India’s Bleak Future in Afghanistan

By Sajjad Shaukat

The United States which signed an agreement of strategic partnership with Afghanistan, has finally decided to keep around 10,000 troops and six military bases in that country permanently after the withdrawal of NATO forces in 2014. In fact, America wants to fulfill multiple strategic designs by controlling the energy resources of Central Asia, and weakening Pakistan, China, Iran and Russia.

Besides, US has also planned to maintain Indian role in Afghanistan to complete its hidden agenda. In this regard, US Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta said on October 26, this year, that India has vital role to play in Afghanistan and it will be helpful for peace and stability in the region, adding, Our new defence policy hinges upon this strategy.

During his trip to India and Kabul in June, 2012, by reviving old blame game, Leon Panetta stated that drone attacks would continue on safe havens of terrorists in Pakistan, while accusing Pakistan-based Haqqani network for some of the deadliest attacks in Afghanistan. At the same time, he encouraged India to take a more active role in Afghanistan as most foreign combat troops leave in 2014.

However, India which has already invested billion of dollars in Afghanistan, signed a wide-ranging strategic agreement with that country on October 5, 2011 also includes to help train Afghan security forces, while assisting Kabul in diversified projects. The deal will guarantee Afghanistans security after the withdrawal of foreign troops. Apparently, it is open strategic agreement, but secretly, India seeks to further strengthen its grip in Afghanistan to get strategic depth against Islamabad.

Besides, New Delhi with the cooperation of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and with the tactical support of US and Israel has been obtaining its clandestine aims. In this respect, Indian RAW with the assistance of American CIA and Israeli Mossad has well-established its espionage network in Afghanistan. Besides, a religious Madrassa of Wakhan, located in Afghanistan is functioning under the patronage of Indian officials. It is being used for brainwashing of very young boys who are Afghans and so-called Indian Muslims. Posing themselves as Taliban, they have joined the ranks and files of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and other banned extremist outfits. In this context, Indias several secret training camps are also present in Afghanistan from where highly trained militants, equipped with sophisticated weapons are being sent to Pakistans various places to conduct target killings, bomb blasts, suicide attacks, assaults on civil and military installations including ethnic and sectarian violence regularly.

These foreign entities have perennially been arranging similar subversive acts in Balochistan through their affiliated militant groups such as Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), Jundollah (Gods soldiers) and other Baloch separatist elements. Especially, RAW is also supporting insurgency in the Tibetan regions of China. The main purpose of these agencies is to achieve collective goals of the US, India and Israel by dismembering Pakistan, Iran and China.

New Delhi has not only increased its military troops in Afghanistan, but has also decided to set up cantonments. In this respect, puppet regime of Karzai encouraged India to use the Border Roads Organisation in constructing the ring roads.

Since the US-led NATO forces occupied Afghanistan, stiff resistance of the Taliban militants which created unending lawlessness in the country has made it a most conducive place for India to avail the opportunity to fulfill its nefarious designs.

In this regard, on October 6, 2012, Pakistans Chief of Army Staff, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani issued a warning to Afghanistan to stop cross-border incursions in Pakistan. While former Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani disclosed, Certain forces are at work to destabilise Afghanistan and Karzai should not play in their hands.

Notably, regarding Indian activities in Afghanistan, the then NATO commander, Gen. McChrystal had pointed out: Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistanis likely to exacerbate regional tensions.

It is US double game with Pakistan that on the one hand, its high officials realise that without Islamabads help, stability cannot be achieved in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of NATO troops. They are also getting Pakistans assistance for a peace deal between the Afghan government and the Taliban insurgents. On the other hand, they prefer New Delhi at the cost of Islamabad, while continuing their blame game against the latter for safe havens of insurgents and cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, US new ambassador to Pakistan, Richard Olsen stated on October 25, Pakistan is playing important role in the region, and both the countries are working to broaden and deepen their ties. Recently US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed similar views.

Nevertheless, taking note of Indias subversive role in Afghanistan, recently, US Republican Senator John McCain reminded the Obama administration that encouraging India to take a more active role in Afghanistan, while simultaneously criticising Pakistan could be a recipe for disaster.

