This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
FROM MY DEAR FRIEND AMBASSADOR GAJENDRA SINGH MUCH OF IT VINDICATES MY 2003 ASSESSMENT " AGE OF STRATEGIC ANARCHY"
FROM MY DEAR FRIEND AMBASSADOR GAJENDRA SINGH FROM INDIA
At the end is my old 2005 game changing piece on Russia Syria relations
In 2005 when Moscow had delivered jeep mounted fix missiles to Damascus, Israel had complained that it would change the strtegic equation in the region,Putin had quipped , yes, tel Aviv wouldnot be able to buzz the President's Palace at will .Too much is vital for Moscow's overall strategic balance with USA for Russia to let Syria let go, not counting a million Syrians of Russian -Syrian marriages. Since long Russia promised Iran S300 but not delivered as it will make Theran a nigbour too independent .
Have e not the lying western criminal leaders destroyed enough in the middle east or allowed Pakistan to attack India at will via its JIhadis.
Russian cruise missiles will 'embolden' Assad: General Dempsey
May 18, 2013 10:13AM
RUSSIA'S shipment of anti-ship missiles to Syria will "embolden" the regime and fuel the country's civil war, the US military's top officer says. General Martin Dempsey's comments were the first official confirmation from the US government that Moscow had sent advanced "ship-killer" cruise missiles to President Bashar al-Assad's regime. "It is at the very least an unfortunate decision that will embolden the regime and prolong the suffering," the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told a news conference when asked about the reported shipment of missiles. "It's ill-timed and very unfortunate." The New York Times first reported the arms shipment, quoting unnamed US officials, and that the missiles were outfitted with advanced radar. Russia had previously delivered Yakhonts cruise missiles to Syria but those did not have the sophisticated radar, it said.
Russia boosts fleet off Syria
The anti-ship missiles could help Syria counter an attempt by outside powers to carry out air strikes from ships at sea or to impose a no-fly zone. At the same press conference, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the United States would continue to confer with Russia on the Syrian conflict and that both countries shared an interest in preventing a potential regional war. He added that while diplomacy remained Washington's focus, the US had not ruled out military action as an option. The US has long urged Russia to halt arms sales to Syria and has expressed particular concern about the planned delivery of sophisticated S-300 air defence weapons, which officials worry could complicate any international intervention and possibly fall into the hands of Lebanon's Hezbollah militants. Asked about the missiles and US contingency plans, Dempsey said the SA-300 was a "more capable" system with a longer-range that would force any air attack to be carried out from a longer, "standoff" distance. "It pushes the standoff distance a little more, increases risk but not impossible to overcome," the general said. Apart from the technical capabilities of advanced missiles, such weapons could also cause the regime to overestimate its position and trigger a wider conflict. "What I really worry about is that Assad will decide that since he's got these systems, he's somehow safer and more prone to a miscalculation," Dempsey said. The general said the US military had no plans to block the delivery of the Russian-made weapons to Syria, saying "we do not have options to prevent the delivery of any military sales to the Syrians." US Secretary of State John Kerry warned last week that such missiles sales would be "destabilising."
FOUNDATION FOR INDO-TURKIC STUDIES
Tel/Fax ; 0040216374602 K Gajendra Singh Emails; Gajendrak@hotmail.com 5, 3rd Floor KGSingh@Yahoo.com Cotroceni, Web site. Amb (Rtd) Flat No 9, Sos
Bucharest (Romania ). www.tarafits.com January, 2005 28
Russian bear makes Israel jittery
January,2005 By K Gajendra Singh http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GA28Ag02.html
While Syrian President Bashar Assad denied that he was in Moscow to shop for weapons, he defended his country's right to acquire surfaceto-air missiles from Russia. He said during his four-day visit that was due to end on Thursday that "these are weapons for air defense, meant to prevent aircraft from intruding in our airspace". "If Israel objects to our acquisition of these defensive weapons, it is as if it is saying, 'We want to attack Syria but we do not want them to defend themselves.' That's not logical," concluded Assad while addressing the State Institute for Foreign Relations. But Assad reiterated an earlier denial of a deal for SA-18 missiles and long-range Iskandar-E missiles that could reach targets all over Israel. Ever since the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003, Syria has been threatened both by Israel and the US. Assad was furious when Israeli jets recently buzzed him in his palace. To mark the historic Syrian visit, Russia announced that it would write off 73% of US$13.4 billion in debt owed by Syria from the days of the USSR. Russian President Vladimir Putin said this created "opportunities for long-term cooperation". A joint statement issued on Wednesday included a conciliatory message to the US that both countries "vehemently condemn terror in all its forms and expressions, and affirm the strong need of the international community to channel its effort to fight effectively this dangerous challenge to the human race". But Assad invited Russia to the region because "Russia has an
enormous role, and has a lot of respect from Third World countries ... which really hope that Russia will try to revive the positions it used to hold". He added that US foreign policy on Iraq was "disastrous". Russia seems to be returning to the Middle East. At the time of the first Gulf crisis and war in 1990-91, when then Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev made moves for a peaceful settlement, he was brushed aside by US president George H W Bush. The other main points of the statement are as follows. On Iraq, the two sides, while stressing commitment to Iraq's territorial integrity, sovereignty and security, asserted support to the political process under way in Iraq to achieve reconciliation and secure the rights of all Iraqis regardless of their religious or ethnic belonging in line with United Nations Resolution No 1546, whose implementation creates the proper conditions for foreign troops to pull out from the country. Regarding the United States' unilateralism, they expressed confidence that the 21st-century world system should be built on international law, taking into consideration the interests of all countries and mechanisms of formulating unanimous stances to solve international issues through the pivotal role the UN assumes. On Israel's reported nuclear stockpile and Western countries' emphasis against weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Syria and Russia agreed to cooperate in the field of boosting international stability and preventing the proliferation of WMD, pointing to the importance of commitment to UN Security Council Resolution No 1540 and freeing the Middle East from all kinds of WMD. The joint statement criticized US President George W Bush's daily lectures on spreading liberty, elections and democracy. "Democracy and reforms in the Middle East should be in line with the historical, spiritual and civilizational features of states and are strongly linked to the achievement of a just and comprehensive peace in the region," the statement said. Defense cooperation was muted in the phrase "it underlined that the two sides would develop traditional cooperation in the military technical field in a way that meets the mutual concerns of
