Damage in the Floods Could ve Been Reduced

Natural disasters cannot be stopped. However, there is nothing stopping us from building more strong and reliable structures to prevent damage in an earthquake, or to take preventions to reduce damage in a flood.

We are reacting to the present floods in parts of Pakistan as if it came out of the blue. And the irony is that this is happening in a country that was suffering from a drought just a couple of days ago. Sindh was fighting Punjab over the opening of a canal, and both Sindh and NWFP are opposed to building of Kalabagh Dam. Both these provinces wanted water: so they got it.

The sad part is that nobody in this country is thinking of saving this flood water. Big lakes could have been formed to save all this water which will now be going straight into the Arabian Sea.

Canals may be built to divert this water to deserts.

But either our nation is mentally deficient, or too corrupt to take any meaningful and intelligent steps in any field.

In Pakistan, floods have got bigger, droughts more intense and threats posed by waterborne diseases a bit too much to handle for poor countries trying to use their limited resources to adapt to a moodier climate.
 
Money isn’t everything. Many of the most effective water-related adaptation measures are free.

Here is a list, based on some of Morrison’s suggestions and community-based adaptation measures compiled by the UK-based International Institute for Environment and Development.
 
Floods
1. The conventional response is to build levees and walls, and in many instances this was a “practical solution”, Morrison said. If you don’t have the money, you could provide hazard warnings and escape routes or shelters. 

In a community-based approach in the Philippines, communities learnt how to draw maps to plot the most flood-prone areas and vulnerable communities. These were the first to be warned and evacuated when threatened.
 
2. Rotate buildings when they are being erected so that a corner points into the flood flow and water is diverted around the structure.
 
3. Raise buildings on stilts or earth mounds. This is a response rooted in traditional knowledge, Morrison pointed out. “Most houses in south-east Asia used to be raised on stilts, allowing floodwater to pass safely underneath.”
 
4. Drawing up restrictions doesn’t cost money; impose zoning restrictions and enforce them. “Inappropriate developments – those that block drainage runs, pollute watercourses, and increase rainfall runoff and downstream flooding – must be stopped,” Morrison urged.
 
5. Press ahead with policy on improving land ownership. “Poor communities are forced to live in dangerous floodplains, on riverbanks and in ravines,” Morrison said. “This is not due to a lack of overall land availability – population densities are still relatively low – but because powerful elites own most of the safe and productive areas.”
 
Water shortages, water- and mosquito-borne diseases (malaria, dengue and yellow fever)

1. Harvest rainwater, as many NGOs and development workers have suggested.
 
2. Get communities to maintain their sources of water, whether a well or a hand-pump.
 
3. Instead of looking for costly drainage options to keep diseases like malaria at bay, get communities to dig trenches and build reservoirs to store flood water.
 
Landslides
1. If you don’t have a budget for concrete retaining walls, plant vetiver grass (Chrysopogon zizanioides), a non-invasive Indian clump grass cultivated for centuries for essential oil. The roots of the grass and its dense undergrowth hold the soil in place, according to the Vetiver Network international.
 
But, for all risks it would make sense to have a plan to reduce the chance of a disaster, which, of course, costs nothing.

ISI’s Support for the Taliban is Clearer Than the Sun in the Sky

The release of 91,000 secret documents about the war in Afghanistan by WikiLeaks turned out to be your classic media bang-fizzle. The first-day bang was caused by the spectacular breach of security and the promise of devastating revelations, especially about Pakistan‘s clandestine support for the Taliban.

The second-day fizzle was caused by the absence of much that was new in the documents.

By the third day, it was pretty much over.

“We need to kill a lot of Taliban,” Kilcullen said, a statement that stands well outside the humanitarian spirit of counterinsurgency (COIN) operations. But then, Kilcullen admitted, the Afghan government is too unstable for COIN to work very well — a major concession from a charter member of the Petraeus camp and a signal, perhaps, of a change in U.S. tactics. As for the Taliban, he said, there was no question that they were being supported by ISI. Kilcullen recommended that the committee members read a recent paper by Matt Waldman of Harvard University’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy called “The Sun in the Sky.”

The paper is astonishing. From February to May 2010, the author conducted separate interviews with nine active Taliban field commanders in Afghanistan and 10 former Taliban officials.

The commanders are unanimous in their belief that the ISI is running the show.

It is a field-level view of the hierarchy and probably an exaggeration, but even at half-strength, the commanders’ accounts of direct ISI involvement are entirely convincing. Some of them received training and protection in Pakistani camps run by the ISI. “[The ISI has] specific groups under their control, for burning schools and such like,” one commander says. “The ISI [also] has people working for it within the Taliban movement. It is clearer than the sun in the sky.”

The commanders insist the ISI is opposed to any negotiations between the Taliban and Karzai’s government; several cite as proof the February arrest by Pakistani operatives of Taliban second-in-command Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, who was involved in informal peace talks with the Afghans.

Why on earth are elements of the Pakistani military supporting the Taliban?

In a word, India.