But American President Barrack Obama is determined to maintain US military presence in Afghanistan after 2014. Thus, America not only seeks to obtain its strategic goals, but also to protect Indian influence in Afghanistan.

Here question arises that if well-trained NATO forces, equipped with sophisticated weaponry have failed in coping with the Afghan militants in eleven years as to how American small contingency will succeed in this respect. So, perennial terror-attacks by the Taliban warriors on the US forces and bases will fail American objectives in the post-2014 scenario. Karzai regime will fall like a house of cards. Even New Delhi which has been assisting the Northern Alliance against the Afghan militants will not be in a position to maintain its network due to successful guerrilla warfare of the Taliban.

Moreover, political experts argue that there are less chances of the success of peace deal with the Afghan Taliban who are now in better position of fighting, and the war-torn Afghanistan will be thrown in an era of uncertainty and civil war after the foreign troops leave. And all the efforts of the US-led NATO and other western countries for a stable Afghanistan will prove fruitless. Pakistan will also not be in a position to help in bringing peace and stability in Afghanistan. In that drastic situation, India will have to roll back its map from Afghanistan. Therefore, India has bleak future in Afghanistan.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations.


Waza hopes Obama may play role in Kashmir settlement

Srinagar, MTT News Desk: Senior Hurriyat leader and Jammu Kashmir Peoples League Chairman, Mukhtar Ahmad waza today hoped that President Barack Obama, who today got its second chance by winning the presidential election in America, may play his important role in settling the 65 years old Kashmir dispute according to Wishes and aspirations of Kashmiri people.

Mukhtar waza in a Press Statement hoped that President Barack Obamas intervention in the Kashmir dispute can prove fruitful for the political and economical stability of South Asia as well as for whole world.

Waza said, Kashmir being a issue between three nuclear powers of the world i,e India, Pakistan and China has endangered the peaceful atmosphere in South Asian region. On Kashmir issue trio countries have fought several wars resulted bloodshed and wastage of money etc.

He said that world P5 powers like, America, Russia, France, China and Bartania, G8 and others are well known about the fact the India has illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir and to got freedom from Indian bondage Kashmiri innocent people are fighting peacefully from last 65 years.

He said that the during this period of time Indian and its security forces got involved in serious and worst kind of Human rights violations and people of Kashmir was subjected to worst kind of torchers that led to custodial killings, rapes and molestation, brutal killings, hundreds and thousands of people were killed by security agencies on the name counter insurgency, one generation of the Kashmir got affected by one or the other means due to the illegal occupation of India and the last 65 years have left thousands kids as orphans and more than that women as widow.

He expressed concern over the fact that the international community is only concerned about the economic interests in the world than humanity. He appealed international community to sideline the economic interests and gave priority to those issues who are connected with Humanity and said that Kashmir dispute important humanitarian Issue that needs intervention of international community.

He also appealed civil intelligentsia of India and Pakistan to come forward and play its role in resolving the dispute so that peace prevails in both countries as well as in whole South Asian region. He maintained that the civil intelligentsia of both the countries can draw a peaceful line by which Kashmir Issue can be resolved.

Obama administration is attacking journalists in USA

Written by Dan Froomkin for Nieman Watchdog: It’s a particularly challenging time for American national security reporting, with the press and public increasingly in the dark about important defense, intelligence and counterterrorism issues.

The post-post-9/11 period finds the U.S. aggressively experimenting with two new highly disruptive forms of combatdrone strikes and cyberattacksfor which our leaders appear to be making up the rules, in secret, as they go along.

Troubling legal and moral issues left behind by the previous administration remain unresolved. Far from reversing the Bush-Cheney executive power grab, President Barack Obama is taking it to new extremes by unilaterally approving indefinite detention of foreign prisoners and covert targeted killings of terror suspects, even when they are American citizens.

There is little to none of the judicial and legislative oversight Obama had promised, so the executive branch’s most controversial methods of violence and control remain solely in the hands of the presidentpossibly about to be passed along to a leader with less restraint.

