FED UP WITH KARZAI?

TRY ZARDARI
December 21, 2009
Washington is finally getting some of the democracy it has long been calling for in
Pakistan. The result is a disaster for US “Afpak” policy.
The Obama administration is fast discovering that its man in Islamabad, President Asif
Ali Zardari, may be an even bigger ethical and managerial liability than its overseer in
Kabul, President Hamid Karzai.
Over the years, I’ve met every Pakistani leader save the current one, President Zardari,
the widower of Benazir Bhutto. But I’ve written for decades about corruption charges
that relentlessly dog him. At one point, I was threatened with having acid thrown in my
face if I kept writing about the Bhutto-Zardari’s financial scandals.
Asif Ali Zardari became known to one and all as “Mr 10%” from the time when he was a
minister in his wife’s government, in charge of approving government contracts. Critics
say the 10% and other brazen kickbacks produced millions for the Zardari-Bhutto family.
But Benazir Bhutto repeatedly insisted to me that she and her husband – who was
tortured and jailed for years on corruption charges – were innocent, victims of political
persecution in Pakistan’s utterly corrupt legal system where “justice” goes to the biggest
payer of bribes, and politicians use courts to punish their rivals. Small wonder so many
Pakistanis are calling for far more honest and swifter, if more draconian, Islamic justice.
In 2008, Washington sought to rescue Musharraf’s foundering dictatorship by convincing
the popular Benazir Bhutto, who had exiled herself to Dubai, to front for him as
democratic window-dressing for continued military rule. Her price: amnesty for a long
list of corruption charges against her and her husband. The US and Britain quietly
arranged the amnesty for the Bhuttos and thousands of their indicted supporters (and
other political figures).
Benazir confided in me she had a secret plan to oust Musharraf once she got back into
power. Just before her assassination, Benazir also told me jealous associates of Musharraf
were gunning for her.
Asif Zardari then inherited Benazir’s Pakistan People’s Party, the nation’s largest, as a
sort of personal property. He became president, thanks to strong US and British political
and financial support. His rival, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, was regarded by
the western powers as insufficiently supportive of the war in Afghanistan, and too
independent-minded.
Zardari repaid America’s support by facilitating the US war in Afghanistan, and allowed
the Pentagon to keep using Pakistan’s bases and military personnel, without which the
war in Afghanistan could not be prosecuted. Washington promised Pakistan’s elite, pro-
western leadership at least $8 billion.
That sleazy deal has now come unstuck thanks to Pakistan’s newest, rather improbable
democratic hero, Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. As chief justice of the
Supreme Court under Musharraf, Chaudhry was expected to rubber stamp government
decisions.
Instead, Justice Chaudhry began enforcing the law by reinstating the dismissed corruption
charges and examining the legality of Musharraf’s self-appointed second term.
Musharraf had Justice Chaudhry kicked off the bench. He, and a score of fellow judges
who would not toe the line, were placed under house arrest. Some were beaten. Their
pensions were cancelled.
Shamefully, Washington and London, who claim to be waging war in Afghanistan to
bring it democracy, gave Musharraf a green light to purge Pakistan’s judiciary.
But the ebbing of Zardari’s power has resulted in the reinstatement by parliament of
Justice Chaudhry, who promptly reinstated all the old charges. For the first time, Pakistan
was tasting the true institutions of democracy at work. Its US-engineered regime is
running scared.
Zardari has presidential immunity against criminal charges. But his chief lieutenants face
prosecution, notably regime strongman, Interior Minister Rehman Malik, and Defense
Minister Ahmed Mukhtar. Both are key supporters and facilitators of US military
operations in Afghanistan, America’s use of Pakistani bases, and Pakistan’s war against
its own rebellious Pashtun tribesmen (aka “Taliban”). Malik is due in court on 2 January,
2010 and is banned from leaving Pakistan.
Opposition parties are demanding Zardari and senior aides resign. Islamabad is in an
uproar just when Washington needs Pakistan’s government to intensify the war against
the so-called Pakistani Taliban and support President Barack Obama’s expanded war in
Afghanistan. Washington is also intensifying drone attacks inside Pakistan, that are
provoking fierce public outrage against the US, and weighing air attacks on Baluchistan
Province.
Skeletons are dancing out of Zardari’s closets: $63 million in illegal kickbacks and
commissions allegedly hidden in Swiss bank accounts; accusation of laundering $13.7
million in Switzerland. Charges of kickback on helicopter and warplane deals. In 2003,
Swiss magistrates found Zardari and Bhutto guilty of money laundering, sentencing then
to a six month suspended jail term, a fine of $50,000, and ordered them to repay $11
million to Pakistan’s government.