both countries and their international commitments". Shivers down the Israeli spine Commenting on the visit, a jittery Jerusalem Post, while describing the Russian role in the region, wrote, "Russia's planned sale of SA-18 missiles to Syria looms ominously as a throwback to the [Leonid] Brezhnev era's most misguided attitudes. Economically, Syria is a basket case whose debt-return record must make one doubt its financial commitments. Ideologically, Syria remains part of the terrorist internationale which has repeatedly victimized Russia. And diplomatically, arming Damascus while Washington suspects it of fueling the war on its troops in Iraq brings to mind memories of Russia's role in the Vietnam and Korea wars. "President Vladimir Putin has earned himself a reputation as a rational man out to restore Russia's global stature. In itself, this is a worthy goal. However, by pandering to regimes such as Assad's, not only will Putin not have restored Russia's clout, he will convince people that he has learned nothing from his Soviet predecessors' downfalls. He will also make people reconsider their impression of his rationalism." But then where would Israel be without massive annual US aid? Would not Israel be a basket case too? Or for that matter take the massive US aid given to Pakistan in return for its support in the "war on terror", despite Pakistan allowing its territory to be used for training and recruitment of jihadis to attack Indian territory, among other places. Syrian strategic analyst Gamal Barout said recently, "Back in 2001, the Russian side showed a desire for a strategic alliance with Damascus, but traditional government wrangling poured cold water on the bid. Now, Syria needs Moscow to stave off European-American pressures." Last September, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution put forward by the US and France that demanded the withdrawal of foreign forces (Syrian) from Lebanon and noninterference in the Lebanese presidential elections. Russia, which has the power of the veto, abstained in that vote. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (shortly before her confirmation to that position) warned that Damascus faced new sanctions because of "its suspected interference in Iraq and ties to
terrorism". As a riposte, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko described Syria as one of its "most important partners" in the Middle East. He added, "It's well known that slapping labels on countries and unilaterally describing certain states as part of the 'axis of evil' has not improved anyone's security." While an impoverished Syria needs to maintain and modernize its army, Russia also needs a foothold in the Middle East in view of the security and strategic significance of the region and Euro-American competition. The revival of the old strategic alliance of the Cold War is mutually beneficial. Another expert said, "Moscow has been facing several problems recently. It realized that Washington had gone too far in extending its influence at the expense of Russia," arguing that Washington was seeking to encircle Moscow, one way or the other. Syrian journalist Hayan Niouf said that Syria could also play a positive role in pushing for Moscow's active role, if not membership, in the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), in exchange for Russian political support in the UN and the Security Council. Russia, with a population of tens of millions of Muslims, was invited as a guest at the most recent OIC summit in Malaysia last year. With many Muslim nations distrusting the US government and its policies, and hatred against the US in much of the Muslim ummah (community), the OIC would be happy to grant a bigger role to Russia. Assad's visit to China Assad has been trying hard to escape the suffocating straitjacket that Israeli and US policies have tied him in. US sanctions, signed into law at the end of 2003, include a near-blanket ban on US exports to Syria and the power to freeze Syrian assets in the US. Except for food and medicines and items intended for certain exempt entities, such as the US Embassy, foreign diplomatic missions and UN agencies in Damascus, all US exports to Syria, estimated at some $100 million a year, were banned under the sanctions. The US resolution also banned the exportation of "dual use" technology and restricted over-flight rights for Syrian aircraft inside US airspace. Last June, Assad visited China, the first ever visit by a Syrian head of state. A more liberal politician in the economic field than his late father, Hafez Assad, the visit was made with the aim of learning from
China's economic boom. The editor-in-chief of Syria's state-run alThawra newspaper remarked that the landmark visit demonstrated Damascus's keenness on following in the footsteps of Beijing's opendoor economic policy, growth rates and political reforms. Syria was also interested in acquiring technology from China. Chinese Foreign Minister Zhaoxing Li, while welcoming the visit, endorsed Syria's right to the occupied Golan Heights, and described the US sanctions on Syria a "double-standards policy". A Chinese diplomat in Damascus also highlighted the military cooperation between both countries, pointing to the mutual visits of military delegations. Syria of course has energy resources, and many European and even Asian oil giants have shown great interest in bidding for oil and gas contracts after the withdrawal of US oil companies. Missile talk Two weeks ago, when the media reported a possible missile deal between Russia and Syria, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, then on a visit to Washington, denied it, but Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom was the first official to admit that Israel did ask Russia to halt the deal. "We turned to the Russians and asked that they not complete this deal," said Shalom. "Syria is a country that supports terror and is supplying Hezbollah with weapons non-stop." He added that the sale "will disrupt regional stability and won't improve the chances for peace". Israeli analyst Gerald Steinberg said the reported sales came as a surprise because the Syrians did not have money to buy Russian weapons. "If this report is true, it is very problematic and will pose a challenge to Israeli military planners," said Steinberg. The Jerusalem Post cited top Israeli diplomatic officials as saying that Israel asked the US to pressure Russia to scrap the deal, claiming that the missiles could be smuggled into Iraq and endanger the US forces there. For Israel and the US it would be an adverse development in the wake of the deteriorating situation around Iraq, but Moscow has made its point and more. Russia does not like being pushed around by US-led Western efforts, as it was in Ukraine and Georgia, or being lectured on the sale of Russian oil giant Yukos, and it resents support for the insurgency in Chechnya.