More than a decade after it started, we still have no clue how much the government is listening in on us or reading our e-mail, despite the obvious Fourth Amendment issues.

And the government’s response to this unprecedented secrecy is a war on leaks.

No Help From High Places

After past periods of executive excess, the Fourth Estate was certainly more robust and arguably more persistent, but it also found natural allies in the other branches of governmentparticularly Congress. By contrast, over the summer of 2012, the publication of a minimal amount of new information regarding drones, cyberwarfare and targeted killings incited bipartisan agreement on Capitol Hillnot to conduct hearings into what had been revealed, but to demand criminal investigations into the leaking.

That’s how Congress has been ever since the terrorist attacks 11 years ago. “We never got our post 9/11 Church Committee,” said Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists’s Project on Government Secrecy, referring to a special investigative Senate committee that held hearings on widespread intelligence abuses after the Watergate scandal. “What we’ve got instead is the intelligence oversight committee drafting legislation to penalize leaks.”

In the interim, the White House has been plenty busy using the draconian Espionage Act of 1917 to pursue leakers. Despite his talk about openness, Obama has taken the unprecedented step of filing espionage charges against six officials accused of leaking information to journalistsmore than all previous administrations combined.

And James R. Clapper, Jr., the director of national intelligence, recently directed that employees under his command be hooked up to lie detectors and questioned about their contacts with journalists and about unauthorized leaks to the media.

Whatever restraint existed inside the executive branch seems to have been overwhelmed by a national security apparatus that has swollen to enormous proportions since 9/11. “There has been no similar strengthening of bureaucracy protecting civil liberties and transparency,” noted New Yorker writer Jane Mayer. “When the national security community is militating for leak investigations, there is much less pushback than pre-9/11.”

Abramson’s Concern

Mainstream media leaders are critical of the government’s aggressive posture, which they see as threatening First Amendment rights. At the annual conference of Investigative Reporters and Editors in June, New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson made the case that the very leaks that seemed to inflame officials the most were also the most essential.

“Cyberwarfare is a new battlefield, where there are no agreements regulating the use of malware viruses,” she said. “So doesn’t the public need the information to evaluate this new kind of battle, especially when it’s waged in its name? Furthermore, when the existence of drone and cyber attacks are widely known but officially classified, informed public discussion of critical questions is really stifled.”

There are in fact so many obvious, unanswered questions about both of these new weapons of warfare, most notably: What happens when other people use them on us, saying we set the precedent for their use? In the case of drones, does their use require a declaration of war or at least an authorization of the use of force? And how many civilians are they killing?

Abramson warned that “the chilling effect of leak prosecutions threatens to rob the public of vital information,” as sources fear legal retribution and reporters fear being subpoenaed and possibly even prosecuted themselves.

“Several reporters who have covered national security in Washington for decades tell me that the environment has never been tougher or information harder to dislodge,” Abramson said. “One Times reporter told me the environment in Washington has never been more hostile to reporting.”

The Drake Effect

One of the Obama administration’s early attempts to prosecute whistleblowers for espionage ended in defeat and disgrace. Prosecutors had filed 10 felony charges against Thomas Drake, a National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower who allegedly provided classified information about mismanagement at the NSA to a Baltimore Sun reporter. But days before the trial was to start, the government dropped the charges and settled for Drake pleading guilty to a misdemeanor. The judge called Drake’s four-year persecution by the government “unconscionable” and said that it goes against “the very root of what this country was founded on against general warrants of the British.”

But Aftergood said the Drake case had a profound effect on the intelligence community nonetheless. “I think there’s a new level of paranoia within government about unauthorized contacts with the press,” he said. “In every significant sense, the government won, because it demonstrated the price of nonconformity.”

Drake agreed. “It was very clear that they wanted to send the most chilling of messages, and that chilling message has been received,” he said. Among former colleagues, Drake said, “there are those who will not talk to reportersand we’re not even talking leaking, we’re just talking talking.”

