Pakistan sectarian bus attack in Kohistan kills 18

The BBC reports:

Gunmen have killed at least 18 Shia Muslim bus passengers in a sectarian attack in the northern Pakistani district of Kohistan, officials say.

The attackers are reported to have checked the identity cards of all the passengers before removing the Shias and shooting them.

About 27 other passengers on the bus were spared. (...) Last month more than 30 Shias were killed in an attack on a mosque in north-west Pakistan.

Yet another typical example of the rabid hatred the Wahabi/Salafi/Takfi/al-Qaeda/etc. -types (call them what you wish) have for the Shia.  It is in this context that the slow encirclement of Iran via Syria and the bloody crackdown in Bahrain is now taking place.

US outed, and far from drawn down

By M K Bhadrakumar for the Asia Times

The United States-Pakistan relationship has reached a turning point reminiscent of the run-up to October 1958, when Washington encouraged General Ayub Khan's coup, apprehending the coming into power of an elected government in Pakistan that might have refused to collaborate as the US's Cold War ally against the Soviet Union.

An innocuous-looking thing happened on Sunday - Pakistan regained possession of the Shamsi air base in Balochistan near the border with Iran after evicting the US military presence from there. The base itself had been leased to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) since 1992.

The event is at once symbolic and tactical, while at the same time highly strategic even as war clouds are on the horizon over Iran. Symbolic in the sense that it is an assertion of Pakistan's sovereignty; tactical because the US war strategy, which heavily depended on the drone attacks on North Waziristan, will now have to be reworked. Is the drone era in the Afghan war coming to a brusque end?

However, in all of this, what needs some careful analysis is why the US's eviction from Shamsi holds strategic implications.

A mild stimulus 
 
Washington initially viewed Islamabad's decision to expel the US personnel and drone systems from Shamsi with disbelief as a knee-jerk reaction by the Pakistani generals upset over the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) air strike on the border post at Salala in the Mohmand Agency on November 26, which killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. Thus, Washington pressed its ally the UAE into a mediatory role.

UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zeyed al-Nahyan met President Asif Ali Zardari to seek revocation of the Pakistani decision or at least an extension of the 15-day deadline, but returned empty-handed. On getting the bad news from the sheikh, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton phoned Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani, which was followed by a call a day later by President Barack Obama to Zardari.

Both Clinton and Obama drew a blank and thereafter the Pentagon reluctantly began the evacuation from Shamsi.

Clearly, the US underestimated the downstream consequences of the November 26 attack on Pakistan. Pakistani director general of military operations, Major General Ashfaq Nadeem told the federal cabinet and the parliament's defense committee last week in a detailed briefing in Islamabad that the NATO attack bore the hallmark of a well-planned "plot" by the US and NATO command in Afghanistan.

If the likely US intention was to "engage" the Pakistani military leadership with a mild stimulus of "shock and awe", it proved counter-productive. The civil-military leadership in Pakistan still continues to talk in the same voice. Gilani's "ex-post facto" endorsement of army chief General Ashfaq Kiani's decision to deploy the defense systems on the Afghan border to "detect any aircraft or helicopter and to shoot it down", at their meeting in Islamabad on Saturday is the latest evidence of this.

But the crux of the matter is that the Obama administration has once again ceded policy to the Pentagon. With the Central Intelligence Agency also headed by an army general, David Petraeus, the Pentagon is pushing through a long-term military presence in Afghanistan although a political solution is Obama's stated goal. The US military aims to step up the fighting. The "drawdown" strategy outlined by Obama last year is being conveniently reinterpreted for this purpose.

The US's most recent statements have shed the strategic ambiguity over the "drawdown" and it is now crystal clear that tens of thousands of American combat troops are after all going to remain in Afghanistan beyond 2014 for an indeterminate future in addition to the trainers and advisers devoted to "capacity-building" of the Afghan armed forces.

The New York Times noted that Pentagon had been "quietly pushing" for this policy shift for some time. In essence, even as the negotiations over the US-Afghan strategic pact paving the way for the establishment of American military bases in Afghanistan have come to the final stage, the US is discarding the strategic ambiguity about the scope and nature of its long-term military presence.

Demand-driven partnership 
 
This shouldn't have come as a surprise. But Pakistan is facing a difficult situation. Contrary to Pakistan's line of thinking that the military path is futile, the US is sticking to the "fight-talk" approach, which is to go on fighting while exploring the scope for opening talks with a militarily degraded Taliban from a position of strength.

Two, the US is not willing to concede a central role for Pakistan in the peace talks and is non-committal about Pakistan's wish to have a "friendly" government in Kabul, because it seeks to choreograph a settlement that first and foremost would meet the needs of its regional strategies.

Three, paradoxical as it may seem, the continued fighting actually suits the US in the coming period, because it not only provides the justification for the long-term deployment of combat troops in Afghanistan despite regional (and Afghan) opposition but also gives the raison d'etre for the Northern Distribution Network (read US-NATO military presence in Central Asia), which Russia is showing signs of linking to the resolution of the dispute over the US's missile defense system and the dissipation of the US-Russia "reset".

Over and above all this, Obama's decision to keep a large force of combat troops in Afghanistan needs to be viewed against the backdrop of the growing tensions in the US-Iran relations. In the eventuality of any conflict with Iran in a near future, this sort of massive military presence on Iran's eastern flank would be a great strategic asset for the US and NATO.

Make no mistake, the US intends to use the military bases in Afghanistan as a springboard to invade eastern Iran if conflict erupts, no matter what President Hamid Karzai may think or say. By the way, Shamsi is also key air base close to the Iran border. Unsurprisingly, NATO is considering a "joint center" in the Persian Gulf region with the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Thus, the US hopes to "box in" Iran militarily from the Persian Gulf on one side and Afghanistan on the other.

Indeed, NATO is fast transforming as a "smart alliance" based on a security partnership between the 28 members and the rest of the world, thanks to the military intervention in Libya. Ivo Daalder, the US ambassador to NATO, put it explicitly in a recent briefing:

The Libya operation was a logical outflow of the view that we need to have partnerships with countries around the world ... The United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Jordan and Morocco not only supported the operation, but also participated in it ... Lebanon was also a key in the operation, as it was president of the UN Security Council at that time and enacted the 1973 resolution ... This is a demand-driven partnership. A demand by Arab countries.

All in all, therefore, the "hidden agenda" of the Afghan war is out in the open. Pakistan finds itself between the devil and the deep blue sea. First of all, the Pakistani military distrusts the US's intentions behind such large-scale intelligence penetration of its security apparatus in the recent years under the pretext of the "war on terror", including the Inter-Services Intelligence and the military. In particular, the military leadership fears that the US harbors intentions of seizing Pakistan's nuclear assets at an opportune moment.

Obama's unprecedented decision to promote Petraeus as the Central Intelligence Agency head rang alarm bells in the Pakistani mind. Second, US interests and priorities in Afghanistan are increasingly in conflict with Pakistan's. Third, Pakistan simply cannot afford to alienate China and Iran (or Russia for that matter). Finally, the US will sooner or later deploy its missile defense system in the region, which will threaten Pakistan's strategic capability.