India is, first and last, the strategic obsession of the Pakistani military. The U.S. has come and gone from the region in the past; the perceived Indian threat is eternal.

With the defeat of the Taliban by U.S. forces in 2001, there was fear that the new government in Kabul would be sympathetic to India and provide a strategic base for anti-Pakistan intelligence operations.

And so, despite professions of alliance with the U.S. by Pakistan’s Musharraf, a decision was made to keep the Taliban alive. A spigot of untargeted military aid from the Bush Administration helped fund the effort. A commander of the vicious Haqqani Taliban network tells Waldman that their funding comes from “the Americans — from them to the Pakistani military, and then to us.” Waldman reports that the commander receives from the Pakistanis “a reward for killing foreign soldiers, usually $4,000 to $5,000 for each soldier killed.”

This is devastating and outrageous, but slightly outdated — and decidedly incomplete. In the months since Waldman completed his research, the relationship between Pakistan and the Karzai government has warmed considerably. Karzai removed his intelligence chief, Amrullah Saleh, whom the Pakistanis considered an Indian agent. There is talk of a reconciliation deal in which the Haqqani network will stand down militarily. Most important, the Pakistanis’ sense of the perceived threat has changed dramatically over the past 18 months. After a series of spectacular terrorist attacks, the army launched a major campaign against the indigenous Pakistani Taliban. More Pakistani army personnel have been killed in this fight than U.S. forces in Afghanistan by the Taliban.

Are you confused yet?

Let me make things more complicated: Afghanistan is really a sideshow here.

Pakistan is the primary U.S. national-security concern in the region. It has a nuclear stockpile, and lives under the threat of an Islamist coup by some of the very elements in its military who created and support the Taliban. The one thing the U.S. can do to reduce that threat is to convince the Pakistanis that we will be a reliable friend for the long haul — providing aid, mediating the tensions with India; that we will help stabilize Afghanistan; that we will support the primacy of Pakistan’s civilian government. Over time, this could reduce the extremist influence in the military and Pakistan’s use of Islamist guerrillas against its neighbors. If it does not — well, the alternative is unthinkable.

Afghan Women Dread the Taliban Coming Back

The Taliban pounded on the door just before midnight, demanding that Aisha, 18, be punished for running away from her husband’s house. Her in-laws treated her like a slave, Aisha pleaded. They beat her. If she hadn’t run away, she would have died. Her judge, a local Taliban commander, was unmoved. Aisha’s brother-in-law held her down while her husband pulled out a knife. First he sliced off her ears. Then he started on her nose.

This didn’t happen 10 years ago, when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. It happened in 2009.

Now hidden in a secret women’s shelter in Kabul, Aisha listens obsessively to the news. Talk that the Afghan government is considering some kind of political accommodation with the Taliban frightens her. “They are the people that did this to me,” she says, touching her damaged face. “How can we reconcile with them?”

In June 2010, Afghan President Karzai established a peace council tasked with exploring negotiations with the Taliban.

A month later, Tom Malinowski from Human Rights Watch met Karzai. During their conversation, Karzai mused on the cost of the conflict in human lives and wondered aloud if he had any right to talk about human rights when so many were dying. “He essentially asked me,” says Malinowski, “What is more important, protecting the right of a girl to go to school or saving her life?” How Karzai and his international allies answer that question will have far-reaching consequences, not only for Afghanistan’s women, but the country as a whole.

As the war in Afghanistan enters its ninth year, the need for an exit strategy weighs on the minds of U.S. policymakers. Such an outcome, it is assumed, would involve reconciliation with the Taliban.

But Afghan women fear that in the quest for a quick peace, their progress may be sidelined. “Women’s rights must not be the sacrifice by which peace is achieved,” says parliamentarian Fawzia Koofi.

Yet that may be where negotiations are heading.

The Taliban will be advocating a version of an Afghan state in line with their own conservative views, particularly on the issue of women’s rights. Already there is a growing acceptance that some concessions to the Taliban are inevitable if there is to be genuine reconciliation. “You have to be realistic,” says a diplomat in Kabul. “We are not going to be sending troops and spending money forever. There will have to be a compromise, and sacrifices will have to be made.”

For Afghanistan’s women, an early withdrawal of international forces could be disastrous.

An Afghan refugee who grew up in Canada, Mozhdah Jamalzadah recently returned home to launch an Oprah-style talk show in which she has been able to subtly introduce questions of women’s rights without provoking the ire of religious conservatives. On a recent episode, a male guest told a joke about a foreign human-rights team in Afghanistan. In the cities, the team noticed that women walked six paces behind their husbands. But in rural Helmand, where the Taliban is strongest, they saw a woman six steps ahead. The foreigners rushed to congratulate the husband on his enlightenment — only to be told that he stuck his wife in front because they were walking through a minefield. As the audience roared with laughter, Jamalzadah reflected that it may take about 10 to 15 years before Afghan women can truly walk alongside men. But once they do, she believes, all Afghans will benefit. “When we talk about women’s rights,” Jamalzadah says, “we are talking about things that are important to men as well — men who want to see Afghanistan move forward. If you sacrifice women to make peace, you are also sacrificing the men who support them and abandoning the country to the fundamentalists that caused all the problems in the first place.”

