Showing posts with label War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Dilip Hiro, Pakistan's Other Partner

Has the Obama Administration Miscalculated in Pakistan?
By Dilip Hiro

Washington often acts as if Pakistan were its client state, with no other possible patron but the United States. It assumes that Pakistani leaders, having made all the usual declarations about upholding the “sacred sovereignty” of their country, will end up yielding to periodic American demands, including those for a free hand in staging drone attacks in its tribal lands bordering Afghanistan. This is a flawed assessment of Washington’s long, tortuous relationship with Islamabad.

A recurring feature of the Obama administration’s foreign policy has been its failure to properly measure the strengths (as well as weaknesses) of its challengers, major or minor, as well as its friends, steadfast or fickle. To earlier examples of this phenomenon, one may now add Pakistan.

That country has an active partnership with another major power, potentially a viable substitute for the U.S. should relations with the Obama administration continue to deteriorate. The Islamabad-Washington relationship has swung from close alliance in the Afghan anti-Soviet jihad years of the 1980s to unmistaken alienation in the early 1990s, when Pakistan was on the U.S. watch list as a state supporting international terrorism. Relations between Islamabad and Beijing, on the other hand, have been consistently cordial for almost three decades. Pakistan’s Chinese alliance, noted fitfully by the U.S., is one of its most potent weapons in any future showdown with the Obama administration.

Playing the China Card

Another factor, also poorly assessed, affects an ongoing war. While, in the 1980s, Pakistan acted as the crucial conduit for U.S. aid and weapons to jihadists in Afghanistan, today it could be an obstacle to the delivery of supplies to America’s military in Afghanistan. It potentially wields a powerful instrument when it comes to the efficiency with which the U.S. and its NATO allies fight the Taliban. It controls the supply lines to the combat forces in that landlocked country.

Taken together, these two factors make Pakistan a far more formidable and independent force than U.S. policymakers concede publicly or even privately.

The Supply Line as Jugular

Angered at the potential duplicity of Pakistan in having provided a haven to Osama bin Laden for years, the Obama administration seems to be losing sight of the strength of the cards Islamabad holds in its hand.

To supply the 100,000 American troops now in Afghanistan, as well as 50,000 troops from other NATO nations and more than 100,000 employees of private contractors, the Pentagon must have unfettered access to that country through its neighbors. Among the six countries adjoining Afghanistan, only three have seaports, with those of China far too distant to be of practical use. Of the remaining two, Iran -- Washington’s number one enemy in the region -- is out. That places Pakistan in a unique position.

Currently about three-quarters of the supplies for the 400-plus U.S. and coalition bases in Afghanistan -- from gigantic Bagram Air Base to tiny patrol outposts -- go overland via Pakistan or through its air space. These shipments include almost all the lethal cargo and most of the fuel needed by U.S.-led NATO forces. On their arrival at Karachi, the only major Pakistani seaport, these supplies are transferred to trucks, which travel a long route to crossing points on the Afghan border. Of these, two are key: Torkham and Chaman.

Torkham, approached through the famed Khyber Pass, leads directly to Kabul, the Afghan capital, and Bagram Air Base, the largest U.S. military facility in the country. Approached through the Bolan Pass in the southwestern Pakistani province of Baluchistan, Chaman provides a direct route to Kandahar Air Base, the largest U.S. military camp in southern Afghanistan.

Operated by some 4,000 Pakistani drivers and their helpers, nearly 300 trucks and oil tankers pass through Torkham and another 200 through Chaman daily. Increasing attacks on these convoys by Taliban-allied militants in Pakistan starting in 2007 led the Pentagon into a desperate search for alternative supply routes.

After Empire by Dilip HiroWith the help of NATO member Latvia, as well as Russia, and Uzbekistan, Pentagon planners succeeded in setting up the Northern Distribution Network (NDN). It is a 3,220-mile railroad link between the Latvian port of Riga and the Uzbek border city of Termez. It is, in turn, connected by a bridge over the Oxus River to the Afghan town of Hairatan. The Uzbek government, however, allows only non-lethal goods to cross its territory. In addition, the Termez-Hairatan route can handle no more than 130 tons of cargo a day. The expense of shipping goods over such a long distance puts a crimp in the Pentagon’s $120 billion annual budget for the Afghan War, and couldn’t possibly replace the Pakistani supply routes.