Shaking the albatross 
 
The message of the US strike of November 26 was a test case intended to "soften up" the Pakistani military leadership and compel it to fall in line with the US's strategy. Sheikh Nahyan tried to talk some good sense into the minds of the Pakistani generals. But the Shamsi episode underscores that the contradiction in US-Pakistan relations is far too acute to be reconciled easily or in a near term.

The point is, it is turning out to be contradiction of a fundamental character. The implications are serious. Pakistan is "obstructing" the US's regional strategy. Put differently, Pakistan is a vital cog in the wheel of the US strategy.

Pakistan dissociated openly from the agenda of the recent Istanbul conference (November 2), which aimed at creating an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe-type regional security mechanism for Central and South Asia and launching the New Silk Road project aimed at rolling back Russian and Chinese influence in Central Asia. Pakistan also boycotted the Bonn conference (December 5) that was expected to legitimize the long-term US military presence in Afghanistan. To be sure, the two events floundered.

Washington is now left guessing whether Pakistan's strategic defiance is for real. Its historical experience is that the Pakistani elites eventually buckle under American pressure. But the "strategic defiance" over Shamsi would come as a surprise. Meanwhile, by ceding Afghan policy to the Pentagon (and CIA), Obama has taken the precaution of minimizing the scope of this problem area causing controversy during his re-election bid next year. Petraeus is also well liked by the Republicans.

This is an "Ayub-Khan moment" in the US-Pakistan relationship. Once again, popular opinion in Pakistan threatens to intrude into the relationship. But then, there are key differences, too. Kiani is far from the jovial Sandhurst-trained general Ayub Khan was, who was fond of his drink and all good things in life and was used to obeying orders.

Besides, China is not only not the Soviet Union or an adversary of Pakistan, but is in reality its one and only "all-weather friend". How can or why should Pakistan possibly collaborate with the US's containment strategy toward China?

The most important difference between 1958 and 2011, however, is, firstly, that Kiani's "nativist traditions" require him to act within the collegium of corps commanders who are acutely conscious of the mood within the armed forces, which is that Pakistan should shake off the albatross that was hung around its neck in late 2001.

Second, the Pakistani army is taking great and meticulous care that while traversing the shark-infested waters in the months ahead, it holds the hands of the country's civilian leadership at every stage, every moment.

The challenge facing the US is to locate an Ayub Khan, but it is an improbable challenge.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

AfPak: War on two fronts

The only thing Obama’s got right so far about his warzone-of-choice is the name, worries Eric Walberg

As more NATO trucks were being torched in Peshawar last week, a Karachi student managed to fling his shoe at warmongering US journalist Clifford May during his address to the Department of International Relations on “Pakistan’s Role in Countering the Challenge of Terrorism”. In Washington, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi announced bitterly the US probably knows Osama Bin Laden’s where-abouts. He neglected to draw the appropriate conclusion about what the US is really up to in AfPak. Also in Washington, within hours of the decision of the Nobel Peace committee, US President Barack Obama met with his War Council.

It’s getting to the point that it’s hard to tell who is the biggest opponent of Obama’s plans to bring peace to AfPak: the Taliban, the Pakistani government, or the Nobel committee. Oh yes, or virtually the entire world beyond the Washington beltway.

As the world marked the eighth anniversary of the US invasion of Afghanistan on 7 October, the Taliban were stronger than ever – their forces have increased nearly fourfold since 2006. “We fought against the British invaders for 80 years,” Mullah Mohammad Omar reminded the world on the Taliban’s website www.shahamat.org. “If you want to colonise the country of proud and pious Afghans under the baseless pretext of a war on terror, then you should know that our patience will only increase and that we are ready for a long war.” A statement from the leadership insists, “We had and have no plan of harming countries of the world, including those in Europe. Our goal is the independence of the country and the building of an Islamic state.” They call for the immediate withdrawal of foreign troops as the only solution.

So far, there is no hint that Obama is even considering this no-brainer. On the contrary, the war is now being fought on two fronts, with the US and Britain starting an extensive training programme for Pakistan ’s Frontier Corps (FC) in Baluchistan, the new battleground.

It is part of the Obama administration’s massive military aid package to AfPak – Pakistan will get $2.8 billion over the next five years in addition to $7.5 billion in civilian aid, but only if it satisfies US benchmarks by making progress in “anti-terrorism and border control”. The Pakistani government and army are furious, not to mention the 60 per cent of Pakistanis who see the US as the greatest threat to Pakistan – with good cause. In the past few months, US forces have stepped up their aerial bombardments of villages in the northern tribal areas. According to the Pakistani press, of the 60 cross-border US drone strikes between January 2006 and April 2009, only 10 were able to hit their targets, killing 14 Al-Qaeda leaders and 687 civilians. Even official US policy (to kill no more than 29 civilians for every “high-value” person) is being violated. At least 23 Al-Qaeda leaders should have been killed, nine more than the actual 14. This assassination campaign is a more ruthless version of Operation Phoenix in Vietnam, and can only spur the Taliban and Al-Qaeda’s recruitment efforts.

True, Taliban control of the Pakistan frontier province SWAT was brought to a brutal end during the past six months by the Pakistani army, though civilian corpses continue to be dumped, with accusations of revenge and official terror labelled at the army. And the almost complete lack of reconstruction aid by the Pakistan government – with winter approaching – means the Taliban will probably regain SWAT. Local opposition to the war against both Afghanistan and Pakistan’s frontier region, especially Baluchistan, continues to grow, with the long-simmering Baluchi campaign for independence gaining new life daily.

Obama’s war plans have reached a critical stage. In an arrogant gamble, much like General MacArthur’s challenge to president Harry Truman in 1951 over the Korean war, General Stanley McChrystal recently demanded publically that Obama provide 60,000 more troops for Afghanistan, boldly stating the war would be lost without them. Faced with a similarly outspoken MacArthur, Truman just as publically fired him.

McChrystal is said to have offered the Commander in Chief several alternatives “including a maximum injection of 60,000 extra troops”, 40,000 and a small increase. Common in military planning is to discuss three different scenarios in order to illustrate why the middle option is preferable, though this is usually done privately. But the Obama administration faces growing hurdles within his Democratic Party if he decides to go with even the middle option.

Obama’s review of AfPak is now centring on preventing Al-Qaeda’s return to Afghanistan – a narrower objective that could require fewer, if any, new American troops. Obama-Biden no longer see the primary mission in Afghanistan as completely defeating the Taliban or preventing its involvement in the country’s future, a policy strongly opposed by Defence Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Gates-Clinton have a point: once the Taliban are acknowledged as legitimate players who are of no strategic danger to the US, then the horror of the past eight years becomes excruciatingly clear. The defeat of the whole criminal project becomes inevitable and will be just as devastating for the US as the Soviet defeat was for the USSR.

But the Gates-McChrystal super-surge is just about impossible in any case. The Institute for the Study of War reported recently that the US military has only limited troops ready for deployment, meaning that forces might not reach the warzone until the summer of 2010. There are only three Army and Marine brigades – 11,000-15,000 troops – capable of deploying to Afghanistan this year. Troops are plagued by a severe lack of helicopters and all-terrain vehicles.

