b1

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Pakistan MEMO Scandal


Pakistan's U.S. envoy resigns over memo scandal

ISLAMABAD (AP) – Pakistan's envoy to Washington lost a battle with the country's powerful generals to keep his job Tuesday over allegations he wrote a memo seeking U.S.help in stopping a supposed coup in the aftermath of the American raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
The resignation of Hussain Haqqani highlighted tensions between the country's nominal civilian government and the army, which has ruled Pakistan for most of its history.
Haqqani, a key ally of President Asif Ali Zardari, was well regarded by Obama administration officials in Washington, where many lawmakers view Pakistan with suspicion if not hostility.
Although Haqqani said he hoped his stepping down would end the scandal — which Pakistanis have called "memogate" — speculation remained over whether it could yet engulf Zardari. The unpopular leader has faced questions over whether he also knew about the mysterious memo, which right-wing, pro-army media outlets have described as treasonous.
Haqqani said he stood by earlier denials he had nothing to do with the letter, which was sent soon after the bin Laden raid to then-U.S. military chief Adm. Mike Mullen. The envoy and his supporters have alleged the memo was a hoax cooked up by the military establishment to get rid of him and weaken the Zardari government and democratic institutions — explosive charges in a country that has seen at least three military coups.
The memo was made public last week by a Pakistani American businessman who claimed to have received it from Haqqani and, following his instructions, passed it to Mullen through an intermediary. He claimed that Haqqani assured him that Zardari had approved the memo.
The Pakistani government initially denied the existence of the memo, as did Mullen's spokesman. But later the spokesman said Mullen had received it but considered it unreliable and ignored it.
The memo accuses army chief Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani of plotting to bring down the government in the aftermath of the bin Laden raid, which most Pakistanis considered a humiliating violation of their sovereignty by U.S. Navy SEALs. It asks Mullen for his "direct intervention" with Kayani to prevent a coup.
In return, it promises help in installing a "new security team" in Islamabad that would be friendly to Washington. It also mentions policies likely to please the Obama administration but certain to enrage the army, which sets foreign policy and views itself as the sole protector of the country's sovereignty.
The memo promises the government will allow the U.S. to propose names of officials to investigate how bin Laden was able to live undetected in an army town not far from Pakistan's version of West Point, facilitate American attempts to target militants like al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahri and Afghan Taliban chief Mullah Omar, and allow the U.S. greater oversight of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
Haqqani, who offered to resign last week when the scandal broke, returned to Pakistan over the weekend to face questioning by the army and the intelligence chiefs. He told close associates he would resign if his tenure became too much of a drag on the civilian government, but was fighting to the end to keep his job.
"I have resigned to bring closure to this meaningless controversy threatening our fledgling democracy," he said in a statement. "It was an artificial crisis over an insignificant memo written by a self-centered businessman."
A statement from the prime minister's office said an investigation into the memogate scandal would be conducted "at an appropriate level" and "carried out fairly, objectively and without bias."