Ron Suskind, one of a handful of journalists who did exceptional national security reporting during the Bush eraparticularly in his 2006 book “The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America’s Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11″argues that the government’s strategies to prevent leaking have suddenly become much more aggressive and effective. “It’s making it more difficult to get that information the public truly needs to know,” he said.

The increased dependence on e-mail and the government’s enhanced surveillance abilities are also a factor, Suskind said. “In the old days, you could call someone up on their kitchen phone. You were pretty much OK unless [FBI director J. Edgar] Hoover knew which line to tap. Now you have to be extra careful.”

And Suskind said that the fear of getting caught is now heightened because so many intelligence officials are counting on entering the hugely lucrative world of intelligence contracting once they leave public service.

Before 9/11, the private intelligence/national security complex just “didn’t have that kind of money,” Suskind said. But now, it provides “the soft cushion that awaits almost every official inside government with a security clearance.”

The Government View

Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd rejected the media narrative of a government assault on the press. “The media obviously is an interested partyor a biased partyin these matters,” he said.

“Whenever the Justice Department conducts an investigation relating to leaks of classified information to the media, it seeks to strike the proper balance between the important function of the press and law enforcement and national security imperatives,” Boyd said.

But, he insisted: “When classified information is improperly disclosed to the media by a person who has no authority to disclose it, that’s illegal.”

Boyd also denied that whistleblowers are being targeted. “On some of the cases, it’s clear that the officials that we’ve accused are not blowing the whistle on anything,” he said.

The six people the Obama administration has charged under the Espionage Act are Drake, who was definitely a whistleblower; Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army private accused of leaking thousands of documents to the website Wikileaks; John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer who spoke out about torture and is charged with allegedly disclosing the names of CIA officers and their role in interrogations to reporters; Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA officer charged with leaking information about a botched plot against the Iranian government to The New York Times; Stephen Kim, a former U.S. State Department foreign policy analyst charged with disclosing information about North Korea’s nuclear program to a Fox News reporter; and Shamai Leibowitz, a former FBI linguist convicted in May 2010 of disclosing wiretaps of the Israeli Embassy in Washington to a blogger.

Fighting Secrecy

What’s as dangerous as the dearth of “unauthorized” leaks is the prevalence of the “authorized” kind. During the Bush years in particular, highly selective leaks from the vice president’s office regularly spread consequential and misleading national security information, through the conduit of devoted reporters.

After vice presidential aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice related to the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity as a covert CIA operative, Mark Feldstein, a journalism professor at George Washington University, told the New York Times that the journalists involved were “not fearless advocates but supplicants, willing and even eager to be manipulated.”

Suskind said he thinks there need to be more reporters on the national security beat. “We are having trouble mustering the muscle, the bodies, to get the goods,” he said.

And they need to be tougher. Walter Pincus, the veteran national security reporter at The Washington Post, said modern news organizations are so eager to be seen as evenhanded that crusading journalism is frowned upon. “The industry has been mau-maued,” Pincus concluded. “We’ve been neutered.”

In the Spring 2008 issue of Nieman Reports, investigative reporter Ted Gup suggested that news organizations dedicate a beat to secrecy. Now, in order to create a cycle of repeated disclosures and sustained public interest in drones and cyberwarfare, perhaps reporters should be put on that beat full time.

Suskind said there would be a payoff from major national security revelations beyond the obvious public service. “The big disclosures still drive the global news cycle,” he said. And if news organizations are trying to differentiate themselves in the new media climate, well, “this is the way they get to prove their case that they’re still valuable that they’re indispensable.”

Dan Froomkin, who previously was deputy editor for, writes about watchdog journalism for Nieman Reports. He is senior Washington correspondent for The Huffington Post.

(Thomas Drake, a former National Security Agency executive, is one of six people the Obama administration charged under the Espionage Act. Photo by Timothy Jacobsen/The Associated Press.)

