Pakistan: Follow the Pipelines
Submitted by ms in la on December 28, 2007 - 5:52pm.
Current Events | Energy | Fossil Fuels | Iran | Middle East
Just as every great man has a great woman behind her (;-)... every international 21st century crisis and catastrophic event has a pipeline deal close behind it.
I always find the nugget when I search by "topic" + "pipeline". Generally it yields a Triple-7 payoff.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PAKISTAN PIPELINE PAYOLA & WHERE IRAN COMES IN:
Nov 7, 2007
Iran and Pakistan are putting the finishing touches on a multi-billion-dollar pipeline deal to export natural gas to India.
Iran's deputy minister in charge of the project says the 'Peace Pipeline' contract has been finalized and is scheduled to be signed within a month.
India is under pressure from Washington to pull out of the $7.4 billion project.
______________________________________________________________________
Flashback to-
March 07:
The Indian government plans to go ahead with the Iran-Pakistan-Indian pipeline project (IPI), despite pressure from Washington which opposes the deal.
______________________________________________________________________
Flash forward to
Nov 07:
Iran and Pakistan have finalized their section of a US$7.5 billion gas pipeline that Washington opposes. But, it is apparent now that India has been dumped, for the time being at least.
Last week, Iran's deputy minister in charge of the pipeline, Hojatollah Ganimifard, was quoted by the Iranian Oil Ministry's news service Shana as saying, "The content of the peace pipeline contract has been finalized and all the points prepared by the two sides' legal experts have been re-read and agreed by the two sides [Iran and Pakistan]".
He said the two sides would ink the contract in December "without a third partner".
" Pakistan said that any excess gas that would have been destined for India could be transferred to China"
Both Tehran and Islamabad have blamed India of delaying progress of the IPI at the behest of Washington.
As an alternative, India is also seriously looking at the prospects of taking natural gas from Turkmenistan via Afghanistan and Pakistan, (TAP) due to the heavy doses of tax breaks that have been proposed to push this $3.5 billion pipeline project that is supported by the US. (*See more on TAP below)
US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, during a recent visit to India, is believed to have recommended that Delhi not go ahead with the project. And subsequently Treasury Under Secretary for International Affairs David McCormick told reporters that the US hoped India would not move forward with the pipeline. He said "it would not be the right path during a time the world should be imposing greater discipline on its interactions with Iran". He added that India should meet its energy needs through the nuclear deal with the US. (COEHM)
Meanwhile, Washington has also made it clear that Indian private sector major Essar Steel's plans to enter the US's iron and steel sector with a $1.6 billion steel plant in Minnesota will be stymied if the company goes ahead with building a refinery in Iran. (COEHM)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IK15Df02.html
_____________________________________________________________________
Nov 07
The Iran-Pakistan-India natural gas project (IPI) the "Peace Pipeline", along with the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (TAP). both now seem to be triumphs of wishfulness over reality, despite their long genesis.
TAP was first proposed in 1989 by India's Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, head of the Tata Energy Research Institute, in partnership with Iranian former Deputy Foreign Minister Ali Shams Ardekani. As envisaged, the proposed $3.5 billion, 1,044-mile pipeline was annually to transmit 33 billion cubic meters of Turkmen natural gas from its fields via Afghanistan through Pakistani sites Quetta and Multan to Fazilka. It was planned to be completed by 2012.
TAP Pipeline
IPI "Peace Pipeline" was equally ambitious, with the projected $3.5 billion pipeline to become operational in 2015, with Pakistan importing 3.15 billion cubic feet per day and India eventually importing 4.25 billion cubic feet per day through the IPI.
IPI Pipeline
In light of current developments in Pakistan, both projects seem stymied for some time, while both Russia and China move swiftly to take up the slack in assessing Iranian and Turkmen natural gas.
http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2007/11/analysis-pakistan-unrest-hurts.html
______________________________________________________________________
The World Bank (COEHM) speaks on the TAP pipeline delays and problems just a few weeks ago:
“Further progress will depend on the robustness of the gas reserves data, certification of the reserves, extent of possible private interest, ability and willingness of Turkmenistan to fulfill its commitments to Gazprom and still supply Pakistan” the World Bank said
India's energy import problems in the short and long term will only increase. On Nov. 7 the International Energy Agency said in its World Energy Outlook 2007 report that the rapidly rising Indian economy by 2030 would have to import 90 percent of its oil to cover domestic needs because its domestic proven oil reserves are "small."