Syria has Soviet-era Scud ground-to-ground missiles, but media reports suggest that Moscow is ready to sell a vastly updated version of the Scud, the Iskandar, or even SS-26 missiles. These are capable of pinpoint strikes against targets within a 300-kilometer range, which could reach most Israeli targets, including its atomic reactor at Dimona. US North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayib Erdogan recently completed a visit to Moscow, soon after Putin's postponed visit to Ankara last month. While relations between Turkey and the US have cooled down, primarily because of differences over the US-led invasion of Iraq, Turkey is coming closer to its historical enemy, Russia. In 1999, Turkey threatened to invade Syria if it did not expel Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan (which it did, and he was captured and imprisoned in Turkey), but since then relations have warmed up, with the exchange of visits by Assad and Erdogan. And after a visit by Iranian President Mohammed Khatami to Ankara, relations with Tehran, historically soured by the Shi'ite-Sunni rivalry, are also improving. At the same time, relations between Turkey and Israel, which were quite close during the Cold War and almost hot after the fall of the Berlin Wall, have deteriorated recently, with Erdogan accusing Israel of state terrorism in the occupied territories. Turkey also asked Israel to leave Kurdish north Iraq alone, following reports that Mossad had been training Kurdish peshmergas (paramilitaries) to operate in the neighborhood, especially in Iran and Syria. Turmoil in northern Iraq has always adversely affected Turkey's own Kurdish southeast. Why Putin is angry Speaking to the media in Moscow last month, Putin expressed his anger at the West, whether it was about the latter's encouragement to the insurgency in Chechnya or a string of US-led Western "franchised" successes in getting anti-Russian leaders elected in its strategic neighborhood, that is, the "Rose Revolution" in Georgia in November 2003 and the "Orange Revolution" in the even more vitally important Ukraine, in which finally anti-Russian Victor Yushchenko won. His utterances and the appointment of anti-Russian Yulia Tymoshenko as
prime minister are provocative. Putin said last month, "Every country has the right to choose the development path it considers best, including in organizing its political system." Referring to US criticism of the November 21 elections in Ukraine (then US secretary of state Colin Powell said Washington would not accept them), Putin retorted that he was not ecstatic about what happened in the US. "Do you think that the electoral system in the United States is entirely flawless? Do I have to recall the last elections in the United States or the one before?" he added. He pointed out that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe had criticized the US for barring observers from some polling stations in last month's Ukrainian elections. "There was even intimidation of voters." He also ridiculed a Texas judge's ruling on the sale of Russian oil giant Yukos. "I am not sure whether they know where Russia is. The level of professional training [of the judge] perplexes me," he said. He also lambasted the scheduled January 30 election in Iraq, saying that "it could not be fair while the country remained occupied by US-led forces". Russia, despite US pressure, is going ahead with cooperation in setting up nuclear power stations in Iran. China recently signed a major longterm agreement with Iran for energy purchases and development of the Iranian oil and gas sector. Energy-hungry China and India are aggressively bidding for investment and development of Yukos energy assets. The US reaction Before the Russian denial, while describing Russian arms sales to Syria as speculative, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher made it clear that the US was opposed in principle to all arms sales to Syria. He said, "We have seen reports of the sale. The US policy on this is very clear. We're against the sale of weaponry to Syria, the sale of lethal military equipment to Syria, which is a state sponsor of terrorism. We think those kinds of sales are not appropriate. The Russians know about this policy. They know about our views." He added that the Russian entities involved in such a sale would be subject to US sanctions under a law aimed at curbing the flow of arms to countries on US terrorism lists. Russian Defense Minister Ivanov was in
Washington for high-level talks, including with Powell. The proposed sale has injected tension not only into Russian-Israel relations, but with the US as well. Israel said that the missiles might end up in the hands of Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas and would be aimed at Israeli targets. Hezbollah, which is close to Syria, fought an 18-year guerrilla war against Israeli forces in south Lebanon, firing rockets at northern Israel until 2000, and threatens to do so again, say the Israelis. This development might bring some restraint over the policies pursued by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The missiles deal would beef up Syria's air defenses and discourage Israel from making regular threats to Syria. The Moscow Daily Kommersant said that Damascus had asked for 18 Iskandar missiles in August, but was told they had not been fully tested. The Syrians have now been told that the missiles are ready. Paul Beaver, a London-based defense analyst, commented that while Russia has upgraded Syrian military equipment, it has not sold it new arms since 1990. Beaver added that the SA-18 evolved from the Russian shoulder-held SAM-7, which was widely used during the Vietnam War. The SA-18 is much more flexible and can even target the non-heat-emitting section of an aircraft. It can also overcome many Western defensive maneuvers, such as flares, used to deflect antiaircraft missiles. It weighs just over 10 kilograms, has a maximum range of six kilometers and can be used to shoot down planes and helicopters. The sophisticated missiles cost about US$250,000 each. Analysts said the US might be concerned that Iraqi insurgents would get their hands on these, threatening US warplanes in Iraq. This palpably is an Israeli line. Israel asked for US intervention in stalling the missile deal. David Siegel, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, said, "The reports in this regard are very disturbing and, as in other cases with strategic implications, we conduct an ongoing dialogue with the administration." "We have enough problems on the ground with Syria and we don't need more problems from the sky," Vice Prime Minister Shimon Peres said. Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said, "We have close contacts with
the Russians. We had consultations over the past few days, and we hope to reach the necessary agreement." Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Saltanov is in the region to discuss the missile issue. Israelis are keen not to jeopardize improving relations with Russia, in place since the unraveling of the USSR. Israeli Foreign Ministry official Gideon Meir denied a Russian media report that Israel had recalled its ambassador. The ambassador was in Israel, but would return to Moscow soon, added Meir. Many millions of Russian Jews have immigrated to Israel, changing the demographic makeup of Israel and making its policies more right-wing and aggressive. Sharon, who is of Russian descent, has visited Moscow three times since becoming prime minister in 2001. He asked Putin to stop Iran in its covert nuclear-arms program and to restrain Syria, along with its Lebanese and Palestinian proxies: a case of the wolf blaming the lamb. Conclusion Assad's visit to Russia marks the first stirrings of the Russian bear, which was sent into hibernation after the USSR's power was partly dismantled by Mikhail Gorbachev, without leveraging anything in return. A drunk or drugged Boris Yeltsin then set Russia on the road to economic ruin, robbing it of public property, which saw the emergence of a handful of dollar multibillionaires. Putin, a karate expert, has come of age. He no longer appears to trust Bush. Russia is still a world nuclear power and can defend itself and its interests. A majority of nations, almost all of the Muslim countries, oppose the United States' unilateralist policies and targeting of Muslims. Russia has accumulated more than 500 billion rubles ($16.7 billion) in its energy-stabilization fund because of unprecedented high global oil prices: its economic situation is getting better. Putin will follow his own path. K Gajendra Singh served as Indian ambassador to Turkey and Azerbaijan from 1992-96. Prior to that, he served as ambassador to Jordan (during the 1990-91 Gulf War), Romania and Senegal. He is currently chairman of the Foundation for Indo-Turkic Studies and editorial adviser with global geopolitics website Eurasia Research Center, USA. E-mail Gajendrak@hotmail.com.