Zardari’s has an estimated personal fortune of $2 billion; luxurious properties in the US,
France, Spain and Britain, and on it goes. Amazingly, he avoided trial in Switzerland by
claiming mental illness.
In 2008, Gen. Musharraf had all charges against the Bhuttos dropped as part of the US-
engineered plan for a diumverate with Benazir.
The Bhuttos remain one of the largest feudal landowners
in a desperately poor nation where annual income is US$1,027 and illiteracy over 50%.
Pakistan has been ruled since its creation in 1947 by either callous feudal landlords, who
bought and sold politicians like bags of Basmati rice, or by generals.
It appears that Zardari’s days as Washington’s man in Islamabad are numbered. Anti-
American fury is surging, with popular claims that Pakistan has been “occupied” by the
US, treated like a third rate banana republic, and is run by corrupt, US-installed stooges
and crooks. Shades of Iran under the Shah, and Egypt under Sadat.
Many Pakistanis blame the current bloody wave of bombings in their nation on US
mercenaries from Xe (formerly Blackwater), and old foe India staging attacks in revenge
for decades of bombings in Kashmir, Punjab and its eastern hill states by Pakistani
intelligence.
Most Pakistanis believe Washington is bent on tearing apart their unstable nation to seize
its nuclear weapons.
In the process of prosecuting its occupation of relatively insignificant Afghanistan, the
US has turned Pakistan, a nation of great strategic importance, into a bitter foe.
Washington is almost back to square one in turbulent Pakistan. When Zardari goes or is
kicked upstairs as an impotent figurehead, attention will turn to Pakistan’s 617,000-man
military and its commander, Gen – or should we say “president-elect” Ashfaq Kiyani? He
is already in almost constant contact with the Pentagon. The weak prime minister, Sayed
Yusuf Gilani, might also be invested with more real powers.
In 2010, the ugly acronym, “Afpak,” will bedevil, befuddle, and consume the Obama
White House that so unwisely and rashly ignored Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s wise
warning to avoid land wars in Asia.
30
copyright Eric S. Margolis 2009
LIGHT AT THE END OF THE AFGHAN TUNNEL?
February 01, 2010
Is it finally light at the end of the Afghan tunnel, or an oncoming express train? Total
confusion erupted last week as the US, NATO, the UN and the Kabul government all
issued differing views on new plans to end the nine year Afghan war by bombarding
Taliban with tens of millions in cash instead of precision bombs.
One thing is clear: the US and its NATO allies are losing the war in Afghanistan in spite
of their fearsome arsenal of high tech weapons and war chests of billions of dollars.
Lightly-armed Pashtun tribesmen are living up to their legendary reputation of making
Afghanistan the graveyard of empires.
So Washington and London, both in dire financial straits, say they are now ready for a
possible peace deal with the Pashtun Taliban and its nationalist allies. But, in spite of a
$1.4 trillion deficit, President Barack Obama is asking Congress for an additional $33
billion more for the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan.
If you can’t bomb them into submission, then try buying them off.
A conference was held in London last Thursday to raise tens of millions of dollars to try
to bribe lower level Taliban to cooperate with the western occupation and/or lay down its
arms.
Bribery is a time-honored tool of war. But it’s not the answer in Afghanistan. The bloody
Afghan conflict can only be ended by genuine peace negotiations and withdrawal of all
foreign troops.
US commanders in Afghanistan admit they have lost the military initiative. The
resistance is steadily gaining ground. Obama’s increasing US and allied troops to 150,000
won’t be enough to defeat Taliban. By year end, US and NATO forces will only equal the
number of Soviet forces committed to Afghanistan in the 1980’s.
Meanwhile, Pakistan, without whose cooperation the US cannot wage war in
Afghanistan, is in turmoil. The US is infiltrating Xe (formerly Blackwater) and DynCorp
mercenaries into Pakistan to protect US military supply routes north from Karachi to
Afghanistan, and to operate or defend US air bases in Pakistan.
US mercenaries are also reportedly being used to assassinate militants and enemies of
Pakistan’s US-installed government, and to target Pakistan’s nuclear installations for
future US action. This, and increasing attacks by US killer drones, have sparked outrage
across Pakistan and brought warnings of creeping US occupation.
US and NATO forces in Afghanistan are like a man trying to fix a chimney on the roof of
a burning house.
As Pakistan burns, so will Afghanistan. Seventy-five percent of all US and NATO
supplies for Afghanistan pass through Pakistan. This past weekend, the first time, NATO
supply convoys were attacked by militants in the port of Karachi.
Washington lacks the men, money, and understanding to deal with chaotic Pakistan -
never mind chaotic Afghanistan.