Whatever Obama decides – 60,000, 40,000 or 2 – the troops will have little time after they arrive to turn things around. Even super-loyal Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper just reaffirmed that Canadian troops will under no circumstances stay in Afghanistan after 2011. Any plans for the indefinite occupation of Afghanistan as touted by some NATO and US officials are fantasy; Canada’s retreat will be part of a flood. Canadian government support for the war, like that of its bigger brothers the US and Britain, has all along been motivated by Afghanistan’s untapped resource potential. The TAPI gas pipeline – so named for its 1680 kilometre path from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan, Pakistan, and eventually India – is slated to be constructed starting next year on the very soil that Canadian and US troops now occupy in southern Afghanistan.

Harper’s best-case scenario is for the pipeline to go ahead with Canadian participation and for a miracle to occur – the Taliban’s sudden and unexpected defeat, allowing Canadian troops to come home, the pipeline and other resource deals signed, and assuring him of a Conservative majority in the next election.“ Canada has the potential to beat rivals because it has such an uncheckered history in that part of the world,” argues Rob Sobhani, president of Caspian Energy Consulting. “People like Canadians, Canadians are apolitical.” Even if the miracle doesn’t happen and the pipeline deal collapses, Harper realises his political goose is cooked unless the troops come home, so he is forced to wash his bloody hands of this betrayal of Canada’s traditional international role of peacekeeper.

Obama needn’t rely on the Taliban as advisers on how to end the war. Deputy-general of the China Council for National Security Policy Studies Li Qinggong reflected official Chinese thinking on 28 September in Xinhua: The United States should first put an end to “the anti-terror war” and “end its military action. The war has neither brought the Islamic nation peace and security as the Bush administration originally promised, nor brought any tangible benefits to the US itself. On the contrary, the legitimacy of the US military action has been under increasing doubt.” Obama should take advantage of international opinion to withdraw troops immediately. This is no doubt also the hope of the Nobel committee that put its own credibility on the line by awarding him the Peace Prize. The UN Security Council permanent members should “draft a roadmap and timetable”, including deployment of an international peacekeeping mission.

The delicious irony of the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan (and Iraq) is that it is China, the US ’s real international rival, that has benefited most. Chinese investments (and workers) have been pouring in to both US warzones. The main effect of George W Bush’s two wars and Obama’s AfPak has been to promote Chinese business interests, leaving the US bankrupt and its army in tatters.
***
Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com/

$75 Billion More in War Spending?

How Many Democrats Will Stand Up to Obama's Bloated Military Budget

By Jeremy Scahill

April 10, 2009 "Information Clearing House - Much of the media attention this week on President Obama’s new military budget has put forward a false narrative wherein Obama is somehow taking his socialist/pacifist sledgehammer to the Pentagon’s war machine and blasting it to smithereens. Republicans have charged that Obama is endangering the country’s security, while the Democratic leadership has hailed it as the dawn of a new era in responsible spending priorities. Part of this narrative portrays Defense Secretary Robert Gates as standing up to the war industry, particularly military contractors.

The reality is that all of this is false.

Here is an undeniable fact: Obama is substantially increasing US military spending, by at least $21 billion from Bush-era levels, including a significant ratcheting up of Afghanistan war spending, as well as more money for unmanned attack drones, which are increasingly being used in attacks on Pakistan. (David Swanson over at AfterDowningStreet.org does a great job of breaking down some of the media coverage of this issue across the political spectrum).

Obama’s budget of $534 billion to the Department of Defense "represents roughly a 4-percent increase over the $513 billion allocated to the Pentagon in FY2009 under the Bush administration, and $6.7 billion more than the outgoing administration’s projections for FY 2010," bragged Lawrence Korb, author of the Center for American Progress‘ report supporting Obama’s escalation of the war in Afghanistan, in an article called, "Obama’s Defense Budget Is on Target."

Obama and his neoliberal think tankers clearly didn’t think much of Rep. Barney Frank’s call earlier this year to cut military spending by 25% to pay for urgently needed social programs and economic aid to struggling Americans. "To accomplish his goals of expanding health care and other important quality of life services without ballooning the deficit," Frank said, Obama needed to reduce military spending. "If we do not get military spending under control, we will not be able to respond to important domestic needs." Well, not only is overall military spending on the rise, but Obama is about to ask for billions more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a "supplemental" spending bill, the type which were staples in Bush’s campaign to mask the full military budget and total cost of the wars. Obama could seek the funding as early as Thursday.

Now, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that we may actually see some spine coming from Congress in standing up to Obama’s request for this additional $75.5 billion in war funds (UPDATE: Obama actually ended up asking for $83 billion). The WSJ characterized the situation as one of "raising tensions" between Obama and some lawmakers opposed to the wars. It should be noted off-the-bat that the Congresspeople speaking out are, predictably, members of the usual suspects club and the Democratic leadership is probably at this moment sharing cocktails in the backroom with McCain and McConnell, but, nonetheless, it is worth examining what is being said:

"I can’t imagine any way I’d vote for it," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat and leader in the 77-member congressional Progressive Caucus. It would be her first major break with this White House.

Ms. Woolsey fears the president’s plan for Iraq would leave behind a big occupation force. She is also concerned about the planned escalation in Afghanistan. "I don’t think we should be going there," she said.

Similar sentiments echo across the House. Rep. Jim McGovern (D., Mass.) said he fears Afghanistan could become a quagmire. "I just have this sinking feeling that we’re getting deeper and deeper into a war that has no end," he said.

Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) dismissed Mr. Obama’s plans as "embarrassingly naive," and suggested that the president is being led astray by those around him. "He’s the smartest man in American politics today," Rep. Conyers said. "But he occasionally gets bad advice and makes mistakes. This is one of those instances."

Obama has vowed to break with the Bush-era tradition of seeking such supplementals to fund the war, saying that beginning in 2010 he will fund the wars as part of his overall budget. The antiwar caucus of Democrats is unlikely to have enough votes to block it given the increasingly overt pro-war nature of the Democratic leadership. And, as the WSJ notes, the funding bills are likely to pass "since many Republicans will support them."

An interesting point nestled halfway through the WSJ piece illustrates a point some antiwar activists have been making since Obama’s election — he is likely to win increased support from Democratic lawmakers for wars they may not have supported when Bush was in power:

The president argues that Afghanistan has been neglected, allowing al Qaeda to regroup and exposing the U.S. to new dangers.

Rep. John Larson (D., Conn.) suggests Democrats may be less inclined to joust with the current White House on the issue than they were with former President George W. Bush. "We have somebody that Democrats feel will level with them," said Mr. Larson, the House’s fourth-ranking Democrat.

This truly is one of the most important trends to watch with the Obama presidency, particularly as it relates to war policy. Obama is in a position to greatly advance the interests of empire, precisely because he is able to build much wider support for policies that are essentially a continuation of those implemented by Bush.