Our Rulers Love to be on TV & the Media Stinks

Our politicians love to come on the television; and it could be for any reason. After the recent meeting of the foreign minsters of India and Pakistan, Interior Minister Rehman Malik’s office sent smses to a few journalists telling them that he would be available to explain the government’s explanation for the breakdown of talks. This was strange as he and his ministry had nothing to do with the talks and it should have been handled by the foreign minister and his ministry. But Rehman Malik was perhaps grudging the media attention that the FM Shah M Qureshi was getting.

The same has happened now after the Air Blue crash in Islamabad. Without any reliable details, Rehman Malik was constantly talking to the media and giving it wrong information. He added to the anguish of the relatives of those who died in the crash by talking about the survivors; the relatives cannot be blamed for hoping that the survivors included their loves ones.

Firstly, there was no need to be talking to the media every 15 min. And even if this had to be done, it could have been handled by a district functionary of Islamabad. But these guys dont lose a single opportunity to be on the TV and make an ass of themselves in the process.

The Information Minister Kaira was not to be left behind and disclosed that the Black Box was found which was untrue.

MEDIA AND THE CONTROL LINE

by Yusra Qadir
Devastated by the addition of the tranquil Margalla hills in the tragedies of, the nation, I powered on the television for more information about the plane crash and the relief operations being carried out in response.

I flipped through various news channels, collecting and trying to consolidate information about the accident, its causes and response to it. However, few hours of witnessing electronic media at work made me realize – it wasn’t giving updates or getting news to the nation, it was raw competition to the core, a race to deliver; not better or quicker information but to enthrall, to allure audiences, to prick into the public sentiment and make place in the emotional fabric of individuals so as to ensure consistent viewership.

The repetitive declarations of “we broke the news first” appeared like promotion of companies instead of informing people about the tragedy, the simulations of the accident seemed demeaning the intensity of the accident, the jargan “badqismat tayyara” (unfortunate plane) sounded like the plane was pre-destined to fall and what was most heart wrenching was the coverage of the victims’ families.

To someone who just lost a dear one and cannot find any information on his/her whereabouts (or the mortal remains) being surrounded with cameras and reporters and being bombarded with questions like “How do you feel now, What were your feelings when you heard about the accident, Have you heard any more news on the state or well being of the victim, What was the victim like, Why was he/she on the flight, What consequences does the loss bring to you” sound brutally insensitive, let alone respect for privacy and human rights!

As if all this was not enough, getting into the homes of the victims was also managed which was followed by LIVE screening of the mourning and sorrows of the families. The mothers, fathers, siblings and other relatives of victims were further given chances on camera, in turns, to reflect on how they felt over the incident.

And if my memory serves me right, gloomy and weeping faces of close relatives of victims were zoomed into once they broke into sobs amidst answering the questions from reporters.

Admittedly, active and free media has played a very constructive role in influencing, advocating and promoting open information. In the process media has voiced various issues of the nation, following them up and gaining positive responses from duty bearers. However, over the period of time one feels that the spirit of representing and voicing the issues of the nation has been possessed by raw competition, a fast track race to win to ultimately get better ratings. The situation at hand calls for electronic media to pursue a standard code of ethics with integrated human values along with of course their pre-existing marketing strategies.

Though the nation respects the media for voicing their concerns and making them heard; it is imperative that the media also reports and reflects responsibly and draws a distinct control line between delivering quality timely information to people VS creating hype causing emotional turmoil in people so as to ensure viewership especially when humanitarian crisis situations are reported upon.

Air Blue Caused by Pilot Error

Rescue workers have recovered the dead bodies of more than 100 people from the wreckage of an Airblue passenger plane which crashed in the Margalla Hills in Islamabad at around 10 am on July 28, 2010. 

At least 157 people were on board the ABQ-202, a civil aviation official said. 

The 157 included 151 passengers and six crew members.  

Rescue workers arrived at the scene and managed to pull out four injured passengers from under the rubble. Meanwhile, the plane’s black box was also recovered. 

It appears however that the crash took place probably due to a pilot error. The plane was flying from Karachi to Islamabad (flight number was ED202) and landing at the Islamabad Airport when it was asked to circle while another plane was landing. The plane came over Islamabad to circle and hit the Margalla Hills. It is possible that the pilot could not properly calculate his circle or simply hit the hills which were partly covered by the clouds. 

The plane had struck a ridge which fell on the wreckage. 

The pilot of the ill-fated Airblue flight ED202 strayed from the normal landing approach and inexplicably continued flying towards Margalla Hills, leading to the crash.

Preliminary investigations by the aviation authorities have indicated that pilot’s navigational error could be the most likely cause of the crash. But the air traffic control tower’s role has also come under the scanner for failing to warn the pilot that he had veered off the flight path.

“It could be even a combination of both,” a member of the investigation board appointed by the government said and added that technical failure might be another contributing factor.