The businessman who allegedly received the memo from Haqqani, Mansoor Ijaz, has led a high-profile media campaign attacking the ambassador. He said Sunday that Lt. Gen. Shuja Pasha, the head of Pakistan's main intelligence agency, flew to London to meet with him last month. Ijaz said he provided Pasha with Blackberry and computer records pertaining to the memo and implicating Haqqani. Both the memo and the Blackberry records were leaked to the media.
The conversations show Haqqani allegedly discussing the wording of the memo with Ijaz and telling him to go ahead.
"Ball is in play now. Make sure you have protected your flanks," Ijaz allegedly tells Haqqani after handing over the memo.
Ijaz has a history of making claims to be well connected with U.S. politicians. Under the Clinton administration, he said U.S. officials told him Sudan was willing to turn over then-fugitive bin Laden, who was taking refuge there. Ijaz said Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger rejected the deal because he was unwilling to do business with Sudan — a claim that Berger immediately denied.
It was not immediately known who would replace Haqqani, who has no family connection to the Haqqani militant network that is carrying out high-profile bombings in the Afghan capital, Kabul. Of particular importance will be whether the next ambassador is perceived to answer to the government or to the army.
U.S. deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said Tuesday that Haqqani "has been a very close partner, of course, of the United States and we've appreciated the work we have done with him. But at the same time, we are sure that we'll be able to work with whoever the next Pakistani ambassador is as well."
The diplomatic post is a crucial one for both nations. Washington wants to work with Pakistan to defeat al-Qaida and negotiate a way out of the Afghan war. Islamabad relies on U.S. aid and diplomatic support.
Relations between the two countries have soured badly over the last year, especially over the bin Laden raid, which the U.S. carried out without informing Pakistan in advance. With many American lawmakers calling for an end to U.S. aid, Haqqani was outspoken in support of continued engagement.
When Mullen blamed Pakistan for aiding the Haqqani militant network after its spectacular attack against the U.S. embassy in Kabul over the summer, the ambassador went into overdrive, working the phones and persuading U.S. officials to meet him at his office, or at the Army Navy Club near the White House— discreet conversations that helped keep some forms of military cooperation moving forward.
Haqqani is also a visiting scholar at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington and an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Md. He is the author of a respected book on the army and Islam in Pakistan, in which he argues against a military role in the country.
"He was an extremely effective interlocutor," said Shuja Nawaz, the director of the South Asia Center at the U.S.-based Atlantic Council. "It will be difficult to find someone with his ability to translate difficult situations into a workable relationship."
Christine Fair, assistant professor at Georgetown University, said she didn't expect the resignation would lead to a further downturn in U.S.-Pakistan ties, noting that both countries were continuing with cooperation on targeting al-Qaida and on drone strikes in the Afghan border area.
"So we're still getting from them what we need in terms of a bare minimum," Fair said. "It would be surprising if a new ambassador would try to sabotage that … but you can't rule it out."

