PAKISTAN'S MISSILE TECHNOLOGY

On April 6, 1998 Pakistan carried out a successful flight-test of a medium range surface ballistic missile. It is the fifth in the current Hatf series and has been named Ghauri. It has an optimum range of 1500 kilometers and can carry a payload of about 700 kg. The missile is in the research and development phase and is part of the Integrated Missile Research and Development Programme. The test confers on Pakistan a credible indigenous missile capability.
Hatf V (Ghauri) was fired from Malute, near the city of Jhelum, about 76 miles south of the Capital Islamabad at 7.25 a.m. It climbed to a height of 350 kilometers before taking the direction to its planned impact area in the desert of Balochistan where it hit the designated target at 7.33 a.m. after a flight of eight minutes. Hatf V (Ghauri) missile weight 16 tons and consists of 13 tons of fuel, a one ton warhead and the remaining weight is of the casing and equipment.
Pakistan started planning its missile programme in early 1987, on the explicit information gained that India was on the road to pursue its missile programmes, writes General Mirza Aslam Beg, a former chief of the Army Staff in his article Ghauri won't rock the region' (DAWN April 27, 1998) General Beg continues Its authenticity was checked and rechecked. General Zia ul Haq , who was the then president, in consultation with the concerned departments, took two crucial decisions. The first one was based on moral principles that Pakistan would not develop chemical weapons. The second one was to build missiles of short and medium range capabilities, to be equipped with proper guidance systems.

General Beg says that the name Hatf for the surface-to-surface missile was selected by the Research and Development (R & D) Committee of the General Headquarters (GHQ) of the Pakistan Army, as it was the name of the lance of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) which was used in many ghazva , and had the unique distinction of never missing its target. Similarly the name Anza, a lance of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) was selected for a similar consideration, for the shoulder-fired ground-to-air missile, which was also developed during the same period. later the anti-tank Baktarshikan missile was also produced.
The testing of Hatf V (Ghauri) missile is the result of the dedication, hard work and single minded devotion to a cause displayed by our scientists and engineers working on the research and development of missile technology. Initially Hatf I was developed with a range of 80 kilometers and a payload of 500 kgs. Efforts continued to improve its performance, resulting in Hatf II with an enhanced range of 250 kms and the same payload of 500 kgs. Both were free flight missiles with inertial guidance systems following a ballistic trajectory. Hatf II was produced in 1989 and displayed at the Pakistan Day parade of March 23, 1990 and 1991.
The testing of Hatf III in July last year was a major break-through in missile development in Pakistan. It has a range of 600 kms with a payload of 500 kgs and a proper terminal guidance system giving it an accuracy of 0.1 per cent, as the circular error probability ( CEP) at 600 kms, similar to the Indian Prithvi surface to surface ballistic missile at 250 kms. This meant that Hatf III was to be controlled by an on-board computer for accuracy and was not to follow a purely ballistic trajectory. The main features of Hatf III missile are its two-stage rocket ability for war-head separation, a terminal guidance system and five different types of warheads. The most difficult part of the missile was the its guidance system which was developed entirely by Pakistani engineers and scientists.
By successfully test-firing Hatf V (Ghauri) missile overland within Pakistan territory our engineers and scientists have amply demonstrated their own technical skills and accuracy of the missile. India on the other hand tests her missiles from the missile range at Chandipur-on-Sea on the Orissa coast, and these are fired into the Bay of Bengal. India successfully tested its intermediate range ballistic missile Agni' on May 22, 1989, after two failed attempts to test the system earlier in the year.
In a successful first launch of Hatf V (Ghauri) missile, which is capable of reaching targets 1500 kms away, Pakistani scientists and engineers have demonstrated their skill and mastery of the modern and up to date missile technology. It means our scientists and engineers have been able to overcome the problems presented by the first four major sub-systems of a medium-range ballistic missile. These are the rocket boosters, navigation and guidance system, missile flight control system and the re-entry vehicle. The fifth is of course the warhead. These sub-systems can be tested separately but it is important for success to integrate them and to flight-test the complete missile system as was done in the case of Hatf V (Ghauri) using a dummy warhead.
Gregory Koblentz, a junior fellow with the Nuclear Non-proliferation project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C. in his article Theater Missile Defence and South Asia', A Volatile Mix', published in the Non-Proliferation Review, vol 4, No. 3 of 1997 writes According to the Pentagon, Pakistan's missile programmes are driven by a desire to augment limited offensive air capabilities against India, which holds a nearly 3.1 advantage in combat aircraft, and to field a more effective delivery system. Therefore, without a credible aerial delivery capability, Pakistan will have to rely mainly on ballistic missiles to overwhelm India's defences.
Foreign experts believe that India and Pakistan are fast developing ballistic missiles. As with other weapons programmes, Pakistani and Indian pursuit of ballistic missiles is largely driven by the perception that these missiles are necessary to counter their rival's capabilities. India's development of Medium Range Ballistic Missiles (MRBMs) is also motivated by its desire to be recognized as a great power and strategic competitor with China, they feel.
India started its missile programme in 1983. The Pakistan-specific' short range surface-to-surface ballistic missile Prithvi' was first tested in 1988 and after conducting about 15 tests to perfect it, the production of the missile was started in 1994. The most advanced long range Prithvi missile was test-fired by India in January 1996. With its longer range of about 150 miles the missile can strike most major cities of Pakistan five minutes after launch. A shorter range version of the missile, which can carry a 1000 kms warhead approximately 90 miles, was already in limited production. Both versions are highly mobile, and although India insists that all Prithvis will be tipped by conventional explosives, both are capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Washington was so concerned that the Prithvi missile launch would provoke a strong Pakistani response that Deputy U.S. National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger was dispatched to Islamabad in February 1996 to counsel restraint.
The arrival of the new Prithvi, said the U.S. News & World Report of February 12, 1996, will qualitatively change the nature of the strategic balance ( between India and Pakistan), because ballistic missiles reach targets faster than other weapons and are difficult to defend against. The report goes on to say, Indian Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao (at the time) has been careful not to openly acknowledge Prithvi production or deployment. But sources in the Indian Defence Ministry say the first short-range missiles already have been handed over to the Army, which has set up a special unit called the 33rd Missile Group in the southern city of Secunderabad. The report concludes by saying Pakistan, a narrow country that is vulnerable even to short-range missiles, has struggled to keep pace.
On May 27, 1997, without any provocation India sent a Russian made MIG-25R military reconnaissance aircraft deep into Pakistan airspace. This was followed a week later by the move forward to the Pakistan border of India's ground-to-ground ballistic missile Prithvi', as reported by U.S. officials in Washington on June 4, 1997, who disclosed that India's military forces recently moved a handful of medium-range ballistic to a prospective launch site near the Pakistani border. U.S. intelligence have concluded that fewer than a dozen of them are now located near the city of Jullundur in the state of East Punjab in north west India.
We know that the missiles have been moved, and in the wrong direction said one US official who is familiar with intelligence reports on the matter. This is going to prompt a bad reaction-even an overreaction in Pakistan, said another official. The US officials expressed uncertainty why the missiles were moved to that site at a time when senior Indian and Pakistani political officials have been moving toward an improved dialogue and a possible reduction of political tension. The Washington Post also reported in its issue of June 3, 1997, deployment of the Indian Ballistic Missiles at a prospective launch site near Pakistan's border.
As a consequence the Pakistan Foreign Office on June 3, 1997 expressed serious concern at the deployment of medium-range ballistic missile, Prithvi, by India near Pakistan's borders and said it reserved the right to take measures for its security. The statement said The deployment of Prithvi missiles entails a qualitative change in the security environment in South Asia and could trigger a dangerous ballistic arms race in the region.
The Pakistan Foreign Minister Mr. Gohar Ayub Khan in a letter to the US Secretary of State Ms. Madeline Albright said that the deployment of Prithvi missiles by India near Pakistan border has created a dangerous security environment combined with a potential of unleashing a missile race in South Asia. He said India appears to have been encouraged by the discriminatory American Legislation against Pakistan that has resulted in a serious military imbalance in the region. The letter continued by saying that the Indian missile threat leaves us no choice but to take appropriate measures.