US New Strategy – An Analysis

Finally, the much awaited Afghan Strategy was unfurled by President Obama in a speech delivered at the United States Military Academy on 1st December 2009. In the back drop of former President George Bush’s call to arms post 9/11, Obama’s wartime address sounded like an endgame rather than a striking escalation of the US presence in Afghanistan. As expected, a surge in American Forces up to 30000 in the vital interest of the United States was announced by him to augment 68000 troops already deployed in Afghanistan. The speech, a shrewd one though, systematically progressed as the President recalled the factors that led to the present status of war in Afghanistan culminating with the recipes to chart a course for ultimate but honorable exit from Afghanistan. Besides announcing a placement of additional troops the salience of the speech has been the announcements of US intensions to withdraw from Afghanistan in three years time, a sustained ‘light’ presence of US troops’ as a sequel to the withdrawal in line with previous practices in Germany, Japan and Bosnia, reversal of Taliban gains, securing of population centres as they did during the last days of the commencement of withdrawal from Vietnam. The other salience was declared focuses on training Afghans to enable them take over the security affairs, talks with the willing Taliban, putting pressure on Karzai government to deliver and a request to NATO allies for more contributions towards American efforts in Afghanistan. President Obama also talked about Pakistan wherein he categorically mentioned Pakistan’s centrality in his bid to normalize Afghanistan. He went on to say,”….we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect and mutual trust…the Pakistani people must know : America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent,….”

Aritcle source:

Obama’s Conflict-ridden Afghan Plan

According to a recent US Government Accountability Office audit report, nearly 13,000 attacks were recorded in Afghanistan between January and the end of August 2009. There was an average of 100 attacks a day on international forces, Afghan security forces and ordinary civilians, which makes the figure 2.5 times higher this year than that of 2008. During 2005, approximately 2,400 attacks were reported in Afghanistan. The most recent data available, as of August 2009, showed the highest rate of Taliban-initiated attacks making Afghanistan’s security situation worse.  Worth observing is the fact that violence skyrocketed in Afghanistan after the arrival of 21,000 troops reinforcements to stabilize the country in last August. Irrespective of this fact, top US military command Gen. Stanley McChrystal recommended additional placement of 40,000 additional troops to carry out an effective counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan. There are already some 68,000 US troops deployed in Afghanistan, contributing to a coalition force of more than 100,000.  And more surprisingly, President Obama and his war cabinet has agreed to send up to 30,000 fresh troops to Afghanistan without realizing that the insurgency in Afghanistan can be blunted but not defeated outright by force.

Aritcle source:

Pakistan is a target and not a US ally

Either Obama Administration is totally confused or is inept or is purposely behaving wickedly. What is certain is that it is not behaving straight and with honesty of purpose? Lot of hopes were pinned on Obama in the Muslim world that he will undo the wrongs inflicted upon the Muslims by Bush led draconian regime. Instead of getting rid of highly unpopular war in Afghanistan Obama inherited from Bush, he has got tied to it. As against overwhelming support Bush received from Americans to invade and occupy Afghanistan, Obama is confronted with divided opinion. Majority seeks end to war and withdrawal of US troops while shrinking minority want continuation of futile war and are in favour of sending more troops into the inferno of Afghanistan till the accomplishment of unachievable objectives.

Article Source:

India Entraps the US in Afghanistan

Although the US President Obama has announced that he will send an extra 30,000 US troops to fight the war in Afghanistan, yet his revised strategy also includes exit strategy as he has indicated that withdrawal of forces will start in July 2011. In this context, on November 15, US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had already revealed, “We’re not interested in staying in Afghanistan” for a long time.and set a start date for military withdrawal.

Article Source:

Obama to Chain Asian Watchdog (India)

India today is trying to blindly follow the policies of her military Guru Chankiya, where she is frantically driving for fulfillment of her eventual trance of Greater India and emergence of a sole regional power of South East Asia. India has long-standing policies and strategies to make and keep Pakistan as a lame duck and now taking advantage of the current situation she wants to destabilize a sole nuke Muslim power. Perception is there that India in collaborations with USA and Israel is imposing pressure and polices on Pakistan. Manomohan Singh is visiting USA now. Thus, Obama if serious in fighting war against terror has to chain his Asian watchdog (India). He should askIndian Prime Minister to stop interfering in Pakistan’s domestic affairs.

Article source:

%d bloggers like this: