Thursday, December 12, 2013
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
This refers to the CIA report on the likely of Indo Pak.
Balkanisation or Fragmentation can occur in any region. Even USA is highly vulnerable to Balkanisation/Fragmentation! The CIA must do a study on this too!
As per one estimate the population of the USA by 2040 will be 60% non-white and consist of Hispanics, African Americans etc. This will seriously affect United States. The Foundation of the United States was laid by white Anglo Saxons who faced many challenges and transformed an unexplored continent into one of world's greatest superpowers. Today this is no longer the case. The average American is addicted to comfort and does not want to do anything heroic! The under forty white population is fast decreasing and by 2040 most of the under 40 people in USA may be non-whites. The ethnic groups which may constitute 60% of population of USA may have an altogether different orientation.
Psychologically the US society is already very sick. The very frequent incidents of firing in US schools are one very convincing proof of this assertion.
Who could imagine in 1914 that the British Empire was just three decades short of collapse? The Soviet Union in 1979 was a real threat to USA. It collapsed without any armed conflict. Even the Afghanistan case is dubious since the USSR as per one US writer never spent more than 2% of its budget on Afghanistan.
There are intangible forces that move history. If this was not so then the Okhrana would have saved the Romanovs! The CIA should concentrate on USA and leave the Subcontinent alone!
The international geopolitical scene is getting more and more complex. Technology the real index of power is no longer USA's sole domain. The EU, China and Japan may be far more subtle and difficult to deal with than the Kaiser, Hitler, Brezhnev or Saddam. The CIA must concentrate its energies on serious challenges!
Rambos exists only in Hollywood! US military proficiency was well exhibited in the brilliant rescue mission in Iran in 1979.
The First World War was won with European blood while the Second World War was won by Russian blood. This time the Europeans may be more sceptical!
From: Agha Humayun Amin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Comments-Article-Gen Jahangir Karamat
Date: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 10:44 AM
General Jahangir wrote a fine article.
Unfortunately many of our soldiers and eminent civilians become idealistic after retirement. I find it very strange why our generals accept US sponsorships to advocate foreign agendas after retirement. In service they are different and in retirement they become great liberals.
I don't think that anyone who spends more than 20 years in service remains dynamic. The system ensures that dynamism and boldness are destroyed. We need stauffenbergs or nassers or qaddafis not old windbags.
This is a strange phenomenon and is well proven by various books written by many so-called eminent ex big bosses!
I remember a talk which General Jahangir delivered in Staff College Quetta in which he criticised the Indian Army Officers right to go to Civil Courts. Since that day my opinion about General Karamat as a just man was totally reversed.
The readers may note that the Pakistan Army Officer since Liaquat Ali Khan's time in 1950 was reduced to a man who could be fired without any reason by the army high command like a third class clerk and could not go to court! In India the army officer has the basic rights to go to court.
If any future civilian government can democratise the army it will be a great service to democracy. Pakistan may have enjoyed some democracy but the army officers and I mean the junior lot were reduced to a spinelessness since their commission is not secure. Any officer of the Pakistan Army can be retired and cannot go to court while in service. This stone age law must be amended. This basic right was arbitratrily taken away by Liaquat the first Prime Minister of Pakistan in 1951.
The present mess in Pakistan was created since the army clique led by Ayub derailed democracy in 1958. They delibeartely intrigued with bureaucrats to destroy political leadership.
The same exercise was repeated in 1977-88.
Nawaz Sharif now the much criticised man as far as the army was concerned was selected and groomed by the army.
Agha Humayun Amin
How the ANC Sold Out South Africa's Poor
South Africa's young people today are known as the Born Free generation. They enjoy the dignity of being born into a democratic society with the right to vote and choose who will govern. But modern South Africa is not a perfect society. Full equality – social and economic – does not exist, and control of the country's wealth remains in the hands of a few, so new challenges and frustrations arise. Veterans of the anti-apartheid struggle like myself are frequently asked whether, in the light of such disappointment, the sacrifice was worth it. While my answer is yes, I must confess to grave misgivings: I believe we should be doing far better.
