Anatomy Of NATO Attack On Pakistan

Pakistan Observer
January 31, 2012

Review of NATO attack
Asif Haroon Raja*
Edited by RR

Apache helicopters

F-18s

It will be recalled that in order to multiply pressure on Pakistan, the western border was deliberately heated up by Pakistan’s strategic partners sitting in Kabul.

Between May and September 2011, tens of deadly raids had been conducted by Waliur Rehman- and Maulvi Faqir-led militants based in the safe haven of Kunar and by Fazlullah-led militants based in Nuristan duly backed by the Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS), RAAM, the Afghan regime and NATO. Levies employed on border duties and villagers were cruelly killed by militants. Kabul and ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] HQ were repeatedly requested to control cross-border terrorism and to close down the sanctuaries of anti-Pakistan militants in Kunar and Nuristan provinces, but no heed was paid. Perforce, General Headquarters deployed regular troops in Mehmand [Mohmand] and Chitral and cleared the restive areas of the presence of undesirables. The 7 AK Regiment was deployed in the Mehmand Agency closer to the Afghan border. It established several border posts to keep a watch over possible infiltration routes.

Two posts, Volcano and Boulder, were set up ahead of a village in the Mohmand Agency on a barren ridgeline about 8,000 feet in height in a manner that they leaned forward on the forward slope so as to effectively cover the valley running from east to west. The two posts, each comprising about a platoon strength of 34 soldiers, were so deployed as to cover the northwestern and northeastern approaches. Weapons were sighted in a manner as to be able of bringing down an enfilade and spraying fire in the valley. One post covered the exit point of the valley in the west; the second post covered the eastern edge at the entry point. Company HQ with a platoon was in depth. The posts located on a dominating salient enjoyed excellent line of sight and arc of fire. The two posts also acted as the screen for the battalion.

The valley was frequented by TTP [Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan] militants together with Afghan National Army-trained Afghan militants based in Kunar. This route was the shortest and safest from Kunar and led straight to heart of the Mehmand Agency wherefrom the infiltrators had multiple choices to either strike within that tribal agency, or Bajaur, or Upper or Lower Dir. Deeper targets in Malakand, Buner, Swat or even Chitral and parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa could also be reached via Mehmand.

As a consequence of the deployment of the two posts, several attempts by militants to sneak through the valley were successfully blocked. As a result, cross-border movement had ceased from mid-October onwards. Blockage of the main passageway resulted in the assembling of large numbers of militants belonging to the TTP in Kunar who were getting desperate to enter Pakistan. The Karzai regime, NDS [National Directorate of Security] and Afghan National Army (ANA) were also boiling with anger after attacks on NDS HQ and murder of Prof Rabbani in Kabul and wanted to settle scores.

In order to seek assistance from NATO, NDS and RAW [India's Research and Analysis Wing] passed false information to the CIA that Pakistan-sponsored militants were using the Salala-Kunar route to create unrest in Kunar and other regions of Eastern Afghanistan. It was also conveyed that the two Pakistani posts at Salala were not only providing cover to the infiltrators but also preventing the movement of their fighters into Mehmand. Based on this input, a comprehensive plan was hatched in Kabul to provide covering fire to the batch of over 100 militants and ensure their safe entry. It was also planned to destroy the two posts so as to remove the irritants for good.

As a cover-up, plan, a mockup operation by the ANA was conducted in Kunar province from 25 November onwards. NATO air cover was made part of the operation. The area was well away from the Salala area and deep inside Afghan territory and the Pakistan Army was informed about it in advance. Just before dawn on the night of 25/26th, when all the soldiers were fast asleep except for the sentries on duty, two Apache helicopters suddenly crossed the border and started firing at the two posts indiscriminately. The helicopters remained at a safe distance for fear of being hit by an ack-ack gun or a surface-to-air missile. The helicopters were backed by four other combat helicopters and close air support was provided by F-18s. No sooner had fire came on the posts than a field officer commanding the two posts instantly contacted the ISAF and informed it that Pakistani posts were being attacked and that the fire must cease. But firing continued for one hour.

During this period, the bulk of the infiltrating force along with donkeys laden with ammunition and explosives moved past the valley. By that time, urgent messages had been sent by GHQ on a hotline and the helicopters turned back. When the helicopters went away and the dust settled down, the defenders detected movement in the valley. The stragglers had still not gone past the valley and as such were brought under coordinated fire. On receipt of a distress signal from the militants, the helicopters returned and plastered the two posts with ATGMs [anti-tank guided missiles] with a vengeance for the next thirty minutes. 24 soldiers including one major and one subaltern died and 16 soldiers received serious injuries.

In order to obfuscate the facts NATO has taken urged a plea as an afterthought that the helicopters responded to hostile fire coming from the posts. There was no reason for the defenders to open fire at the helicopters without any provocation. If one agrees with NATO’s preposterous contention for argument sake, the fast-moving and highly maneuverable helicopters with anti-armor and anti-aircraft protection could have easily moved away out of range of the weapons deployed on the ground.

If it was unintentional, as claimed by NATO leadership, why couldn’t the helicopters equipped with night-fighting capability see a Pakistani flag fluttering on top of a post and soldiers dressed in uniforms, particularly when each flying helicopter/jet/cargo plane carries marked maps showing the border and border posts? If the helicopters came in response to the call made by the ANA, how come the attackers attacked the static posts atop a ridgeline? In these ten years NATO should have learnt that Taliban never take up static defences and that too on hilltops. They prefer caves and valleys. If the helicopters made a mistake once, why was the mistake repeated? If the map reference of Salala posts was marked wrongly by the Border Coordination Centre, or passed on wrongly by a NATO liaison officer, why did the massacre continue for ninety minutes after NATO HQ was frantically informed on a hotline at multiple levels including GHQ to get the fire stopped forthwith?

Since the real purpose was to give covering fire to the infiltrators, heads of the troops manning the posts were pinned down to facilitate the unobserved and unhindered movement of infiltrators carrying their extra baggage on donkeys. It would be a sheer underestimation of NATO power to take nearly two hours to destroy posts made of cement blocks and strengthened by sandbags. It was a willful massacre and it didn’t end on 26 November. The terrorists that managed to sneak in on that night are now busy carrying out terrorist attacks in Kyhber Pakhtunkwa, Khyber Agency and other nearby areas.