Jeremy Scahill is the author of the New York Times bestseller Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. He is currently a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at the Nation Institute. http://rebelreports.com

The Lahore attack: a textbook example of destabilization

The BBC reports:

Gunmen have attacked a bus carrying the Sri Lankan cricket team on its way to play in the Pakistani city of Lahore. At least six policemen escorting the team bus were killed, along with a driver. Seven cricketers and an assistant coach were injured. Pakistani officials said about 12 gunmen were involved and grenades and rocket launchers have been recovered. Officials said the incident bore similarities to deadly attacks in Mumbai in India last November.

(...)

Pakistan invited Sri Lanka to tour only after India's cricket team pulled out of a scheduled cricket tour on security grounds, following the Mumbai attacks.

(...)

But a Pakistani minister, Sardar Nabil Ahmed Gabol, reportedly told private Geo TV that evidence suggested the attackers came across the border from India. He said the assault came in reaction to the Mumbai attacks, and was a "declaration of open war on Pakistan by India".
-------
Commentary: The Lahore attack is a textbook example of the real danger Sunni Islamic extremists pose to the world. Following the Mumbai attacks, India and Pakistan were on the brink of war but India refrained from retaliating. This time, a top Pakistani official blames India for, quote, "an open declaration of war on Pakistan" even though all the evidence points to the fact that the Sri Lankan team was chosen by the terrorists as a substitute for the Indian team which, wisely, chose not to travel to Pakistan.

True, the Wahabis/Salafis/Deobandi/etc do not present a classical military threat to most of the world - in that sense they are only a local threat - but is their now clearly established potential to trigger a major war between two nuclear powers not a major "threat to international peace and security" (to use the official expression?)

Iran to probe into Parachinar 'genocide'

Press TV reports: A report to the Iranian parliament has cited grave human rights abuses against Shias in the northwestern Pakistani city of Parachinar.

Lack of government control over the highly sensitive border areas of Kurram Agency, the capital of which is Parachinar, has lead to an increased Taliban presence in the area.

Local Pakistani media reported last week that Taliban-linked militants in Parachinar, Hangu district and much of the Kurram tribal agency have during the last six months been engaged in sectarian violence and have killed 25 to 30 people on a daily basis.

Military forces based in the areas usually avoid the violence which has caused uproar in the territory bordering the Tora Bora region in Afghanistan, the media report said.

The National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of the Iranian Majlis (parliament) has received a report on the situation in Parachinar.

"The report provides evidence of a humanitarian disaster in that region, which unfortunately due to the crisis in Iraq and Gaza has not garnered media coverage," Iranian lawmaker Heshmatollah Falahat-Pisheh told Tabnak on Saturday.

Falahat-Pisheh affirmed that the parliament would investigate the "genocide" through relevant international agencies.

"We are pressuring international human rights organizations to dispatch fact-finding missions to the area," he added.

Taliban militants have launched deadly attacks against the enclave of Shiites settled in Parachinar and have blocked road routes to the city since April 2007 when sectarian violence between Shias and Sunnis broke out after provocative remarks by a Wahhabi against historical Shiite figures.

The Taliban sided with the Sunni majority in the country, imposing an ongoing 20-month blockade which has caused serious food shortages.

The Pakistani government has on various occasions dispatched relief convoys loaded with food and medicines to the area, but most supplies are confiscated by the militants and the drivers are killed or kidnapped.

In a recent incident, the militants beheaded a police officer on Thursday and kidnapped four Shia Muslims on their way to Parachinar.

"Taliban militants beheaded a policeman and kidnapped four Shias in Tal, a town 45 km northeast of Miranshah," a security official told the European strategic intelligence and security center last week.

The grave situation has also prompted the leading Shiite figure of Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, to issue a ruling -- known as a fatwa -- encouraging all Shiites in Pakistan to do what they can to help their "brethren" in Parachinar.

"Pakistan says it cannot control the situation in the area, but this is a lie, they have got troops inside Parachinar but the population are better off without them," Hussein Ali Shahriyari, another Iranian lawmaker, said.

Pakistan rejects nuke use against India

Press TV reports:

Islamabad says should war break out with New Delhi, the option of using nuclear weapons would not even be on the table in Pakistan.

Pakistani Defense Minister Chaudhary Ahmed Mukhtar said on Monday that Islamabad wants peace with India but would defend itself if New Delhi thrusts war.

"The Indians would never want war because if war breaks out, then God forbid the situation might develop into a nuclear war," Mukhtar claimed.

The minister was reacting in response to Indian threats to wage war if the soil of neighboring Pakistan is used for promoting terrorism in India.

On Sunday, Indian Congress Chief Sonia Gandhi said New Delhi is capable of giving a "befitting reply" to those using Pakistani soil to promote terrorism in her country.

The November terror attacks in the Indian commercial capital of Mumbai raised speculations that the two nuclear nations are headed toward a military conflict.

India holds Pakistan-based militants responsible for the attacks -- as a result of which at least 170 people were killed and 200 others were injured.

Islamabad vehemently denies any involvement in the attacks.

The White House has sided with India and accuses Pakistan of providing a safe haven for Taliban, al-Qaeda and other terror groups.

Washington on Monday summoned Pakistan's National Security Adviser Mahmud Ali Durrani to demand that the country to do more to "tackle the menace of terror".

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had earlier criticized Islamabad for not doing enough.

"It's not enough to say the terrorists involved in Mumbai terror attacks are non-state actors. If they're operating from Pakistan, then they have to be dealt with", Rice warned.
-------
Commentary: to my knowledge, neither Pakistan nor India have an official doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons (although I did not check that for a long while already). Whatever may be the case, if this report is correct and if Pakistan indeed officially declares that in case of war with India the use of nukes will not even be considered an option then this is an extremely positive development.

Pakistan being the smaller and clearly weaker of the two, it would be the one potentially most likely to resort to nukes to even the disbalance with India and that, in turn, might push India towards a form of preemption. Pakistan having much less depth than India would be at much greater risk of an disarming counterforce strike and thus would face a potential "use them or loose them" risk and that, in turn, could make India concerned of a Pakistani first strike, etc. etc. etc. You see the point: nuclear forces have, by their very nature, a great capability to force both sides into a cycle of preemption which can result in truly disastrous consquences.

The case of the USA vs the Soviet Union in the past, or Russia today, should absolutely *not* serve as a model in a case like Pakistan and India. The reality is that Russia and the USA are the only two countries on the planet with complex and sophisticated nuclear triads (land, air, sea -based nuclear forces) which assures such a degree of redundancy that neither country could ever be successfully disarmed by a counterforce nuclear strike. Thus, the US-Russian nuclear balance is highly and uniquely stable. No other country on the planet comes even close to the USA and Russia in terms of nuclear capabilites and these are the only two countries which can rest with the knowledge that their nuclear forces are practically undestructible. The fact that both countries have formidable conventional forces also serves to contribute to the nuclear stability betwen the two..

The case of Pakistan and India is the exact opposite. Their nuclear forces are really basic, mininal, with very modest capabilities and with no redundancy built into them. While neither Pakistan nor India can count on being capable of disaming the other one, neither of the two really can count on surviving a disarming counterforce first strike. In terms of nuclear stabilty this is about as bad as it gets.

If indeed Pakistan has adopted an official policy of non first use of nuclear weapons the Pakistani government should be commended for greatly improving the stability of the entire region. Hopefully, India will also adopt a similar "no first use" stance.