Capt Pervez Iqbal Chaudhry, the pilot of flight ED202, who was in his mid-sixties, had a lot of flying hours under his belt. But his co-pilot, First Officer Muntajib Chughtai, was new to commercial flying.

Some are also saying that the crash was preceded by Shabarat and the pilot, Mr Chaudhry, had been up all night, worshipping. It is also being said that he was told not to land in Islamabad due to bad weather and divert to Lahore but he declined saying that he was tired. The latter may be untrue as several flights landed around the same time in Islamabad.

The aircraft, Airbus A321, had started its landing approach for Runway 30, one of the two runways at the Islamabad airport, but because of wind direction the pilot had to turn right for ‘circling’ the jet towards Runway 12 — something normal for flights landing in Islamabad during monsoon.

As the plane started preparations for landing on Runway 12 it had descended to about 2,500 feet and was flying parallel to the runway over Islamabad highway.

The pilot was attempting visual landing at Runway 12 because the instrument-assisted landing is available only on Runway 30. Visual landing entails eye contact with the runway.

Pilots said the mandatory conditions for ‘a circling approach’ are to keep a minimum altitude of 2,500 feet; remain within 2-3 miles of the runway; and maintain a visual contact with the airstrip at all times.

Aviation experts opined that the aircraft’s altitude was correct, but the pilot could have faulted on the other two conditions as he continued his ‘dormant flight’ and flew much farther than the mandated distance from the runway. The best option, in such a case, they said, could have been ‘to go round’ and make a fresh attempt for landing.

There were some indications that the pilot had made a belated effort to ‘pull up’, but probably it was too late.

The air traffic controllers noted that the pilot of ED202 was going for an unusual ‘wider approach’ beyond the allowed course and had failed to take the final ‘base turn’ towards left, approximately over Faizabad interchange, they advised two other aircraft, belonging to Shaheen Air and PIA, which were positioning themselves behind the doomed plane for landing at Islamabad airport, to slow down.

But the question remains that why wasn’t Capt Chaudhry alerted by the tower that he was going out of range and getting too close to the hills that are about 10 nautical miles away from the airport. The pilot had flown at least six miles beyond the minima for the circling approach.

The radar had noticed the deviation and had warned the traffic controllers.

“Probably there was a communication breakdown,” one of the controllers assumed, but wasn’t sure about the actual cause of the failure.

The plane that crashed at about 9.45am had last contacted the tower at 9.43am.

There were no ‘May Day Calls’ — distress signal — from the pilot either, which an aviation expert said made it a perfect CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) case. CFIT is used to describe an accident in which an airworthy aircraft, under pilot control, is unintentionally flown into the ground, a mountain, water or an obstacle.

The investigators are wondering whether or not the aircraft’s Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) worked.

This may come to light once the plane’s flight data recorder, commonly known as ‘black box’, is recovered and analysed.

But apart from a possible pilot error, there is also a growing body of evidence that a technical malfunction could have led the pilot into navigational error.

The fatal mistake by the pilot in continuing towards Margallas, instead of turning left while circling for Runway 12, was not the first. The aircraft had during its descent into Islamabad airport strayed into Kahuta area but was corrected by the control tower. The pilot had then switched over to the navigational system — Flight Management System — instead of utilising the radar facility.

Although the debate on cause of the crash has focussed on inclement weather, experts say it was good enough for landing, even for visual one.

The weather conditions close to the crash site were: wind 050 degrees at 16 knots; visibility at 2,000 metres; cloud base at 1,000 feet; and rain.

The minimum conditions for landing are 500m visibility and cloud base of 500 feet.

A five-member commission to probe the crash. Air Commodore Khawaja Abdul Majid, chief of the Civil Aviation Authority’s safety investigation board, will head the commission.

The Air Blue said that there was no technical fault in the aircraft, putting the crash down to weather. It said that the plane was no more than eight years old and had no known technical problems.

The Pakistan Airline Pilot Association (Palpa) also said that the plane appeared to have strayed off course, possibly because of weather.

Palpa President Captain Sohail Baloch attributed the accident to the pilot’s fatigue. “The pilot may have been suffering from accumulated fatigue because they are not given adequate leaves,” he said, adding that the flight route was not a no-fly zone, as was being speculated.

The plane probably exceeded the safety distance because of bad weather and the pilot might not have determined an appropriate landing route.

The airline spokesman said that the aircraft, made in 2000, was leased to the Airblue in January 2006 and it accumulated about 34,000 flight hours during some 13,500 flights.

The airline, which began operations in 2004 with a fleet of Airbus A320 and A321 aircraft, operates six aircraft from its A320 family of short-haul and medium-haul aircraft. The aircraft have a seating capacity of 185.

The Chairman of Airblue, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, is at present in London.

An air traffic controller said “non-functioning” of the GPWS might have been the main reason for the crash. “The GPWS, installed in every plane, is a system that alarms the pilot when the plane descends to a low altitude,” Arif Ali Khan, president of the Air Traffic Controllers Guild, said. 