The report also concluded that by 2025 India would surpass Japan to become the world's third-largest oil importer before 2025, with domestic consumption needs rising as high as 6 million barrels a day by 2030. According to the IEA, demand for oil imports by China and India will almost quadruple by 2030, severely disrupting markets. Since 2005, China and India between them accounted for about 70 percent of the increase in global energy demand.
____________________________________________________________________
RELATED INFO:
Bhutto family and business interests:
"--the late business wizard got very badly hit by Bhutto's (the father) nationalization of 1970 which had inflicted an astounding thud to everybody in business then"
This program was followed by Nawaz Sharif's denationalization program... Sharif was of course ousted in 1999 by the military coup of Mushareff, and Sharif is on the other ticket for the Jan 8th upcoming elections --which will likely be suspended.
Bhutto's husband by arranged marriage, Zadari, is one of the richest men in Pakistan. Estimated worth just under $2 billion. He owns 14 multi-million dollar mansions in the USA, including owning a Holiday Inn in Houston, Texas. They have huge business ventures in the Middle East running into hundreds of millions if not billion mark. Mr Zardari also has huge stakes in sugar mills all over Pakistan,which include: Sakrand Sugar Mills, Nawabshah, Ansari Sugar Mills, Hyderabad, Mirza Sugar Mills, Badin, Pangrio Sugar Mills, Thatta and Bachani Sugar Mills, Sanghar. Both have been accused of corruption, illegal kickbacks and both were imprisoned.
____________________________________________________________________
THE BIG KAHUNA
Just a few days ago....
Dec 26, 07
How did we miss this in WaPo?!
Washington Post, December 26, 2007
U.S. TROOPS TO HEAD TO PAKISTAN
Beginning early next year (meaning in a few days or weeks?), U.S. Special Forces are expected to vastly expand their presence in Pakistan, as part of an effort to train and support indigenous counter-insurgency forces and clandestine counterterrorism units, according to defense officials involved with the planning.
These Pakistan-centric operations will mark a shift for the U.S. military and for U.S. Pakistan relations.
Pakistan has in the past restricted U.S. involvement in cross-border military operations as well as paramilitary operations on its soil.
But the Pentagon has been frustrated by the inability of Pakistani national forces to control the borders (and pipelines) or the frontier area. And Pakistan's political instability has heightened U.S. concern about Islamic extremists there. (and pipelines...)
According to Pentagon sources, reaching a different agreement with Pakistan became a priority for the new head of the U.S. Special Operations Command, Adm. Eric T. Olson. Olson visited Pakistan in August, November and again this month, meeting with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, Pakistani Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Chairman Gen. Tariq Majid and Lt. Gen. Muhammad Masood Aslam, commander of the military and paramilitary troops in northwest Pakistan.
(and in an afterthought) Olson also visited the headquarters of the Frontier Corps*, a separate paramilitary force recruited from Pakistan's border tribes.
Now, a new agreement, reported when it was still being negotiated last month, has been finalized.
And the first U.S. personnel could be on the ground in Pakistan by early in the new year, according to Pentagon sources.
http://watandost.blogspot.com/2007_12_01_archive.html
When in doubt, Follow the Pipelines
__________________________________________________________________
*UPDATE: More on the Frontier Corps from the New York Times last month:
American officials acknowledge those failures, (big of them!) but say that the renewed emphasis on recruiting allies among the tribal militias and investing more heavily in the Frontier Corps (gut feeling, we need to familiarize ourselves with these dudes) reflect the depth of American concern about the need to address Islamic extremism in Pakistan.
“The D.O.D. is about to start funding the Frontier Corps,” one military official said.
Until now, the Frontier Corps has not received American military financing because the corps technically falls under the Pakistani Interior Ministry, a nonmilitary agency that the Pentagon ordinarily does not deal with.
But American officials say the Frontier Corps is in the long term the most suitable force to combat an insurgency. The force, which since 2001 has increasingly been under the day-to-day command of Pakistani Army units, is now being expanded and trained by American advisers.
(AHA!!Here it is-- explains their "suitability" factor)
The training of the Frontier Corps remains a concern for some.
NATO and American soldiers in Afghanistan have often blamed the Frontier Corps for aiding and abetting Taliban insurgents mounting cross-border attacks. “It’s going to take years to turn them into a professional force,” said a Western military official. “Is it worth it now?”
________________________________________________________________
HAPPY NEW YEAR AMERICA! SUPPORT OUR TROOPS! SEND THEM TO PAKISTAN : /
BBC News: Thursday, December 4, 1997
A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan.
A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas. [Home district of who else, but.... Tom DeLay]
Unocal says it has agreements both with Turkmenistan to sell its gas and with Pakistan to buy it.
--
cooperativeresearch.org (VERY useful site!!) note the mention of: Enron
This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the event December 4, 1997: Taliban Representatives Visit Unocal in Texas. You can narrow or broaden the context of this timeline by adjusting the zoom level. The lower the scale, the more relevant the items on average will be, while the higher the scale, the less relevant the items, on average, will be.
--
Sugar Land, Texas:
This unique town was built and developed around the sugar industry, on land granted to Samuel M. Williams in 1828. Williams' brother, Nathaniel, purchased the land in 1838 and with a third brother, Mathew, operated Oakland plantation growing cotton, corn and sugarcane. In 1853, Benjamin Terry and William J. Kyle purchased the plantation. Terry is known for organizing Terry's Texas Rangers during the Civil War and for naming the town. Upon the deaths of Terry and Kyle, Colonel E. H. Cunningham bought the 12,500 acre plantation soon after the Civil War and developed the town around his sugar refining plant. In the early 1900's the refinery was sold and named Imperial Sugar. Around the turn of the century, most of the sugar cane crops were destroyed by a harsh winter. Now refineries import cane through the Port of Galveston. Sugar Land remained a company town until incorporated in 1959. Today Sugar Land has a diversified economic base. The city's growth parallels the huge growth of Houston and Harris County.
---
Enron the Smartest Guys in the Room: the movie
more good background, now - the stuff that was Clinton-era fresh is really fascinating-
add any combination of these to google: Putin, oil, missile, Iran, Russia & stir. I mean, "foment." heh
Over 450 quick hits, none um comforting.
both of these are quick contextualizing winners.
Follow the Oil Trail - Mess in Afghanistan Partly Our Government's Fault
By William O. Beeman, Pacific News Service, August 24, 1998
To the north of Afghanistan is one of the world's wealthiest oil fields, on the Eastern Shore of the Caspian Sea in republics formed since the breakup of the Soviet Union (see PNS article by Thomas Goltz on The Great Game: Caspian Oil Sweepstakes). Here, U.S. oil companies are involved in a boom larger than any in the last 40 years in this region. Untold wealth is at stake -- but it depends on getting the oil out of the landlocked region through a warm water port.
The simplest and cheapest route is through Iran. This route is favored by all oil companies, because it involves building a short pipeline and then transshipping the oil through the existing Iranian network.
The U.S. government has such antipathy to Iran that it is willing to do anything to prevent this. An alternate route would go through Afghanistan and Pakistan -- but this would require securing the agreement of the powers- that-be in Afghanistan.
From the U.S. standpoint, the way to deny Iran everything is for the anti-Iranian Taliban to win in Afghanistan and agree to the pipeline through their territory. The Pakistanis would also benefit from this arrangement -- which is why they are willing to defy the Iranians.
Enter Osama bin Laden, a sworn enemy of the United States living in Afghanistan. His forces could see that the Taliban would eventually end up in the American camp. Thus his bombing of U.S. Embassies in East Africa (there are none in Afghanistan) was accompanied by a message calling for Americans to get out of "Islamic countries." By this he meant specifically Afghanistan.
The U.S. response was to bomb bin Laden's outposts while carefully noting that his forces were "not supported by any state." This statement is an attempt to rescue the Taliban relationship, while sending Taliban leaders the message that they must ditch bin Laden.
these troops from to send to Pakistan? So now instead of doing 2 or 3 tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, and maybe coming home, they'll now be sent to Pakistan? WTF?
