The Great Game | Wikispooks blog

Pakistan: US has Overstayed Welcome

Pakistan, The Great Game Comments Off

May 152011

Amidst drone attacks & bombings, Pakistan threatens to strand US forces in Afghanistan

by Tony Cartalucci – Land Destroyer blog

After a double bombing in Pakistan’s north that resulted in over 80 deaths, the Western media was quick to report an unverified phone-call made from an “undisclosed location” to Reuters and AFP claiming the Taliban was responsible.

Reuters stated, “Now Pakistani rulers, President Zardari and the army will be our first targets. America will be our second target,” Ehsanullah Ehsan, a spokesman for Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), or Taliban Movement of Pakistan, told Reuters by telephone from an undisclosed location.” AFP reported similarly, “This was the first revenge for Osama’s martyrdom. Wait for bigger attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan,” spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan told AFP by telephone from an undisclosed location.” Both Reuthers and AFP never bother explaining who Ehsanullah Ehsan is or verifying their source. Far be it for the corporate-owned media to actually “inform” its audience.

The Mystery Bombing

Ehsanullah Ehsan, the man who supposedly claimed responsibility for the bombings, had been a former Taliban official and had long since left the organization to pursue more constructive efforts for his country’s future. Wikipedia noted this, but was changed overnight, claiming Ehsanullah was now a Taliban spokesman and could potentially take a more “active leadership role.” This all based entirely on a BBC article citing the Reuters “phone-call.”

Wikipedia before May 13, 2011:

Mullah Ehsanullah Ehsan is a former member of the Taliban leadership.^[1] Originally, he was the chairman of the Taliban’s Central Bank. Later, Ehsan was the Taliban’s Administrator of Captured Provinces.^[2]

Shortly after the Taliban took over major Afghan institutions in December 1996, Ehsan, acting as chair of the Central Bank, declared most Afghani notes in circulation to be worthless and cancelled the contract with the Russian firm that had been printing the currency. Ehsan accused the firm of sending new shipments of Afghani notes to ousted president Burhanuddin Rabbani in northern Takhar province.

Ehsanullah’s name appears in the transcripts of several Guantanamo detainees.”

………..

Wikipedia after May 13, 2011:

“Mullah Ehsanullah Ehsan is a current Taliban spokesman^[1] and former member of the Taliban leadership.^[2] Originally, he was the chairman of the Taliban’s Central Bank. Later, Ehsan was the Taliban’s Administrator of Captured Provinces.^[3]

With the recent death of Osama Bin Laden, Ehsanullah Ehasan may once again take a more active leadership role in the Taliban.

Ehsanullah’s name appears in the transcripts of several Guantanamo detainees.”

Besides another tremendous torpedo to Wikipedia’s credibility, the poorly cited entry still doesn’t tell us who Ehsanullah is and where he came from. The only other “Ehsanullah” that can be found online is an Ehsanullah Ehsan who has spent his years after the fall of the Taliban in 2001 building schools and teaching. In a 2009 St. Peterburg Times article titled, “Taliban Gaining Unexpected Grounds in Afghanistan,” Ehsan is described as a “a government official in the Taliban Ministry of Foreign Affairs” who works tirelessly to bring communities together, bridge differences, and solve problems through carefully weighed, culturally sensitive pragmatism. The Toronto Star features an April 2011 piece written by an “Ehsanullah Ehsan” titled, “I can tell you that we are bleeding in our hearts,” in which the school teacher/principal laments that violence and hatred on both sides threaten to undo the work he and his people have done over the years to move his nation forward.

Perhaps Ehsanullah Ehsan is a common name. Perhaps all three are different men. Perhaps Reuters and AFP received a phone call from a nearby CIA station using an outdated Taliban Rolodex. When the media continuously and profoundly fails its duty to investigate, verify, and inform us, we are left to speculate, doubt, and ultimately question the legitimacy of such agencies. Land Destroyer for its part, is currently investigating this matter further.

We are not alone in our doubt. The Boston Globe reported, “Senior police officials said yesterday that a suicide attack that killed 82 cadets from a government paramilitary force was probably retaliation for an army offensive in Pakistan’s tribal areas and not for the death of Osama bin Laden, as the Pakistani Taliban claimed.” Considering that Osama bin Laden, by all accounts has been dead for years, this latest shoddy reporting by Reuters and AFP is most likely a vain attempt to reinforce an already unraveled, unsold lie.