(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing.)
IntelliBriefs bring you Intelligence briefs on Geopolitics , Security and Intelligence from around the world . We gather information and insights from multiple sources and present you in a digestible format to quench your thirst for right perspective, with right information at right time at right place . We encourage people to contact us with any relevant information that other news media organizations don't cover . Contact :firstname.lastname@example.org
FEBRUARY 01, 2013
The volatility of Gas, Geo-Politics and the Greater Middle East. An Interview with Major Agha H. Amin
The volatility of Gas, Geo-Politics and the Greater Middle East. An Interview with Major Agha H. Amin
Posted on February 1, 2013 by nsnbc
The volatility of Gas, Geo-Politics and the Greater Middle East. An Interview with Major Agha H. Amin
Major Agha H. Amin is a retired Pakistani military officer and the author of various books, including "Development of Taliban Factions in Afghanistan", "Taliban War in Afghanistan" and "History of Pakistan Army". He studied at the Forman Christian College and at the Pakistan Military Academy in Kalkul. Agha H. Amin has been working as Assistant Editor of Defense Journal, Executive Editor at the Globe, and as Editor of the Journal of Afghanistan Studies. He is an active member of the Think Tank ORBAT and the Alexandrian Defense Group and he is working as security management consultant. Agha H. Amin has been working as consultant on various oil, gas and energy projects in Central Asia, Afghanistan and Pakistan, including the TAPI
pipeline, CASA 100, the Uzbekistan Afghanistan Pakistan line and the Turkmenistan Mazar Sharif line. He is an expert on national and regional security, energy security and geo-political issues. The following is the full text of an interview by Christof Lehmann with Major Agha H. Amin from 30 January 2013. CL. Not long ago we were discussing the situation in Syria, and the fact that the root cause for the attempted subversion of Syria is the 10 billion USD PARS gas pipeline project from Iran, via Iraq and Syria to the Easter Mediterranean Coast, the most important factors being the political leverage Iran would acquire if it, together with Russia provided more than 40 % of the gas consumed in the EU over the coming 100 – 120 years, a US and a US and UK attempt to sabotage the further integration of the continental European and Russian national economies and energy sectors. Both high ranking members of the Workers Party Turkey and retired Turkish military officers accuse the AKP government of Prime Minister R. Tayyip Erdogan of being involved in the implementation of the Greater Middle East Project, developed by the RAND Corporation for the US Defense Department in 1996. This plan includes the "balkanization" of Turkey into smaller states. We discussed a possible plan to establish a NATO Corridor from Turkey to India. In our discussion you said: "I would like to add to them that the establishment of the Kurdistan part of the corridor would significantly change the security dynamics of the Russian South Stream gas pipeline which is part of the causes for the war on Syria." Could you please brief us on the most important factors with regard to the security dynamics of the Russian South Stream gas pipeline ? AHA. The strategic idea of NATO, is aiming at securing the northern borders of Israel against Hezbollah and the southern borders against Hamas; to eliminate the Russian naval base in the eastern Mediterranean, Syrian city of Tartous. NATO is planning to create a western strategic corridor to maintain energysecurity in the case that oil supplies through the Strait of Hormuz are disrupted because of a war with Iran or otherwise.