Someone asked General Clark the other day at FDL if he thought they were purposely trying to destroy our military so they could turn it into a private enterprise -- he said no. Well, he gave a longer answer than just no -- but I wonder if he's entirely aware of just how perfectly evil these people who have control of our government are?
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
not prepared to say that;
synthetic environment The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know. – Harry S Truman
feeling too lazy to look up the quote though :-) Friday malaise http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/22/fdl-book-salon-welcomes-wes-clark/#Respond
synthetic environment The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know. – Harry S Truman
perris December 22nd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
38Well, it’s certainly an honor to even be in the same discussion as General Wes Clark!
I’d like his opinion on my observation;
I believe the INTENTION of this administration is TO break the army.
I believe the very purpose of this group of people is the privatization of all government services.
I think they WANT to over extend our armed forces, they WANT us obligated into using mercenaries.
It’s the brown shirt all over again, it’s the privatization of everything, they WANT private education, private insurance for ALL catastrophes, they WANT private fire departments, they WANT private police, they HATE any social project, THEY HATE GOVERNMENT
I conclude, the over extending of our armed forces is a deliberate strategy to force us into dependence on private mercenaries
and these will be the private mercenaries of their choosing, black water, and haliburton.
I believe someone of your back round needs to raise this alarm, that our military is under attack and under siege, that the very design, the very purpose is to destroy the armed forces of the United States of America
WesClark December 22nd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
56In response to perris @ 38
I tend to see the situation a little differently. I think the administration is caught in its own trap of using the military and using the military ineffectively for too long. No doubt some of their supporters and others have made serious money in the contracting business, but I haven’t seen the evidence to pursuade me that the administration would deliberately break the Army. That’s a lot farther than I’d be willing to go.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
I don't see why you're being so negative. To date we haven't called up a single Boy Scout troop. :)
Barry
Are you safer today than you were six years ago?©
Now you just gave them the idea.
From the NSA to the DOD. Watch it travel.
"See the world! And train for adulthood while learning new skills!"
I'll know who to blame when they start calling them up Barry!
Hey, don't blame me! I got that straight from Pakistani intel.
Barry
Are you safer today than you were six years ago?©
Allow me to clarify!
In this context I was using straight to mean direct communication. I was not vouching for the accuracy of the report. :)
Barry
Are you safer today than you were six years ago?©
RE US Troops and Pakistan
(with my commentary!)
____________________________________________
Sunday, May 23, 2004
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- About 130 U.S. troops have crossed from Afghanistan into Pakistan looking for Taliban or al Qaeda fighters, Pakistani intelligence sources and local authorities said Sunday, in what is believed to be the fifth such operation in two weeks.
The Americans crossed into the Pakistani tribal territory of North Waziristan on Saturday after exchanging "hard words" with Pakistani border scouts, intelligence sources said.
U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said if it were "true.... I'm sure it would be an accident,(Spoo! it's an accident! How did that happen?) "--and we'll take precautions to make sure it doesn't happen again."
___________________________________________
The following year
May 23, 2005
The Pakistani government has admitted what has been widely known for several years: American troops and intelligence agencies have been allowed to operate, discretely, inside Pakistan. Recently, a terrorist leader was killed by a Hellfire missile, fired by a Predator UAV flying in Pakistani air space. American agents have been interrogating terrorism suspects held in Pakistani jails.
(Uh oh..."interrogating", code for "waterboarding"?) This cooperation has been kept "secret" because so many Pakistanis find it distasteful. {"distasteful!)
So much for the Armitage "accident" theory
___________________________________________
The following year...
September 22, 2006
NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Bush said Wednesday he would order U.S. forces to go after Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan if he received good intelligence on the fugitive al Qaeda leader's location.
Although Pakistan has said it won't allow U.S. troops to operate within its territory, "--we would take the action necessary to bring him to justice."
Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, told reporters Wednesday at the United Nations that his government would oppose any U.S. action in its territory.
but last year you admitted we were already there in secret operations?
