those who participate in war suffer the most consequences

choose sides carefully

On May 9, 8:40 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> It’s All About PakistanAmerica’s latest villain -- and future victimbyJustin 
> Raimondo, May 09, 2011
> With the assassination of Osama bin Laden, US foreign policy – or, rather, 
> the rationale for it – has a giant hole in its very center: the task of the 
> War Party is to fill it, and quickly.
> Without ahuman faceto put on the Terrorist Threat, without an ever-elusive 
> target to lure us even deeper into the Muslim world, domestic political 
> support for our post-9/11multi-trillion-dollarexcursion will quickly dry up. 
> In a sense, the War Party is facing the sameprospectthey faced when the 
> Soviet Union collapsed: total and completeirrelevance. That is particularly 
> true at this conjuncture, with the US hurtling towardeconomic catastropheand 
> Americans getting noticeablyrestivein the face of cutbacks and severe 
> economic straits.
> What’s a warmonger to do?
> Simple: come up with a new enemy, a fresh face – or, better yet, an entire 
> nation that can be demonized and made to play the role of stand-in for bin 
> Laden. That nation, as you’ve probably already guessed, isPakistan.
> “I’ve not seen any evidence, at least to date, that the political, military 
> or intelligence leadership of Pakistan knew about Osama bin Laden at 
> Abbottabad, Pakistan,”saidnational security adviser Thomas Donilon on the 
> Sunday talk show circuit. Normally, such a statement would absolve the 
> Pakistanis, or seem to: I’ll only note that the “leadership” could be taken 
> to refer to the upper echelons of the Pakistani political and military 
> establishment, clearlyleaving openthe possibility some in the mid-to-lower 
> levels might have been in on the secret of bin Laden’s whereabouts.
> Furthermore, Donilon’s words belie the US government’s actions, which were 
> todemandfrom Pakistan the names of its intelligence operatives – an unusual 
> request, to say the least. Rather than come out and say what they apparently 
> believe, US officials – speaking “on background” – are accusing the 
> Pakistanis of de facto complicity. “It’s hard to believe that [Pakistan’s top 
> military commander Ashfaq Parvez] Kayani and [ISI director-general Lt. Gen. 
> Ahmad Shuja] Pasha actually knew that Bin Laden was there,” a “senior 
> administration official” toldThe New York Times. “But, added the official, 
> speaking on condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic sensitivity of 
> the issue, ‘there are degrees of knowing, and it wouldn’t surprise me if we 
> find out that someone close to Pasha knew.’”
> Pasha is expected to resign shortly, but the effort to target him as a secret 
> terrorist sympathizer dates back to last year, whenaccusationssurfaced that 
> he personally met with the militants of Lashkar e Taiba (LET), and gave them 
> money just before they pulled offthe Mumbai attacks. The larger campaign to 
> portray the Pakistanis, and the ISI in particular, as secretly aiding and 
> abetting bin Laden has a longer history, and a very strange one.
> The narrative being sold by the American “mainstream” media reads like the 
> script of a very bad made-for-TV movie, or the kind of “thriller” that skips 
> the theaters entirely and only comes out on DVD. This tall tale is 
> intertwined with the murky, film-noir -esque saga ofDavid Headley.
> Headley haspleaded guiltyto charges of acting as a scout for the perpetrators 
> of the Mumbai terrorist attack, as well as having plotted to bomb the offices 
> of a Danish newspaper that printed cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed. 
> He faces a sentence of life in prison, and his story of having collaborated 
> with Pakistani military intelligence, who supposedly directed and financed 
> both plots, is apparently the price he paid for the terms of the deal he made 
> with US prosecutors – life in jail in the US, instead of India, which 
> hasdemandedhis extradition.
> While Headley’s complicated tale of international intrigue and 
> transcontinental terrorism is pretty much swallowed whole by the Western 
> media, in India skepticism abounds. This jaundiced view stems from Headley’s 
> rather interesting personal history.
> The 48-year-oldHeadleywas born in Washington, D.C., to a Pakistani father, 
> Sayed Salim Gilani, who worked for Voice of America, and Alice Headley, 
> daughter of former football star L. Coleman Headley. Headley’s half-brother, 
> Danyal, was formerly the official spokesman for Pakistan’s Prime Minister. 
> Headley/Gilani is the latest in a growing list of high-profile Western 
> converts to Islamist terrorist organizations: “Azzam the American,”Anwar 
> Awlaki, and a surprising number of others who play prominent roles in 
> Headley’s narrative.