The Airbus 321 plane that crashed was 10 years old, the planemaker said — an age considered a relatively young for a plane of that type.  

The aircraft was “initially delivered from the production line in 2000,”and leased to Pakistani airline Airblue in 2006, Airbus said in a statement. 

An airliner such as the A321, a single-aisle craft with room for 185 passengers, normally has a lifespan of 30 to 40 years. 

“In line with international convention, Airbus will provide full technical assistance to the authorities in Pakistan, who will be responsible for the investigation into the accident,” Airbus said. 

Here are some details of the type of plane involved. 

DESCRIPTION The A321 is a stretched version of the single-aisle, short- and medium-haul A-320 passenger plane, the most widely sold type of jetliner built by European planemaker Airbus. 

The first A321 went into service in 1994 and the plane involved in the crash was manufactured in 2000. 

The crashed plane had carried out 13,500 flights and accumulated 34,000 flight hours in service, Airbus said. 

The aircraft was leased to Airblue in 2006. 

Aviation industry sources said the plane was leased to Airblue by International Lease Finance Corp, the leasing unit of US insurer AIG. 

Airbus is owned by European aerospace group EADS. 

AIRCRAFT DETAILS  Passenger capacity (standard, 2-class) 185

(high density) 220

Flight crew 2

Length146 feet/44.5 metres

Wingspan111 ft 10 in/34.12 m

Interior cabin width12 ft 1 in/3.7 m

Emergency exits: 8

Range 2,350 nautical miles/4,400 kilometres

Engines Choice of two manufacturers

(The plane involved in the crash had two V2533 engines made by International Aero Engines: see below) 

PRODUCTION  First A321 delivery1994

Number of aircraft produced (as of end-June) 606

Backlog of planes ordered, not yet produced 204

(Airblue has 14 of the sister A320 model on order) 

PRICE List price (million dollars) 95.5 

SAFETY RECORD  The crash is the first fatal incident involving an A321, according to the Flight Safety Foundation, a non-profit organization which keeps track of global aircraft accidents. 

International Aero Engines is owned by Britain’s Rolls-Royce , United Technologies unit Pratt & Whitney of the United States, Germany’s MTU Aero Engines and a consortium of three Japanese engineering firms. 

The plane was no more than eight years old, and it had no known technical issues. The pilots had not sent any emergency signals. 

Airblue flies within Pakistan as well as internationally to the United Arab Emirates, Oman and the United Kingdom. 

The only previous recorded accident for Airblue, a carrier that began flying in 2004, was a tailstrike in May 2008 at Quetta airport by one of the airline’s Airbus 321 jets. There were no casualties and damage was minimal, according to the US-based Aviation Safety Network. 

The airliner began operations in 2004 with a fleet of Airbus A320 and A321 aircraft. 

The plane that crashed was also built by Airbus, the European planemaker said. 

Airblue operates six aircraft from its A320 family of short-haul and medium-haul aircraft seating up to 185 passengers. 

The last major plane crash in Pakistan was in July 2006 when a Fokker F-27 twin-engine aircraft operated by PIA slammed into a wheat field on the outskirts of Multan, killing all 45 people on board.

In August 1989, another PIA Fokker, with 54 people onboard, went down in northern Pakistan on a domestic flight. The plane’s wreckage was never found.

In September 1992, a PIA Airbus A300 crashed into a mountain in Nepal, killing all 167 people on board. Investigators found the plane was flying 1,500 feet lower than it reported as it approached the Katmandu airport.

Counter Terrorism Work involves 1271 Government Orgs, 1931 Private Firms, Disbursed in 10,000 Locations in the USA

The corrupt and dysfunctional comprador Pakistani government is sad. 

The current revelation of WikiLeaks undermines any basis for continuing the  Afghanistan misadventure. 

Instead of addressing the big climate crisis, onrushing inexorably to an irreversible tipping point, we are hemorrhaging resources to enhance Wall Street profitability. The latter bribes politicians, in a depraved system which assures that Congressional  incumbency is equivalent to a life time political sinecure. Obama, from the vantage point of imperial policy, turns out to be Bush with mastery of English locution and a sharp intelligence.  

The revelation in the Washington Post by their star investigative reporters, Diana Priest and William Arkin, though many of us were aware in general outline, nonetheless, is shocking in its all interlacing web, magnitude and pervasive power. No one knows how much the secret government costs, how many people it employs, how many programs it oversees, how much overlap. Top Secret America is hidden from public view and congressional oversight. The bare skeletal details include some of the following: 

• Anti counter terrorism work involves 1271 government organizations, 1931 private firms, disbursed in 10,000 locations in the USA. 
• An estimated 854,000 people hold top secret security clearance 
• Its operation are concentrated in 33 building complexes with 17,000,000 square feet of space equivalent to three Pentagons. 

We have an Orwell state apparatus in place. But people are so down and distracted with faux entertainment that the costly control organization is unnecessary. 