___________________________________________
The following year...(just last month)
November 19, 2007
New York Times says this week that we would directly finance a separate tribal paramilitary force (Oh good, that worked out so well last time....we got Bin Laden out of it) that until now has proved largely ineffective (another sound investment idea) and pay militias that agreed to fight Al Qaeda and foreign extremists.
FROM THE NYT:
Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration has used billions of dollars of aid and heavy political pressure to encourage Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, to carry out more aggressive military operations against militants in the tribal areas. But the sporadic military campaigns Pakistan has conducted there have had little success, resulting instead in heavy losses among Pakistani Army units and anger among local residents who have for decades been mostly independent from Islamabad’s control.
American officials acknowledge those failures, (big of them!) but say that the renewed emphasis on recruiting allies among the tribal militias and investing more heavily in the Frontier Corps (gut feeling, we need to familiarize ourselves with these dudes) reflect the depth of American concern about the need to address Islamic extremism in Pakistan.
“The D.O.D. is about to start funding the Frontier Corps,” one military official said, referring to the Department of Defense. “We have only got a portion of that requested but it is enough to start.”
Until now, the Frontier Corps has not received American military financing because the corps technically falls under the Pakistani Interior Ministry, a nonmilitary agency that the Pentagon ordinarily does not deal with.
But American officials say the Frontier Corps is in the long term the most suitable force to combat an insurgency. The force, which since 2001 has increasingly been under the day-to-day command of Pakistani Army units, is now being expanded and trained by American advisers.
(AHA!!Here it is-- explains their "suitability" factor)
The training of the Frontier Corps remains a concern for some. NATO and American soldiers in Afghanistan have often blamed the Frontier Corps for aiding and abetting Taliban insurgents mounting cross-border attacks. “It’s going to take years to turn them into a professional force,” said one Western military official. “Is it worth it now?”
Several senior military and Pentagon officials said elements of the US Joint Special Operations Command, an elite counterterrorism unit, in Pakistan, might be involved in strikes against senior militant leaders under specific conditions. (no clarification offered as to what those "conditions" might be.) Two people briefed on elements of the approach said it was modeled in part on efforts in Iraq. (Well that's comforting...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/washington/19policy.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2
I just added the UPDATE to the bottom, and by mistake I hit DELETE instead of SUBMIT and it said "Deleted, this action cannot be undone." So I freaked!
But here it still is.... weird....
Sorry...this stroke-imparied brain just can't handle things of any length. (That's why I like blogs and e-mails -- they're usually short.)
So what's the gist? What's the bottom line point of your volume?
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!
This was one of those search efforts that just kept yeilding more info and growing in length. Basically these 2 pipelines are in their decisive stages of production that run through Pakistan but have each experienced problems, America warned India not to participate in the Iran-Paki-India one and threw a few corporate cookies their way to back off-- the just ended up out of that deal and it looks like China has been eyeing getting involved to fill the gap. The Turkmenistan Afghan Pakistan pipeline has its own problems as well and Russia and nukes are involved in the bigger picture and at the end of the story we learn that we are sending troops into Pakistan early next year.... and sending millions of our tax dollars to a tribal paramilitary (The Frontier Corps) in Pakistan-- arming them - training them.... but they are comprised of Taliban and have been known to aid AQ and other Taliban!!! Got it?
See it does not distill down easily. Thick topic. And this little blog doesn't scratch the surface but the gist is oil-gas-geopolitics. With hotly contested billion dollar gas pipeline deals running in the background....
With our troops and our funding in the mix again.
You're likely more confused now. : )
Thanks a bunch.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!
The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (TAP or TAPI) is a proposed natural gas pipeline being developed by the Asian Development Bank. The pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India.
The 1,680 km pipeline will run from the Dauletabad gas field to Afghanistan. From there TAPI will be constructed alongside the highway running from Herat to Kandahar, and then via Quetta and Multan in Pakistan. The final destination of the pipeline will be the Indian town of Fazilka, near the border between Pakistan and India. The pipeline will be 1,420 mm in diameter with a working pressure of 100 atm and the capacity of 33 billion cubic meter (bcm) of natural gas annually. Six compressor stations are to be constructed along the pipeline. The cost of this international infrastructure is estimated at US$3.5 billion (2005 figures). Proponents of the project see it as a modern continuation of the Silk Road. The Afghan government is expected to receive 8% of the project's revenue.
