Pakistan

This Country is Nuts!

dlindorff — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:45:20 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

Okay, I have to vent here. We all get a little crazy sitting alone
at our keyboards in this business, and it's finally gotten to me.

I know there are serious signs of a complete mental breakdown in the
US, with polls reporting that millions of people are actually excited
at having a low-rent religious fanatic who consistently mispronounces
pundit as "pundint" (shades of Dubya!), pilfers state funds for her
family's personal use, lies about her alleged opposition to Washington
pork, claims the bloody war in Iraq is "God's will," forces her
17-year-old daughter to make a momentary mistake into a lifetime one by
marrying the kid who got her pregnant, and refers to blacks as "sambo"
and to Alaska's indigenous people as "arctic arabs," running for vice
president on the ticket with a man who is a walking medical disaster
waiting to happen.

These are probably the same people who still give the worst
president in the history of the Union a 30 percent approval rating, who
keep watching reality TV shows (perhaps thinking they're real), and who
still think having 180,000 US troops indiscriminately slaughtering
Iraqis, Afghanis and Pakistanis is making the US "safe."

But right now I want to talk about Homeland Security and the US Postal Service, two small examples of domestic insanity.

I tried to mail a book to my father last Saturday for his 86th
birthday. In order to make sure it would get there by Tuesday, I sent
it in one of those flat-rate Priority Mail envelopes--the ones that
promise two-day delivery. It cost me $4.80 (five 90-cent stamps, one
24-cent stamp and two 3-cent stamps). I drop the little package off
after hours into the mail slot in the lobby of my local post office.

Yesterday, my envelope was in my mailbox, though, with a blue
sticker attached headed: "Important Customer Information: We regret
that your mail was not collected or is being returned to you due to
heightened security requirements. All mail that bears postage stamps
and weighs more than 13 ounces MUST be taken by the customer to a
retail service associate at a Post Office."

Okay, so dad won't get his present on his birthday.

I called the local PO to ask what was going on, and was told that
any package over 13 ounces with stamps has to be handed in person to a
counter employee.

"With stamps?" I asked. "What if I had worked at a company and had a
metered stamp put on it and then dropped it in a mailbox or mail slot?"

"Then it would go," I was told. "Because we'd have a meter number to trace who mailed it."

Let's see. The meter would trace the package to whatever big company
I might have worked at, but I don't see how that would help them trace
it to the actual mailer.

Now, what about if I brought my package to the counter? Would it be
opened and checked? No, I was told. I would simply be asked by the
counter clerk whether the package contained any banned substances, like
bodily fluids, liquids or bombs. If I said no, it would be accepted for
mailing. ("I know this sounds silly," the postal worker on the phone
told me, "but I don't make the rules. It's Homeland Security.")

Wow. The Post Office and the Department of Homeland Security are
sure keeping our mail trucks and our airlines safe with this clever
policy.

I mean, we can be sure that those stoopid Ayrabs wouldn't think to
put a metered stamp on the bomb they send through the mails. And that
asking at the counter thing, that would sure catch anyone trying to
slip some deadly substance into the mail stream. The clerks are
probably trained to look for certain kinds of markers of suspicious
behavior--a tic, a shifty look, or some reticence in the answer given.

Right.

So this is what it has come to in America. We're ready to put an
refugee from the "Jerry Springer" show a missed heartbeat away from the
White House, and we keep our mail and our aircraft industry safe from
terrorists by returning (through the mail, mind you!!) packages that
are left in a mailbox if they have postage stamps on them.

Dad, if you're reading this, I'm sorry your present is going to
arrive late. Take it up with Mike Chertoff, the guy who made sure
everyone got out of New Orleans alive when that city was hit by
Hurricane Katrina.

Is this a great country or what?
_____________________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist.
His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006
and now available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Kucinich, Richardson, and Paul Benefit Most from Bhutto Assassination

Bob Fertik — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:52:13 -0500

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is horrifying in terms of its violence against the people of Pakistan - and terrifying in terms of the possibility of Pakistan spinning into chaos with loose nukes and murderous fundamentalists.

Of course I can't add any insights into the who and why and the consequences for Pakistan and the world - nor can many Americans.

But let me add my $.02 on one topic in the news - which U.S. Presidential candidates will benefit the most.

Without a doubt, those candidates are Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, and Ron Paul.