Monday, April 25, 2011

Afghan Prison Break: Will It Hurt U.S. Strategy?


Afghan Prison Break: Will It Hurt U.S. Strategy?

Click here to find out more!
An Afghan policemen takes a look at the opening of tunnel at the main prison in Kandahar, Afghanistan which prisoners escaped through on Monday, April 25, 2011.
Allauddin Khan / AP
The Taliban executed a daring prison break in Kandahar early Monday morning, April 25, when at least 476 political prisoners and 125 other inmates escaped through a 1,050-ft.-long (320 m) tunnel, U.S. Army sources based in the Arghandab River Valley, just north of the restive city, tell TIME. The escape threatens security gains made over the winter and comes just weeks before the start of the traditional spring fighting season. Indeed, 60 of the escapees are believed to be from Arghandab, a battle zone key to securing Kandahar and its environs. The Arghandab prisoners were captured during intense fighting last summer and were jailed for carrying out attacks and ambushes, placing improvised explosive devices (IEDs), harboring and supplying Taliban fighters and caching explosives and weapons. The U.S. military considers them a radical and violent element.
U.S. Army combat outposts across the Arghandab River Valley, which borders the northern edge of Kandahar, have been on high alert since early morning. Most of the outposts were emptied of men and vehicles as they set up blocking positions throughout the Arghandab district and on the edge of Kandahar in an effort to contain the escapees. "The Arghandab is a natural hideout spot," says a soldier who is closely monitoring the situation. The valley — with its dense cover of lush pomegranate orchards, maze of supply trails and system of safe houses and support networks — is a historical Taliban stronghold and natural infiltration point into and out of the city.(See "Wings of Mercy: Medevac in Afghanistan.")
"We have a major situation on our hands," says another American soldier. "We're out there photographing everyone as they walk by to match them to our database. If they're a match, we'll grab them. Basically there's an order out to arrest anyone walking around barefoot in Kandahar city" — since none of the prisoners had shoes when they escaped through the tunnel.
The prison is near the edge of Kandahar. It is a shabby facility even though a huge amount of money has been spent on it to prevent escapes or assaults by the Taliban to liberate prisoners. When prison guards finally figured out what was going on Monday, they raided the house that the tunnel led to and found explosive vests and ammunition, according to Afghan news agencies.
"The enemy dug a tunnel from a house to the jail, and at 4:30 a.m., we heard that some prisoners had escaped," Kandahar Governor Toryalai Wesa said at press conference. "A tunnel like this can't be dug up in a week or a month — the Taliban worked on it for many months."
The Taliban took responsibility for the jailbreak. Group spokesman Yousuf Ahmadi said that 106 of the escapees were Taliban commanders. "The digging of the underground tunnel was completed last night," Ahmadi declared. "Imprisoned insurgents were helped by three inmates, who were informed prior to the jailbreak. The process took more than four hours to complete. They started getting out of the prison at 11:00 p.m. last night, and by early morning today, 541 prisoners escaped the prison. They have all made it safe to our centers, and there was no fighting."(See "Afghanistan: Inside the Battle for Hearts and Minds.")
Wesa said at the press conference, "Some of the escaped prisoners have been recaptured by the security forces during search operations, and huge operations have been launched inside and on the outskirts of Kandahar city for the rest of them." He confessed, however, that the security forces had "failed in their duty."
There is suspicion among the U.S. military and local experts that the escape was an inside job. "There is no way such a large escape could have been pulled off without anyone noticing," says a soldier monitoring the situation. The International Crisis Group said in November that the Afghan justice system was "in a catastrophic state of disrepair" and that most Afghans see it as the most corrupt of the national institutions.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2067329,00.html#ixzz1Kbn6d24t

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Obama reframes debate for budget fight — and 2012


Obama reframes debate for budget fight — and 2012

After speech Obama, Republicans face budget battleReuters – U.S. President Barack Obama makes a point during his State of the Union address to a joint session of …
By JANE SASSEEN
Yahoo! New
"We do big things."
It was the closing theme of President Obama's State of the Union speech — an idea meant to serve as both a reminder of the enterprising spirit that has long propelled America through tough times as well as an optimistic assurance that the country is up to the enormous challenges it now faces.