The inquest carried out by ISAF’s Brig Stephen Clark apportions equal blame on both sides and wrongfully maintains that the fire was in self-defence. The US accepts several omissions made by the attackers but terms all of them coincidental and affixes partial responsibility on Pakistan. It is inconceivable that the ISAF, with the best technology, was unaware of the existence of two posts. US officials consistently stated that the attack was unintentional before and during the course of inquiry, thereby influencing the investigating team. The US wants the Pakistan Army to accept this factually incorrect report based on half-truths. Mercifully, the Army and the government are on one page. Not only has the report has been rejected, the government has taken bold and appropriate steps to checkmate America’s bellicosity and aggressive unilateralism.

*The writer is a retired Brig [brigadier commander] and a defence analyst.

Obama-Saakashvili Meeting: Iran War Base In Return For Presidential Election Support

Voice of Russia
January 31, 2012

Georgian-American homage
Natalya Kovalenko

====

[A] reason to befriend Tbilisi is a possible military aggression against Iran. In this case, the US could use Georgian territory for the deployment of US aircraft. The US would not even have to ask Georgia, as experience shows that Georgia is a voluntary participant in all US military operations.

If Saakashvili’s candidature is approved in Washington he as good as having the presidential post in his pocket already.

====

Talks between the US and Georgian presidents have taken place in Washington. Mikhail Saakashvili did not manage to enumerate definite agreements they reached but called the meeting productive. Experts believe that the presidents talked about a possible attack against Iran and US support for Saakashvili in the presidential election in Georgia in 2013.

Announcer: The Georgian leader had advertised his first official visit to Washington long before the meeting with Obama. He said that American-Georgian relations were achieving a real breakthrough in the fields of security, defence, trade, tourism, energy supplies, science, education, culture, etc. However, his expectations must have been overrated.

The meeting was only a ceremonial event, at least that part of it where journalists were allowed. The presidents exchanged stock phrases about their adherence to the development of relations in the fields of security and strategic partnership. Following the meeting, Obama called Georgia a responsible player in the world arena, promised further US support for Georgia in its bida to join NATO and declared further consolidation of trade relations between the two countries, including a possible free trade agreement.

Speaking frankly, it was hardly worthwhile crossing the Atlantic to hear these generalities but Saakashvili is in no position to decline an invitation from Washington.

President of the Politika Foundation Vyacheslav Nikonov says:

“Georgia is a country that the US has been granting great support to in recent years. If we look at the figures, Georgia always either came second after Israel or third after Israel and Egypt, according to the amount of money invested in its support by the US. Georgia constantly receives US military assistance and American instructors train the Georgian army.”

On the other hand, relations between the US and Georgia cooled down in the last couple of years. Washington could not have failed to notice Tbilisi’s outrageous violation of human rights and freedoms. However, to stop Saakashvili from impeding Russia’s joining the WTO, Washington had to compromise. For this reason, Obama declared that the US appreciated the model of democracy and transparency that Georgia had set up in its region.

Another reason to befriend Tbilisi is a possible military aggression against Iran. In this case, the US could use Georgian territory for the deployment of US aircraft. The US would not even have to ask Georgia, as experience shows that Georgia is a voluntary participant in all US military operations.

Political scientist, St. Petersburg University Professor Valery Ostrovsky says:

“If we take the Afghan war, Georgia takes first place among coalition countries in the number of servicemen sent there as against the percentage of its population. Georgians have died in Afghanistan and Iraq and this policy seems to persist.”

On his part, Saakashvili needs support from abroad ahead of the 2013 presidential campaign. He can very well manage the domestic opposition but his position is too shaky to withstand reproaches for violating democratic values on the part of overseas human rights protectors. If Saakashvili’s candidature is approved in Washington he as good as having the presidential post in his pocket already.

U.S. War Against Iran: More Combat Fatalities Without Growth In Strength

Voice of Russia
January 31, 2012

US keeps up sabre-rattling show for Iran
Andrei Ptashnikov

News from Washington proves that the US is serious about its plan to carry out a military operation against Iran.

Announcer: Washington has repeatedly threatened Iran on the highest level. US Defense Minister Leon Panetta has also publicly declared that such a development was quite realistic. In his interview for the CBS TV company he said:

“The United States – and the president’s made this clear – does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us, and it’s a red line obviously for the Israelis, so we share a common goal here. If we have to do it we will deal with it. If they proceed and we get intelligence that they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop it.“

Panetta almost literally repeated US President Barack Obama’s message on the situation in the country which he sent to Congress several days ago.

Obama also declared that America would not stop at anything to prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons. Given all these belligerent declarations, one gets the impression that a military solution to the Iran problem seems most likely to Washington. Israel, a loyal US ally, holds the same view. It seems that even Tehran’s readiness to resume talks on its nuclear programme with six international intermediaries is not taken into consideration any more. Tough economic sanctions are being introduced against Iran and more and more US combat ships are patrolling the Persian Gulf.

One would like to hope that all these are only methods of political and economic pressure on Iran and no military actions will follow. But what if they do follow, like in Iraq and Afghanistan?

At that time we also doubted that America would venture on an armed invasion, but it did venture on an invasion, though without any special accomplishments. The same scenario may be repeated this year, especially ahead of the forthcoming presidential election in the US.

It is common knowledge that a short victorious war usually raises the country’s leader’s popularity to the skies. The current US president needs this badly as his rating is rather low at present. However, a war against Iran is unlikely to be short and victorious. Iran is a much stronger enemy than Iraq or Afghanistan, where the wars have already lasted for 10 years. Incidentally, the US invaded Iraq on the same charges it is using against Iran now. No nuclear weapons have been discovered in Iraq, so Washington has to think again.

Leon Panetta gave a touching detail in his TV interview.

“The toughest thing in this job, frankly, is writing the condolence letters to the parents of those young men and women who are killed in action. But I also say to them, ‘Your son or daughter is really a true hero and patriot, because they were willing to give their life for their country. And that means that they’ll never be forgotten.’ And I hope that’s some measure of comfort for them – because, in the end, the only comfort I have is to know that these kids, when they put their lives on the line, are helping America be strong for the future.”

We can only say one thing definitely in this respect. America will not grow stronger in the war against Iran and the head of the Pentagon will have to sign many more mournful letters.