It should be noted that similar unverified claims of responsibility by the “Taliban” have been made via phone calls from “undisclosed locations” including a shooting in New York that claimed 19 lives. Perhaps even more dubious were claims made on an “Islamist website” stating that the “Taliban” was behind the Times Square NYC terror scare. The London Telegraph even conceded in their report that, “it was not immediately possible to verify the authenticity of the claim.” It would later turn out that the patsy involved was inspired by none other than Anwar al-Awlaki, the US born and educated Pentagon dinner guest/Al Qaeda mastermind, who was allegedly in contact with him before the attempted bombing.

Growing Tensions Reaching a Crescendo

In the wake of this most recent deadly bombing in Charsadda, Pakistan, continued US drone attacks, and the continuing fallout of the US raid into Pakistani territory, relations between Washington and Islamabad have become increasingly strained. Pakistan’s parliament, as of May 14, 2011 has threatened to cut off US access to transit facilities used to ferry troops, supplies, and equipment into Afghanistan if drone attacks weren’t immediately halted.

The cut off of supplies into Afghanistan via Pakistan would leave US troops operating in the region in a semi-Stalingrad style encirclement. Anticipating this very move, globalist co-conspirator Zalmay Khalilzad of the National Endowment for Democracy, and corporate CEO-lined Center for Strategic and International Studies, stated earlier this week that, “the United States should reduce its dependence on supply lines running through Pakistan to Afghanistan. We should expand alternative supply routes through Azerbaijan and other countries in Central Asia.” This of course was in the event that Pakistan did not cooperate fully in the face of America’s new-found political capital it presumes to have gained from the staged “Bin Laden” raid. It seems at this point, Pakistan is not cooperating and has very little reason to do otherwise.

Throughout Khalizad’s article featured in the New York Times titled, “Demanding Answers from Pakistan,” he depends entirely on the fantastical pretense that Pakistan was knowingly harboring “Osama bin Laden” within Abbottabad. Upon this false pretense, Kahlizad, the former US Ambassador to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the UN under the Bush administration, states that, “with American influence now at its peak and our troops still at full strength in Afghanistan, we have the leverage to force Pakistan to reconsider.” With this leverage Khalizad expects Pakistan to comply fully with all US demands and failing to do so will open the door to “a longer-term agreement with Afghanistan to maintain a small, enduring military presence that would give us [the US] the capability to conduct counterterrorism operations and respond to possibilities like Pakistani nuclear weapons falling into the hands of extremists.”

The video cannot be shown at the moment. Please try again later.

Dr. Webster Tarpley has been accurately analyzing US foreign policy for years. He is one of the few geopolitical analysts to decipher and report the US attempt to Balkanize Pakistan as a means to maintain regional and global military & economic hegemony. See more at Tarpley.net

Of course, Khalizad’s veiled threat is referring to fellow globalist Frederick Kagan’s destabilization and “nuke-napping” plan already being set into motion. With the Baluchi insurgency being systematically cultivated by the US in Pakistan’s southwest region, and the Pashtuns being agitated by continued Predator drone attacks in the northwest, Pakistan is faced with the choice to either cut off the US now while it still can, or actively participate in the further destabilization of its own country by aiding and abetting Washington in their imperialist designs. This destabilization is specifically designed to implement the Balkanization of Pakistan and the ruination of Iranian, Pakistani, Indian, and Chinese interests throughout the region. If Kagan’s plans were put into effect, it would also give the US a permanent military footing in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Conclusion

What must be realized by all involved, from Pakistan’s neighbors to the Baluchis and Pashtuns within Pakistan, is that any alliance with America is an alliance sure to be betrayed, sure to lead to a divided and weakened Pakistan that will be exploited in full by the global corporate-financier elite engineering American foreign policy. Consider those joining men like Khalizad on the CSIS and NED boards are Carlyle Group members, defense contractors including Raytheon and Boeing, banking interests represented by Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, and Morgan Stanley, and big oil interests represented by Hess, Exxon, and Chevron. These are the same megalomaniacal, warmongering, parasites that have bankrupted the West, morally, culturally, financially, economically, and industrially. They have every intention to duplicate their “success” throughout Asia if given the proper environment of apathy, ignorance, and complicity within which to flourish.