There is also the Manas Transit Center leased by the U.S. from the government of Kyrgyzstan in December 2001. Due to its proximity to Bagram Air Base, its main functions are transiting coalition forces in and out of Afghanistan, and storing jet fuel for mid-air refueling of U.S. and NATO planes in Afghanistan.

The indispensability of Pakistan’s land routes to the Pentagon has given its government significant leverage in countering excessive diplomatic pressure from or continued violations of its sovereignty by Washington. Last September, for instance, after a NATO helicopter gunship crossed into Pakistan from Afghanistan in hot pursuit of insurgents and killed three paramilitaries of the Pakistani Frontier Corps in the tribal agency of Kurram, Islamabad responded quickly.

It closed the Khyber Pass route to NATO trucks and oil tankers, which stranded many vehicles en route, giving Pakistani militants an opportunity to torch them. And they did. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a written apology to his Pakistani counterpart General Ashhaq Parvez Kayani, conveying his “most sincere condolences for the regrettable loss of your soldiers killed and wounded on 30 September.” Anne Patterson, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, issued an apology for the “terrible accident,” explaining that the helicopter crew had mistaken the Pakistani paratroopers for insurgents. Yet Pakistan waited eight days before reopening the Torkham border post.

Pakistan’s Other Cards: Oil, Terrorism, and China

In this region of rugged terrain, mountain passes play a crucial geopolitical role. When China and Pakistan began negotiating the demarcation of their frontier after the 1962 Sino-Indian War (itself rooted in a border dispute), Beijing insisted on having the Khunjerab Pass in Pakistani-administered Kashmir. Islamabad obliged. As a result, the 2,000-square-mile territory it ceded to China as part of the Sino-Pakistan Border and Trade Agreement in March 1963 included that mountain pass.

That agreement, in turn, led to the building of the 800-mile-long Karkoram Highway linking Kashgar in China’s Xinjiang Region and the Pakistani town of Abbottabad, now a household name in America. That road sealed a strategic partnership between Beijing and Islamabad that has strong geopolitical, military, and economic components.

Both countries share the common aim of frustrating India’s aspiration to become the regional superpower of South Asia. In addition, the Chinese government views Pakistan as a crucial ally in its efforts to acquire energy security in the coming decades.

Given Pakistan’s hostility toward India since its establishment in 1947, Beijing made an effort to strengthen that country militarily and economically following its 1962 war with India. After Delhi exploded a “nuclear device” in 1974, China actively aided Islamabad’s nuclear-weapons program. In March 1984, its nuclear testing site at Lop Nor became the venue for a successful explosion of a nuclear bomb assembled by Pakistan. Later, it passed on crucial missile technology to Islamabad.

During this period, China emerged as the main supplier of military hardware to Pakistan. Today, nearly four-fifths of Pakistan’s main battle tanks, three-fifths of its warplanes, and three-quarters of its patrol boats and missile crafts are Chinese-made. Given its limited resources, Islamabad cannot afford to buy expensive American or Western arms and has therefore opted for cheaper, less advanced Chinese weapons in greater numbers. Moreover, Pakistan and China have an ongoing co-production project involving the manufacture of JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft, similar to America’s versatile F-16.

As a consequence, over the past decades a pro-China lobby has emerged in the Pakistani officer corps. It was therefore not surprising when, in the wake of the American raid in Abbottabad, Pakistani military officials let it be known that they might allow the Chinese to examine the rotor of the stealth version of the damaged Black Hawk helicopter left behind by the U.S. Navy SEALS. That threat, though reportedly not carried out, was a clear signal to the U.S.: if it persisted in violating Pakistan’s sovereignty and applying too much pressure, the Pakistanis might choose to align even more closely with Washington’s rival in Asia, the People’s Republic of China. To underline the point, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani traveled to Beijing two weeks after the Abbottabad air raid.