Stop NATO news: January 31 II

====

Obama Praises Georgia As Model Democracy, NATO Partner

White House Meeting: U.S. Supports Georgia’s NATO Membership

NATO, U.S. Experts To Visit Azerbaijan

U.S. Military Delegation To Hold Talks In Kyrgyzstan

Afghan War: NATO Loses 34 Soldiers This Month

====

Obama Praises Georgia As Model Democracy, NATO Partner

http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=24399

Civil Georgia
January 31, 2012

Obama Meets Saakashvili

‘Georgia should be extraordinarily proud of the progress it made’;
‘Anticipating fair and free elections’;
‘Formal transfer of power will solidify reforms’;
Exploring ‘the possibility of a free trade agreement’ with Georgia;
‘Georgia sets model of democracy for the region as a whole’;
‘Georgia responsible player on the world scene’;

Tbilisi: U.S. President, Barack Obama, told his Georgian counterpart in Washington on January 30 that Georgia was setting a model of democracy for the region and was now “anticipating fair and free elections,” and President Saakashvili said he was leaving the Oval Office “very happy because we basically got what we wanted to get.”

The U.S. President praised Georgia for “progress that is made in building a sovereign and democratic country”, saying that Georgia should be “extraordinarily proud” of that; he also commended personally Saakashvili, saying that “under the President’s leadership” Georgia “made enormous strides.”

“And one of the first things that I did was express my appreciation for the institution-building that’s been taking place in Russia – in Georgia [he immediately corrected himself]; the importance of making sure that minorities are respected; the importance of a police and system of rule of law that is being observed,” the U.S. President said.

“So I want to express my appreciation for the work that’s been done in the past, but also anticipating fair and free elections; the formal transfer of power that will be taking place in Georgia, which I think will solidify many of these reforms that have already taken place,” President Obama said after talks with President Saakashvili – the first official meeting between the two at the White House.

On elections President Saakashvili said in his remarks after the meeting, that this year’s parliamentary elections “will mark bringing in another political system, constitution system with more parliamentary government.”

Saakashvili then added: “As you [referring to President Obama] rightly mentioned next year new President will be elected in Georgia. And that’s also important because [we] will move our democracy forward and will generally get much more to a diversified and pluralistic political scene.”

The U.S. President said that he had discussed with his Georgian counterpart how to further strengthen “already a very strong bilateral relationship”, including in economy and added that possibility of free trade agreement with Georgia would be explored.

“Georgia has made strides in creating an effective free market system and more progress needs to be made. The United States wants to help in that progress,” he said.

“What we’ve agreed to is a high-level dialogue between our two countries about how we can continue to strengthen trade relations between our two countries, including the possibility of a free trade agreement. Obviously, there’s a lot of work to be done and there are going to be a lot of options that are going to be explored,” he said.

President Saakashvili thanked his U.S. counterpart for mentioning “the prospect of a free trade agreement”, saying that it would help “to attract lots of additional activity to my country, and basically helping our nation-building process.”

On defense and security, President Obama said that he thanked the Georgian leader for his country’s “extraordinary contributions” to the NATO-led operation in Afghanistan, describing Georgia as “one of the most dedicated contributors outside of NATO to the ISAF effort.”

“We have talked about how we will continue to strengthen our defense cooperation, and there are a wide range of areas where we are working together. And I reaffirmed to the President and assured him that the United States will continue to support Georgia’s aspirations to ultimately become a member of NATO,” Obama said.

President Saakashvili thanked the Obama administration for, what he called, “elevating our defense cooperation further” and also expressed gratitude to President Obama for “talking about Georgia’s self-defense capabilities and developing it.”

“That’s also of course an important message back to my nation,” Saakashvili said.

President Obama also said that the U.S. appreciated “the model of democracy and transparency” that Georgia was setting not just for itself, but also “for the region as a whole.”

“And we think that with continued progress over the next several years that a lot of countries will say to themselves that if Georgia can perform these transformations, then we can as well. They’ve been a responsible player on the world scene and in multilateral for a,” the U.S. President said.

====

White House Meeting: U.S. Supports Georgia’s NATO Membership

http://www.itar-tass.com/en/c32/330407.html

Itar-Tass
January 31, 2012

US and Georgia are to deepen their cooperation

TBILISI: Deeper  cooperation between Georgia and the United States will be aimed at upgrading the country’s defences and ensuring compatibility of the Georgian armed forces with NATO, Georgian Deputy Prime Minister, minister of state for re-integration Eka Tkeshelashvili told Georgian journalists in Washington.

Commenting on a meeting of the Georgian and American presidents in the White House on January 30, Ms. Tkeshelashvili said: “Problems of Georgian-American cooperation in the sphere of security were discussed in detail at the meeting. The presidents discussed concrete aspects of the current situation with bilateral cooperation in the sphere of security, as well future prospects in that direction. It was pointed out that cooperation will be deepened with the aim of ensuring compatibility of the Georgian armed forces and NATO as well as upgrading the country’s defence potential.”

According to her information, President Barack Obama said at the meeting that the United States supported Georgia’s intention to join NATO.

====

NATO, U.S. Experts To Visit Azerbaijan

http://en.trend.az/news/politics/1986197.html

Trend News Agency
January 31, 2012

NATO, U.S. experts to visit Azerbaijan
K. Zarbaliyeva

Baku: NATO and the U.S. experts are scheduled to visit Baku on Feb.14.

During the visit a review will be made on NATO assistance in reforming the Azerbaijani Armed Forces, including in military training, the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry told Trend on Tuesday.

The cooperation between Azerbaijan and NATO was laid in 1994, signing a framework document – Partnership for Peace.

In April 1996, an official document was signed within the Partnership for Peace Program, which identifies specific areas of cooperation between countries and the alliance. Currently, in accordance with this program, Azerbaijan implements about 50 partnership tasks.

On Aug. 3, 2005, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev signed a decree on approval of an Individual Partnership Action Plan between Azerbaijan and NATO.”

Now cooperation is carried out in the second phase of the plan.

====

U.S. Military Delegation To Hold Talks In Kyrgyzstan

http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?pg=6&id=305565

Interfax
January 31, 2012

U.S. military delegation to visit Kyrgyzstan

BISHKEK: A delegation from the U.S. Central Command is expected to arrive in Kyrgyzstan on Wednesday to formulate joint plans for 2012, a Kyrgyz Defense Ministry source said.

“A delegation from the Unites States Central Command is coming to our country to work out joint plans for 2012,” he told Interfax on Tuesday.

“The composition [of the delegation] and all of the topics on the talks’ agenda will be announced on the same day [Wednesday],” the source said.

====

Afghan War: NATO Loses 34 Soldiers This Month

http://channel6newsonline.com/2012/01/insurgents-kill-nato-soldier-in-southern-afghanistan-5/

BNO News
January 31, 2012

Insurgents kill NATO soldier in southern Afghanistan

KABUL: A coalition service member died in southern Afghanistan on Tuesday after he was attacked by insurgents, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said. His nationality was not immediately known.