One of the first steps toward the implementation of the long-term strategic plan, is the partition of Turkey by creating separate Kurdish areas, thereby providing NATO a direct access to Russia´s soft underbelly in the Caucasus. This can ideally be used to dominate the Caucasian oil as well as support the Chechen against Russia in a low intensity conflict. Also, to create a viable independent Kurd state, it would need a windpipe access to the sea. This can be provided via the southern coast of Turkey and the Northern Coast of Syria. Whether a Syrian government soldier or a Syrian Islamist "Nut" dies in the process, "both are equally beneficial to the US/NATO". The cardinal strategic idea is to internalize the war within the Islamic world so that Europe and the USA become safer while the enemies of western civilization destroy each other. NATO is a club of wolves and Turkey is the odd wolf in NATO. Once the wolves have eaten Syria, they will eat the odd wolf Turkey. Yes, Turkey has been getting huge funds from Saudi Arabia, especially the clown Islamist Freedom and Justice Party. The clown Islamist Party is corrupting Turkey´s secularism. On the other side, Turkey is playing as NATO´s best chattel. To use a historic comparison. When Hitler started eating the lambs of Europe like the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia and Austria, the world tolerated it. The limit was reached in 1939. It is comparable with the NATO, led by the USA, eating the
lambs since 1991. First Serbia was destroyed, then came Kosovo, then came Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. I think and hope that Syria would be the turning point. With Libya a most negative practice of using Islamist mad dogs and proxies started. Al Qaeda and other most rabid Islamist groups were used in Libya and now again in Syria. The NATO is unleashing the same savages that it claims to fight in Afghanistan on secular states like Libya and Syria. If Russia had not asserted itself, the wolves would have attacked Syria by now. These wolves only fear Weapons of Mass Destruction, WMD´s, and any state not having WMD´s will be shred into bits and devoured by the wolves. Lets hope that Putin proves to be like a new Moses who challenges the wolves who have the souls of Pagans. CL. Considering the volatility of the situation in Syria and that a conflict of that nature easily can develop a dynamic on its own, even a dynamic that was neither planned nor wanted by any of the stakeholders, and considering that the aggravation of the crisis into a regional war with the involvement of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, the Gulf Arab States, Turkey and NATO countries as well as Russia could have catastrophic consequences,- furthermore considering that the situation as it is seems so that non of the stakeholders can win, but all can loose, which diplomatic, political and economic initiatives would you consider necessary and feasible to solve the crisis ? AHA. "We are moving toward a great global war and supreme strategic anarchy by remote pilot". This happened, because the pilots who were supposed to man policy and regulate the tide of history did not have the talent to exercise their due role in history ! These pilots in reality wore the uniforms of pilots but had the caliber of air stewards and air pursers! This includes Obama, Yusuf Raza Gillani, Man Mohan Singh and the Saudi king. This brought us into a Sarajevo situation, where events started moving decision makers rather than decision makers moving events. Till 2008 the USA was led by an impetuous pilot with a low IQ but a definite strategic decisiveness. A man with limited intellect, but one who could take strategic decisions. After 2008 the USA got a social climber who looked
outwardly smart and bright but lacked statesmanship and had near zero strategic vision. Thus Afghanistan, after 2008, moved from relative calm into anarchy, as far as the South was concerned. Pakistan was the worst case. It was led by an opportunist who attempted to please all parties, including the Americans, Islamists, Pakistani liberals and the Indians. As as result Pakistan developed such a fatal "confusion of principle" that the whole Pakistani society was fractured down into its deepest foundations. This military opportunist in turn, made peace with the corrupt politicians to prolong his rule. Subsequently, the whole political fabric of Pakistan was shattered. The Pakistani military was attacked by Islamists, for allegedly being in league with the Christian powers. The Pakistani military lost its entire credibility when it emerged as the main party in the controversial NRO deal, which legitimized past corruption of Pakistan´s politicians, which the army had prosecuted with zeal from 1999 to 2002. Pakistan became engulfed in two major insurgencies. One with the Islamists and the other in Baluchistan. Both have the potential to destabilize and even to destroy Pakistan. The USA has no strategy in Afghanistan and is in a catch 22, unless it decides on a strategy of decisive action. While the US policy makers saw Pakistan as a center of gravity of Islamists, including the Afghan Taliban, the US failed to frame a decisive strategy for dealing with Pakistan. Pakistan´s nuclear assets, Chinese support, and a growing Russian support are principal obstacles that the USA faces in formulating a strategy of decisive action against Pakistan. Both Iran and Pakistan remain two strategic thorn lands that the USA faces and which are being constantly watered by China and Russia. The Osama Raid and the Salala incident forced Pakistan´s military and political elite to close the NATO supply line to Afghanistan. The memogate scandal also increased the civil military divide in Pakistan but this appears to be more of a US ploy to divide and weaken Pakistan. The key strategic trends in this scenario are the following : Any US withdrawal, in totality or partially, would strengthen the Islamists in Afghanistan who will see full or partial defeat of the US as a great victory for
Islam. This would destabilize Pakistan and increase the chances of a war between India and Pakistan. The US missile shield has permanently alienated Russia, and Russia will re-assert itself and take the lead in aiding all anti US forces. US failure to correctly deal with Iran and Pakistan will further destabilize the situation. Pakistan´s nuclear assets will deter the US from any grand adventure against Pakistan. The US´s chances of an internal pro US coup in Pakistan by the PPP have become week after the Osama bin Laden incident and the Salala incident. The chances of a military coup in Pakistan will get stronger as the situation moves and if the Pakistani´s ISI´s (Inters Services Intelligence-service) plan to bring a national government led by Imran Khan fails. India still perceives Pakistan as a grave strategic threat and remains apprehensive of Pakistan's strategic nukes. This will ensure that the Indians will continue with aiding the low intensity war in Pakistan. The US will try to follow a policy that reduces Pakistan to a smaller size and confines Pakistan´s nukes to Punjab. In the case of Baluchistan, it will not be difficult for the USA to Balkanize Pakistan if the USA decides to support Baloch secessionists. Karachi remains a strategic US asset with the MQM and other elements who can paralyze Karachi at few hours notice. US policy will be difficult to formulate and execute. No nuclear state was ever denuclearized by war. The policy that the US will follow will be to destabilize Pakistan and to present it as a danger to world peace, like the Democratic Peoples ´ Republic North Korea. In the process, even a small incident can initiate a grand strategic earthquake. God help the USA, Pakistan, India and the world. CL. The US-led war on Afghanistan has now lasted for more than ten years. After NATO´s 25 Summit in Chicago in 2012 it transpired that NATO will maintain a presence in Afghanistan until at least 2014, and most likely until 2025 and beyond. NATO and western mainstream media continue marketing the argument that the NATO presence is necessary for fighting "the Taliban" and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the US Aggressions in Pakistan, predominantly in the form of drone attacks increase, and are also being marketed under the slogan of
combating "the Taliban". Could you please help us deconstruct the tale of "the Taliban" and elicit who is meant with "the Taliban", which nuances should we should be aware of. It seems that the USA in many regards is fighting an enemy which it creates. AHA. To answer your questions, let me refer to my 2008 assessment. " Note that Obama is just a clever social climber, a mixed breed who was kicked upwards, a President with no control over anything ." The objectives are not Al Qaeda, the Taliban or bin Laden. The objectives are to attack Iran, Russia´s soft Central Asian State and oil-rich belly, to destabilize China´s Sinkiang province with an Islamist insurrection, to denuclearize Pakistan and to consolidate the US – India base against China after Pakistan has been Balkanized. The objectives on the ground are neither Al Qaeda, the Taliban or Bin Laden. The droning of random targets continues to convince public opinion and gives the rich friends in the defense industry more ammunition and equipment contracts. US troops consolidate the oil transmission route on the herat Kandahar road.