Most Americans, a la Panglos, are convinced they live in the most civilized, generous, sacrificing democratic country ever devised, of course guided by divine intelligence. I have heard, not infrequently from common folks, the reason we Americans have had to tighten our belts is because we give so much of our wealth “to these poor Africans.”

Is Osama Bin Laden Dead?

By Arnaud Borchgrave

UPI Editor at Large

July 26, 2010 – The “Veterans Today” Network, a one-man show on the Internet created and run by Gordon Duff, a 100 percent disabled Marine Vietnam veteran, states flatly that 9/11 was a CIA/Mossad conspiracy and that Osama bin Laden wasn’t involved and died in 2001.

This can easily be dismissed as yet another example of deliberately
disseminated disinformation riddled with intentionally false or
inaccurate data designed to confuse the adversary. But some key
intelligence officials are taking bin Laden’s reported demise
seriously.

CIA Director Leon Panetta said in early July that the intelligence
agency hadn’t been able to positively confirm any specific information
on the uber-terrorist since “late 2001.” And all those audio and video
tapes broadcast by the Qatar-based Al Jazeera global television
network? Clever Israeli forgeries, says Duff.

Many other voices in cyberspace claim the bin Laden myth is kept
“alive” to justify the Afghan war and the global war on terror.

Angelo Codevilla, who teaches international relations at Boston
University, is a former U.S. intelligence officer who studied Soviet
disinformation techniques during the Cold War. He says a close
examination of all the alleged bin Laden tapes, including the videos,
have convinced him that Elvis Presley is more alive than Osama bin
Laden.

By all accounts from those who knew him prior to 9/11, bin Laden was a
deeply religious man and his early tapes after 9/11 were sprinkled
with references to God and the Prophet Muhammad. Not so the later
ones, which were subsequently analyzed by some experts who said they were professional forgeries.

The last time credible intercepts of bin Laden’s voice were made by
overhead satellites in early December 2001 as he was escaping through
the Tora Bora mountain range from Afghanistan to the sanctuary of
Pakistan’s tribal areas.

The late Ajmal Khattak, the head of the Khattak tribe, who had half a
million followers in the region, advised this reporter and his
Pakistani assistant Ammar Turabi, and our multilingual security, to
rent horses and proceed to an exit from Tora Bora in the Tirah Valley.
We got there Dec. 11. Local villagers told us bin Laden and some 50
fighters had emerged Dec. 9 and were met by a convoy of utility
vehicles that sped off in the direction Peshawar.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton evidently had more recent
intelligence on her last visit to Pakistan July 21. She said she
believes “elements” of the Pakistani government know bin Laden’s
whereabouts. Those with the knowledge, she added, are in the “bowels”
of the bureaucracy, not the “top levels of government.” She was
clearly referring to some members of Pakistan’s ISI.

Former ISI chief Gen. Hamid Gull is a personal friend of both bin
Laden and Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, and bin Laden’s no. 2, the
Egyptian doctor Adman al-Zawahiri. Gul is an advocate of Pakistan’s
politico-religious extremists and self-declared enemy of the United
States.

There are “retired” ISI officers who still see bin Laden as a hero of
the joint campaign against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the
1980s. Gul and his followers are also working to hasten an end to the
U.S. presence in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

For the now growing number who believes bin Laden is dead, there is
only one valid message from bin Laden. It was his open letter to the
“Pakistani people,” on Al Jazeera, dated Sept. 24, 2001, 13 days after
9/11, in which he said:

• “I have already stated that I was not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States.
• “Neither had I any knowledge of these attacks nor do I consider the killing of innocent women and children and other humans, as an appreciable act … Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent … people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.
• “All that is going in Palestine … is sufficient to call the wrath
  of God upon the United States and Israel.”

Those who believe Osama Bin Laden is alive, and guilty of killing
almost 3,000, quote his 2004 talk in which he said he thought of
attacking U.S. skyscrapers when he saw Israeli aircraft bombing tower
blocks in Lebanon in 1982.

“God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the twin
towers,” he said then, “but after our patience ran out and we saw the
injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward
our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind.”

While Duff is mostly guff for those whose job is to keep tabs on all
the twists and turns since 9/11, there is also the post 9/11
generation that doesn’t read newspapers or weekly magazines and gets
its news fix online. The conspiracy theory coupled with disinformation
from all sides makes for more interesting reading. It also gives
youngsters a leg up on their “naive” elders.

Bin Laden was suffering from a kidney ailment and some experts say he
died Dec. 13, four days after his escape from Tora Bora. Videos since
then, neutral experts say, show bin Laden writing with his right hand
but he is well known as left-handed. They also detected differences in
the shape of the nose, skin color and speech.

Duff does commentary on his conspiracy theories for radio and TV news programs; his provocative articles are carried the world over and his Web site gets 22 million page hits a month. Some of his recent “Top 10 Stories of the Week”: “The CIA: Beyond Redemption and Should Be
Terminated”; “Does Event Honoring Israeli Spy Suggest Another Israeli
Operation?”; “Wikipedia Revisionism to Israeli Pressure Groups.”