There have been impressive achievements since the attainment offreedom in 1994: in building houses, crèches, schools, roads and infrastructure; the provision of water and electricity to millions; free education and healthcare; increases in pensions and social grants; financial and banking stability; and slow but steady economic growth (until the 2008 crisis at any rate). These gains, however, have been offset by a breakdown in service delivery, resulting in violent protests by poor and marginalised communities; gross inadequacies and inequities in the education and health sectors; a ferocious rise in unemployment; endemic police brutality and torture; unseemly power struggles within the ruling party that have grown far worse since the ousting of Mbeki in 2008; an alarming tendency to secrecy and authoritarianism in government; the meddling with the judiciary; and threats to the media and freedom of expression. Even Nelson Mandela's privacy and dignity are violated for the sake of a cheap photo opportunity by the ANC's top echelon.
Most shameful and shocking of all, the events of Bloody Thursday – 16 August 2012 – when police massacred 34 striking miners at Marikana mine, owned by the London-based Lonmin company. The Sharpeville massacre in 1960 prompted me to join the ANC. I found Marikana even more distressing: a democratic South Africa was meant to bring an end to such barbarity. And yet the president and his ministers, locked into a culture of cover-up. Incredibly, the South African Communist party, my party of over 50 years, did not condemn the police either.
South Africa's liberation struggle reached a high point but not its zenith when we overcame apartheid rule. Back then, our hopes were high for our country given its modern industrial economy, strategic mineral resources (not only gold and diamonds), and a working class and organised trade union movement with a rich tradition of struggle. But that optimism overlooked the tenacity of the international capitalist system. From 1991 to 1996 the battle for the ANC's soul got under way, and was eventually lost to corporate power: we were entrapped by the neoliberal economy – or, as some today cry out, we "sold our people down the river".
What I call our Faustian moment came when we took an IMF loan on the eve of our first democratic election. That loan, with strings attached that precluded a radical economic agenda, was considered a necessary evil, as were concessions to keep negotiations on track and take delivery of the promised land for our people. Doubt had come to reign supreme: we believed, wrongly, there was no other option; that we had to be cautious, since by 1991 our once powerful ally, the Soviet union, bankrupted by the arms race, had collapsed. Inexcusably, we had lost faith in the ability of our own revolutionary masses to overcome all obstacles. Whatever the threats to isolate a radicalising South Africa, the world could not have done without our vast reserves of minerals. To lose our nerve was not necessary or inevitable. The ANC leadership needed to remain determined, united and free of corruption – and, above all, to hold on to its revolutionary will. Instead, we chickened out. The ANC leadership needed to remain true to its commitment of serving the people. This would have given it the hegemony it required not only over the entrenched capitalist class but over emergent elitists, many of whom would seek wealth through black economic empowerment, corrupt practices and selling political influence.
To break apartheid rule through negotiation, rather than a bloody civil war, seemed then an option too good to be ignored. However, at that time, the balance of power was with the ANC, and conditions were favourable for more radical change at the negotiating table than we ultimately accepted. It is by no means certain that the old order, apart from isolated rightist extremists, had the will or capability to resort to the bloody repression envisaged by Mandela's leadership. If we had held our nerve, we could have pressed forward without making the concessions we did.
It was a dire error on my part to focus on my own responsibilities and leave the economic issues to the ANC's experts. However, at the time, most of us never quite knew what was happening with the top-level economic discussions. As s Sampie Terreblanche has revealed in his critique, Lost in Transformation, by late 1993 big business strategies – hatched in 1991 at the mining mogul Harry Oppenheimer's Johannesburg residence – were crystallising in secret late-night discussions at the Development Bank of South Africa. Present were South Africa's mineral and energy leaders, the bosses of US and British companies with a presence in South Africa – and young ANC economists schooled in western economics. They were reporting to Mandela, and were either outwitted or frightened into submission by hints of the dire consequences for South Africa should an ANC government prevail with what were considered ruinous economic policies.
All means to eradicate poverty, which was Mandela's and the ANC's sworn promise to the "poorest of the poor", were lost in the process.Nationalisation of the mines and heights of the economy as envisaged by the Freedom charter was abandoned. The ANC accepted responsibility for a vast apartheid-era debt, which should have been cancelled. A wealth tax on the super-rich to fund developmental projects was set aside, and domestic and international corporations, enriched by apartheid, were excused from any financial reparations. Extremely tight budgetary obligations were instituted that would tie the hands of any future governments; obligations to implement a free-trade policy and abolish all forms of tariff protection in keeping with neo-liberal free trade fundamentals were accepted. Big corporations were allowed to shift their main listings abroad. In Terreblanche's opinion, these ANC concessions constituted "treacherous decisions that [will] haunt South Africa for generations to come".
