‘US facing no-win situation in Pakistan’: BS

‘US facing no-win situation in Pakistan’

( Loosing the Info WAR )

* Ex-CIA official says Musharraf and his generals will pay lip service to US demands
* US wants compliant Pakistan

By Khalid Hasan Friday, November 16, 2007

WASHINGTON: The United States is now confronted with an essentially no-win situation in Pakistan, the result of many years of ad hoc policies based on an abiding faith in the power of US military force coupled with ignorance of the strategic, cultural and psychological realities of the region, according to a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) official.

Graham E Fuller, a former vice-chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA, writes in a publication called Global Viewpoint that at heart there is an incompatibility of American strategic interests with those of Pakistan, particularly as perceived by the country’s strategic elite. Powerful popular forces of Pakistani and Islamic nationalism intensify this divide.

Washington wants what Pakistan will not deliver, or cannot deliver except to a modest degree. Bush wants to destroy Al Qaeda in the Pak-Afghan region, a goal shared by President General Pervez Musharraf.

But while Al Qaeda lacks native roots in Pakistan, Osama Bin Laden is still the object of sympathy by huge numbers in Pakistan and beyond. Humbled Muslim societies everywhere see Bin Laden as one of the few figures in the Muslim world willing to stand up with honour and bravery to the American colossus and defy its imperial ambitions.

( They think this, because of the USA's failed Info War in Pakti. al Qaeda killing Muslims, women, children, bombing Mosques and Market places honour, honour: no just a Info war Failure.)

That makes Bin Laden more popular than Bush or Musharraf, even if most of the population does not share the Qaeda chief’s vision of violent global jihadi struggle.

Lip service: According to Fuller, Washington’s demands continue to cut closer to the Pakistani bone. Bush wants Pakistan to cut off cross-border contact between Pakistan and Afghanistan, to deny Pakistan as a safe haven for the Afghan Taliban. Musharraf and his generals will pay lip service to this goal, but they will not ultimately do it.

The reasons are not complex. As distasteful a symbol of primitive Islamic practice as the Taliban have been, today they represent essentially the major vehicle for Pashtun nationalism in Afghanistan, the single biggest ethnic group and much under-represented in the US-backed Karzai government. More important, there are twice as many ethnic Pashtuns in Pakistan itself as there are in Afghanistan. The cross-border ties are inextricable: clan, family, history, culture, language, religion. This ethnic organism will not be sundered by the arbitrary and unpopular borders between the two countries. Pashtuns can do, and will casually ignore this artificial divide. The Taliban as a political and ideological movement is growing more powerful within Pakistan itself.

Pakistan, Fuller points out, already has one powerful enemy on its eastern flank — India. It cannot afford to have a hostile Afghanistan on its western side. Every Pakistani strategic thinker knows this. Yet under the Karzai government in Afghanistan, the enemies of Pakistan — the anti-Pashtun Northern Alliance, and a strong Indian political and intelligence presence — have grown strong. Pakistan’s primary voice and influence inside Afghanistan comes mainly via the Taliban, supported behind the scenes by the Pakistani military on strategic grounds. Washington may rail at this, but it cannot change these facts on the ground. Pakistan’s government is meanwhile still heavily influenced by powerful feudal rural landholders with regressive social and economic policies. The country desperately needs agricultural and social reform. But reform will undercut the powerful feudalists, a key pillar of power. Former premier Benazir Bhutto, for all her Western polish, herself represents those very landowning powers in her native Sindh region. The kind of deep social reform required is not in the offing, neither with Musharraf nor with Bhutto. She has been tested — twice — and found wanting.

Compliant Pakistan: Fuller argues that Washington wants a compliant Pakistan that will dutifully play its assigned role in the US regional hegemonic vision. Washington will take it any way it can get it, with or without democracy. So US calls for democracy are now issued in panic and ring hollow after six years of support for the Musharraf dictatorship. Pakistani liberals condemn the US for supporting the Pakistani military dictatorship for so long in the name of an unpopular “war against terror” and perceive US confrontationalism as only serving to inflame the militant jihadists.

( No mention of the terrorist confrontations, beheadings, bombings and He says USA is 'inflaming' the terrorist...his reasoning is so obtuse as to be beyond logic )

Nor can the crisis in Pakistan be viewed in isolation. It is of a piece with the war in Afghanistan, and is inextricably linked as well to broader convulsions across the Middle East.

He writes, “Today the US military presence is perhaps the single most inflammatory element in politics across the region. The American military response to this regional challenge only serves to exacerbate it. Sadly, Pakistan is now swift on the heels of Iraq and Afghanistan in heading toward increased civil strife and bitter anti-American emotions ... The region will only calm down following a withdrawal of US forces.”

( Iraq calmed down, and civil strife is declining, and no withdrawal of USA troops yet. )

SOURCE:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This is a good example of Info War, and their propaganda is getting through, where is the USA's Pashtoon media blitz? VOA? FM stations? Cell Phone network, TV?

Inside look at Tilaban ( Video )

Gerald

Army blocking tools for Internet Media WAR.

UPDATE 3: My story quotes Sgt. Edward Watson, a blogger currently deployed with the 82nd Airborne Division in Baghdad, who got in some trouble with higher-ups for what he wrote online. Matt "Blackfive" Burden says Sgt. Watson is one of "eight to ten" soldier-bloggers who have reached out to him for guidance since the Army passed its new rules about blogging. Sgt. Watson's full letter to DANGER ROOM is after the jump.

UPDATE 4: Greyhawk laughs it up.

Ok, hey Noah hows it going? Sounds good about the article. Ill answer them as best I can for ya. I will be leaving for a series of patrols and raids and will need to head to bed in a little bit, so if you have any further questions or anything else, please try to get back with me asap for I will be unavailable after I hit the sack.