The Saker

Report: India may attack Pakistan

Press TV reports:

Indian military has prepared operations against targets in Pakistan and awaits the signal to go forward, a US intelligence report says.

"These most likely would take the form of unilateral precision strikes inside Pakistan-administered Kashmir, along with special forces action on the ground in Pakistan proper," Global Intelligence Service, Stratfor said in its latest report.

"Sources have indicated to Stratfor that New Delhi is going through the diplomatic motions in order to give Pakistan the opportunity to take care of the militant problem itself - but the Indians know that Islamabad has neither the will nor the capability to address their concerns," the agency said.

It explained that India knew strikes in Pakistan would not eliminate the terrorist threat, "but that would not be the aim of any such operation". It added, "Instead, India has to communicate firmly that it will no longer tolerate attacks from Pakistan-based militants - whether they are rogue or approved by the state. Failure to do so risks emboldening the militants and their enablers, as well as a domestic political backlash. The Indian government could not live with either of those outcomes."

Earlier on Friday, Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee said that the government was keeping all options open in dealing with the situation. "If a country cannot keep the assurances that it has given, then it obliges us to consider the entire range of options that exist to protect our interests and people from this menace."

"We have made repeated appeals to our neighbors over the years to ensure that they do not provide support to terrorist activities and to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. But our pleas have been ignored in spite of assurances given by them," he added.

Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee warns that India will consider all options against Pakistan.

The remarks come three weeks after New Delhi blamed the Pakistan-based banned militant group, Lashkar-e-Taiba for orchestrating the November 26 attacks on Mumbai, which left 172 people dead.

US, Indian and British officials claim to have clear evidence suggesting that the attacks originated in terrorist training camps inside Pakistan.

India has demanded the handover of 40 suspected militants allegedly involved in the attacks. Islamabad, however, says it will not extradite any suspect, insisting that they should be tried in Pakistani courts.

Pakistan President Asia Ali Zargar said on Wednesday that intelligence agencies had failed to offer concrete proof justifying claims that militants who attacked Mumbai were Pakistani nationals.
-------
Comment: when analyzing any information two things must be considered: a) the source and b) the information itself and its consistency with other sources. In this case, I would rate "Stratfor" as something like a "C" - decent, but not really trustworthy. As for the info that India *might* strike Pakistan, well, as with almost any *might* kind of information it is not really big news. *Will* strike, or a time frame, that would be really interesting. But *might*? Yeah, they *might*, that is true almost by definition, but will they? So far, I simply seem no reason to lean either towards a 'yes' or a 'no'. I just post this report "for your information"

The Saker

The Saker interviews Taimur - a Muslim student living in Indian controlled Kashmir

Little did I know that when I would open my own IRC channel it would yield such amazing possibilities as interviewing somebody at length from inside a war zone! (In fact, I had no idea that my blog was read in such places...).

Taimur agreed to be interviewed in very bad conditions, the electricity supply on his side was iffy, and the 10 hours difference means that he was typing his answers very late a night. We lost our connection several times and the time lag between each question and answer was long. Still, it is a huge pleasure for me to be able to share this interview with you. I believe that to listen to the point of view of somebody actually living in a conflict area is a great privilege and I am deeply grateful to Taimur for his time and patience.

I suppose that some readers will take issue with some of his statements, and that's fine. I ask them to post their comments and criticisms below, or to directly ask a question to Taimur who kindly agree to be available to provide his answers.

One particular request to my Indian readers: please contact me if you want to share with us your perspective on the topics discussed here. I would be delighted to interview you either by email or by IRC.

One of the primary aims of my blog is to provide good information, but good information is often also biased (there is nothing worse, at least in my experience, then the so-called "objective" or "non-biased" info we are fed by our corporate masters). This is why I often post stuff I don't agree with.

In this case, as with the case of the Kurdish conflict, I am too ignorant of it to really have an opinion. All I have is a strong desire to listen to all the sides.

Here is the *very minimally* edited transcript of my chat with Taimur (I just don't have the time to do even a halfway decent editing job now).

For convenience purpose, I am also including two maps of the region. Please click on them to get a useful resolution. BTW - maps are also a highly controversial subject in this conflict and, needless to say, I am presenting the two maps here purely FYI - without in any way endorsing anything in them.

The Saker

-------

The Saker: Hi Taimur : could you please introduce yourself in a couple of words? Where are you chatting from, how old are you, what do you do in life?

Taimur: I am 24 years old , doing my Engineering in Jammu and Kashmir. (On the Indian Side)

The Saker: What is your ethnicity and religion?

Taimur: I am Muslim and Asian

The Saker: Would you describe yourself as a Muslim by birth only, or a practicing Muslim?

Taimur: I am a Muslim by Birth and to some extend i do consider myself as Practicing Muslim

The Saker: Most of my readers know in the general lines about the long conflict in Kashmir, but in your own words, how would you describe it? What lies at the core of it?

The Saker: Is it about religion, politics, ethnicity? How do you, as a Kashmiri Muslim live it? What does this conflict mean to *you* personally?

Taimur: Yes it is combination of all of them. Kashmir is a Muslim dominated state and according to plan of partition of India, which divided the United India into a Muslim state and Hindu state, it should have acceded to Pakistan. But the ruler of Kashmir never wanted this to happen. So people in Jammu and Kashmir started to protest and demanded that they should be allowed to accede to Pakistan without delay but Maharaja Hari Singh the ruler of Kas ordered to crush the revolt against him. It was reported that around 200'000 people were massacred by Maharaja's army in Jammu. Then Pakistani tribesmen came to rescue Kashmiri Muslims but Maharaja sought help from India, India accepted on the condition that Kashmir be acceded to India which he did against the wishes of people of Kashmir. India had then promised plebiscite under UN supervision but never allowed it to happen. So the core of the conflict is this Right of Self Determination which India has denied to people of Kashmir since then.

Taimur: How do you, as a Kashmiri Muslim live it?

Taimur: It is very hard to live in an environment where you have 700'000 Indian Occupational forces always present to harass you every now and then. ID checkings, house searches, getting stranded on highways for hours due to Army convoy, curfews... every day you see unarmed civilians being killed because they demand their Right of self determination. It is really hard to resist such a torture.

The Saker: are there any Hindus or Buddhist where you live? If yes, how is your contact with them?

Taimur: No there are no Hindus in the area where i live, as all of them fled when the armed struggle against India started they now live in Jammu and in some parts of India. Buddhist live in Leh which is some 200 km away from Kashmir valley.

The Saker: are there local people who support the various security forces? are there Muslims inside the forces deployed in Kashmir?

Taimur: There are many agents who help the deployed forces, but they do it in a secret manner. But there are people who belong to pro-Indian Political parties, and they mainly provide the help that Indians need to prolong their presence in Kashmir.

The Saker: how much support do you think organizations such as Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish e-Mohammed or Hizbul Mudjahedeen have among Muslims in Kashmir? Do most Kashmiris support the armed resistance groups, whether locally based or based in Pakistan?

Taimur: Yes they support them because they came into existence for the cause of people that is to free Kashmir from Indian Occupation.