An ANC-Communist party leadership eager to assume political office (myself no less than others) readily accepted this devil's pact, only to be damned in the process. It has bequeathed an economy so tied in to the neoliberal global formula and market fundamentalism that there is very little room to alleviate the plight of most of our people.
Little wonder that their patience is running out; that their anguished protests increase as they wrestle with deteriorating conditions of life; that those in power have no solutions. The scraps are left go to the emergent black elite; corruption has taken root as the greedy and ambitious fight like dogs over a bone.
In South Africa in 2008 the poorest 50% received only 7.8% of total income. While 83% of white South Africans were among the top 20% of income receivers in 2008, only 11% of our black population were. These statistics conceal unmitigated human suffering. Little wonder that the country has seen such an enormous rise in civil protest.
A descent into darkness must be curtailed. I do not believe the ANC alliance is beyond hope. There are countless good people in the ranks. But a revitalisation and renewal from top to bottom is urgently required. The ANC's soul needs to be restored; its traditional values and culture of service reinstated. The pact with the devil needs to be broken.
At present the impoverished majority do not see any hope other than the ruling party, although the ANC's ability to hold those allegiances is deteriorating. The effective parliamentary opposition reflects big business interests of various stripes, and while a strong parliamentary opposition is vital to keep the ANC on its toes, most voters want socialist policies, not measures inclined to serve big business interests, more privatisation and neoliberal economics.
This does not mean it is only up to the ANC, SACP and Cosatu to rescue the country from crises. There are countless patriots and comrades in existing and emerging organised formations who are vital to the process. Then there are the legal avenues and institutions such as the public protector's office and human rights commission that – including the ultimate appeal to the constitutional court – can test, expose and challenge injustice and the infringement of rights. The strategies and tactics of the grassroots – trade unions, civic and community organisations, women's and youth groups – signpost the way ahead with their non-violent and dignified but militant action.
The space and freedom to express one's views, won through decades of struggle, are available and need to be developed. We look to the Born Frees as the future torchbearers.
Ronnie Kasrils was a member of the national executive committee of the African National Congress from 1987 to 2007, and a member of the central committee of the South African Communist party from December 1986 to 2007. He was the country's minister for intelligence services from 2004 to 2008. This is an extract from the new introduction to his autobiography, Armed and Dangerous
FROM MAJOR SYED SALAM 13 LANCERSA great move pak army
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
It is a great mystery why the US/NATO decided to take the war to Helmand.
A better option would have been to simply defoliate the poppy crops using chemical agents and to concentrate on mining and fencing the Afghan Pakistan and Afghan Iran Border in Helmand and Kandahar provinces. A far cheaper , economical and cost effective option than building Camps Leatherneck ,Dwyer etc and wasting valuable military lives in Helmand and Kandahar ?
It is beyond the scope of this short work to research why the US went into Helmand . Was it to monopolise and control the vast drug country which Taliban linked drug mafia was controlling or was it to inflict a decisive military defeat on Taliban.
Drugs were not eliminated as this was never a US objective . Taliban were not annihilated as US force ratios were too low and the US failed to severe the Talibans strategic line of logistics based in Pakistan.
In 2008 the US went in Helmand in force by establishing Camp Leatherneck. A US military contractor contacted me for boring wells in Helmand and in the process sent me an excellent map marking US camps in Helmand.
It appears that establishment of Camp Leatherneck near Khanishin was viewed with extreme suspicion by the Pakistani military and 2008 saw a major surge in Taliban activity in targeting US troops with IEDs.
It appears that the Pakistani military thought that if the Taliban did not exert greater pressure on the US troops in Helmand , US alleged support to Baloch insurgents would multiply as well as alleged US support to the Pakistani Taliban in FATA.These were seen as a NATO proxy to punish Pakistan for its covert support to Afghan Taliban.
IED,Drones and Suicide Bomber Warfare in Afghanistan and PakistanPaperback – September 21, 2013
Customers viewing this page may be interested in these sponsored links(What's this?)