Why? Because they are the three candidates who want to get out of Iraq quickly and completely, and let the Iraqis solve their own problems, rather than continue the bloody, expensive, and self-defeating U.S. occupation.

We urgently need to get our troops out of Iraq so we can send the fresher ones to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban more effectively - before we lose the other half of Afghanistan to the people who harbored Al Qaeda before 9/11.

According to the Pentagon Post, more troops will be sent to Afghanistan soon - but there is absolutely no indication where those troops will come from.

Beginning early next year, U.S. Special Forces are expected to vastly expand their presence in Pakistan, as part of an effort to train and support indigenous counter-insurgency forces and
clandestine counterterrorism units, according to defense officials involved with the planning... Now, a new agreement, reported when it was still being negotiated last month, has been finalized. And the first U.S. personnel could be on the ground in Pakistan by early in the new year, according to Pentagon sources.

Terror = Treason?

Chip — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 02:35:54 -0400

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune that he has a "gut feeling" that the US has entered into a new period of increased risk of terrorism.

Let me get this straight - Chertoff has a "gut feeling" that the US is on the verge of another terrorism attack.

I'm getting a gut feeling that this is a impending Wag the Dog operation as Bush continues to feel the increasing public scorn for his commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence, the mounting public opinion against the war, the plummeting Bush-Cheney public approval ratings, the defection of Republican senators from the "all war, all the time" Bush war agenda, the backlash from claiming executive privilege for the RNC emails originating in the White House, the White House refusal to allow aides to testify before congress, the burgeoning congressional investigations...those are just a few of the high points from which it's important to distract the public's attention.

But there's more, and even more reason to be concerned about the Bush administration's handling of national security. ABCNews is reporting that an alQaeda cell is either in or en route to the US.

Bush doesn't want to offend our ally, Pakistan's Musharraf, where the US has provided $10 billion in aid since 911, but of which less than 1/10 - $900 million, has actually gone for the country's development, according to a report issued by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. According to the report's author, Frederic Grare, "The question is the extent to which this money has effectively increased U.S. and international security," the report said.

Aside from the fiscal accountability issue, and the fact that the hefty funding hasn't improved the existence of the populace of an underdeveloped country while precariously propping up a military dictatorship (Musharraf never renounced his role as Chief of the Army Staff, contrary to Pakistan's constitution), the American taxpayers' money also hasn't bought much consideration from the Pakistani president, either.

The serious impacts of the policy of accommodation practiced by Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf toward the Taliban and its extremist supporters in Pakistan have been dramatized by the clashes between security forces and Islamic extremists at the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad.

That crisis came only a few days after a report in the New York Times on June 28 that the Pakistani Interior Ministry had warned Musharraf earlier in June that a "general policy of appeasement towards the Taliban" had "further emboldened" the Islamic extremist forces.

But despite these indications that the news from Pakistan is likely to shed a harsh light on its Pakistan policy, the Bush administration has continued to offer unqualified endorsement of Musharraf's policy toward terrorism. Efforts by journalists to elicit an expression of concern about the implications of the violence in Islamabad from State Department spokesman Sean McCormack produced only reassuring phrases that there is "still a lot more to do" in regard to Islamic extremists in Pakistan and that "we support [Musharraf] in those efforts".

The Bush administration knows that Musharraf has been playing a double game over al-Qaeda and Taliban networks. Four months earlier, it had tried to exert quiet pressure on Musharraf over the issue, but had also continued its policy of portraying Musharraf as a loyal ally in the "war against terror", even after he signaled his rejection of any pressure.

Vice President Dick Cheney visited Islamabad in late February, accompanied by Stephen R Kappes, deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), when unnamed US officials told the Washington Post that there was evidence al-Qaeda operatives in camps in Pakistan had resumed training of foreign jihadis. Just hours after Cheney had reportedly delivered a warning that aid would be cut by the US Congress if something was not done, the Musharraf government issued a statement insisting that "Pakistan does not accept dictation from any side or any source"....

Musharraf's failure to act against religious extremists and their madrassas is widely understood to be part of a fundamental strategy by the military regime of using political parties that embrace extreme Islamic ideology as a political base of support for the military dictatorship to ensure against the return of democratic forces seeking to reverse Musharraf's 1999 coup.

There's evidence to suggest that Musharraf's government has negotiated with and harbored terrorists.

The Musharraf government's deals with pro-Taliban groups in 2004 and 2006 in the border provinces of South and North Waziristan helped the Taliban generate increased manpower and logistics support for cross-border raids into Afghanistan by Taliban guerrillas based in those provinces.