The Saker: Does that, in turn mean, that most Muslim Kashmiris also support the type of Deobandi Islam or Wahabism which the Taliban and a strong segment of the Muslim population of Pakistan seem to adhere to?

Taimur: No, these organizations are what Hizbollah is to Lebanon or Hamas and Fatah are to Palestine. In Pakistan Lashker may have different agenda but here People only support them because they are liberators for them.

The Saker: But do you not fear that, as has happened in Bosnia and Chechnya, a Muslim national liberation movement might get taken over by Wahabi elements which would, if successful, push Kashmir into the type of nightmare which "free Republic of Ichkeria" in Chechnya turned into?

The Saker: Would they not "Talibanize" Kashmir if given the chance to?

Taimur: Kashmir is different from these "Talibanised" places it is spiritually secular, and they are mostly tolerant towards other religious minorities their present struggle is first for the liberation of Kashmir and then to establish a just-socio-monetary state. The Talibanised kind of mentality is not found in Kashmir except in small minorities.

The Saker: What is your understanding of what has really happened in the Mumbai attacks? What was the reaction in Kashmir to these attacks and did these attacks impact your daily conditions?

Taimur: It is very unfortunate that so many innocent people have been killed due few maniacs. It has in effect Kashmir because it has derailed the peace process between India and Pakistan, which in no way is good for the cause of Kashmir and if God forbid there is Kashmir will be devastated badly.

The Saker: Do you believe that Lashkar-e-Toiba was behind these attacks? Some people, many in Pakistan, have claimed that these attacks are a "false flag' operation by the CIA, Israel or the Indians themselves

Taimur: Kashmir was shocked like rest of the world and these attacks have created anxiety in the people of Kashmir about their future. It can't be proven [who is responsible] before a proper judicial investigation is done. We can just speculate. But as far as the ideology of Lashker-e-toiba goes they don't believe in targeting civilians even in Kashmir they have never targeted Indian forces near civilian population.

The Saker: how about the attacks on the Indian Parliament? was that not the action of Kashmiris?

Taimur: Could have been but no evidences has so far been found.

The Saker: you are a student, right?

Taimur: Yes

The Saker: what percentage of students do you believe are involved in political actions (whether peaceful or armed)?

Taimur: In the recent uprising which was termed as second Intefada of Kashmir....there were hundreds and thousand of young students who came out in support of Azadi (freedom)... from that i would put the number in between 50-75%

The Saker: how about those who never were involved in *any* way. have they also be detained or interrogated by the security forces?

Taimur: Yes, there are many incidents were minors of age 8 were picked up by Army and they never returned. Civil societies say that there are some 10,000 people who have been picked up or arrested by Army which never returned back and neither their whereabouts could be verified.

The Saker: I am going to ask you a cruel question: how many people do you *personally* know who were a) killed/disappeared b) detained/kidnapped and released c) tortured d) lawfully arrested, interrogated by not mistreated

Taimur: How can i say there are hundreds of them.....

The Saker: no, I mean among people you know personally, among your relatives, friends and neighbors and fellow students

Taimur: My paternal Uncle was arrested, tortured and then released. My friend was arrested during a protest and lated released with broken rib and arm, One of my neighbors throat was slit during a curfew when he was moving out to get some food for his family. there are many I cant count them all

The Saker: would you say that this also applies to most families in Kashmir?

Taimur: Almost all, everybody has lost someone and everybody has been tortured in one way or other, One of my cousins was burnt alive on National Highway, far back in early 90's

The Saker: is the situation different in Jammu and, if yes, in what way?

Taimur: Yes, it is different because it is a Hindu dominated area. before 1947 it had some 60% Muslim population but on October 10, 1947 the Maharaja, under `his own supervision, got assassinated 237,000 Muslims, using military forces, in Jammu area. The editor of "Statesman" Ian Stephen, in his book "Horned Moon" wrote that till the end of autumn 1947, more than 200,000 Muslims were assassinated. Rest fled to Pakistan. Now there is only 30-40%

Taimur: population in Jammu which lives in villages and far off places.

The Saker: do people travel from Jammu and Kashmir back and forth? have you been there? is there a contact between the Hindus from Jammu and the Muslims in Kashmir? And would you say that the situation is better or worse for Muslims in Jammu

Taimur: Yes, It is actually winter capital of Kashmir and all the Government offices are shifted to Jammu. I do visit Jammu and there are contacts between Hindus and Muslims. But Muslims of Jammu ( not those who go there during winters on official duty ) are not at all better because they are in constant threat of communal violence that erupts sometimes. During the recent uprising which occurred due to blockade of Kashmir by Hindus of Jammu, it was reported that many houses of Muslims have been burnt, many fled to Kashmir Valley. So, it won't be correct to say that they are better off than Muslim from Kashmir Valley.

The Saker: what websites could you recommend to those who are interested in learning more about all the events you are describing and about what is going on on a daily basis in Kashmir and Jammu?

Taimur: There are many websites i will list some of them: www.kashmirwatch.com, www.kmsnews.org, www.hizbmedia.com, www. greaterkashmir.com, www.jkccs.org, www.jkth.org, www.kashmirobserver.com these are few of them where you can find about the history of Kashmir conflict and daily news.

The Saker: what do you think is the most important thing for us, outside Kashmir, to understand about what is going on?

Taimur: People living outside Kashmir should inform people about the Human Rights Violations in Kashmir, they should write letters to their leaders to pressure UN to implement the Resolutions passed by them about Kashmir, protest in front of Indian embassies in their countries and discourage Indian Occupation of Kashmir. They should show solidarity with the people of Kashmir whenever and wherever they can.

The Saker: What do you think is the most likely future for Pakistan, India and Kashmir? What do you think will happen in the next couple of years?

The Saker: best case? worst case? likely case?

Taimur: I would like to see Pakistan and India like America and Canada, neighbors and friends. But it doesn't seem to be happening like that sometimes it seems that a war may start start any time, but the most likely scenario may be a status quo or a political impasse, in which nobody wins and everybody loses.

The Saker: what about your personal hopes, for yourself? how do you see your future? are you considering leaving Kashmir and, if yes, where would you want to go and, if no, then what kind of life do you hope for in Kashmir?

Taimur: After finishing my studies I would like to move abroad as there are no avenues here in Kashmir, there are no jobs, there are no companies where i could get paid decently... But at the same time I feel that if I move out I would betray the blood of those who have laid there life for the sake of Kashmir

The Saker: being an Indian citizen, do you think that you could find a better life in the rest of India, away from the conflict zone?

Taimur: I don't consider my self as an Indian citizen.... but if I go out to India I would definitely find a better life .... but peace of mind ....i don't believe that can happen ..... haw can have peace of mind when people would be dying in my own country...

The Saker: I understand. But how would you, a Kashmiri Muslim expect to be treated in the rest of India? Would most Indians welcome you as they would another Indian Muslim or do you think that being a Kashmiri the security forces would still see you with suspicion?

Taimur: Yes there have been cases where many Kashmiri Muslims were arrested on mere suspicion by Indian Intelligence Agencies and it can or i may say will happen to me as well , but being a Muslim it will be same all over the world ....Muslims around the world are seen as terrorists.