ISAF said one of its service members was killed as a result of an insurgent attack in Afghanistan’s south. But because the multinational force defers the release of specific details to national authorities, other details about the incident were not immediately available.

The nationality of the service member was also not immediately disclosed by ISAF. “It is ISAF policy to defer casualty identification procedures to the relevant national authorities,” a brief statement said.

Tuesday’s death raises the number of coalition troops killed in Afghanistan so far this year to 34, according to official figures. The deadliest incident so far this year happened on January 19 when a NATO helicopter crashed in southern Afghanistan, killing six U.S. Marines.

A total of 566 ISAF troops were killed in Afghanistan in 2011, down from 711 in 2010. A majority of the fallen troops were American and were killed in the country’s south, which is plagued by IED attacks on troops and civilians.

There are currently more than 130,000 ISAF troops in Afghanistan, including some 90,000 U.S. troops and more than 9,500 British soldiers…

====

White House Recruits South Caucasus Allies For Attack On Iran

Times.am (Armenia)
January 30, 2012

US held discussions with Azerbaijan about its relations with Iran: Is the USA looking for a platform?
Edited by RR

U.S. charge d’affaires to Azerbaijan Adam Sterling announced that the U.S. understands Azerbaijan’s special position on Iran due to the geographical location, he said while commenting on the sanctions imposed on Iran.

According to Azeri Press Agency, the diplomat said Iran-related issues are always discussed in bilateral meetings.

“We constantly discuss it during the talks with Azerbaijan,” he said.

Today Russian Kommersant wrote that the Georgian and U.S. presidents will discuss the possibility of the use of Georgian territory for attacking Iran. The source referred to experts who confirmed that events related to Iran will be the main theme of the Georgian and American presidents. Some of them also noted that Georgia will be unable to refuse the the U.S. offer even it wants to refuse it.

This information makes us think that maybe the U.S. plans an attack against Iran and is looking for a platform in the region. Armenia is considered to be Iranian ally and it is not seriously expected to provide any assistance against Iran. Georgia is more reliable for the U.S. and negotiations with the Azerbaijani side on Iranian-Azerbaijani relations are held, as we know from the quote by the American official.

At the same time the Islamic Republic News Agency reports that Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi advised European and U.S. officials to interact with Iran instead of resorting to sanctions and pressures.

Salehi made the remark here on Monday while talking to the Turkish TRT television news channel.

…

————————————————————————————————–

Azeri Press Agency
January 30, 2012

US charge d’affaires: We understand Azerbaijan’s special position on Iran
Viktoria Dementyeva

Baku: “We understand Azerbaijan’s special position on Iran due to the geographical location,” U.S. charge d’affaires to Azerbaijan Adam Sterling said while commenting on the sanctions imposed on Iran, APA reports.

The diplomat said the Iran issue is always discussed in bilateral meetings.

“We constantly discuss it during the talks with Azerbaijan,” he said.

—————————————————————————-

Civil Georgia
January 31, 2012

Saakashvili: ‘Results from Talks with Obama Exceeded Our Expectations’

Tbilisi: President Saakashvili said “concrete results” of his meeting with President Obama “exceeded our expectations.”

“I am very impressed and satisfied by the results of this meeting,” he said in remarks made separately for Georgian journalists after leaving the White House, following his talks with the U.S. President on January 30.

He said it was the most fruitful talks he had ever had in the Oval Office. Saakashvili met twice with President Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, at the White House – first in July, 2006 and then in March 2008.

In his remarks outside the White House, Saakashvili emphasized what he called “elevating” defense cooperation with the U.S. “on a new level”.

“We are talking about elevating cooperation in the defense sphere to a new level; if in previous years we were talking only about anti-terrorism operations and our participation in peacekeeping operations in Iraq or Afghanistan, now we are talking about cooperating with the United States on developing Georgia’s self-defense capabilities. We will continue working on these issues; very concrete meetings have been planned and this is a new, higher level of our cooperation on the military and security issues,” Saakashvili said.

Stop NATO news: January 31, 2012

====

NATO, GCC Push Cooperation In Arab World, Persian Gulf

Azerbaijan: Valuable NATO Partner On Iranian Border

Commander Of NATO, U.S. Troops In Afghanistan Visits Georgia

Obama-Saakashvili Talks To Elevate Bilateral Ties To New Level

NATO Grooms Montenegro For Full Membership

General Dynamics Wins Contract For NATO Interceptor Missiles

Army Grants Lockheed $921 Million For Patriot Advanced Capability-3s

====

NATO, GCC Push Cooperation In Arab World, Persian Gulf

http://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=2218303&language=en

Kuwait News Agency
January 30, 2012

NATO, GCC discuss Mideast security

BRUSSELS: NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and the Secretary General of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Dr Adbullatif Al-Zayani, met here Monday afternoon to discuss a range of issues including developments in the Middle East, the importance of cooperative security and of regular contacts between NATO and the GCC.

During the meeting, Rasmussen praised the strong cooperation between NATO and six GCC member states under the framework of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI), according to a NATO press release.

He highlighted the active and positive role played by the GCC in the recent crisis in Libya. NATO and Partners, including GCC members, enforced the historic resolution of the United Nations Security Council on Libya…

Looking ahead, the NATO Secretary General noted that the upcoming NATO Summit in Chicago will provide an opportunity for NATO to underline its interest in stability and security in the Middle East East and North Africa and to enhance political relations and practical cooperation with countries in the region.

The GCC chief arrived in Brussels on Sunday for a three-day visit for talks with EU and NATO officials.

====

Azerbaijan: Valuable NATO Partner On Iranian Border

http://en.trend.az/regions/scaucasus/azerbaijan/1985735.html

Trend News Agency
January 30, 2012

Romanian ambassador: Azerbaijan – valuable partner of NATO
S. Agayeva

Baku: Azerbaijan is a valuable partner of NATO, and these relations are developing within the “Partnership for Peace (PfP)” Programme, Romanian Ambassador to Azerbaijan Daniel Cristian Ciobanu said at the opening of the NATO School in Azerbaijan on Monday.

“NATO appreciates Azerbaijan’s peacekeeping efforts, including in Afghanistan,” Ciobanu said. He said about 30 events aimed at developing relations of the Alliance with Azerbaijan are planned in 2012 as part of NATO-Azerbaijan cooperation.

The winter session of the International School NATO-Azerbaijan opened in Baku is attended by about 50 participants from 20 countries, members and partners of NATO.