According to a report by the International Crisis Group last December, after the September 2006 accord, the government "released militants, returned their weapons, disbanded security check posts and agreed to allow foreign terrorists to stay if they gave up violence". The new accommodation with the Taliban "facilitates the growth of militancy and attacks in Afghanistan by giving pro-Taliban elements a free hand to recruit, train and arm", the report said.

Bush maintains an irresponsible, reckless policy of not upholding his oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution by securing our national borders against illegal immigration using our existing laws, meanwhile funding massive amounts of federal aid to Pakistan where it is misappropriated - where Pakistan's actions actually support terrorist operations - and so is ineffective in enhancing our national and international security.

According to a House Committee on Homeland Security report:

During 2005, Border Patrol apprehended approximately 1.2 million illegal aliens; of those 165,000 were from countries other than Mexico. Of the non-Mexican aliens, approximately 650 were from special interest countries. Special interest countries are those “designated by the intelligence community as countries that could export
individuals that could bring harm to our country in the way of terrorism.”1...Federal law enforcement estimates that 10 percent to 30 percent of illegal aliens are actually apprehended...

Data indicates that there are hundreds of illegal aliens apprehended entering the United States each year who are from countries known to support and sponsor terrorism.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigations have revealed that aliens were smuggled from the Middle East to staging areas in Central and South America, before being smuggled illegally into the United States.
Members of Hezbollah have already entered the United States across the Southwest border.
U.S. military and intelligence officials believe that Venezuela is emerging as a potential hub of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere. The Venezuelan government is issuing identity documents that could subsequently be used to obtain a U.S. visa and enter the country.

If the Border Patrol is only apprehending 10-30% of the illegal aliens, and 650 of those were from "special interest" countries, then not securing our nation's borders using existing laws is a dereliction of duty by Bush, as is not funding legislation passed to improve border security against illegal immigration.

After all, as Ronald Reagan said in his speech "Our Noble Vision: An Opportunity for All": "Democratic nations do not wage war on their neighbors. But make no mistake, those who would hang a "Do Not Disturb" sign on our shores, those who would weaken America or give Castro's terrorists free rein to bring violence closer and closer to our borders are doing no service to the cause of peace."

Our Constitution defines treason as: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Is Bush giving terrorists free rein to bring violence closer and closer to our borders?

And isn't that treason?

US Backed Terrorist Group Explode Car Bomb In Iran Killing 11 Iranian Soldiers, 31 Wounded

Chris Elliott — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:30:31 -0500

A War On Terrorism or a War Of Terrorism?

Reports as usual vary wildly and small wonder that some news sources are trying to pin this on yet another subsidiary of "Al Qaeda". But this wasn't a suicide attack.

The terrorists drove a car, packed with explosives, up to a bus carrying soldiers of Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Some reports say that they forced the bus to stop by firing on it with automatic weapons, others that they blocked the road with the car while pretending to have broken down. Either way, they quickly escaped on motorbikes before detonating the car bomb by remote control.

Reports claim so far 11 soldiers killed and up to 31 wounded. A terrorist attack on this scale against Iran's elite forces, in broad daylight is unprecedented.

The official Iranian news agency announced that five arrests have been made including the ring leader and a major investigation has been launched to determine who else is involved in the attack.

It also claims to have evidence that the terrorist group was backed by the United States.

Explosion kills 11 members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards

Iranian News Agency

A car bomb killed 11 members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards on Wednesday in the deadliest attack in years near the Pakistani border, and Iran accused the United States of backing militants to destabilize the country.

A Sunni Muslim militant group called Jundallah, or God's Brigade, which has been blamed for past attacks on Iranian troops, claimed responsibility for the bombing. The blast represented a sharp flare-up of violence in the remote southeast corner of Iran, near Pakistan and Afghanistan, that has long been plagued by lawlessness.

The area is a key crossing point for opium from Afghanistan and often sees clashes between police and drug gangs. At the same time, Jundallah has waged a low-level insurgency in the area, led by Abdulmalak Rigi, a member of Iran's ethnic Baluchi minority, a community that is Sunni Muslim and is present in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Rigi has said his group is fighting for the rights of impoverished Sunnis under Iran's Shiite government.