> He trained at a military academy in Pakistan before being brought back to 
> America by his mother, who had by that time obtained a divorce. His first 
> drug arrest occurred in 1987, where he made a deal with the DEA in return for 
> a lighter sentence. In 1997 he was arrested on drug charges again, accused of 
> smuggling heroin in from Pakistan. Again, he cooperated with the feds, in 
> exchange for information about his Pakistani contacts, and got off with 
> fifteen months in a resort-style prison for law enforcement’s favorite 
> criminals at Fort Dix. According to the terms of his sentence, this was to be 
> followed by a period of supervised release. However, the US Justice 
> Department cut that short, requesting his immediate discharge: the feds had 
> other plans for Headley, who was sent to Pakistan – the first of several US 
> government-paid trips – to engage in undercover work for the Drug Enforcement 
> Agency. From there it was but a hop, a skip, and a short jump to a 
> Lashkar-e-Taiba training camp.
> Oh, and by the way, Headley, never a religious type – he left behind a trail 
> of embittered and apparently quite battered wives – somewhere along the line 
> experienced a miraculous “conversion” to the puritanical strain of Islam 
> embraced by LET. The perfect religion for a former drug pusher, ex-con, and 
> consistent womanizer who just happened to work for the DEA – don’t you think?
> Headley’s rap sheet has some other interesting items: in 2005, he was 
> arrested in New York City after battering one of his many wives. She told 
> authorities about his involvement with LET, and his shopping for night 
> goggles on behalf of his terrorist patrons. However, somehow her testimony 
> fell through the cracks – or perhaps she wasn’t telling federal agents 
> anything they didn’t already know.
> As Headley tells it, he “trained” a total of five times at a LET camp in 
> Pakistan, and his testimony is backed up by that of yet another Western 
> convert to radical Islam,Willie Brigitte– another “character,” similar in 
> many ways to Headley, whose personal history seems like something out of a 
> novel – not a very good novel, one might add. Born in Guadeloupe, a sunlit 
> isle in the Caribbean, he moved to Paris to study, but joined the French navy 
> instead, deserting twice in three years. In time, having gone through several 
> careers and two wives, he suddenly saw the light and decided to become an 
> Islamic militant. He trained in the French countryside with suspected members 
> of al-Qaeda’s Algerian franchise, and before long wound up in – you guessed 
> it – the very same LET training camp where Headley had taken up residence.
> Also at this training camp: the handler of the Mumbai operation, one Sajid 
> Mir – one of his classmates at the Pakistani military school. That’s too much 
> synchronicity for a good novel, but what do you expect from amateurs?
> Having been recruited into LET’s terrorist network, Brigitte was spirited off 
> to Australia, where his handlers arranged for him to marry yetanotherWestern 
> convert to radical Islam, oneMelanie Brown, who is described in news accounts 
> as a former member of the Australian army, having served in military 
> operations in East Timor, an officer with access to classified information. 
> An interesting choice of spouse for a terrorist, to say the least.
> Something about this wild and murky tale is just not right, and the Indians – 
> especially the Indian opposition parties – have picked up on it big time. 
> Major Indian media routinelydepictHeadley as a CIA agent who knew about the 
> Mumbai attacks in advance while his bosses in Washington kept this 
> information close to their vests.
> Which reminds me: a month after 9/11, Fox News reported that Israeli agents 
> operating in the US had advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks and failed 
> to inform us. As Carl Cameronput it:
> “Since September 11, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained, 
> either under the new patriot anti-terrorism law, or for immigration 
> violations. A handful of active Israeli military were among those detained, 
> according to investigators, who say some of the detainees also failed 
> polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against 
> and in the United States. There is no indication that the Israelis were 
> involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that they Israelis 
> may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared 
> it. A highly placed investigator said there are “tie-ins.” But when asked for 
> details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, “evidence linking these 
> Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has 
> been gathered. It’s classified information.’”When one examines the breadth of 
> material unearthed by Fox News in that chilly winter of 2001, and absorbs 
> Cameron’s analysis over the course of a lengthyfour-partseries, and then 
> compares this carefully researched reporting to Headley’s cock-and-bull 
> story, the imbalance is all too evident. Yet Cameron’s story fell like a 
> stone into the journalistic ether, while Headley’s fanciful malarkey garners 
> serious attention.
> Go figure.
> The campaign to nominate Pakistan as the villain of the moment conveniently 
> comes at a time when the Obama administration has stepped up its military 
> operations in that country – and shows every sign of wanting to go further. 
> This is the perfect excuse to intervene more openly.
> Faced with the irrefutable arguments of war opponents that the 
> ten-yearoccupationof Afghanistan hasachieved nothingand no longer has much 
> point (if it ever did), the defenders of US policy among our national 
> security theoreticians have fallen back on the contention that the real value 
> of our military presence is the supposedly stabilizing effect it has on 
> Pakistan, which would otherwise fall to the terrorists, or 
> terrorist-sympathizers at the very least.It’s all about Pakistan, they aver, 
> ominously noting the country’s status as a member of the nuclear club.