====

Commander Of NATO, U.S. Troops In Afghanistan Visits Georgia

http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=24395

Civil Georgia
January 30, 2012

Commander of NATO-led Forces in Afghanistan Visits Tbilisi

Tbilisi: General John R. Allen, commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, visits Tbilisi to discuss Georgia’s “continuing contributions to peace and stability in Afghanistan,” the U.S. embassy in Tbilisi said on Monday.

Gen. John R. Allen will hold a series of meeting with senior Georgian government and military officials on January 30.

He will also visit and address Georgia’s 23rd infantry battalion at the Krtsanisi Training Center outside Tbilisi. The battalion is currently undergoing training to prepare for deployment in Afghanistan.

Georgia plans to send this year one additional infantry battalion to Afghanistan on top of 936 Georgian soldiers who already serve as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

As a result, after sending one more battalion – that is 749 soldiers – Georgia will become the largest non-NATO contributor to ASAF with total of 1,685 troops.

Georgia has lost twelve of its soliders since joining NATO-led operation in Afghanistan in November, 2009. The Georgian troops in Afghanistan operate without caveats.

====

Obama-Saakashvili Talks To Elevate Bilateral Ties To New Level

http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=24393

Civil Georgia
January 30, 2012

Georgian Ambassador: Obama-Saakashvili Talks ‘to Elevate Ties to New Level’

-Saakashvili is expected to speak at the launch of World Bank study entitled Fighting Corruption in Public Services – Chronicling Georgia’s Reforms. On Wednesday, he will talk about Post-Revolutionary Societies and What Comes After the Arab Spring at the U.S. Institute of Peace.

Tbilisi: A meeting between the U.S. and Georgian presidents at the White House on January 30 will “elevate our relations between the two countries to a new level,” Georgia’s ambassador to the United States, Temur Yakobashvili, said on Sunday.

“This is very important for our country, especially against the background of the political reality in which we are now, I mean developments taking place around us,” he told the Georgian Public Broadcaster’s weekly program, Accents, on January 29.

He said “there are lots of issues” on the agenda, which would be raised during the meeting between the two presidents, mainly involving four areas – political, economic, security and democracy.

…

“I want to assure you that the U.S-Georgia relations, including in security issues, will be elevated to the new level,” he said.

“Security issues involve not only sale of arms – that’s one of the components and I think that we will have progress in this direction too; but there are other components as well, which are more important than the issue of sale or purchase of arms, and these issues are about guarantees of our security, including such political issues like integration into NATO, bilateral military relations, which of course is not limited only with sale of arms, there is a whole set of other issues,” the Georgian ambassador said.

He said that the U.S. “is a staunch supporter of Georgia”, including to its NATO aspiration, adding that this support now was “exactly the same” as it was during the Bush administration.

On democracy, Yakobashvili said: “What we hear from our American partners is that they are very seriously satisfied with the transformation that is taking place in Georgia.”

…

Apart from the meeting with the U.S. president, during his visit Mikheil Saakashvili is also scheduled to meet dozens of leading Democratic and Republican members of Congress, as well as media and other opinion leaders in Washington, according to the Georgian government’s English-language weekly online newsletter.

On Tuesday, Saakashvili is expected to speak at the launch of World Bank study entitled Fighting Corruption in Public Services – Chronicling Georgia’s Reforms. On Wednesday, he will talk about Post-Revolutionary Societies and What Comes After the Arab Spring at the U.S. Institute of Peace.

====

NATO Grooms Montenegro For Full Membership

http://www.defpro.com/news/details/31740/?SID=eba1b537bf0e3cbad4e4ed11f54b8a1f

Defence Professionals
January 28, 2012

Montenegro and NATO Hold Talks on Development of Third Package of Partnership
Goals 2012Â

The Minister of Defense of Montenegro, Boro Vucinic, met Jan. 26 with head of the Force Planning Directorate in the NATO’s Department of Defense Policy and Planning, Mr. Frank Boland.

On 25th-26th of January Podgorica [Montenegrin capital] hosted bilateral talks between Montenegro and NATO on the development of the third package of the Partnership Goals 2012. The head of the Force Planning Directorate in the NATO’s Department of Defense Policy and Planning, Mr. Frank Boland, was at the head of the NATO delegation, while the Montenegrin delegation was led by PhD Ivan Masulovic, Deputy Minister for Defense policy, the Ministry of Defense of Montenegro.

The discussion also covered reforms in Montenegro’s defense system in the framework of the mechanisms of the Partnership for Peace and the Individual Membership Action Plan.

Mr. Boland commented on the significant contribution of Montenegro to peace support operations [that is, deployment of troops to Afghanistan] and the results achieved so far in the reform of the defense and security system. He expressed his confidence that Montenegro will successfully fulfill all the tasks on the path towards NATO membership.

Through the work on Partnership Goals, Montenegro continues to develop the necessary capabilities in the direction of strengthening national security and preparations to assume obligations within the framework of full membership in NATO…

====

General Dynamics Wins Contract For NATO Interceptor Missiles

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/general-dynamics-awarded-contract-by-aerojet-for-standard-missile-3-control-actuators-2012-01-30

General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems
January 30, 2012

General Dynamics Awarded Contract by Aerojet for Standard Missile-3 Control Actuators

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. – General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems has received a contract for the design and production of electromagnetic control actuators for Aerojet’s Throttleable Divert and Attitude Control System (TDACS) in support of the Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) Block IIA missile interceptor. General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems is a business unit of General Dynamics.

The SM-3 Block IIA missile is the latest element of the Missile Defense Agency’s Phased Adaptive Approach to regional missile defense. It is a ship-based missile, carried aboard Aegis-equipped ships, with expanded range and capability over previous Block IA and Block IB missiles.

General Dynamics will design and produce actuators for the SM-3 Block IIA that provide pintle movement for control of the SM-3′s kinetic warhead’s TDACS…The company will leverage the design and manufacturing processes successfully developed under the Standard Missile Block IB program in developing and producing the new actuators.

“Our ultra-high-bandwidth and high-power-density actuators have proven to be key performance enablers for the Block IB and IIA advanced variants of the SM-3 missile, and we look forward to continuing our support on this vital program,” said Rich Schroeder, general manager of General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems’ Healdsburg Operations.

====

Army Grants Lockheed $921 Million For Patriot Advanced Capability-3s

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/lockheed-martin-receives-921-million-contract-for-production-of-combat-proven-pac-3-missiles-2012-01-30

Lockheed Martin
January 30, 2012

Lockheed Martin Receives $921 Million Contract for Production of Combat-Proven PAC-3 Missiles

DALLAS: Lockheed Martin received contracts totaling $921 million from the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command for hardware and services associated with the combat-proven Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) Missile Segment program.