An al-Qaida-linked group of the same name has carried out attacks in Pakistan, but Pakistani officials say it is not connected to the Iranian militants. Iranian officials blamed "insurgents" and "terrorists" for Wednesday's bombing -- and accused the United States of backing them to sow instability in Iran.

The London Times

February 15, 2007

The official Iranian news agency quoted an unnamed official as saying evidence suggested that the bus attackers had support from the United States.

Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejeie, Iran's Intelligence Minister, claimed last week that Tehran had identified 100 spies working for the United States and Israel in the border areas.

The attack follows sporadic violence in Iran's oil-rich south-western province of Khuzestan, which has a minority Arab population, and borders southern Iraq, where British troops are based.

Explosions killed more than 20 people in Khuzestan's capital, Ahvaz, in 2005 and early 2006. London has denied as "ludicrous" Iranian accusations that Britain has fomented instability in Khuzestan.

BBC News

Correspondents say an attack of this size and nature is unprecedented in Iran - hitting an elite force in daylight in an open street. Reports say suspects behind the bombing have been arrested.

The city of Zahedan lies in the province of Sistan-Baluchestan, which borders both Afghanistan and Pakistan. It has been hit by a string of attacks and kidnappings blamed on the hardline Sunni group called Jundallah.

Iranian officials have accused Britain and the United States of supporting ethnic minority rebels operating in the Islamic republic's sensitive border areas.

Tehran Times

Five suspects have been arrested, an official of the Sistan-Baluchestan Governor General’s Office announced.

“The detained individuals entered the province from another country and according to their confessions, they committed the terrorist act based on a plan to incite division between Shias and Sunnis and provoke ethnic strife,” Soltan-Ali Mir told the Mehr News Agency.

The ringleader of the bombing is among the five, he added. “Some of the arrested terrorists entered Iran two days ago,” Mir stated.

Sunni ulema in Sistan-Baluchestan Province have condemned the bombing, he added. A major operation is underway to identify and arrest all the others involved in the act.

Bush PR Disaster in Pakistan

Ted Kahl — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 07:48:13 -0500

Bush Greeted in Pakistan by Demonstrations, Nation-wide Strike

Juan Cole writes:

Bush arrived in Islamabad to find it eerily quiet. The Islamic Action Council, which includes a group that helped train the Taliban, had called for a nation-wide strike to protest the visit. Streets of many cities were said to be strangely quiet, while in the northern Pushtun city of Peshawar, thousands marched in protest.

Bush has all along made the mistake of playing to Muslim leaders rather than to Muslim publics. Yet he has at the same time undermined authoritarian leaders with his talk of spreading democracy. So a military dictator like Pervez Musharraf, who intervened to corrupt the 2002 Pakistani parliamentary elections, lacks legitimacy according to Bush's rhetoric even as Bush pals around with him and makes him as an individual the cornerstone of US policy in that part of the world.

Pakistan Tells Bush Not to Repeat Attack

Bob Geiger — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:57:47 -0500

Senior Pakistani officials told the U.S. on Saturday that the air strike on a Pakistani village last week cannot be repeated and that the two countries must find a way to work in a more bilateral way to avoid loss of civilian life.

The strike last week on the tiny Pakistani village of Damadola, in the tribal territory of Bajur, is believed to have assassinated some key al Qaeda operatives while also killing many civilians, including five young children.

"What happened in Bajur must not be repeated," Foreign Minister Khursheed Kasuri told U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns on Saturday.

"While reaffirming Pakistan's commitment to counterterrorism, the foreign minister underlined the need for the two countries to work in a manner that precludes recent incidents like Bajur," the foreign ministry said in a statement. "[The Foreign Minister] highlighted the prevailing public sentiment and stressed that such incidents were counterproductive."

It is also important to note that the Pakistan and U.S. governments still have not even confirmed the identity or nationality of any al Qaeda members allegedly killed in the attacks.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz told reporters in New York on Friday that there was no "tangible evidence" that any extremists had gathered in Damadola.

Meanwhile, we do know that five children are dead, three from one family. Saying that the U.S. needs to work better with its allies is the understatement of the New Year.

No Way to Make Bombing of Pakistani Village Right

Bob Geiger — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:03:28 -0500

Pakistan's ruling party got together yesterday and demanded an apology for a CIA airstrike that was designed to get Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, but instead killed at least 17 Pakistani civilians, including five children.

Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and his ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Q condemned the U.S. airstrike on the tiny village of Damadola, near the Afghan border. America was apparently targeting al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahri and talk of the bad guy's death was the focal point of national news going into the weekend.