No real offensive is launched against the Taliban. They are the good reason for why the USA is in Afghanistan, so why would the US/NATO want to eliminate "them". US policy is pressuring Pakistan by the means of drone attacks, forcing Pakistan to take military action in Fata is designed to destabilize Pakistan so that final grounds for the denuclearization of Pakistan are being set in place. The US tools in this exercise are US contractors in Pakistan and Afghanistan, US and British security companies in Pakistan, US or EX-US Bankers and Corporate Executives in Pakistan who are subverting civil and military brass. Through the 2008 elections the US has already achieved a
political regime change in Pakistan, while the Pakistani military, who are safeguarding Pakistan´s nuclear assets are the next target. The objective to attack Iran and Russia´s soft Central Asian State oil-rich belly has so far been a miserable failure, with US proxies being checked bu Central Asia, Iran and China. However, secret training of proxies is going on in US bases in Afghanistan. With regard to the objective to destabilize the Chinese Sinkiang province with an Islamist insurrection, it is a logical objective, but there is the independent will of the enemy, backed with WMDs. China is "not" Iraq. The denuclearization of Pakistan is proceeding at a good pace, although no major success has been achieved. The Pakistani civilian government is fully on the US payroll while it may take 2 – 5 years for the Pakistani military to become a fulltime US chattel. With regard to the objective of consolidating the US – India base after Pakistan is Balkanized, the program for Balkanization includes a Baloch State, a Pashtunistan, a City State of Karachi, Sindhu Desh. A denuclearized Pakistan will only be consisting of Punjab and northern areas controlled by China. This is to take five to ten years. With Pakistan Balkanized the US and India will have a complete, contiguous base against China and Russia. The Analysis. The present US strategic position is the silent registration of targets in Pakistan, Iran, Chinese Sinkiang and Russian dominated Central Asia. By trying to base logistics on Russian Ex Soviet Central Asian states, the USA is trying to bring economic benefits to Central Asia, so that the Russian hold can be weakened. However, Russia is convinced, that the US must fail in Afghanistan and it has made considerable efforts to aid anti US forces in Afghanistan through Iran and through Central Asian republics. US forces will not be able to control Afghanistan unless Pakistan is Balkanized and this would at least take 3 to 5 years. The first state to secede with US support would be Baluchistan. This is so, because the Base of anti US forces in Afghanistan is Pakistani Baluchistan, and Russia, Iran, and China have a combined interest in making the USA bleed in Afghanistan through Pakistani proxies known as Taliban. When Pakistan aids the Taliban in Afghanistan it is actually defending Pakistan. The maneuver to fix the situation for the USA would be an US manipulated India Pakistan war that would
be leaving Pakistan severely damaged and India less damaged, followed by a denuclearization of Pakistan. China, Russia and Iran are the US opponents. They have the potential to throw a spanner in US plans. There is the unforeseen Factor X. There appears to be a strong evolving consensus in the USA as well as its NATO allies that Pakistan is the center of gravity of the Islamists in the ongoing, socalled war on terror. The idea gained currency in various high US policy making circles as well as think tanks around 1987 – 89 and then assumed a solid shape in the decade 1990 – 2000. After it was adopted as policy and concrete albeit topsecret planning was started to deal with Pakistan, which at the ulterior level was seen as part of the problem rather than a solution. Let me also refer a 2006 assessment that is still valid: A Brief Strategic Assessment of US Presence in Afghanistan Made in September 2005. By Agha Amin. The distinction between Islamist and non Islamist is being fast transformed into US versus Anti US Forces. Afghanistan may prove to be an area of strategic convergence for Islamists, China, Russia and even Pakistan and Iran which are logically phase two US targets. It is naive to think that the USA came to Afghanistan to deal with Talibs. The choices of the USA: The USA has several choices. It can deal with Afghanistan alone and consolidate. This would not be cost-effective for the USA. The investment it has made is too big. It could widen the front to Phase Two, Pakistan and Iran. Phase Three may be Chinese Sinkiang and Phase Four Central Asian Republics. The US can also chose to withdraw from Afghanistan while retaining a central position to strike at any target in the area. Possibly and independent Baloch State, carved out of Iran and Pakistan alone at first and Pakistani Baluchistan later. China´s and Russia´s Choices: China and Russia can allow the USA an uncontested stay and risk a Muslim rising in Sinkiang within the next ten years and US domination of Central Asian Republics. They can aid anti US forces, using non state actors in Pakistan and state actors in other areas, and they can strengthen alliances with Iranian and Pakistani states.