Well I origionally started my blog and to my knowledge no one from my unit even knew I was keeping one or that they were reading it. I don't know how exactly he found it, but my former Platoon Leader stumbled up it and did some reading. We were at our outpost the day he found it, May 17th I believe.

Initially he was pretty upset, in particular at one of my recent posts (from May 9th). In there I talked about our FOB getting mortared and our chowhall was hit. I had run inside after hearing word of people possibly hit inside, despite the 'all clear'. I received a stern talk from my former Platoon Leader about not doing something like that again. I disagreed and therefore entitled the post 'The right wrong decision'.

After the conversation lightened, he proceeded to point out a few more of what he called 'OPSEC' (Operational Security) violations. I don't really remeber which posts he pointed out. It pretty much came down to any of the posts where I talked about things such as mortaring, engagements, one soldier who was killed, etc. He didn't tell me I had to stop, but told me I needed to edit the posts, remove his 'OPSEC' violations and he'd monitor it in the future.

I decided that I didn't want to change the way I wrote, and for simplicity in my life, I decided to just stop my blog, removing my old post (most of which I still removed). I've slowly been screening some old ones and makeing sure there are no violations and putting them back up. Anyways, once I stopped my blog, an article was written about my site going down, which was picked up across the country and even in the local Stars and Stripes newspaper we receive here in Iraq. At this point EVERYONE and I mean everyone knew about it, including my entire chain of command and probably higher than I care to know.

The reason I never got in any trouble was because according to the sheet they have for us that talks about OPSEC and what we can and cannot say when on the phones, computers etc I never once violated anything they mentioned. The only thing that my Company Commander tried to get me on was the regulation about registering your blog with the military. They wanted to give me an Article 15 (non-judicial punishment) for a regulation I was clueless about and they never brief anyone about starting or running blogs. My former Platoon Leader found for me on that one, and that never came about.

I even exchanged a few emails with the 82nd Airborne's PAO (public affairs officer) and he was very encouraging of me continuing my blog. After the article, no one told me I could not continue my blog and there were many who encouraged me as well. Thats when I decided to do just that, registered my blog with my unit and continued, making sure to be extra careful what I said and how I said it. I was initially worried that my blog would lose the feel it once had, but after a while I realized that I was still able to get a unique story out, one that most people don't hear. A story about what its like, the good, the bad, the boring and the exciting, as a soldier, boots on the ground in Iraq.

Alright, well I hope that answers your questions. Like I said if you have any more, email me back. SGT Watson, Edward C

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hmm I wonder if AQ get into trouble for blogging?

140,000 troops ready to train, the worlds biggest counter-terrorist Media force

and they are BLOKED from the weapon to counter AQ's media war.

NO KEYBOARD FOR USA TROOPS.

Army still does not understand the Internet war paradigm.

USA can win every fight in the field and still loose the "hearts and minds".

They need to be trained not BLOCKED.

Where is the USA's media battalion?

g

Jahidist start WORLD WIDE media WAR

From the previous post we see the instructions to infiltrate forums, and post propaganda.
Their goal is to start home grown jahidists, a call to action.
This will make them even more elusive.

So far there is no Western organized effort to confront this media war.
They keep moving on to the next step as they are defeated in their current areana.
Iraq's and other Muslims are taking on and out al qaeda, so they move to next step.

Islam is in a co-dependent relationship with the terrorists, Islam need to take them to task.

This is a very sucessful social change engine the islamofacsist are running.

They keep going to the next logical step, promoting jahidism, and the West so far just reacts, slowly, poorly, if at all.

USA has the worlds most powerful Army and USA gets whipped in the media war daily.
USA is a non-particapant, a non-player.

They keep seeding their lies, falshoods and propaganda in the media and no one is responding to their poision they spread thru the Internet.

A LIE POSTED IN ENOUGH PLACES LONG ENOUGH WILL BE BELIEVED IF NOT CONFRONTED.

WHEN, WHEN DOES THE USA START THEIR MEDIA WAR AGAINST THE ISLAMOFACSIST?

Some of our efforts to respond to their lies with the truth"
Blessed be al Qaeda:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_gerald_a_070612_blessed_be_al_qa_ida.htm

al qaeda recruitment video:
http://warintel.blogspot.com/2007/06/al-qadia-free-iraq-video.html


Free Iraq:
http://warintel.blogspot.com/2007/06/al-qadia-free-iraq-video.html

USA is loosing the Media war by default, no social change engine...

We need to fight terrorism but also to stop its spread...

Where is USA's media battalion?

al Qaeda has started a civil war in Iraq, and now Lebanon.
They recruit over the Internet and USA tracks them!!
USA needs to counter them.

Gerald

media war

Iran top nuclear official Aqazadeh at IRNA

Friday, April 20, 2007 - ?2005 IranMania.com

LONDON, April 20 (IranMania) - A top nuclear official said the world is currently the scene of media war and news machinations, Iran Daily said. Visiting the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) with his deputies and officials of Iran?s Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO), Gholamreza Aqazadeh, vice president and head of IAEO, made the remark during talks with IRNA Chief Jalal Fayyazi. Emphasizing IRNA?s influence on international, regional and national developments, Aqazadeh noted that the government should invest in the media for turning it into a superior regional power. ?Generating thought is one of the duties of the media, including IRNA. The government should do its best to train media experts,? he said. Aqazadeh thanked IRNA for promoting the objectives of the Islamic system by fulfilling its role in a satisfactory manner. Fayyazi, for his part, said cooperation between IRNA and IAEO in different fields, including information dissemination regarding Iran?s peaceful nuclear activities, is of paramount importance. When does the West start? Tgey are loosing the media war.