It now looks like al-Zawahri wasn't even in the neighborhood.

Although the U.S. government has not publicly acknowledged any responsibility for the attack, intelligence officials in Washington with knowledge of the operation said it was aimed at Zawahri and said they believed drone aircraft armed with missiles were used.

Tens of thousands of people have taken to the Pakistani streets to protest and we Americans once again find ourselves in the position of looking little better than bin Laden himself and seemingly intent on making the world hate us more each day.

What makes this even more insane, is that this was an attack launched on the soil of our biggest supporter in the area and a country where the majority of the population already opposes Pakistan's involvement with U.S. anti-terror efforts in the region.

"They should try to work to improve their image," Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said Monday of U.S. activities. He also said that the U.S. has now “also created problems for this [Pakistani] government.”

There's the understatement of the new year.

I can feel the right-wing hate e-mails sailing toward my inbox already and especially with my statement above, where I question how much better than bin Laden we're looking to much of the world at this point.

But I'm going to have to stand by that one.

Osama bin Laden, with the help of George W. Bush, has already succeeded in turning America into a scared country, willing to trash the civil liberties on which our nation was founded in the interest of gaining the illusion of safety. How much does bin Laden really win if in our manic efforts to catch terrorists, we begin behaving like terrorists ourselves?

Not an apt comparison, you say?

One man in Damadola, Shah Zaman, lost all three of his children, two young sons and a daughter, in the bombing, which took out three homes, hundreds of yards apart and left craters 10 feet deep. Think about that one for a moment: three young children. And they are not presumably in a war zone -- unless we suddenly decided to declare hostilities with Pakistan as well over the weekend -- so the hawks among us can't even smirk and claim that "bad things happen in war."

Which means this attack is very much the same as Mexico blasting some houses in El Paso and killing 18 Americans to catch some guys on their most-wanted list. Yeah, I'm sure we would be real cool with that, wouldn't we?

Let's be clear: I want Osama bin Laden and his crew of murderers as much as anyone. I live in New York, knew people who died in the World Trade Center and – once military, always military – I join most Veterans in a fervent desire to see bin Laden caught and, if necessary, killed in the process. I also understand that as part of our agreement with Pakistan, U.S. troops based in Afghanistan are not allowed to cross the border in efforts to catch the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Frustrating to be sure, but no justification for us killing innocent children in a country that has only supported our efforts – unless, that is, you're cruel enough to buy the rationale that being the biggest kid on the block gives you the right to kill anyone you want, with no permission required. And what if Team Bush had decided to do the unthinkable (for them) and actually used diplomacy with our Pakistani allies before this attack? We might have gotten permission to send in Special Forces in a case like this, versus haphazardly dropping explosives on a rural village full of innocents.

I love my country, but that doesn't mean we're never mistaken or misguided. In this case, we are just flat-out wrong. Five little kids -- three from one family -- who were probably playing outside in their poverty-stricken hamlet on Friday morning, were incinerated by my country on Friday night.

And there's just no way in the world I can make that right.

US Turned a Blind Eye to Khan Network for 25 Years

Ted Kahl — Sun, 06 Mar 2005 02:29:02 -0500

Another scandal that I keep an eye on -- the nuclear blackmarket operation run by Pakistan scientist A.Q. Khan. I wrote earlier that Khan's network received funding from Middle Eastern banks (was BCCI one of them?). Greg Palast reported that the Bush administration spiked the probe of the Khan network, because "funding appeared to originate in Saudi Arabia." It turns out that this follows a long pattern of "blind eye" complicity by the US government.

Leonard Weiss writes for Arms Control Today:

A little more than one year ago, the world learned that Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan had provided nuclear-weapons-related technology to a number of countries, including North Korea, Iran, and Libya. Yet, the revelations could hardly have come as a surprise: the supply network was used by Pakistan over the past 25 years to obtain technology, components, and materials for its own nuclear weapons.

Far more remarkable was that, although Khan’s activities had been tracked by U.S. intelligence for more than two decades, little attempt had been made to roll up the network he created. Rather than focusing on this profound long-term strategic danger to national security, the United States had chosen to pursue short-term, tactical foreign policy gains with Pakistan.

This misguided policy approach continues today as the Bush administration has chosen to subordinate nonproliferation goals, including fully breaking apart the Khan network, to the short-term goal of building a relationship with Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf. The president has also not proposed a long-term strategy to prevent a similar network from popping up in the future. [More here about Bush's Iran-for-Khan deal]

[...]