The contract includes Fiscal Year 2012 (FY12) missile and command launch system production for the U.S. Army and a follow-on sale of the PAC-3 Missile Segment to Taiwan. In 2009, Taiwan became the fifth international customer for the PAC-3 Missile Segment.

The contract includes production of hit-to-kill PAC-3 Missiles, launcher modification kits, spares and other equipment, as well as program management and services. Production of all equipment will take place at Lockheed Martin manufacturing facilities in Dallas and Lufkin, Texas; Chelmsford, Mass.; and Ocala, Fla., as well as the PAC-3 All-Up Round facility in Camden, Ark. Deliveries will begin in the first half of 2013.

“Demand remains strong from the U.S. and our global partners for the combat-proven PAC-3 Missile,” said Mike Trotsky, vice president of air & missile defense programs at Lockheed Martin’s Missiles and Fire Control business…

Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor on the PAC-3 Missile Segment upgrade to the Patriot air defense system. The PAC-3 Missile Segment upgrade consists of the PAC-3 Missile, a highly agile hit-to-kill interceptor, the PAC-3 Missile canisters (each of which hold four PAC-3 Missiles, with four canisters per launcher), a fire solution computer and an enhanced launcher electronics system and launcher support hardware.

…

====

Romain Rolland: Message to America on the will to conquer the world

====

Anti-war essays, poems, short stories and literary excerpts

…

Romain Rolland: Above The Battle

Romain Rolland: Ara Pacis and Ave, Caesar, Morituri Te Salutant

Romain Rolland: Where to rebuild the world after war?

Maxim Gorky on Romain Rolland, war and humanism

====

Romain Rolland
From Message to America (1926)
Translated by K.S. Shelvankar

The Anglo-Saxon temperament of America is proud and strong, whole-hearted in its likes and its ideas, with assurance and obstinacy. It has a singular inaptitude – which strikes all of us, Europeans – to understand the mentality of other races, to enter into their psychology (and their physiology), to “size up” their spirit, their passions, their peculiar needs. It tends to believe that what is true for itself, that whatever is the Good for her, should be so for all other nations in the world. And if the latter do not judge of the matter the same way, it is they who are mistaken, and America has the right to impose it on them, in its own interests and in the interests of the world. Such a conception leads to the will to conquer the world, under cover of a narrow moralism, wedded (without its knowledge) to natural instincts of greed and domination.

Nothing is more formidable. The more the United States are called upon to act in the world, the more it is their duty to understand the true nature, the true needs, the true ideas of the other peoples of the world; for the duty of the strong is to aid the less strong realise itself and not oppress it, by compelling it to be false to its spirit. It would be a disaster for all humanity if one race, one nation, one State, however lofty it may be, were to impose the rigid and monotonous uniformity of its own personality upon the splendid variety of the universe. I add that disaster would recoil on the people who exercise this blind oppression: for the irresistible forces of oppressed nature would take their revenge upon them.

It is then essential that at this hour of history there should be – not outside of America (as advisers they would be suspect there), but in the heart of the United States itself – clear-sighted and courageous citizens who would be as beacons to their people, who would compel them to know themselves, their greatnesses and their weaknesses, their virtues and their defects, and to know the different individualities, the complementary qualities of other races.         

A War By Other Means In The Middle East

Arab News
January 30, 2012

A war by other means in Mideast
Aijz Z Syed

====

The assassination of Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, deputy director of the Natanz nuclear plant, this month is the fourth such killing of top Iranian nuclear scientists over the past year and half.

This is not just an act of terror, as Tehran chose to describe it, but a declaration of war. It would have provoked a third World War if the US and the now deceased Soviet Union had attempted something similar against each other’s scientists. No other country for that matter would tolerate such attacks on its citizens and national interests.

The less said of the United Nations the better…The world body created to protect peace and resolve conflicts hasn’t just failed in its raison de’tre — its purpose of existence — it has become a willing tool in the hands of the world powers. The UN has increasingly been acting as handmaiden of the empire, with its institutions like the IAEA offering the fig leaf of legitimacy and at times even aiding in its quest for global hegemony.

Abdicating its collective responsibility, the world community stands and stares once again as the coalition of the ever willing cooks up yet another unjust war against another oil-rich Middle East nation.

====

USS Carl Vinson

Here’s a brief history lesson. At the height of World War II when Hitler’s Germany was swallowing one mighty European nation after another without so much as a hiccup, Britain got so desperate for the US help that it resorted to all sorts of tricks to get the Atlantic cousins involved.

That old warhorse Churchill is said to have actually dispatched William Stephenson, Britain’s master spy and the man who inspired Ian Fleming’s James Bond, to the US to try everything from bribing and blackmailing the US senators to creating false-flag situations to force the US into the war against Germany. An unwilling America under a reluctant Roosevelt eventually joined the Great War after Germany invaded the Soviet Union.

As this psychological, diplomatic and economic war on Iran heats up, history appears to repeat itself all over again. Israel and its friends in the US establishment appear more desperate than the British had ever been to get Uncle Sam into the breathlessly awaited war with Iran. Desperate nations are as dangerous as desperate, suicidal men. From the Mossad men posing as CIA agents to recruit saboteurs to assassinating top Iranian nuclear scientists that could be blamed on the “Great Satan”, Israel has already taken this campaign against the Islamic republic to dangerous levels. Right now tensions between Iran and the West are so thick that even a minor skirmish or misunderstanding could spark a full-blown conflagration. The assassination of Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, deputy director of the Natanz nuclear plant, this month is the fourth such killing of top Iranian nuclear scientists over the past year and half.

This is not just an act of terror, as Tehran chose to describe it, but a declaration of war. It would have provoked a third World War if the US and the now deceased Soviet Union had attempted something similar against each other’s scientists. No other country for that matter would tolerate such attacks on its citizens and national interests.

Fortunately or unfortunately, a much sanctioned and politically and economically besieged Iran is perhaps in no position to respond to these flagrant provocations. Israel and the West may not have declared it formally but the war on Iran has already begun — on several fronts. Its economy, already vulnerable thanks to the decades of crippling curbs, has further been brutalized by the latest UN-US sanctions targeting its Central Bank and the crucial oil trade. The European Union, one of Tehran’s biggest trading partners and oil importers, has followed suit by banning Iran’s oil exports and freezing its financial assets. Goes without saying these actions are going to really hurt Iran considering some 80 percent of its foreign revenue comes from oil exports. With its economy on the brink and sanctions turning the rial into a worthless paper, inflation has hit the roof biting ordinary people.