It's also a pretty good summary of what the president himself was up to as he spoke to the nation on Tuesday night.
The speech came at a critical juncture in his presidency. He has begun to recover from the depths of voter dissatisfaction he hit last fall, but he faces a newly empowered GOP determined to stop many of his initiatives as the 2012 campaign gets underway.
With both sides jockeying for leverage ahead of what promises to be brutal battle over the budget and government spending, the president had one over-arching goal as he took the podium: to convince a still-skeptical public that he has a strong plan to spur job growth and the economy, all while seeking to reframe the debate away from one narrowly focused on reducing the deficit and towards the need to invest in the future and maintain America's competitive strength.
"It's a hard speech," says James Thurber, a presidential historian at the American University.
Of course, the president touched on other areas in the nearly hour-long speech before a crowd that included Daniel Hernandez, the intern who helped save the life of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, and the family of Christina Taylor Green, the 9-year-old who was killed in the Tucson shootings. Obama pledged to begin removing U.S. troops from Afghanistan by July, and to finish the job of bringing them home from Iraq. He promised a plan to consolidate and reorganize the federal government to make it more efficient.
He also delivered another brief tribute to the victims and heroes of the rampage. As he did in Tucson, he turned that tragic experience into a jumping off point for a broader meditation on the need for a return to dialogue and a sense of common purpose in American politics. And he pointedly noted that Republicans, having been handed a greater role in governing by the American people in last November's election, now share the responsibility for resolving the country's problems.
"New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans," he said. "We will move forward together, or not at all — for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics."
But whatever else earned brief mention, jobs and the economy were at the core of the evening. Perhaps more than any other speech in his presidency, it also marked the return of the impassioned, visionary Obama of the campaign trail — the one who has rarely been seen since. In it, he set the terms of debate not just for the battle to come in the next several months over the 2011 budget, but for the debate that will lie at the heart of 2012 presidential campaign.
The important question is not just how much the government spends, the president told the nation, but what do we want the government to do. Yes, we must cut government spending. But contrary to the arguments laid out by Rep. Paul Ryan and Rep Michelle Bachmann in the GOP rebuttals that followed, he argued that spending cuts alone will never lead to prosperity. Instead, he made an insistent plea that America must continue to invest in the future, through education, infrastructure and research, if it is to sustain the American dream.
"At stake is whether new jobs and industries take root in this country, or somewhere else," the president said. And if there were any doubts about the centrality of those goals to the vision he laid out to retain American prosperity, he added later: "This is our generation's Sputnik moment."
Did it work? Certainly many of his allies were happy with the president's approach and the vigor with which he pushed back against congressional pressure to simply whack spending.
"He helped give people a sense that the world is very different," says Andy Stern, the former head of the Service Employees International Union, who has been a close advisor to the president. But he also worries that there is still little effort to more immediately address unemployment. "He laid out a cogent vision for the future, but the country is still lacking a national plan to get people back to work quickly."
Others saw a different problem with the agenda the president laid out. Whatever the merits of the investment ideas, they are an expense the country cannot afford at this point argues Brian Darling, the head of government relations for the conservative Heritage Foundation. "His proposals are very expensive; he's rolling out a laundry list of new spending items at a time when people want cuts," Darling says. "That will be a big pressure point."
No doubt, but the president also sought to reclaim the high ground on the deficit. He and his party have been pummeled over the past year by the perception that they have been spendthrifts who let Uncle Sam run amok with red ink. Jim Kessler, the vice president for policy at the Third Way, a centrist think tank, points out that that view was particularly strong among independent voters Obama had won over in 2008 but who abandoned the Democrats in 2010. To win them back, the president needs to begin making the case that he is serious about restoring fiscal discipline now that the worst of the recession is over.
To do so, he pledged to freeze domestic spending over the next five years, and made clear that the defense budget cannot be exempt from the painful pruning ahead. He also acknowledged the need to rein in the costs of entitlements programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, though without any specifics. "He put a strong marker in ground that reducing deficit is critical to growth," says Kessler.
But will that be enough? Others aren't convinced that he's gone far enough. "Republicans aren't looking for a freeze, they want out-and-out cuts," says Greg Valliere, an analyst for the Potomac Research Group. "That's not going to fly." And he points out that simply acknowledging the need to address Social Security, without suggesting how, will cause many deficit hawks to question whether the president is really serious.
Perhaps the biggest question of the night, however, is whether the speech will add to the president's newfound political momentum. Following his ability to find compromise with Republicans on taxes and other issues in December, and his eloquent eulogy in Tucson, the president's approval ratings are above 50 percent for the first time since late spring. Even opponents agree that this speech is likely to give him a further boost.
"This will help the president today; he's come out with a strong message," says Darling. "But it's like a sugar high. The problem will be come several months down the road when people realize he can't accomplish all that he's promised."
Ultimately, however, it is just a speech. However good it may have been, and whatever bump it gives him, it will only do so much. It's the underlying performance of the economy that will matter come 2012.
"An awful lot now will depend on the economy. If it continues to improve, we could see growth of 3.5 percent or maybe even 4 percent return," says Valliere. "If that comes true, Obama's standing will rise further — but only if unemployment really starts to come down as well."
Jane Sasseen is the editor-in-chief of politics and opinion at Yahoo! News.

Imran Khan and the Current economic & political situation of Pakistan

 Apparently Pakistan's economy is sliding down - two of the most hit sectors are textile and automobiles, one is struggling to export Pa...