Gilani’s three-day visit involved the signing of several Sino-Pakistani agreements on trade, finance, science, and technology. The highpoint was his meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao. Following that summit, an official spokesperson announced Beijing’s decision to urge Chinese enterprises to strengthen their economic ties with Pakistan by expanding investments there.

Among numerous Sino-Pakistani projects in the pipeline is the building of a railroad between Havelian in Pakistan and Kashgar in China, a plan approved by the two governments in July 2010. This is expected to be the first phase of a far more ambitious undertaking to connect Kashgar with the Pakistani port of Gwadar.

A small fishing village on the Arabian Sea coastline of Baluchistan, Gwadar was transformed into a modern seaport in 2008 by the China Harbor Engineering Company Group, a subsidiary of the China Communications Construction Company Group, a giant state-owned corporation. The port is only 330 miles from the Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf through which flows much of China’s supplies of Middle Eastern oil. In the wake of the Gilani visit, China has reportedly agreed to take over future operation of the port.

More than a decade ago, China’s leaders decided to reduce the proportion of its oil imports transported by tanker because of the vulnerability of the shipping lanes from the Persian Gulf and East Africa to its ports. These pass through the narrow Malacca Strait, which is guarded by the U.S. Navy. In addition, the 3,500-mile-long journey -- to be undertaken by 60% of China’s petroleum imports -- is expensive. By having a significant part of its imported oil shipped to Gwadar and then via rail to Kashgar, China would reduce its shipping costs while securing most of its petroleum imports.

At home, the Chinese government remains wary of the Islamist terrorism practiced by Muslim Uighurs agitating for an independent East Turkestan in Xinjiang. Some of them have links to al-Qaeda. Islamabad has long been aware of this. In October 2003, the Pakistani military killed Hasan Mahsum, leader of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, and in August 2004, the Pakistani and Chinese armies conducted a joint anti-terrorism exercise in Xinjiang.

Almost seven years later, Beijing coupled its satisfaction over the death of Osama bin Laden with praise for Islamabad for pursuing what it termed a “vigorous” policy in combatting terrorism. In stark contrast to the recent blast of criticism from Washington about Pakistan’s role in the war on terrorism, coupled with congressional threats to drastically reduce American aid, China laid out a red carpet for Gilani on his visit.

Referring to the “economic losses” Pakistan had suffered in its ongoing counter-terrorism campaigns, the Chinese government called upon the international community to support the Pakistani regime in its attempts to “restore national stability and development in its economy.”

The Chinese response to bin Laden’s killing and its immediate aftermath in Pakistan should be a reminder to the Obama administration: in its dealings with Pakistan in pursuit of its Afghan goals, it has a weaker hand than it imagines. Someday, Pakistan may block those supply lines and play the China card to Washington's dismay.

Dilip Hiro is the author of 32 books, the latest being After Empire: The Birth of A Multipolar World (Nation Books). His upcoming book on jihadists in South Asia will be published by Yale University Press later in the year.

Copyright 2011 Dilip Hiro


Copied from: Tomgram: Dilip Hiro, Pakistan's Other Partner | TomDispatch

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Unfriendly and Irresponsible US Behavior

I was just reading about the blunt US warnings to Pakistan if it does not act aggressively against US defined terrorists. Actually US has an impression that Pakistan is avoiding direct conflict with the 'terrorist' because of strategic and political reasons.

I was wondering if US should issue such warning without showing its own progress and success after 100s of drone attacks on Pakistani soil? I think USA and its non-Pakistani allies should also present a report about their progress in Afghanistan in the last few years. They should also compare their performances with Pakistani army during the same period, to decide who fought better with the militants in almost similar terrain. I was also wondering where did US army go when Pakistan army was carrying out operation Raah-e-Nijaat? I have mentioned in one of my earlier posts that USA removed its check posts from Pak-Afghan border when Pakistani army was fighting TTP in South Waziristan. This was the best chance to sandwich TTP but the International armies missed it। Shouldn't we doubt their intent? They not only missed it, they wasted the efforts made by Pakistani army. Missing its own opportunity, US is now pressing Pakistan army for no reason. It makes me wonder, why does such events don't affect US image all over the world and US impression on Pakistan :s

US should be aware of the facts that Pakistani army does not have to see the western border only. It is already very stretched out:
1) On going war against militants all over Pakistan
2) Recent uprise in Indian occupied Kashmir requires Pakistani army to be ready for any situation
3) Recent floods in Pakistan

I'd question USA and the rest of the world if they would prefer saving and rehabilitating their citizens after a natural disaster or they would open a new war front against someone who is considered a 'bad guy' by some suspicious friend?