Original project started in March 1995 when inaugural memorandum of understanding between the governments of Turkmenistan and Pakistan for a pipline project was signed. In August 1996, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) consortium for construction of pipeline, led by Unocal was formed. On 27 October 1997 CentGas incorporated in formal signing ceremonies in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan by several international oil companies along with the Government of Turkmenistan. In January 1998 the Taliban, selecting CentGas over a Brazilian competitor, signed an agreement that allowed the proposed project to proceed. In June 1998, Russian Gazprom relinquishes its 10% stake in project. Unocal withdrawn from the consortium on 8 December 1998.
The new deal on the pipeline was signed on 27 December 2002 by the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan and in 2005 Asian Development Bank submitted the final version of feasibility study designed by British company Penspen. Since the United States military overthrew the Taliban government the project has essentially stalled; construction of the Turkmen part was supposed to start in 2006, but the overall feasibility is questionable since the southern part of the Afghan section runs through territory which continues to be under de facto Taliban control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
you will be decided offended by some of the content of this information;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22414361/
For Benazir Bhutto, the decision to return to Pakistan was sealed during a telephone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just a week before Bhutto flew home in October. The call culminated more than a year of secret diplomacy — and came only when it became clear that the heir to Pakistan's most powerful political dynasty was the only one who could bail out Washington's key ally in the battle against terrorism.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/82318
It was a decidedly odd moment. On Thursday, within hours of Benazir Bhutto's assassination, State Department spokesman Tom Casey told reporters in Washington that his boss, Condoleezza Rice, had quickly made two calls. One was to Bhutto's bereaved husband, Asif Ali Zardari. Rice's other call, Casey said, was to the man he called Bhutto's "successor," Amin Fahim, the vice chairman of her Pakistan People's Party. Casey couldn't even quite master this obscure politician's name, but he said, "I'll leave it up to Mr. Amin Fahir—Fahim—as the new head of the Pakistan People's Party to determine how that party is going to participate in the electoral process."
The problem is, nobody but the State Department—especially not the political elites in Pakistan, even those within Bhutto's own party—sees Fahim in such a role, and certainly not so soon. Critics suggest that the administration is so eager to graft legitimacy onto President Pervez Musharraf, its ever-more-unpopular ally in the war on terror, that it is pressing too hard to move past Bhutto and continue with scheduled Jan. 8 parliamentary elections, even though riots are paralyzing the country. "They're trying to rush everything. This is a disaster," says Marvin Weinberg, a former State Depratment official and current scholar at the Middle East Institute. "This is now our new game plan: We're working out a deal between Fahim and Musharraf after the election. They mention Fahim because they don't know any better. The fact is, she [Bhutto] didn't trust him."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7632681117654974143&q=condi+rice++benazir+bhutto&total=4&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Video: Pipelines
synthetic environment The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know. – Harry S Truman
the part about Fahim especially and our pushing for the rushed elections to take place.
Rushing the elections during a period of chaos, sending in the US troops, US arming/training the questionable tribal paramilitary .... a bunch of Hmmmm moments there. None of it bodes well.
I think there may be something to the Bhutto nationalization efforts earlier in Pak history too to be taken into consideration. Seems every leader who even utters the N word ends up in a coup or fiery crash victim. Or in the target. Or bumping their head on their SUV roof and dying.....
This is obviously (to me) an impossibly thick subject to be able to pierce with limited information. I'm not sure why she wouldn't have had EXTREME security around her in these days after it had become clear she was in the crosshairs. And if our state dept were behind her and brokering her return... why didn't we stick a few of our trusty Blackwater dudes around her? Like the ones recently ousted from Iraq. Must be a short flight.
Then again, once you've read COEHM.... nothing looks like it used to--
but I think she expected to be martyred and inside her country maybe that is goal that is useful??? I don't understand
their culture or the oil/geopolitics this close up;
best I can see is Russia Iran et al vs US and the rest et al .... control of oil interests in Central Asia;
alignment of world powers;
hasn't Putin done well at the hyperpredatory captialism game he is now richest man on his side of the globe;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/21/sources-putin-is-europe_n_77865.html
synthetic environment The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know. – Harry S Truman
she promised her father, before his hanging death, to carry on the work, and save Pakistan from itself -- so it was a vow very close to her heart, as those kinds tend to be. I can't imagine she would willingly martyr herself while in the midst of carrying out that promise... but the whole thing is so complex as you note.
knew she was being stalked and that she did not have adequate security;
synthetic environment The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know. – Harry S Truman
Personally, I think pushing for the scheduled election is nuts under the circumstances.