Washington, London, Ottawa, Berlin and Paris share the same problem: their war
propaganda has so demonized Taliban as terrorists and woman abusers that western
politicians are petrified to deal with the tribal movement, and risk being accused of
sending soldiers to their deaths in a futile war. The far right will howl “appeasement,”
“giving in to terrorism,” and “betraying our boys.”
These advocates of permanent war and torture should be ignored. Afghans have suffered
over 3 million deaths in 30 years of wars. They desperately need peace, political stability,
and rebuilding, not the current western-installed puppet regime of thieving war lords,
drug mafias, and thugs of the old Afghan Communist Party.
The best thing we can do for our western soldiers is to get them out of the Afghan morass
before they die in this pointless war, or get stuck there for decades.
The west can’t “win” in Afghanistan. In fact, Washington cannot even define what
victory means. The intelligent, straight-talking American ambassador to Kabul, former
general Karl Eikenberry, as well a as VP Joe Biden, insist it’s time to start peace talks.
We should heed their sensible advice.
The US and its allies need a face-saving way out of Afghanistan. Real peace talks are the
answer. Not the ruse long proposed by US Gen. Stanley McChrystal to try to bribe away
low-ranking Taliban and so split the Afghan resistance.
This stratagem worked to a degree with Sunni tribesmen in Iraq, but is unlikely to
succeed with the proud Pashtun tribes who value honor more than money. Theirs is an
antique concept most westerners cannot understand.
Taliban, an anti-Communist religious movement, knew nothing about al-Qaida’s plans to
attack the United States. That plot was hatched in Europe, not Afghanistan. Many
members of the anti-Communist Taliban and its allies Hisbi Islami and the Haqqani
group were former allies of the west and were hailed by President Ronald Reagan as
`freedom fighters.’
After 9/11, Taliban refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden to the enraged United States
without proper evidence of his guilt because he was an honored guest and hero of the
anti-Soviet jihad.
Taliban chose war with the US before betraying a guest. Such men are not to be easily
bought.
THE UGLY TRUTH ABOUT
AFGHANISTANANDIRAQ BEGINS TO EMERGE
FROM THE SHADOWS
July 26, 2010
First, kudos to Britain’s new leadership team of Prime
Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister
Nick Clegg. They have embarked on a second Battle of
Britain.
Britain’s two youthful leaders have launched the
biggest political revolution since 1832, one that aims
to revive Britain’s battered economy, and restore the
nation’s debauched finances.
The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats aim to slash
government spending 25% over five years, shrink
Britain’s bloated government, which consumes half of
national income and employs half of the nation’s work
force. Large numbers of bureaucrats will be laid off or
eliminated by attrition.
No more “nanny” state. The era of savage austerity has
dawned. Britain is in for some very fraught years. The
Cameron-Clegg revolution promises to be even more
sweeping and dramatic than Margaret Thatcher’s
reforms.
Under Blair and Brown, Britain’s debt exploded from
$540 billion to $1.3 trillion, a full 90% of GDP.
`Borrow Britannia’ became the national anthem.
Britain’s vast expansion of government and its foreign
wars were financed by borrowing, as the economy
became addicted to debt. The Conservatives vow to
halve Britain’s towering debt that was threatening to
plunge the nation into something close to a Greek-
intensity financial crisis. How far the Tories succeed
with this very difficult, unpopular, but necessary
campaign remains to be seen.
Cameron flew to Washington two weeks ago to meet
President Barack Obama and reaffirm the hallowed
US-UK “Special Relationship.” Cameron made clear
Britain remains a loyal American ally but it will no
longer slavishly follow Washington’s lead, as did
former PM Tony Blair, who is widely despised across
Britain. Cameron and Clegg have made it clear, as I
reported from Europe last May, that British and US
interests are not always identical and may diverge.
Compare this British conservative revolution to Barack
Obama’s borrow more/spend more policies that
threaten to keep the US mired in recession and debt.
Instead of the painful austerity that the US desperately
needs to restore its finances, Americans will get more
war in Afghanistan. The enormous US military budget
keeps getting bigger and bigger. Congress lacks the
courage to cut its own spending.
The “Washington Post’s” stunning investigation, “Top
Secret America,” revealed last week that the US
security/intelligence establishment doubled under
President George Bush and is now largely out of
control. National security and intelligence functions
have been outsourced on a massive scale to large
numbers of private “contractors,” many closely aligned
to the right wing of the Republican Party. What, one
wonders, will happen when all these Rambos are let
lose on the United States?
Britain’s former Labour government had also become
highly intrusive over its 13 year rule. Critics charges
Britain under Labour was sometimes verging on a
police state. One of Cameron’s first acts was to order
tens of thousands of street cameras spying on Britons
removed and to put an end to many repressive security
and police programs.