Pakistan and Iran's choices: Pakistan and Iran can either accept US domination and scrap WMD programs, strengthen alliances with China and Russia, or aid anti US forces in Afghanistan with Chinese and Russian blessings. The Major Actors: The anti US forces are divided in two parts , state and non state actors. The main bases of non state actors are in Pakistan,Iran and Middle East. The Pakistani and Iranian states are the forward states having direct borders with Afghanistan and are involved in the Afghan game via state and non state actors. Key Strategic trends: A realization in Pakistan, that the Pakistani WMD apparatus is a future target of the USA which will have Afghanistan as its base. A realization in both China and Russia that the strategic salvation of both lies in aiding anti US groups , particularly those in Afghanistan. The development of Pakistan as the best base area of anti US groups operating in Afghanistan more because of non state actors. In order to deal with non state actors, the USA at some stage, will have to deal with both Pakistan and Iran. The USA seems strategically clueless and is playing a waiting game. Time is the key. Anti US forces can wait for ten years but every second, the USA is losing money. The USA has to achieve a tangible strategical objective. Both China and Russia will use the Islamic card, like the USA used it in Afghanistan from 1979 till 1989. Militarily, an anti US war in Afghanistan aided by China and Russia can prove to be USA's Spanish ulcer. Anti US forces in Afghanistan Pakistan and Iran are intact and can change the strategic balance. The USAs hold in Afghanistan is confined to key cities only. The drug mafia is a major US opponent and can sustain anti US forces in Afghanistan. Islamists have realized that they must have China and Russia as allies. The same realization is taking place in China and Russia. Thus, there arises the convergence of interest. The strategic options of the USA are: To create an alternate drug mafia which is non Pashtun and create new states, which are US allies like Baluchistan,Kurdistan. Possibly the USA could also work toward a non Pashtun state in North Afghanistan.
CL. In one of our discussions you said that there was a significant discrepancy between the areas where the USA is deploying drones and where the so-called "Taliban" attacks US troops. You also stated that many of the drone attacks are carried out in areas where the Pakistani military controls and secures the Af-Pak border while very few, if any drone attacks are carried out in areas where it would actually make sense. Could you please describe this in some detail and elicit the most important strategic as well as political implications ? AHA. Drone attacks are being carried out in the two agencies North and South Waziristan and 90 % are carried out in the Datta Khel Sub District. These are aimed at Haqqani Group which is regarded as an ISI asset by the USA.
A major aim with the drone attacks is also to benefit private contractors who are involved in these attacks at all levels from intelligence gathering down to munitions and drone suppliers. Another major idea is to demoralize the Pashtuns, so that any war against the USA would bring such a retribution that they will be unable to answer or match it with equal fire. CL. You stated that Iran has a significant interest in South West Afghanistan. WE hear very little about this in western media and I have not been able to find any detailed analysis in Iranian media either. Could you please give us your position on which role Iran is playing in Afghanistan ? AHA. Iran is active in West Afghanistan as well as Central Afghanistan. Iran is a most important supporter of the Northern Alliance after Russia and India . Iran views the Taliban as an existential threat. It regards non Pashtuns as well as moderate Pashtuns as its allies.
CL. There is little doubt among analysts that the USA and some NATO member states are attempting to "balkanize" Pakistan into smaller nations. We observe increased activities of often Soros-funded UN agencies and NGOs, especially in Northern Pakistan, indicating an attempt to play on ethnicity. It is a standard strategy which has been used by the West in Yugoslavia, especially in BosniaHerzegovina, the strategy is currently being implemented in Nepal, and it is being implemented in Myanmar, in an attempt to create so-called inter-communal violence in Myanmar´s Rakhine State. Could you give us your perspective about attempts to destruct the nation-state Pakistan ? AHA. Let me also here refer to a previous assessment which I made in April 2009. Every movement in history has a direction, a quantum, a modus operandi. According to the father of the philosophy of war Carl Von Clausewitz everything in strategy moves slowly, imperceptibly, subtly, somewhat mysteriously and sometimes invisibly. The greatness of a military commander or statesman lies in assessing these strategic movements. The USA inherited a historical situation in the shape of 9/11.At this point in time it was not making history if we agree that 9/11 was the work of Al Qaeda for which so far the USA has failed to furnish any solid evidence. After 9/11 when the USA attacked Afghanistan ,US leaders and key military commanders were making history. They had a certain plan in mind. The stated objectives of these plan were the elimination of Al Qaeda. The unstated objective was the denuclearization of Pakistan. This scribe has continuously held this position, held consistently, in articles published in Nation from September 2001,all through 2002,2003,2004,2005 and till 2009. The US strategic plan followed the following distinct phases *An initial maneuver occupying Afghanistan in 2001. *Establishing and consolidating US military bases near the Afghan Pakistan border. Most prominent being the Khost, Jalalabad, Sharan and Kunar US bases. Some military bases like Dasht I Margo in Nimroz and three other bases in Kandahar, Badakhshan and Logar were so secret that their construction was not even advertised. Even in the case of sensitive areas the contracts were awarded to
the US Government owned Shaw Inc and the CIA proxy operated Dyncorps Corporation. Patriotic Afghans trained in the USSR were removed from Afghan Intelligence because they would not agree to be a party to USA's dirty game in between 2001 and 2007. Similarly many patriotic Afghan officers trained in USSR were removed from the Afghan military establishment. * Cultivating various tribes in ethnic groups on the Pakistan Afghan border by awarding them lucrative construction and logistic sub contracts. * Forcing the Pakistani military to act against the FATA tribes thus destabilizing Pakistan's North West area close to the strategic heartland of PeshawarIslamabad-Lahore where Pakistan's political and military nucleus is located. * Creating a situation where mysterious insurgencies erupted in various parts of Pakistan including FATA, Swat and Baluchistan. * Carrying forward urban terrorism into Punjab through various proxies. Now it appears that the strategic plan is entering its final stage of launching a strategic coup de grace to Pakistan. These may be assessed as following * A US military buildup in Afghanistan and the launching of an offensive against Taliban, with an aim of pushing them into Pakistan. * Simultaneously pressuring the Pakistan Army into launching an operation in Waziristan. Thus Pakistan´s Army gets severely bogged down and hundreds of thousands of refugees enter Pakistan's NWFP and Baluchistan provinces. Infiltrators and fifth columnists being a heavy promiscuous mixture of this movement. * Since 2001 the USA has spent a great fortune collecting information on Pakistan's strategic nuclear assets. It appears that in 2009 it has sufficient data to launch a covert operation. The covert nuclear operation could have a civilian and a military part. The civilian part may involve an attack on Pakistan's non-military nuclear reactors like Chashma and KANUPP. The military covert operation could involve an attack on any of Pakistan's strategic nuclear groups anywhere in Pakistan.
