements have with the Pakistani government, we’ve had that conversation with Pakistan many times,” he said.

Ex-CIA chief says Strike on Iran seems more likely now

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — A former CIA director says military action against Iran now seems more likely because no matter what the U.S. does diplomatically, Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program.

In this May 18, 2006, file photo, Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, at his confirmation hearing to head the CIA before the Senate Intelligence Committee. On July 25, 2010, Hayden said military action against Iran now seems more likely because no matter what the U.S. does diplomatically, Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program.

Michael Hayden, a CIA chief under President George W. Bush, says that during his tenure a strike was “way down the list” of options. But he tells CNN’s “State of the Union” that such action now “seems inexorable.”

He predicts Iran will build its program to the point where it’s just below having an actual weapon. Hayden says that would be as destabilizing to the region as the real thing.

U.S. officials have said military action remains an option if sanctions fail to deter Iran.

Iran says its nuclear work is for peaceful purposes such as power generation.