Duff’s “Corporate Profile” says, “We are a full service Network of 63
Web sites that service the U.S. Military Veterans’ Community,” which
claims “over 310,000 plus unique visitors per month” and recently grew 39 percent in one month.

On the World Wide Web, there are no red lines between information,
misinformation and disinformation.

Khosa Wanted His Brother-in-law to Become CEO

Information and Technology Secretary Naguibullah Malik has said that there is no ‘turf war’ between him and Adviser to Prime Minister on IT Sardar Abdul Latif Khosa, as their roles are different.

Talking to “The News” regarding Khosa’s allegations, he said it was his professional duty to ensure efficiency and transparency in the Information Technology Ministry, being its administrative head.

“Since my assumption of charge as the IT secretary on May 19, 2009, I have tried to establish high standards of professionalism and there are some success stories. However, I am neither responsible nor can I give comments on the action taken prior to my posting,” he said, adding: “I can safely say that despite some deficiencies and capacity issues, the ministry is in the right gear to meet challenges”.

He said information with regard to the USF and ICT R&D Fund companies was available at www.usf.org.pk and www.nictrdf.org.pk which is transparent and available for general public to audit it.

“At present, activities being undertaken by the IT Ministry and its attached organisations are strictly in accordance with the given legal and policy parameters, and open to any kind of scrutiny,” the IT secretary added.

An official of the ministry, however, said Adviser Khosa acted in an arbitrary and whimsical manner. “He wanted his orders implemented forthwith, without any check or hindrance. However, the IT secretary insisted on going by the book,” the official added.

Since most of the adviser’s decisions were in conflict with the legal-cum-administrative framework, therefore, their implementation was widely resisted. “The IT Ministry is responsible for the policy formulation and the PTA is the regulator and it functions under the administrative control of the cabinet secretariat.”

The official said both entities had to adopt investor-friendly policies, as the IT and Telecom sector contributed towards the economic growth of the country, as Pakistan was a known IT and Telecom investment destination.

The adviser went wrong in targeting the multinational telecom investor companies, unnecessarily, without realising their importance and the fact that the ministry is driven by the private sector entities.

The companies contribute their share of profits to the USF fund and National ICT R&D fund companies, which is the basic financial resource of the companies.

Besides, they are deeply involved in expansion of telephony and broadband connectivity in the country.

The official said because of the adviser’s behaviour and attitude, some companies had put things ‘on the hold’. “The adviser could not comprehend the dynamics of the IT and Telecom industry, and annoyed every one in the process. His tenure would always be identified with a logjam, which prevailed in the IT Ministry during his six-month stay,” he added.

“The allegations levelled by Khosa against Wahajus Siraj are not only false, but bizarre as well. The Internet Service Provider Association of Pakistan (ISPAK) has always been a strong advocate of Internet content filtering software and even helped the government in 2003 to develop the technical specifications and details for such a software, but the IT Ministry, then headed by Awais Leghari, and the PTA backed out from getting that software developed.”

The ISPAK has documentary evidence of all previous letters. Its recent press briefing was related to counter the anti-Pakistan propaganda of Fox News for ranking the country as number one in Internet porn searches, something that was duty of Mr Khosa and his ministry.

But since the government did not bother countering insult of the country and its people by a foreign TV channel, the ISPAK came forward to present the facts to the media, again nothing related to the content filtering software.

“Actually Khosa is infuriated because illegally ‘denotified’ directors of R&D Fund first refused to appoint his brother-in-law as CEO and then approached the high court for seeking justice,” the official added.

The PPP Government Too Unpopular & Weak to Resist General Kayani

The speech may have lasted just three minutes, but it spoke volumes about where power lies in Pakistan. 

Late on July 22, 2010, PM Yousaf Gilani suddenly appeared on national television to address the country. Pakistan is passing through a critical phase, he said, reading intently from a script on his desk and stealing only furtive glances at the camera in front of him. 

He praised the Pakistani army for its successes in military operations against Islamist militants and singled out its commander, General Kayani, for his “excellent military leadership qualities and pro-democracy views.” For those reasons, Gilani said, despite the fact that Kayani’s term in command of the army was about to expire, Pakistan’s civilian government had decided to keep him on for another three years. 

There was little enthusiasm in the PM’s voice. 

It had been widely expected that Kayani would be granted an extension if he sought one, because the civilian government is too unpopular and too weak to resist a powerful army chief’s whims. But what did surprise many was the length of the extension: Kayani had been due to retire this November; now, underscoring the military’s enduring clout, he will remain in his post until 2013, establishing himself as the most powerful man in the country. 

Since assuming the top post in November 2007, Kayani has done much to efface the ignominious record of his predecessor, Musharraf, who ruled Pakistan for eight years as a military dictator. In the battle against militants in South Waziristan and the Swat Valley, the army’s fresh resolve has been rewarded with significant success and popular support. 

Relations with the Pentagon and NATO have improved, and Kayani is well regarded by senior Western military officers. By shunning the overtly political role claimed by his predecessor, Kayani has also done much to rebuild the army’s public image. 