The Tory-Liberal Dem alliance is to make the House
of Lords an elected body, and change Britain’s archaic,
unfair electoral process, both long-overdue democratic
reforms.
Britain will likely begin withdrawing from
Afghanistan, which Cameron and Clegg consider a
failed war and waste of British lives.
In Washington, Cameron also had to dodge angry
Republican accusations that a Libyan, Ali Megrahi,
convicted of bombing Pan Am flight 103 over
Scotland in 1988, had been freed in a sleazy deal
between British Petroleum and Libya.
In fact, strong suspicions remain the Libyan was
framed.
New evidence has emerged that appears to undermine
the case against him.
Megrahi’s appeal based on new evidence was
scheduled to move forward when he was released on
compassionate grounds.
None of the outraged American critics of Britain ever
mentioned the Iranian civilian airliner shot down by
the US cruiser “Vincennes” over the Gulf in 1988,
killing 290. Its captain was actually given a medal.
The cost-conscious Cameron flew home from
Washington on a commercial British Airways flight.
This column has been urging for decades that all
politicians fly commercial, just like taxpayers. Bravo
Cameron! Attention Barack and Hillary. Maybe at a
time of $1.47 billion deficit you could consider going
commercial yourselves.
Back in London, Baroness Manningham-Buller,
former director of Britain’s internal security agency,
MI5, made a damning indictment of the Blair and Bush
governments in the 2003 Iraq War.
She told the official Chilcot inquiry that Britain’s
involvement there and Afghanistan had `radicalized’
young people who saw “our involvement in Iraq, on
top of our involvement in Afghanistan, as an attack on
Islam.”
Five years ago I was asked to address a large gathering
of US and Canadian security and intelligence officials
on “terrorism.” I told them that the biggest threat to the
US and Canada was from local Muslims outraged by
the savage wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. I was
given and icy send off and never asked to return.
Britain’s former security chief also confirmed that Iraq
had posed no threat to Britain or the rest of the world.
Her testimony comes at a time when Iran has become
the target of the same type of hysterical accusations
that were made against Iraq.
There was no link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein,
she asserted, a falsehood spread by the Bush
administration that was believed by 80% of Americans
in 2003. Many credulous Republicans still believe this
falsehood worthy of Dr. Goebbels.
MI5 `did not believe’ Iraq was working on nuclear
weapons.
The Baroness flatly stated the Bush administration had
manipulated and falsified intelligence to justify its
invasion of Iraq. She stated invading Iraq was
“unnecessary” and diverted attention from the real
threat, al-Qaida. There was no “substantial” reason for
war.
Invading Iraq, Baroness Manningham-Buller told the
commission, led to an “almost overwhelming” increase
in homegrown terrorism. MI5 had to double its budget.
`We gave Osama bin Laden his Iraqi jihad,’ she
concluded. Exactly what this writer has been saying
since 2001.
Former members of the Bush administration and
neocons still try to justify invading Iraq by claiming
other Western intelligence agencies also believed Iraq
had nuclear weapons.
The US routinely shares intelligence with its allies.
False US reports about Iraq, many concocted by Israeli
intelligence and then fed to US intelligence, were
distributed to other NATO members. The Bush
administration then cited them as proof Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction.
Manningham-Buller’s testimony, and previous high-
level commission witnesses, further exposed Bush and
Blair’s untruths, deceptions, and egregious violations
of international law over Iraq.
This weekend, Wikileak revelations over Afghanistan
erupted, opening the way for the truth to finally
emerge about the ugly imperial war in Afghanistan,
30
copyright Eric S. Margolis 2010
Twitter: @ericmargolis
Email: eric@ericm.org

Cinderella
Tuesday, July 27, 2010 6:34 AM
Eric you are correct here, but
economically the US does not have
to be worry about spending and
throwing away their $$$, why?
The US is the only country that can
afford to throw away their $$$ as
they wish, in 1971 President Nixon
severe the backup of US $ to the
gold thereby the US $ has no
backup, while all other currencies
has to backup their money with the
US$ reserve that they have.
The US government can print
money as much as they want with
inflation as the only repercussion
and nothing else.
American succeded to fool the
world into accepting their US$ as a
trusting convertible currency then
there is no reason to stop doing it. It
is like the Bank who loaned you
money as much as you want, spend
as you wish for the collateral that
does not exist.
Another caveat befall upon the next
American generation who have to
print more money and payback
those countries who wants to
collect their debt. Which as a
descendant of a debtor is not too
bad either.
This is an economic time bomb
waiting to explode. Too bad for the
rest of the world whom the USA
owe such as China, Japan etc.
Reply to this Comment