Once this type of attack is done the USA with its NATO lackeys like Britain, France and Germany would go the UN and maneuver an international resolution, demanding the denuclearization of Pakistan. The international opinion may be so strong that Pakistan's government may capitulate. * Once Pakistan is denuclearized, the USA would encourage Pakistan's Balkanization into a Baloch US satellite, a city-state of MQM in Karachi, a Pashtunistan badly bombed and in tatters and a Punjab stripped of nuclear potential, kicked and bullied by India. A Northern Area republic which is an US lackey unless China decides to call the US bluff by occupying the Northern Area. CL. At closing, I remember that you stated, that international law was irrelevant because nothing had changed since the time of Alexander the Great. I agree that for instance the International Criminal Court has more to do with victor's justice than with international law. We see over the last decade a serious explosion of international law at its very root. The Geneva Conventions are circumvented by creating artificial constructs such as unlawful combatant, enhanced interrogation methods, the use of "contractors", as if they were workers to build public schools and hospitals, being deployed to maintain military tasks. Extraordinary rendition, just to mention a few of the most obvious problems. As a man of military education, which risks do you see in the deterioration of international law ? AHA. We are heading towards an international new order where the power of the state will be totally in hands of a corrupt mafia, who will usurp all human rights on pretext of controlling terrorism. This would result in grand strategic anarchy and even the US will Balkanize. The boomerang will come back and as they say the wheel turns ! Interview with Maj. Agha H. Amin by Christof Lehmann
Posted by Naxal Watch at 6:16 PM
The Development of Taliban Factions in Afghanistan and P
akis tan: A Geographical Account, February 2010 Amin, Agha , Osinski, David J. , & DeGeorges, Paul Andre http://mellenpress.com/mellenpress.cfm?bookid=8028&pc=9
BOOKS ON PAKISTAN REVIEWED-AMAZON UK http://www.amazon.co.uk/Books-Pakistan-Reviewed-AghaHumayun/dp/1480086193/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354666967&sr=1-1
Click to open expanded view
Search inside this book
Yes, I want FREE Two-Day Shipping with Amazon Prime or
Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering
More Buying Choices Have one to sell? Sell yours here
Atlas of 1857-59 WAR [Paperback]
Agha Humayun Amin (Author)
Be the first to review this item
Price:$19.99 & FREE Shipping on orders over $25. Details
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available. Want it Thursday, May 9? Order within 14 hrs 7 mins and chooseOne-Day Shipping at checkout. Details
Save on Popular Books This Summer Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more.
Publication Date: April 18, 2013
ATLAS OF 1857-59 WAR Product Details
• • • • •
Paperback: 36 pages
Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (April 18, 2013) Language: English ISBN-10: 1484155297 ISBN-13: 978-1484155295
Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 0.1 inches Shipping Weight: 3.7 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
Military Leadership http://www.amazon.com/Military-Leadership-Decision-MakingHumayun/dp/1480086649/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354667524&sr=1-4
Taliban war in Afghanistan http://www.amazon.com/Taliban-Afghanistan--Writers-TransformedPerceptions/dp/1480085863/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354667721&sr=15
Atlas and History of Wars http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Military-History-IndiaPakistan/dp/1480102016/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354667783&sr=1-7
THE ESSENTIAL CLAUSEWITZ http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Clausewitz-Agha-HumayunAmin/dp/1480199826/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354667218&sr=11&keywords=AGHA+HUMAYUN+AMIN
USA,ISI,AL QAEDA and TALIBAN-Setting Straight Bruce Riedels Strategic Narrative http://www.amazon.com/TALIBAN-Setting-Straight-Riedels-StrategicNarrative/dp/1481007645/ref=sr_1_17?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354667320&sr=117
1971 War http://www.amazon.com/Pakistan-Army-1971-Indiaafter/dp/1480109770/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354667962&sr=1-8
Mans Role in History http://www.amazon.com/Mans-Role-History-AghaHumayun/dp/1480233536/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354667993&sr=1-9
How a private English Company conquered a sub continent http://www.amazon.com/English-East-India-CompanyConquered/dp/1480234834/ref=sr_1_10? s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354668028&sr=1-10
Atlas of a great tank battle http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Battle-Chawinda-AghaHumayun/dp/1480242284/ref=sr_1_11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354668289&sr=111
Atlas of a bloody Indian Pakistan battle http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Battle-Chamb-1971Humayun/dp/1480247529/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354668583&sr=112
A forgotten and Bloody British Failure http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Battle-Chillianwallah-13-January1849/dp/1480253081/ref=sr_1_13?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354668621&sr=1-13
The Pakistani Tank Divisions Failure in 1965 http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Battles-Assal-Uttar-Lahore1965/dp/1480253634/ref=sr_1_14?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354668655&sr=1-14
Second World Wars Forgotten History http://www.amazon.com/Indian-Army-Second-WorldWar/dp/1480269107/ref=sr_1_15?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354668691&sr=1-15
How Indian Army saved France and Suez Canal http://www.amazon.com/Indian-Army-First-World-War/dp/1480274488/ref=sr_1_16? s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354668753&sr=1-16
Sepoy Rebellion of 1857-59 Reinterpreted http://www.amazon.com/Sepoy-Rebellion-1857-59-ReinterpretedHumayun/dp/1480085707/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354667451&sr=1-2
Pakistan Army through eyes of Pakistani Generals http://www.amazon.com/Pakistan-Army-through-PakistaniGenerals/dp/1480085960/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354667488&sr=1-3
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.