Still, in the context of the Cold War, [Jimmy] Carter’s policy was backed by much of the foreign policy establishment, including by President Ronald Reagan when he took office in 1981. The Reagan administration pushed through a $3.2 billion economic and military assistance package for Pakistan with a legislated six-year waiver of the sanctions against Pakistan for its nuclear violations. Such waivers were extended, and assistance for the mujahideen via Pakistan continued until the Soviets began to withdraw from Afghanistan in 1988.

[...]

Warnings about the dangers of the Pakistani program were being constantly and publicly issued during this period, most prominently by Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio). In speeches, op-eds, and congressional testimony, Glenn warned that Pakistani nuclear weapons development, if not stopped, would lead to weapons technology finding its way to the Middle East, particularly to Iran.

It was a natural deduction to make: intelligence reports contained evidence of a Pakistani/Iranian nuclear cooperation agreement, and news reports quoted intelligence sources saying that Saudi Arabia and Libya were helping to finance the Pakistani bomb. These warnings had little effect on the Reagan or George H. W. Bush administrations, who did all they could to keep Congress in the dark about the details of the Pakistani program.
[...]

Khan’s downfall came soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks led to a renewed U.S. relationship with Pakistan. When the United States decided to bring down the Taliban government for hosting Osama bin Laden, it turned to its old friends in Pakistan who had long provided the Taliban with crucial assistance. Under U.S. pressure, Musharraf reversed course and supported the U.S.-led military operation against his former allies.

That move and Musharraf’s current assistance in the hunt for bin Laden has resulted in his being amply rewarded. He has received the lifting of all nonproliferation sanctions and the beginning of a multibillion-dollar aid program, despite his refusal to give up Khan to the IAEA for interrogation. Even another case of a Pakistani agent allegedly attempting to smuggle nuclear-related electronic components out of the United States has had no effect on our current cozy relationship with Musharraf, who presides over a military containing elements friendly to Islamic revolutionary fundamentalism. It is the "blind eye" redux, but with the Cold War replaced by the war on terrorism. Of course, this time there is an added peril: who will gain control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons should Musharraf fall?

Of course, this is the same old story for the past 50 years, in which short-sighted US foreign policy has condoned -- and even aided -- dictators and future terrorists (think Saddam-Iraqgate, Noriega, the CIA backing of the Mujahideen -- from which emerged the Taliban and Bin Laden).

Here is a related article in the LA Times about US tolerance of the Khan network.

Bush's Iran-for-Khan Deal

Ted Kahl — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:57:14 -0500

Ever since the Khan Nuke scandal broke in Pakistan, I have suspected there may be a LOT more to it (see below).

But first...Seymour Hersh has exposed the latest twist in this festering scandal.

The American task force, aided by the information from Pakistan, has been penetrating eastern Iran from Afghanistan in a hunt for underground installations. The task-force members, or their locally recruited agents, secreted remote detection devices - known as sniffers - capable of sampling the atmosphere for radioactive emissions and other evidence of nuclear-enrichment programs.

Getting such evidence is a pressing concern for the Bush Administration. The former high-level intelligence official told me, "They don't want to make any W.M.D. intelligence mistakes, as in Iraq. The Republicans can't have two of those. There's no education in the second kick of a mule." The official added that the government of Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani President, has won a high price for its cooperation-American assurance that Pakistan will not have to hand over A. Q. Khan, known as the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, to the I.A.E.A. or to any other international authorities for questioning. For two decades, Khan has been linked to a vast consortium of nuclear-black-market activities. Last year, Musharraf professed to be shocked when Khan, in the face of overwhelming evidence, "confessed" to his activities. A few days later, Musharraf pardoned him, and so far he has refused to allow the I.A.E.A. or American intelligence to interview him. Khan is now said to be living under house arrest in a villa in Islamabad. "It's a deal-a trade-off," the former high-level intelligence official explained. "'Tell us what you know about Iran and we will let your A. Q. Khan guys go.' It's the neoconservatives' version of short-term gain at long-term cost. They want to prove that Bush is the anti-terrorism guy who can handle Iran and the nuclear threat, against the long-term goal of eliminating the black market for nuclear proliferation."