But many Pakistanis question the wisdom of granting Kayani an unprecedented three-year extension and raise concerns about its implications for democracy and civilian control over the military. 

“It’s completely wrong, and I’m aghast that the civilian government has done it,” says Kamran Shafi, a prominent commentator and a former soldier. “It augurs badly for democracy in this country. The last time a civilian government gave a military chief an extension, it was General Ayub Khan. Later, he took over, ruled the country as a dictator for a decade, in the first of four military dictatorships. It’s been downhill ever since.” 

Kayani may have avoided interfering in the affairs of government, but he has left no doubt as to who calls the shots in Pakistan. 

In 2008, when President Zardari, in a gesture aimed at India, suggested that Pakistan might stand down on its first-strike nuclear capability, he was severely admonished by the generals. Later that summer, a government attempt to bring the military’s controversial ISI agency under civilian oversight collapsed in less than 24 hours. After the November 2008 Mumbai massacre, PM Gilani’s decision to dispatch the ISI chief to New Delhi was reversed under similar pressure. 

Kayani also intervened in March 2009 to avert a political crisis by pressing a reluctant government to restore deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry to the bench. 

And last summer when the civilian government cheered the prospect of U.S. legislation tripling nonmilitary aid, the generals stepped in to denounce its conditions as humiliating. 

When it comes to policy in regards to the U.S., Afghanistan and India, it is General Kayani who is calling the shots. The recent failed peace talks between the Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers underscored the influence of hawkish elements in both countries. And domestically, efforts to beef up the counterterrorism capability of civilian law-enforcement agencies have suffered as military-controlled intelligence agencies retain their preeminence. 

Washington and its allies, however, are likely to embrace Kayani’s extension, given the critical state of the Afghan war. Believing that the U.S.-led war effort next door is doomed, Kayani and his top lieutenants have opened direct communication with the government in Kabul and are maneuvering to broker a peace agreement with the Taliban and its allies. Washington has not publicly supported these back-channel efforts, but local analysts believe these moves have tacit backing from the Obama Administration. 

If they fail, then the U.S. can exert pressure on Pakistan to take action against Afghan insurgent elements on its soil. Amid such delicate maneuvers, any change in the Pakistani high command would be seen as an unnecessary risk. 

For Pakistan, however, the episode repeats a familiar cycle, in which the geopolitical agendas of others inevitably put military men in power.

NYT Exposes ISI Links with Taliban

The White House denounced a massive leak of secret military files on July 25, 2010 that describe how Pakistan’s spy service aids the Afghan insurgency.

In all, some 92,000 documents were released by the web whistleblower Wikileaks, containing previously untold details of the Afghan war through Pentagon files and field reports spanning from 2004 to 2010.

According to the New York Times, they “suggest that Pakistan, an ostensible ally of the United States, allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban.”

Describing the talks as “secret strategy sessions,” the newspaper said they “organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders.”

White House National Security Advisor James Jones issued a statement to reporters shortly before the documents were posted online, saying the leaks were “irresponsible” but would not impact US strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The New York Times said it, along with the Guardian newspaper in London and the German magazine Der Spiegel, had received the leaked material several weeks ago from Wikileaks, a secretive web organization that often publishes classified material.

The news organizations agreed to publish their reports, based on the files used by desk officers in the Pentagon and troops in the field when they make operational plans.

Most of the reports are routine, even mundane, but many add insights, texture and context to a war that has been waged for nearly nine years.

Overall these documents amount to a real-time history of the war reported from one important vantage point — that of the soldiers and officers actually doing the fighting and reconstruction.

Much of the information — raw intelligence and threat assessments gathered from the field in Afghanistan — cannot be verified and likely comes from sources aligned with Afghan intelligence, which considers Pakistan an enemy, and paid informants.

The files painted “a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan.”

A series of revelations include the fact that a growing number of civilians were dying at the hands of international forces. It said the logs detailed 144 such incidents.

The Taliban were also causing increasing numbers of civilian casualties with their roadside bombing campaign, which the documents showed had killed more than 2,000 civilians.

The White House also issued to reporters a series of remarks made in the past by top officials expressing their concern about links between Pakistan spy services and militants in Afghanistan.

One was from Defense Secretary Robert Gates dated March 31, 2009: “The ISI’s contacts with [extremist groups] are a real concern to us, and we have made these concerns known directly to the Pakistanis.”

The documents reportedly cover a period of time from January 2004 to December 2009, the bulk of which time former president Bush was in office.

A US official who asked not to be named added: “I don’t think anyone who follows this issue will find it surprising that there are concerns about ISI and safe havens in Pakistan,” in reference to Pakistan’s secretive ISI. “In fact, we’ve said as much repeatedly and on the record,” the official said, reiterating that most of the information preceded Obama’s time in office.“Some of the disconcerting things reported are exactly why the president ordered a three month policy review and a change in strategy,” the official said, adding that “Wikileaks is not an objective news outlet but rather an organization that opposes US policy in Afghanistan.”