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Why is South Asia so tense?

For the past 63 years, South Asia has remained in a state of tension. The eight countries that make up this geopolitically sensitive region do not share a friendly and harmonious relationship with each other. This is despite their efforts to come on a single platform of Saarc to develop a major economic and political bloc. All smaller countries were enthusiastic about this model of cooperation to succeed in gaining progress and getting rid of pervasive poverty. But in the end it just collapsed.

All these countries have a closely interwoven history and common ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious heritage but still they failed. It happened because all the contiguous states on India’s periphery are fearful of its hegemonic designs and its policy to dominate and dictate.

In case of India and Pakistan, given the historical divide between Hindus and Muslims, it is understandable that a certain amount of acrimony and distrust would impact their relationship. Instead of accepting Pakistan’s emergence in 1947 as a reality and resolving bilateral disputes in a spirit of understanding, India adopted a belligerent course. The resulting discord and three wars have plagued their relationship to this day, both countries diverting huge and precious financial resources to defence and development of nuclear weapons.

Even if Indo-Pakistan relationship is set aside for a moment as one of peculiar nature and even if Pakistan is presumed to be responsible for all the wicked behaviour, the question arises why do other countries of the region find it so difficult to forge a closer relationship with India? Why is it that India has failed to evoke trust and confidence among its neighbours to make any worthwhile collaboration impossible, including Saarc? Isn’t it time for hostilities to give way to a congenial environment among South Asian neighbours too?

The fact is that for regional alliances, political or economic, to succeed it is imperative for all stakeholders to treat each other as equals, irrespective of their size or strength. This comes with respecting each other’s sovereignty, willingness to set aside political differences and showing a degree of flexibility to promote a common cause. In case of South Asia, this has not happened. India has disputes with almost every neighbour, which has strained their relationships for years at end.

In Sri Lanka, India overtly and covertly supported the insurgency against the state by LTTE, a nationalist Tamil group in the northern Jaffna region of this small island country, which kept it politically and economically destabilised for decades. In the end, India paid a price for interference when its prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi, was assassinated by a Tamil activist for having betrayed the movement.

With Bangladesh it is locked in an unresolved dispute over Farakka barrage that deprives Bangladesh of its water share. Despite the gratitude Bangladesh owes to India for having militarily dismembered Pakistan in 1971 to midwife its birth, relations between the two have often sunk to the rock bottom on a host of issues, including border dispute.

The tiny mountain state of Nepal has complained of persistent Indian dictation and interference in its internal affairs. That India employs economic blockades and manipulates transit facilities to this poor landlocked country for arm twisting is no secret.

Although not a part of South Asia, China’s relations with India for decades have remained frosty, at best. They went to war in 1962 over a border dispute. Competing for regional leadership, it does not hesitate to antagonise China by hoisting Dalai Lama off and on to keep the issue of Tibet alive. Lately, having aligned itself with America to contain China, India is bargaining for a tense Sino-Indian relationship in the years to come.

With Pakistan, India maintains the worst of relations mainly because of Pakistan’s political and military standing and its ability to reject Indian domination. Outstanding disputes including Kashmir, water distribution, dams that India constructs in violation Indus Water Treaty and border issues have remained unresolved.

By joining the American bandwagon in Afghanistan and positioning its troops in the name of infrastructure development, India created enough concerns for Pakistan. But by its collusion with CIA and Mossad to take out Pakistan’s nuclear assets through subversion in Fata, the NWFP and other areas using the militants of Tehrik-i-Taliban, India is slamming shut the door on the peace process that Pakistan has been persistently trying to keep open ever since 1947. With a history of constant endeavours to balkanise Pakistan, Indian military build up in Afghanistan is seen by Pakistan’s military as an effort to put it in a nutcracker.