The agreement comes at a time when Musharraf, according to a former high-level Pakistani diplomat, has authorized the expansion of Pakistan's nuclear-weapons arsenal. "Pakistan still needs parts and supplies, and needs to buy them in the clandestine market," the former diplomat said. "The U.S. has done nothing to stop it."

Whenever I hear about US-Pakistan intrigue, it sparks my interest, especially stories about Pakistan's rogue nuke scientist A.Q. Khan. Back when this scandal first broke a year ago, it reminded me of Iran-Contra type shenanigans... especially when Greg Palast reported this at the time:

On November 7, 2001, BBC TV and the Guardian of London reported that the Bush administration thwarted investigations of Dr. A.Q. Khan who this week confessed selling atomic secrets to Libya, North Korea, and Iran. The Bush Administration has expressed shock at the disclosures that Pakistan, our ally in the war on terror, has been running a nuclear secrets bazaar. In fact, according to the British News Team's sources', Bush did not know of these facts because, shortly after his inauguration, his National Security Agency (NSA) defectively stymied the probe of Khan Research Laboratories. CIA and other agents could not investigate the spread of 'Islamic Bombs' through Pakistan because funding appeared to originate in Saudi Arabia... According to both sources and documents obtained by the BBC, the Bush Administration 'Spike' of the investigation of Dr. Khan's Lab followed from a wider policy of protecting key Saudi Arabians including the bin Laden Family"...

The point is that intelligence agencies under Clinton, based on many other leads as well, were following up on the Saudi connection until the Bush team interfered.

This made me wonder if the Saudis used BCCI in the '80's to finance this "spread of Islamic bombs", back when Khan started his career in the blackmarket? Then, after the BCCI scandal and dissolution, were money laundering networks patterned after BCCI used -- such as those that financed Al Qaeda?

Or, as I wrote at the end of this quoted excerpt to a Chicago Sun-Times article (link since expired)...

Pakistani Who Sold Nuke Tech Can Keep Wealth; Bush Gives Musharraf the High Five
09-Feb-04
Pakistan

"President Pervez Musharraf has pledged that the disgraced founder of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program can keep the vast wealth he accumulated selling bomb-making technology to rogue states around the world. Just days after Musharraf provoked worldwide consternation by pardoning Abdul Qadeer Khan for supplying nuclear expertise to Libya, Iran and North Korea, he told the Sunday Telegraph he would also spare the scientist's property or assets. 'He can keep his money,' Musharraf said, adding there had been good reason not to investigate the origin of Khan's suspicious wealth before 1998, when Pakistan successfully tested its first nuclear weapon. '...you have to ask yourself whether you act against the person who enabled you to get the bomb.' Khan is thought to have earned millions of dollars from his sale of nuclear know-how, beginning in the late 1980s. Much of the money was funneled through bank accounts in the Middle East." Which bank? The Saudi-CIA laundromat, BCCI?

Further fueling my suspicions was this Sy Hersh article I posted in March...

THE DEAL: Bush, Musharraf and Nuclear Blackmarkets

03-Mar-04

Pakistan

Seymour Hersh writes: "A Bush Administration intelligence officer with years of experience in nonproliferation issues told me last month, 'One thing we do know is that this was not a rogue operation. Suppose Edward Teller had suddenly decided to spread nuclear technology and equipment around the world. Do you really think he could do that without the government knowing? How do you get missiles from North Korea to Pakistan? Do you think A.Q. shipped all the centrifuges by Federal Express? The military has to be involved, at high levels... We had every opportunity to put a stop to the A. Q. Khan network fifteen years ago. Some of those involved today in the smuggling are the children of those we knew about in the eighties. It's the second generation now.' In public, the Bush Administration accepted the pardon at face value. Within hours of Musharraf's television appearance, Richard Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State, praised him as 'the right man at the right time.'"

It also made me wonder if any of the usual suspects were involved -- the guys we know from Iran-Contra (such as Armitage!), Iraqgate and the Reagan-Bush-CIA funding of the Mujahideen. (Of course, apart from the Saudi financing, this is just pure speculation, unless some investigator finds out more).

As for Bush's current Iran-for-Khan deal, keep in mind what whistleblower Karen Kwiatkowski said:

"What these people are doing now makes Iran-Contra [a Reagan administration national security scandal] look like amateur hour. . . it's worse than Iran-Contra, worse than what happened in Vietnam," said Karen Kwiatkowski, a former air force lieutenant-colonel.

Or as Jim Lobe called current Bush policy, "Iran-Contra, Amplified"