Except for one thing. Arguing for delaying the election so soon after such a major incident probably is not a precedent we want to set. It could come back to haunt us at home, big time.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!
is so right in stating that the US needs to give Pakistan space to deal with their own issues.
The General gets it right.
Competence--What a concept!
Honestly I was not surprised by her murder, There were a lot people who wanted Benazir Bhutto dead, Taliban and Al Qeada because she was a liberal, pro-democracy, pro-western, pro-American, female leader. In other words everything an Islamic extremist militant would despise.
And the current military government of Pakistan because all those who gain power are afraid to lose it. Bhutto was a threat to the status quo. I do see a deepening U.S. involvment in Pakistan, we are probably going find ourselves on the wrong side of a three sided civil war if Musharraf tries to hold on to power.
I feel that the U.S. did not do enough to protect Benazir Bhutto, she asked for our help in finding the people behind the first assaination plot. We never did get involved, we should have pushed Musharraf on that and we didn't. I don't know if our lack of involvment was because we cared more about keeping friendly with Musharraf than finding her would be assasains.
Or maybe someone in our governemnt actually did want her dead but left it to someone else to do the dirty work. I don't know if this about pipelines, I'm sure we are still working to isolate Iran in preparation for Shock and Awe 2.0. But I don't think even Bush and Cheney really wanted Benazir Bhutto dead, they were just willing to let her die in order to protect Musharraf.
But I think a more plausible and likely scenario is our government didn't want to risk irritating Musharraf, and so ignored Bhutto's pleas for American help.
The Pakistani government didn't give her enough security and denied her the saftey measures she needed and requested knowing full well that sooner or later Al Qeada or the Taliban would deal with Bhutto for them, and I beleive that by and large the Pakistani government establishment wanted her dead.
The question now is what from here? I think odds are we'll play the democracy card in rhetoric only and tell Musharraf to what he has to in order keep a lid on things, and we'll turn a blind eye and make sure he gets the weapons and money he needs. Plus the special forces get involved I fear that our military's training of Pakistan's army will be used in crack downs on pro democracy forces.
The Democratic candidates should be very wary of sticking up for Musharraf, if we support a strong man v.s. a democracy again we WILL get a repeat of Iran 1979. Only this time it will be nuclear armed islamic revolutionaries who are in power.
I think one overriding concern I have now is that the money, weapons, training we are providing has been largely designated to the paramilitary Frontier Corps who is know to be comprised of Taliban and to have had 'friendly' dealings with AQ.
I hear the Paki foreign minister is also distressed at this option and they fear it will weaken even further their hold on the nation.
I don't think we should be giving guns and money to a government that is quite possibly responcible at least in part for murdering a democratic opposition leader in cold blood.
I fear we may end up aleinating those in Pakistan who would be a our natural allies by backing Musharraf. were really on the wrong side here, after the Shah and "Charlie Wilson's war" we ought to have learned our lesson.
It's not really something I can be entirely objective about though, my best friend is a British born Pakistani. She has family there and her father travels there for business. She's wanted to see Pakistan for a long time, I doubt that will be safe if things keep going the way they are.
A lot of people's hopes died with Benazir Bhutto, she really was in a lot ways Pakistan's JFK, and more in some ways as Pakistan has been so unstable and violent historically speaking.
I hope that chaos and civil war does not break out, but I fear that we are going to end up backing the wrong side in the name of combating "terraism".
Nothing is too low for the oil grabbers. and the saddest thing is the total loss of goodwill from Iran, whose people are so positive toward the US.
The General gets it right.
Competence--What a concept!
and dad just reminded me that our quarterly income tax payments are due in a few weeks. It sickens me to death that OUR MONEY is paying for their freakin' power games and oil dominance! Grrrrrrrrr!!!