Nations like India must realize that while their grievances with Pakistan may seem important, the US is not helping India out of a sense of charitable solidarity, but as a means to use Indian troops and resources against Pakistan, possibly even against China, thus miring all three nations in unending conflict and effectively hobbling their collective development. At the end of the day, there is no seat at the table for Chinese, Pakistani or Indian elite. They will be divided, discarded, and domineered just as soon as their usefulness reaches an end. As plans to divide and dominate Pakistan become public knowledge, and with plans to do likewise in Iran, China, and throughout the Middle East already matters of fact, India must reevaluate its relationship with Pakistan, as Pakistan must do so with India, understanding that their rivalry serves as the perfect “strategy of tension” from which the forces of globalization will conquer both nations.

US is Starting the Baluchi Insurrection

Black Operations, The Great Game, Uncategorized Comments Off

May 132011

Tony Carlucci – Land Destroyer Blog

In the shadow of the “Bin Laden” media circus and increasingly aggressive rhetoric between Washington and Islamabad, the corporate-financier funded NGOs that fomented the “Arab Spring” are now cultivating a united Baluchi front ahead of a proposed US-funded Baluchistan insurrection. As early as 2006, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace identified Pakistan’s Baluchistan province as a potential point of leverage against Islamabad and an opportunity to assert foreign intervention.

In a 2006 report by the corporate-financier funded think tank titled, “Pakistan: The Resurgence of Baluch Nationalism,” violence starting as early as 2004-2005 is described. According to the report, 20% of Pakistan’s mineral and energy resources reside in the sparsely populated province. On page 4 of the report, the prospect of using the Baluchi rebels against both Islamabad and Tehran is proposed. In Seymour Hersh’s 2008 article, “Preparing the Battlefield,” US support of Baluchi groups operating against Tehran is reported as already a reality. In Brookings Institution’s “Which Path to Persia?” the subject of arming and sending Baluchi insurgents against Tehran is also discussed at great depth.

Pipelines, ports, and petroleum: destabilizing and carving off a “free Baluchistan” would hobble the development of 4 nations – Pakistan, Iran, India, and China. With Pakistan’s plans to use the Baluchi port of Gwadar to give Central Asian countries access to the sea facing a failure, it may disrupt their development as well. The globalists then get more time to implement their “international system” in the face of a weakened Asia.

The 2006 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report makes special note of the fact that above all, the Baluchistan province serves as a transit zone for a potential Iranian-India-Turkmenistan natural gas pipeline as well as a port, Gwadar, that serves as a logistical hub for Afghanistan, Central Asia’s landlocked nations as well as a port for the Chinese. The report notes that the port was primarily constructed with Chinese capital and labor with the intention of it serving as a Chinese naval station “to protect Beijing’s oil supply from the Middle East and to counter the US presence in Central Asia.” This point in particular, regarding China, was described in extricating detail in the 2006 Strategic Studies Institute’s report “String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China’s Rising Power across the Asian Littoral.” Throughout the report means to co-opt and contain China’s influence throughout the region are discussed.

The Carnegie Endowment report goes on to describe how the Baluchi rebels have fortuitously begun attacking the development of their province over concerns of “marginalization” and “dispossession.” In particular attacks were launched against the Pakistani military and Chinese facilities. The question of foreign intervention is brought up in this 2006 report, based on accusations by the Pakistani government that the rebels are armed with overly sophisticated weaponry. India, Iran, and the United States are accused as potential culprits.

The report concludes that virtually none of Pakistan’s neighbors would benefit from the insurgency and that the insurgency itself has no possibility of succeeding without “foreign support.” The conflict is described as a potential weapon that could be used against Pakistan and that it is “ultimately Islamabad that must decide whether Baluchistan will become its Achilles’ heel.” This somewhat cryptic conclusion, in the light of recent reports and developments can be deciphered as a veiled threat now being openly played.