The Saker: You say that Muslims around the world are seen as terrorists, and you are obviously correct, but whom do you blame for this?

Taimur: Corporate Media....

The Saker: and not Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the Wahabis in Chechnya, the Talibans ,etc. etc. etc.?

Taimur: They are all creation of America.... Bin Laden was made hero of Afghan war by Americans, Taliban was brain child of the war-lords of Afghan war, and Wahabis came into existence only after Saudis were given the Kingdom ship of Arabia by England.

The Saker: You are absolutely right, I fully agree with you. But still, Wahabism/Deobandism/Salafism/Qutbism etc. were not ideological creations of the USA, were they? So there was an ideological streak in Sunni Islam which was a good basis for the USA to raise up these groups and their followers, no?

Taimur: next question

The Saker: ok

Taimur: Five hours from now Kashmir will be under curfew because people would protest against India after Friday prayers ...

The Saker: what kind of curfew will that be? what kind of conditions are imposed during a curfew?

Taimur: we are not allowed to move out of our houses.. it not an officially declared curfew but an unofficial on... if people come out they are beaten especially young. old ones can come out and get the necessary food items....actually there are elections going on... tomorrow is not election but it is Friday a day when Muslims gather in masses in the mosques... so there are greater chances of protest ... Indian forces simply impose curfew...

The Saker: but how do the authorities inform the population of an "unofficial" curfew?

Taimur: They don't inform us .... Army persnonel are present on every nook and corner of the city special the old city.... from sunrise to sunset

Taimur: they just don't allow us to move

The Saker: then how do you know they plan this for tomorrow? is that something which happens each Friday?

Taimur: Yes it happens on every Friday.. or some Leader visit from India ... or during election.... anything when they fear that people may come out on streets and protest.......recently when a boy was crushed on Lawaipora Road by and Indian Army vehicle..... People came out to protest Police came fired some teargases and dispersed the crowd took the body and later gave it to there parents in the evening so that they can bury them....

The Saker: how often do Fridays turn into open clashes between the population and the security forces or between the security forces and the armed groups? How often do Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish e Mohammed or Hizbul Mudjahedeen attack the security forces?

Taimur: There are regular Friday protests and the are worst that those we saw in Greece at least they get media coverage here Media has been banned from showing that.. Lashker, Hizbul Mudjahedeen, and others don't do that they attack Army sometimes in their camps or on an army convoy.... these protests are between unarmed protesters and Indian Forces And Police

The Saker: so all of Kashmir comes to a standstill each Friday?

Taimur: Not all but main towns, where there are big mosques and only at few places it is not like a Filmy war but Palestinian type of stone war .... .........Hundreds of boys get injured but they don't provide us Ambulances people take them on bikes .... you see in Palestine at least there they have the Red Cross and Red Crescent

The Saker: do the security forces then raid the hospitals or clinics to arrest the participants?

Taimur: Not always because it will definitely create a chain reaction of protests.... During recent uprising I was present at SHMS hospital where hundreds of protesters were being treated who got injured in a rally...... Police threw teargas shells into emergency ward ...Doctors couldn't do anything... it was all smoke and tears...

The Saker: how is the situation with communications in Kashmir? Where does the population get most of its information? Can you watch Pakistani TV or Pakistani radios or at they jammed?

The Saker: how many people have access to the Internet and how many actually use it to communicate or get information?

Taimur: We have cable TV and those Direct To Home services available here....... we can get information from any part of the world Pakistani Radio is Jammed but Pakistani Channels can be watched but sometimes they are banned.......... internet came only few years back ...almost 3 or 4 years back...so internet penetration is less... cities have the facility....

Taimur: But the news from other parts of Kashmir is hard to get those news items are banned or blacked out...

The Saker: how about communications *inside* Kashmir? Do the armed opposition groups have any means to contact the general population? Underground papers for example?

Taimur: There are actually Political Wings and Armed Wings.... Armed wings do not communicate with people it is the Job of Political wings.

The Saker: ok. but are the political wings legal?

Taimur: I don't know about their legality that is if they are registered with the government .. i will tell you later about that... but they do exist openly.... but mostly the Leaders of these groups are arrested or put under house arrest... they are not allowed to hold rallies when they do that ... Army comes and disperses them by force and arrest the leaders...

Taimur: There is a single amalgamation of Rebel parties Known as All Parties Hurryat (freedom) Conference that leads the struggle

Taimur: by rebel i mean rebel against Indian Regime, of course

The Saker: In Turkey there is a law which actually makes it illegal to in any way undermine the unity of Turkey. How about India, which is considered the "biggest democracy on the planet"? If it legal to peacefully advocate a) human rights in Kashmir b) autonomy for Kashmir c) a secession of Kashmir?

The Saker: Are there laws (as opposed to policies) in India against separatism?

Taimur: Kashmir is not technically part of India... It Holds a special status.. it has its own constitution and own flag..... It was temporarily acceded to India which was only responsible for Defense, External affairs and currency.... but they made it their colony...they promised a Plebiscite but they have denied it since then... that is what we are fighting for

The Saker: I understand. But would it be legal for an Indian political party *outside Kashmir* to advocate the secession of Kashmir? And what about a Kashmiri political party inside Kashmir, could is openly and legally advocate secession?

Taimur: No Indian Party outside Kashmir advocates secession of Kashmir.....and all those who advocate it inside Kashmir are presently in Jail ... or under house arrest... rather whole of Kashmir is under house arrest ( a collective imprisonment) so where comes this legality . it is a mess out here there are no laws no Legalities nothing ....... it is a jungle.......

The Saker: In Palestine there is an amazing Israeli human right organization called B'Tselem which monitors the human right situation in occupied Palestine. Are there similar Indian organizations which monitor the human right situation in Kashmir and Jammu?

Taimur: There are activists like Arundhati Roy, Gautam Navlakha, and others who write about Human rights Violations in Kashmir. Many civil societies also do keep some kind of record but there is no such organization like Bait u Saleem

Taimur: In Kashmir there is one JKCCS.org but their activists are attacked by unknown persons and all sorts of things are done to them. One of their activists was Asiya jeelani killed in a blast in her vehicle ...Parveez Imroz was attacked recently at that time activists from Delhi had come who also were detained for a long time......he heads jkccs

The Saker: one more question: after a publish this interview, would you be available to answer any follow-up questions to you in the comments section of my blog, under our chat?

Taimur: okay... i will be available

The Saker: Many many thanks for your time and patience!

Taimur: okay...bye

The Saker: bye and good night. Peace to you!

Former ISI chief Hamid Gul - Mumbai attacks, 911 "inside jobs"

The former head of the Pakistani ISI was interviewed by CNN's Fareed Zakaria recently. He had interesting things to say. Here is the transcript of the interview:

ZAKARIA: General Gul, you know that the United States has given four names to the United Nations of ISI officers whom it would like to place on an international terrorist list. You are one of those four names.

What's your reaction to that.

GEN. HAMID GUL, FORMER PAKISTANI INTELLIGENCE CHIEF (via broadband): I think this is a frame-up, a total frame-up. I have - I have my own (ph) voice. And I raise. I have a position which I express freely, openly. I'm like an open book.