That growing Indian influence in Afghanistan is a destabilising factor in the region, is acknowledged even by Gen McChrystal in his recent review of the war in Afghanistan. The make and types of sophisticated weapons, communications equipment and satellite pictures of troop movements recovered from the militants provide undeniable evidence about Indian involvement.

Mr. Ehsanullah Aryanzai, advisor to the Afghan regime has said that India is using Afghan soil to conduct anti-Pakistan activities. The executive editor of ‘News Indian Express’ has acknowledged the evidence of Indian activities in Balochistan in the issue of July 31, 2009. And evidence was recently handed over by Pakistani prime minister to his Indian counterpart.

The Indian psyche that breeds arrogance and expansionism is clear from the words of Pundit Nehru, India’s first prime minister, who said ‘India must dominate or perish’. Perish it will not. So dominate it must. To Hindu extremists, all others on this land are aliens who do not belong there and this includes Muslims and Christians. This justifies the commonly witnessed ethnic cleansing of non-Hindus and leads to the ultimate dream of the creation of Vrihata Bharat — a Greater India.

To ensure that this fatherland is reunited under Hindu rule, India pursues designs of expanding its boundaries to eventually include Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Burma, Nepal, and Bhutan and create the huge Indian empire.

It would be very naive not to see the direction towards which India is headed. Far from becoming the sole ruler of the entire Indian Ocean, India is destabilising South Asia and working its way towards its own disintegration. This is not only because it is surrounding itself with angry and insecure neighbours, but also due to its troubles at home.

shahidrsiddiqi@gmail.com

DAWN.COM | World | Why is South Asia so tense?
Blogged with the Flock Browser

Monday, November 16, 2009

The war in Afghanistan

by Javed Hussain


AFTER the air bombing campaign had routed the Taliban in 2001, euphoric shouts of victory resonated across the United States, the loudest coming from the White House and the Pentagon.

But these were short-lived as the characteristic Afghan resistance began. Eight years on the American servicemen and women in Afghanistan are gasping for breath because their former president, who was also their commander-in-chief, and his staff had underestimated the enemy.

Not only that, they had also committed two strategic blunders, the consequences of which are being suffered not only by their servicemen and women, but also to a much greater degree, by the Pakistani people and their servicemen. Their strategic thought was distinguished by their stunning mediocrity.

The first blunder was to allow the Taliban to escape to Pakistan. Had they secured the Durand Line crossing sites prior to initiating their air-bombing campaign, this could have been pre-empted. The second blunder was to place their main military effort in the wrong direction — Iraq, which left the main theatre, Afghanistan, undermanned. They had several years after the resurgence of the Taliban in 2002 to correct their strategy, but their obsession with Iraq blinded them to the operational requirements in Afghanistan.

Instead, they found it politically and militarily expedient to blame Pakistan for their failures, and thus started their ‘do more’ refrain that continues unabated, even though Pakistan has done far more than them, and in the process, suffered more than all the countries put together in the coalition.

...

The Americans went to Afghanistan to fight a war. They should plan to win it — unless they want to be known as a superpower defeated twice by guerillas. Blaming Pakistan and prodding it to ‘do more’ would not win the war for them.

Full Article: DAWN.COM | Pakistan | The war in Afghanistan
Blogged with the Flock Browser

Saturday, July 5, 2008

Clear orders about not supporting those who betray trust... will our govt. listen to it by any chance?????

An-Nisa

105 We have sent down to thee the Book in truth, that thou mightest judge between men, as guided by Allah. so be not (used) as an advocate by those who betray their trust;

106 But seek the forgiveness of Allah. for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

107 Contend not on behalf of such as betray their own souls; for Allah loveth not one given to perfidy and crime:

108 They may hide (Their crimes) from men, but they cannot hide (Them) from Allah, seeing that He is in their midst when they plot by night, in words that He cannot approve: And Allah Doth compass round all that they do.

109 Ah! These are the sort of men on whose behalf ye may contend in this world; but who will contend with Allah on their behalf on the Day of Judgment, or who will carry their affairs through?

110 If any one does evil or wrongs his own soul but afterwards seeks Allah's forgiveness, he will find Allah Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

111 And if any one earns sin. he earns it against His own soul: for Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom.