Quite clearly when Islamabad accused foreign governments of fueling and arming the unrest in Baluchistan, they were absolutely correct. Seymour Hersh’s report lays to rest any illusions over whether or not America is arming Baluchi rebels. Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?” report also openly calls for arming and sending Baluchi rebels out against Tehran. More recently, longtime proponent of a Baluchi insurgency, Selig Harrison of the Soros funded Center for International Policy, has published two pieces regarding the “liberation” of Baluchistan itself.

Harrison’s February 2011 piece, “Free Baluchistan,” calls to “aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression.” He continues by explaining the various merits of such meddling by stating, “Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces.”

Harrison would follow up his frank call to carve up Pakistan by addressing the issue of Chinese-Pakistani relations in a March 2011 piece titled, “The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis.” He begins by stating, “China’s expanding reach is a natural and acceptable accompaniment of its growing power—but only up to a point. ” He then reiterates his call for extraterritorial meddling in Pakistan by saying, “to counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an Arabian Sea outlet at Gwadar.”

Harrison has made calls for the carving up of Pakistan for years. In 2009 he insisted that Pakistan should grant Baluchistan autonomy, citing a laundry list of technicalities that justified such a devolution of power. Quite clearly, Mr. Harrison has become more blunt as of late. And while endless papers and covert support for the Baluchi insurgency have been going on for years, more overt calls, echoing with equal, self-serving hollowness as those for Libya’s foreign-funded rebellion, are being made.

During the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace sponsored “Balochistan International Conference 2011” held in Washington D.C., calls were made for “international intervention.” Most of the Baluchi opposition leaders live in exile in the US, UK, and France, amongst the myriad of Libyans, Egyptians, Syrians, Thais, Chinese, Iranians, all working with foreign aid to subvert and overthrow the governments in their homelands. A presentation (shown below) gives us a verbatim rehash of the same antics that led up to a military attack on Libya, and similar rhetoric being used to set the ground work for intervention in Syria.

The video cannot be shown at the moment. Please try again later.

Change Baluchistan to Libya; change the Baluchi names to Libyan names and you can see the same US-funded propaganda that led to Western military operations in North Africa in the above video.

Selig Harrison is also a regular attendee at the “Balochistan International Conference” and frequently reiterates his calls for a “free Baluchistan.” With him is Washington lobbyist Andrew Eiva, a former special forces operator who took part in supporting the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. He proposes a vision of a bright future where Baluchis will enjoy their gas and oil wealth one day in their own autonomous, free nation. Such encouragement from Harrison, whose Center for International Policy is funded by the Ford Foundation, George Soros’ Open Society Institute, and Rockefeller Family and Associates, or Eiva’s flights of petroleum-fueled fancy at a Carnegie Endowment function – funded by Exxon, Chevron, BP Corporations of North America, the GE Foundation, Shell International, as well as the globalist mainstays of Soros, Rockefeller, and the Smith Richardson Foundation – would be almost laughable if real people weren’t dying and Pakistan’s entire future being put at risk.

There is no question that a concerted effort is being made to build-up a Baluchi front with which to menace Pakistan. With the Chinese already present inside the province and their base at Gwadar completed, and as tensions between Washington and Islamabad escalate, this low intensity rebellion might just get the “foreign support” needed to carve itself off from Pakistan. This would interrupt Pakistan’s use of this resource rich, strategically located province, prevent Iran from sending a pipeline to India, as well as eject the Chinese from the region. For those wondering why America is attempting to escalate tensions in Pakistan over the “Bin Laden” hoax instead of using it as an excuse to leave the region, the Balkanization of Pakistan and the permanent disruption of Pakistan’s, Iran’s, and China’s development is your answer. It isn’t a matter of if, it is now only a matter of how big the insurrection can be grown.

Russia and China challenge NATO

Libya, The Great Game Comments Off

May 132011

M.K.Bhadrakumar Asia Times 10th May, 2011 Consultations by Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi in Moscow at the weekend were expected to prepare the ground for the visit by President Hu Jintao to Russia next month. In the event, however, they assumed a character of immense significance to international security. Sustained Russian-Chinese efforts to “coordinate” their stance on regional and international issues have been taken to a qualitatively new level with regard to the developing Middle East situation. The official Russian news agency used an unusual expression – “tight cooperation” – to characterize the new template to which their coordination of regional policies had been taken. ……. [Full Post]