> Pakistan, likeLibya, is yet another Western fiction, createdby the Britishin 
> the course of their imperial self-dissolution – an inherently unstable 
> combination of affluence and shocking poverty, modernity and medievalism, 
> perpetually teetering on the brink of disorder. US officials are no doubt all 
> too aware of this fragility, and it’s hard to believe anyone with an ounce of 
> responsibility would deliberately act to upset that delicate balance. In 
> public, the White House lauds the Pakistanis – who have, after all, actually 
> apprehendedfar moretop-level terrorists than we have. In his announcement of 
> the raid, the President wentout of his wayto mention how instrumental 
> Pakistan’s cooperation had been to bin Laden’s undoing. Yet he also went out 
> of his way to mention that wedidn’t tell anyonein advance – including the 
> Pakistanis, presumably – about “Operation Geronimo.”
> This administration is playing a truly dishonorable game, making friendly 
> noises at Islamabad in public, while anonymous officials accuse Pakistan of 
> treachery. Donilon’s remark that he saw no evidence of Pakistan’s guilt “at 
> least to date” is similarly ambiguous. If the serpent-tongued minions of this 
> administration don’t have the courage to come out and say what they mean, 
> then I expect some Republicans will.
> Don’t forget that election season is upon us – not for all you normal people, 
> but for the professionals, those whose lives revolve around Washington and 
> its power plays. If you think 9/11 is going to fade away as a living issue 
> because we’ve reached “closure” with bin Laden’s summary execution, then you 
> don’t know politicians, and you don’t knowthe War Party: as far as they’re 
> concerned, we’renevergoing to reach closure. If we’ve gotten bin Laden, then 
> let’s go after his alleged collaborators and purported enablers – heck, let’s 
> go after his wives!
> A program of perpetual war requires a constant supply of fresh enemies: bin 
> Laden, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic – and, hey, whatever happened 
> toManuel Noriega, anyway? Bin Laden was good for the War Party as long as he 
> lasted, and they’ll no doubt wring as much advantage out of his ghost before 
> it fades into history. Yet one can be sure a suitable, and even more 
> dramatically satisfying replacement will soon be found. After all, we must 
> have a justification for spendingtrillions[.pdf] overseas while our citizens 
> are thrown out of their homes by the millions and forced to stand in line for 
> food stamps.
> This is the sort of behavior one expects from politicians, for whom the road 
> to war is the road to power. The real crime is that our “news” media, which 
> is supposed to stand guard against the routine deceptions of our public 
> officials, instead functions as a mere court stenographer, transcribing the 
> official version of events no matter how far-fetched, as in Headley’s case. 
> As US government prosecutors take Headley’s “testimony” as holy writ and use 
> it as a basis for further prosecutions, the accusation that the Pakistani 
> military and intelligence authorities are really just a front for al-Qaeda – 
> or is that vice-versa? – will gain momentum, not to mention the imprimatur of 
> the US Justice Department. The groundwork for an outright invasion of 
> Pakistan will be laid, paving the way for yet another war – this time against 
> a nation armed with nukes.
> Even John McCain, you’ll recall,balkedat Obama’s declared intention of going 
> into Pakistan. Now that we’ve done it in such a spectacular manner, one can 
> only wonder if, next time, our visit isn’t quite so brief.
> The case against Pakistan rests on the “suspicion” that theymusthave known 
> about bin Laden’s headquarters in Abbottabad because, after all, thePakistani 
> equivalent of West Pointis within walking distance, and Abbottabad is a 
> “garrison city,” as the news accounts put it. Yet what, exactly, is it about 
> a “garrison city” that would make it impregnable to a determined infiltrator 
> – especially in Pakistan, where the poverty rate makes corruption a way of 
> life? If al-Qaeda had the wherewithal to successfully infiltrate the US, and 
> train for their deadly missionright under our nosesfor a period of years, 
> penetrating Abbottabad shouldn’t have proved impossible, as indeed it was 
> not. Once in, bin Laden and his household could hide in plain sight, an 
> ingenious and – for six years – very successful plan that required nothing 
> but boldness, which bin Laden, whatever his other characteristics, surely 
> possessed in abundance.
> The mainstream media disdains “conspiracy theories” – unless they are being 
> pushed by powerful people and talked about in Washington. Then these theories 
> become “facts,” and are reported as such.
> We’ve seen this time and again,most vividlyin the run-up to the Iraq war 
> –indeed, in the run up to practically every war we’ve ever had. It used to 
> be, however, that we onlyfound out laterhow we were lied to, and what the 
> true facts are – years later. Today, with the rise of the internet and the 
> technology of instant communication, the lies of the War Party are no sooner 
> uttered than they’re debunked.
> And that’s why we here at Antiwar.com have kept chugging along, for all these 
> years – because, after all, somebody has to do 
> it.http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/05/08/it%E2%80%99s-all-about-pakistan/

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Reply via email to