112 But if any one earns a fault or a sin and throws it on to one that is innocent, He carries (on himself) (Both) a falsehood and a flagrant sin.

The Holy Qur'an/An-Nisa - Wikisource

by when will v keep supporting USA on its war on terror????
read 109 and be afraid of the day the ayat is talkin abt...
there is still time, lets return to Allah... read 110... plz return...
Blogged with the Flock Browser

Clear orders about not supporting those who betray trust... will our govt. listen to it by any chance?????

An-Nisa

105 We have sent down to thee the Book in truth, that thou mightest judge between men, as guided by Allah. so be not (used) as an advocate by those who betray their trust;

106 But seek the forgiveness of Allah. for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

107 Contend not on behalf of such as betray their own souls; for Allah loveth not one given to perfidy and crime:

108 They may hide (Their crimes) from men, but they cannot hide (Them) from Allah, seeing that He is in their midst when they plot by night, in words that He cannot approve: And Allah Doth compass round all that they do.

109 Ah! These are the sort of men on whose behalf ye may contend in this world; but who will contend with Allah on their behalf on the Day of Judgment, or who will carry their affairs through?

110 If any one does evil or wrongs his own soul but afterwards seeks Allah's forgiveness, he will find Allah Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

111 And if any one earns sin. he earns it against His own soul: for Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom.

112 But if any one earns a fault or a sin and throws it on to one that is innocent, He carries (on himself) (Both) a falsehood and a flagrant sin.

The Holy Qur'an/An-Nisa - Wikisource

by when will v keep supporting USA on its war on terror????
read 109 and be afraid of the day the ayat is talkin abt...
there is still time, lets return to Allah... read 110... plz return...
Blogged with the Flock Browser

Saturday, April 5, 2008

Corporations the Only Winners in Iraq War

a 2003 article available on Reclaim Democracy.org

By Devin Nordberg
September 13, 2003

"It's not about oil. It's not about oil."

But we're taking their oil. And not just to finance reconstruction.

Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of the Iraqi occupation, made that clear back in July when he declared that Iraq needs to accept foreign investment and privatization of its oil before a permanent government is put in charge of the country. In other words, democracy is welcome only after the most important economic decisions for the future of Iraqis have been decided for them.

You'd think that such a blatant rejection of democracy and obvious grab at Iraq's oil would attract more notice. Bremer made it clear that corporations take priority over people in Iraq, and that the Bush Administration's occupation will continue that.

The Bush occupation of Iraq has an eerie similarity to another intervention in the Middle East that occurred 50 years ago — the CIA-British coup that ousted Iran's democratically elected leader, Mohammed Mossadegh, and installed the infamous Shah of Iran.

So when Arab nations greet our rhetoric of creating democracy with suspicion or outright derision, we've earned it. Iranians struggled successfully for democracy and U.S. politicians promptly crushed their dream.

Then as now, the United States and Great Britain used violence to prevent Iraq and Iran from controlling their own oil.

This set of priorities contrasts sharply to the U.S. occupation of Japan after World War II, when Americans sat down with Japanese scholars and collaboratively designed and implemented one of the most progressive, democratic constitutions in the world*. We can take pride for having helped Japan evolve into a peaceful, stable, and prosperous country that is one of our closest allies. Today, Iranian and Iraqi people resent our support of their previous corrupt regimes and, understandably, don't trust our intentions now.

The differences between American occupations of 1945 Japan and 2003 Iraq reflect the rise of corporate power here and abroad, and within the Bush administration in particular. Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton, is already cashing in on Iraqi "rebuilding" contracts that it obtained from the U.S. government. The oil companies that donated so heavily to the Bush campaign will reap huge profits if they are allowed to take over oil production in Iraq. The weapons makers profit from Bush's policies as well, and even telecommunications companies stand to benefit, since Bremer intends to give foreign corporations license to operate mobile phone networks in Iraq.

It's no surprise that Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld have been advocating an invasion of Iraq since at least 1998 through the Project for a New American Century. It could be argued that Saddam Hussein has been a marked man since he nationalized Iraqi oil back in 1973, but that's another story.