On the political and diplomatic front too, Iran finds itself at the receiving end as it helplessly awaits the approaching D-day. Just as a much sanctioned Iraq did in the run-up to the 2003 invasion. Not a single day passes without the Israeli, American and European politicians and security experts pitching for urgent “action” against Iran.

Meanwhile, Washington and Tel Aviv are playing out the good cop-bad cop routine. The Americans raise the specter of a unilateral Israeli attack even as the Zionists raise the bang-Iran rhetoric to a feverish pitch keeping the whole world dancing on the razor’s edge. What is most disturbing though is not the perfidy of Israel or the hypocrisy of its protectors but the deafening silence of the international community. The less said of the United Nations the better. It increasingly reminds me of what Matthew Arnold said about Shelley — “an ineffectual angel, beating in the void his luminous wings in vain.” The world body created to protect peace and resolve conflicts hasn’t just failed in its raison de’tre — its purpose of existence — it has become a willing tool in the hands of the world powers. The UN has increasingly been acting as handmaiden of the empire, with its institutions like the IAEA offering the fig leaf of legitimacy and at times even aiding in its quest for global hegemony. But then what’s new? It’s a familiar and much repeated history.

What is most disturbing though is the shameful capitulation of the rest of the world in the face of this continuing tyranny and obfuscation. Abdicating its collective responsibility, the world community stands and stares once again as the coalition of the ever willing cooks up yet another unjust war against another oil-rich Middle East nation.

That said, Iran’s leaders aren’t exactly doing their people any service by forever obsessing over nuclear power at the expense of everything else. What is Iran itself doing to end its pariah status? How about building bridges with its Arab neighbors and addressing their apprehensions that are as much a result of Western propaganda as they are of its own rhetoric? Right now, Tehran needs all the friends and allies it could get. Meanwhile the world community must do everything to prevent a war with unimaginably catastrophic consequences for the Middle East and the world.

U.S. Soldiers’ Egregious Conduct Belies Global Human Rights Position

Frontier Post
January 30, 2012

US soldiers’ egregious conduct
By Mohammad Jamil

It has become a habit of some national and international media persons, a few HRs [human rights] activists and so-called civil society members to criticize and malign Pak Army/ISI for any incident related to human rights.

On the contrary, they keep mum over the excesses of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere. In a video clip on www.youtube.com, US soldiers are shown desecrating the dead bodies of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan by urinating on them, which is the worst example of gross misconduct and human rights violation.

But this is not the first incident of US soldiers’ egregious behavior. On 13th May 2006 msnbc.com stated that U.S. military troops with severe psychological problems were sent to Iraq or kept in combat, even when superiors had been aware of signs of mental illness.

In Afghanistan, wedding parties were bombed not less than five times since 2002. Quoting an Afghan defence spokesman, CNN stated on 1st July 2002 that at least 20 people were killed and more than 60 injured in Afghanistan when a U.S. plane dropped a bomb on a wedding party as celebrants fired into the air.

On 5th November 2008, The Telegraph carried a report that Afghan officials confirmed there had been many casualties in an attack in the southern province of Kandahar. Villagers in Wech Baghtu said 37 people had died, including 23 children and 10 women, after planes flattened houses shortly after US troops had fought Taliban insurgents.

America has been engaged in wars since 1950s – from the Korean War to the Vietnam War to Iraq and the Afghanistan War. American soldiers have been perpetrating excesses on people in the occupied territories.

On 28th October 2009, a 26-year-old Fort Carson soldier was supposed to return to Afghanistan, but he intentionally shot himself in the shoulder to avoid deployment. On 5th November 2009, a 39-year-old US Army psychiatrist, who had faced repeated harassment for his ethnicity and faith from his fellow soldiers, shot dead 13 people at the Soldier Readiness Center military base in Fort Hood, Texas.

He was opposed to the war and upset about his impending deployment to Afghanistan. This tragedy once again showed how the very individuals that are trained to help victims of PTSD are themselves losing their own mental balance.

After achieving independence, the American founding fathers earned laurels for being pioneers of democracy, democratic traditions, freedom and human values, but barring a few honourable exceptions their successors have not had a commendable track record; their actions were contrary to the principles they ‘cherished’.

In the past, the US resorted to unilateral use of force ostensibly to promote democracy in Haiti, Nicaragua and elsewhere in Latin America. It had intervened forcibly to change regimes, restore order and preach democracy elsewhere. There is a long list of excesses by the American armed forces, and this is one of the reasons that today the US is hated in most countries of the world.

Though the US administration conveyed an impression that interrogation abuses at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib were merely the work of a few rogue elements, former US president Bush promoted one of the authors of the infamous legal memos, proving such abuses emanated from White House policy.

Aside from torturing prisoners, there was a report regarding the use of white phosphorous in the Iraqi city of Fallujah in November 2007, later confirmed by a US military spokesman.

Researchers report that the rate of PTSD and other mental difficulties tied to war may be as high as 35 per cent. The Hartford Courant, citing records obtained under the federal Freedom of Information Act and more than 100 interviews of families and military personnel, reported numerous cases in which the military failed to follow its own regulations in screening, treating and evacuating mentally unfit troops from Iraq.

Vera Sharav, president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, said: “I can’t imagine something more irresponsible than putting a soldier suffering from stress on (antidepressants), when you know these drugs can cause people to become suicidal and homicidal.”

A psychiatrist summed up the excesses perpetrated by soldiers under stress: “Your mind and mental state can have a profound affect on your physical body, your spiritual experience, and your over-all quality of life. The mind, the body, and the spirit are all inextricably interconnected. When one is affected, the other two suffer. We can live a healthy lifestyle and perform our spiritual duties, but if the mind is not healthy the other two cannot make up for the lack, and we are not truly holistically healthy or healed”.

In April 2011, Rolling Stone magazine and the German newsweekly Der Spiegel published photos of American soldiers committing grisly acts against Afghan civilians. The rogue soldiers, who formed a “kill team,” murdered innocent civilians for sport, posing for photos with some of their victims.

Some “kill team” members also kept gruesome souvenirs, such as fingers and skulls of the men and boys they killed. On 23rd March 2011, American army specialist Jeremy Morlock, 23, was sentenced for 24 years after he pleaded guilty in a US military court on 23rd March. He had admitted he was part of a “kill team” that deliberately murdered Afghan civilians for sport between January and May last year.