This is preposterous. This is wrong. This is fallacious. And if my government does not ...

ZAKARIA: What are the charges against you?

GUL: ... XX me, they ...

ZAKARIA: What are the charges against you?

GUL: Their charges are that I am helping the Taliban and al Qaeda. And what - this is so generalized. And particularly, there is the mention of Sarajo Din Nohani (ph), whom I have never seen in my life. I don't know who he is. I knew his father, Jalal ud-Din Nohani (ph), way back when I was D.G. ISI. But that's been a long time ago.

I have nothing to do - I have no means to help them. But, of course, my position is that Americans have aggressed in Afghanistan. And whoever is resisting, the resistance there is justifiable.

So, that is my position. I will maintain that position. If that becomes the basis of dubbing me as terrorist, then I would say, it's all right.

But other than that, to say that I'm practically involved in any kind of help - absolutely wrong. I am not that at all. ZAKARIA: General Gul, when you read about these attacks in Mumbai, and you see - when you read about the attacks in Mumbai, this is a three-stage, amphibious assault in which the boats were commandeered, the captain and crew then killed.

They maintained radio silence. They split up into pairs. They know their locations. They make a few false targets to draw the first responders there.

This seems like a military operation.

Isn't it likely that there was some special forces or intelligence assistance given to these attackers?

GUL: Indeed. I think that this was a very sophisticated operation. There is no doubt about it. It has rocked the - and I have all my sympathies for India - they rock this huge country for 72 hours. And they really don't know how to react and respond to this.

But when you look at the full spectrum of possibilities, who could have done it, then one knows that Samjhauta Express was a similar case, in which Pakistan ISI was accused. But it turned out that it was the militant Hindus themselves who had killed 68 passengers in that train, and that it was an inside job.

Now Colonel Srikant Purohit, who is a serving army officer, he has been caught in this particular case. And the whole thing has turned around.

So, obviously, there is an inside job.

ZAKARIA: If it turns out, as the one surviving terrorist says, that these people were trained in Pakistan in four separate locations, do you think it would be retired ISI people? Who would be training these groups?

GUL: Not necessarily. It is a question of motivation only. If somebody is motivated, then it is - because what kind of weapons did they use? That's very important. They used flashing (ph) calls (ph). They used the hand grenades. And this is - this doesn't require a great deal of training. And, of course, these weapons are also available in the open market.

If the evidence is there, then I am one of the people who would say, yes, India really has been done a great deal of wrong. We have said - and Pakistan government policy has been very clearly enunciated - that we will punish them. Bring the evidence, we'll take them to task. But so far, no bodies have been shown, no faces have been shown. And this man has not also been brought before the cameras.

I think the evidence has to be, because you cannot, on the basis of accusation alone, start taking actions which can unleash historical kind of changes. And this would be a watershed in the relationship between India and Pakistan, and we have to be very careful about it.

ZAKARIA: But are you confident that the ISI does not have links, formal or informal, with Lashkar-e-Taiba?

GUL: I have no linkages with them. But I do understand the character of an organization. It's a highly disciplined organization, unlike the other organizations. Their political appointees can be infiltrated.

In the ISI, it is only the uniformed personnel who come and serve for two to three years. And then they revert back to their parent services. So, they are bread-and-butter. Their career advancement, their promotion chances - they all lie with the three armed services, that is, navy, army and the air force.

So, there is one organization, intelligence organization, which would remain absolutely on the line. That would be the ISI.

Unless you say that, OK, the army is behind it, the Pakistan government's policy is this. ISI cannot do a maverick job like this. It is unbelievable.

ZAKARIA: The president of Pakistan, Mr. Zardari, the day after the attacks, said that he would send the head of the ISI to India to cooperate. The next day it was revealed that, effectively, the army chief of staff had overruled him.

Is that appropriate for the elected head of state to be overruled by the head of the army?

GUL: Well, I think it was a good thing that they withdrew their decision. And besides, sending the D.G. ISI is something totally - Indians should not have demanded this, and Pakistan should not have accepted to send him, because it was only an accusation at that time.

And it was not a question of cooperation, it was a question of interrogating, summoning him. In fact, the word "summon" was used. And that was an affront to the national honor of Pakistan and that of the Pakistan armed forces.

ZAKARIA: Do you think we should be thinking of al Qaeda as a terrorist group? I know that there was a conference in January 2001, which you attended, at which you felt that bin Laden was better described as a religious warrior, and should not actually be thought of as a terrorist.

GUL: No. We said, unless the evidence is brought up against him, then he is not a terrorist. It's wrong. 9/11's full evidence has still not emerged. It is still shrouded in mystery.

A lot of people have a lot of misgivings about that. And it's not only me. I think a lot of people in America would be thinking the same way. There are scientists, there are scholars, who have written articles on it.

So, I think to dub a man as terrorist - because I know, I heard him twice say on radio, or something like that, and I think it was Osama - not only that, but Mullah Omar also said that he did not believe that Osama had carried out that act. So, that is still a mystery, and it needs to be resolved. Americans have still to set up a proper commission, an inquiry commission, into this event. I think that's very important. And I think President-designate Obama would do well to set up an inquiry commission into this.

ZAKARIA: What is your hunch as to who did - who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks?

GUL: Well, I have been on record, and I said it is the Zionists or (ph) the neocons. They have done it. It was an inside job.

And they wanted to go on the world conquerors. They were looking upon it as an opportunity window, when the Muslim world was lying prostrate. Russia was nowhere in sight. China was still not an economic giant that is has turned out to be.

And they thought that this was a good time to go and fill (ph) those strategic areas, which are still lying without any American presence. And, of course, to control the energy tap of the world.

Presently, it is the Middle East, and in future it is going to be Central Asia. So, there are many, many XX. And, of course ...

ZAKARIA: But you think ...

GUL: ... XX.

ZAKARIA: But you think who would be ...

GUL: That's what I also think, yes.

ZAKARIA: Who is at the heart of - who do you think was at the heart of plotting 9/11?

GUL: At the - it's very difficult, really. I wouldn't point my finger at it.

But I think it was planned in America. And at least one knows that it was done in Germany, as far as the reports go.

But I think the heart of planning was inside America, because the job was done there. But not a single person so far has been captured, caught, interrogated inside America, even though this entire episode took place there.

ZAKARIA: But you've said that the people behind it were the Zionists, neocon conspiracy. Do you mean by that American Jews? Do you mean Israel?

GUL: No Israel. I will not - because Jews are also divided into - not all Jews are bad. Of course, there are a lot of things common between Jews and Muslims.

In fact, they are the closest to us religion-wise, because some of their scriptures are respected by us. Their prophets are our prophets. They have the injunctions in Torah are very much similar to injunctions in the Holy Quran. So, there are things which are very common.

But there are those people who are very ambitious, who have a certain agenda of their own. And I think they have turned the world upside-down, because of those ambitions or their fears.

So, fear and ambitions are two things which have come together as far as Zionists are concerned. And they are trying to drive the policies of America. And unfortunately, the American people are suffering because of that.