Meanwhile, the American occupation of Iraq increasingly resembles the cycle of violence between Palestinians and Israelis: American soldiers are ambushed and killed, and the U.S. military retaliates by rounding up and imprisoning Iraqi "suspects," including civilians, women, and children as young as 11. More Iraqi violence results, and the cycle continues. Iraqis have little hope that American troops will withdraw anytime soon and have not been treated with dignity or human rights by their occupiers.

How did the American ideals of liberty and justice become hollow slogans for presidents to use to justify military attacks abroad? Ever since Eisenhower warned us of the dangers of the military-industrial complex, it has become steadily more powerful. Corporations should not be allowed to influence foreign policy.

Yet the Bush administration's foreign policy, like domestic policy, often seems to come directly from corporate board rooms. For example, Executive Order 13303 grants complete legal immunity to transnational oil companies operating in Iraq. While U.S. soldiers attempt to establish law and order in Iraq, Bush has put oil companies above the law.

The time to end the occupation of Iraq is overdue. We should pull our troops out before more of them die, hand the temporary administration of Iraq over to the United Nations, let the U.N. weapons inspectors back in Iraq, fund the rebuilding of Iraq through the U.N., and allow Iraqis to choose their own government.

The best way for us to fight terrorism is to advance justice; and justice will not be possible as long as corporations are prioritized over people.

Corporations the Only Winners in Iraq War - Reclaim Democracy.org
Blogged with the Flock Browser

Friday, March 7, 2008

The world condemns killing of 7 israelis

Someone killed 7 israelis yesterday n everyone in the world is strongly condemning the act in firmest possible terms... all of them were sleeping when israel killed 60 palestinians (including more than 7 civilians) on march 1? why didnt anyone condemn the killing of infants and women by israel? coz the infants were palestinians?

after all this bias they show they expect peace in middle east... pity... r they human?

I agree with a hamas spokesman who said:

"This is a normal response to all the Israel occupation, commission and aggression, and they [have] committed massacres inside the Gaza and West Bank - about 128 [people were] killed, 30 of them children and infants, people and elderly and [women]. So I find this is a normal response to all Israel's occupational crimes, and waging a war against the Palestinians." (BBC)

Source: BBC

In quotes: Jerusalem shooting reaction
The attack on a Jewish seminary in Jerusalem has been condemned by leaders in Israel and around the world. A Hamas spokesman said it was a normal response to Israeli aggression.


US PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH
"I condemn in the strongest possible terms the terrorist attack in Jerusalem that targeted innocent students at the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva. This barbaric and vicious attack on innocent civilians deserves the condemnation of every nation.

"I have just spoken with Prime Minister [Ehud] Olmert to extend my deepest condolences to the victims, their families, and to the people of Israel. I told him the United States stands firmly with Israel in the face of this terrible attack."


US SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE
"This barbarous act has no place among civilised people and shocks the conscience of all peace-loving nations. There is no cause that could ever justify this action."


UN SECRETARY GENERAL BAN KI-MOON
A statement issued by his spokesman said:

"The secretary-general is deeply concerned at the potential for continued acts of violence and terrorism to undermine the political process, which he believes must be pursued to achieve a secure and lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians, based on a two-state solution."


UK PRIME MINISTER GORDON BROWN
"Last night's attack and the murders that took place in Jerusalem will mean that the whole world will be outraged at what has been happening.

"This is clearly an attempt to strike a blow at the very heart of the peace process."


OFIR GENDLEMAN, ISRAELI FOREIGN MINISTRY
"Israel condemns this horrific terrorist attack in Jerusalem, and calls for condemnation from the Palestinian Authority leadership in Ramallah. Israel will continue fighting terrorism, wherever it is, in order to secure peace and stability in the region."

FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTER BERNARD KOUCHNER

"France condemns in the firmest possible terms the appalling attack which took place in a Talmudic school in West Jerusalem on Thursday evening, in which many civilians died.

"[Paris], in spite of this violence, which is also an attack on peace, calls for the continuation of negotiations with a view to the creation of a Palestinian state living in peace and security alongside Israel.

"There is no alternative to the quest for a negotiated political solution to put an end to the conflict."