Yet the US State Department had the audacity to release a report on global human rights’ violations in other countries. About China, the report stated that it had stepped up restrictions on lawyers, activists, Internet access and journalists, and tightened controls on civil society. China in a quid pro quo told the US to quit as human rights judge, as it is beset by violence, racism and torture, and has no right or moral authority to condemn other governments’ human rights problems.

Will India Join NATO’s War In Afghanistan?

Russia & India Report
January 30, 2012

Will India join NATO’s war in Afghanistan?
Vladimir Sotnikov, The Middle East Institute

====

[T]here is a big game happening in the region, with the U.S., India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other players that have been drawn in. The cost of winning in this game is the further strengthening of a strategic partnership between Washington and New Delhi, but above all pressure on Islamabad to take steps to change its position in relation to the U.S., and to once again become a “valuable strategic ally.”

[I]f India is in fact seen as a transit point for military supplies to Afghanistan, this will be the first time that New Delhi “will do big business” with the Atlantic community. Many Indian analysts say this would be a historical turning point in the politics of India’s cooperation with the U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan.

====

India-NATO Dialogue, February 2011

Can India use its transfer station card for NATO military cargo in the American-Indo-Pakistani “big game” in Afghanistan?

While U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Pakistani counterpart, Hina Rabbani Khar, attempt to normalize relations between the countries after the recent American drone strikes in Pakistan, the question has arisen as to how India can become an integral member of the multi-party Afghan equation, where U.S. and NATO stakes are still very high. What does the question entail?

The Pakistani transit routes for NATO convoys that supply military cargo to Afghanistan have been closed for two months (after an “erroneous” attack by a NATO aircraft on a Pakistani army checkpoint in the Pakistani-Afghan border region in November last year – V.S.). There is no end in sight, and everything depends on the expected “reset” of US-Pakistani relations. At the same time, Washington and Brussels boldly insist that NATO has alternative means of cargo delivery and that Pakistan is backing itself into a corner. But the events of the past two months, since the so-called southern route for NATO cargo stopped operating, demonstrate that NATO feels a “painful prick” for its successful activity in Afghanistan.

According to American news agency the Associated Press, the cost of transporting NATO goods may have increased by 512% following the closure of the Pakistani route. The monthly cost of transportation today is up to $115 million (along the so-called northern route), versus $17 million if using the transit route through Pakistan. In addition, there is both a political risk and political cost. Washington should seek support from Russia for increased use of the northern route to deliver NATO cargo. But with the current state of Russian-American relations – with Moscow directly opposing the Obama administration’s commitment to regime change in Syria and Iran, and also given the differences over the U.S. missile defense system (Moscow still does not agree with U.S. plans to build missile defense systems in Europe and believes they are directed against Russia) – it’s not that simple.

So what are Washington’s options in this situation? In our opinion, it would, of course, be preferable for the U.S. if Pakistan reopened the transit route for NATO convoys through its territory in the near future; however, this still seems to be a distant deed, in view of new strikes by U.S. drones on Pakistani territory which, as the Pakistani military commented emotionally, “As before, violates Pakistan’s sovereignty.” That’s why the question has arisen of India’s attractiveness for Washington in engaging alternative routes. If you take the word of American commentators, this question has come up recently.

According to Luis Martinez, military commentator for the channel ABC, American officials claim that much of the added cost of transporting NATO cargo comes out of rerouting cargo originally intended for Pakistan’s territory, and it is currently arriving by ship in other countries in the region for subsequent air transport to Afghanistan. For example, there is the added cost of moving some types of cargo from Pakistani ports to Indian ones, from which the goods are transported by air to Afghanistan, or transporting them further north on freight trains for subsequent transport along one of the northern way routes.

With all this, we’re experiencing déjà vu. When in 2001, U.S. forces entered Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban regime, New Delhi zestfully offered its services as a U.S. partner in the antiterrorist coalition. As former Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf said, the momentous offer from the Indians only spurred him to cooperate with the U.S. in Washington’s fight in Afghanistan. (Islamabad could not allow their “eternal antagonist” to surpass them in cooperating with the U.S. – V.S.)

Curiously, in 2001, Washington politely declined the Indian offer, because it believed that a partnership with Pakistan would be more valuable in Afghanistan. Today, in order to force Pakistan to resume its role as a partner of the U.S., Washington seems to have “knocked on India’s door.” And New Delhi has opened its doors, ignoring the fact that its proposal was rejected in 2001. So in our opinion, there is a big game happening in the region, with the U.S., India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other players that have been drawn in. The cost of winning in this game is the further strengthening of a strategic partnership between Washington and New Delhi, but above all pressure on Islamabad to take steps to change its position in relation to the U.S., and to once again become a “valuable strategic ally.”

It’s noteworthy that the U.S. could use an Indian route to transport sensitive military equipment. Whatever the case, if India is in fact seen as a transit point for military supplies to Afghanistan, this will be the first time that New Delhi “will do big business” with the Atlantic community. Many Indian analysts say this would be a historical turning point in the politics of India’s cooperation with the U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan. (New Delhi’s current cooperation with Kabul doesn’t count –V.S.)

So India seems to be using the current crisis in U.S.-Pakistani relations to their own advantage. And this time, New Delhi is acting very pragmatically – it waited until Washington came to them with requests, and the Indian leadership will have another chip in bargaining with Pakistan. We can only speculate about where the Indian-Pakistani-American triangle will go with the high cost of resolving the Afghan crisis.

But some things can be predicted already. The first is that the government of President Asif Ali Zardari in Pakistan (with his current precarious position in the country) wishes to make concessions to Washington and, despite everything, will reopen the transit route for NATO cargo to Afghanistan via Pakistan.

The Pakistani military, most of which is currently sharply opposed to amplifying India’s role in Afghan affairs, will support this. They will even put aside their strong dissatisfaction with both U.S. policy and the policy of the civilian administration in Pakistan.

The second, and in our view less likely thing, is that the “thaw” begun in Pakistani-Indian relations will stop because, once again, for the Pakistani military, above all else, India is the main threat. But this is unlikely because Washington, playing on the Pakistani-Indian controversies to solve their own problems, is simultaneously pushing Pakistan to “defuse” its relations with India to ensure the support of both New Delhi and Islamabad in resolving the Afghan crisis and creating the most favorable conditions for troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.

So Washington is playing high stakes in the region, but both India and Pakistan are playing the game along with them. After all, a situation may arise, purely hypothetically, where India offers its services to the U.S. in the latest peace talks with the Taliban involving, say, the Northern Alliance, with which New Delhi has long been developing a trusting relationship. But that falls within the domain of bold political predictions.