India denied that any missiles had been deployed near the Pakistan border. The Indian Prime Minister at the time Mr. I.K. Gujral while talking to the representative of the weekly India Abroad' in Washington on July 14, 1997 said that India had undertaken missile manufacturing for a long time and had not made a secret of it. India's present storage capacities have been filled. Since it could not spend money building more storage capacities, the Jullundur capacity was used for Prithvi. This statement is in complete variance with the US disclosure based on the intelligence estimates that a handful of medium-range ballistic missiles had been moved to their prospective launch sites near the Pakistani border. They have in fact been issued to the No. 60 Artillery Regiment located in the area for some time.
Violation of Pakistan's air space and the deployment of medium-range ballistic missiles by India near the Pakistan border created some misgivings in the official and political circles in the country and some alarm in the public's mind. The test-firing of Haft III rocket by Pakistan in July 1997 seems to have been a natural consequence for a small country safeguarding its security interests in the absence of any outside support.
In the meantime India had decided to acquire the Russian made S-300V air defence and anti-ballistic missile system. This is similar to the US patriot missile and is capable of targeting incoming enemy aircraft and ballistic missiles. The agreement was signed by India's former Defence Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav during his visit to Russia on July 14, 1997, heading a high-powered defence delegation consisting of the Secretary of Defence and the Vice-Chiefs of the three defence services.
The daily Telegraph of London had reported that the Indian Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) had been instructed by the government of India to carry out detailed evaluation of the advanced technologies of the Russian S 300V anti-ballistic missile in consultation with the Army and Air Force for possible incorporation in the later version of the Indian Akash' surface-to-surface missile to provide it anti-ballistic missile capability.
India started her ambitious Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP) in July 1983 with an original cost of production at Rs. 3,380 million which has since been revised to Rs. 7840 million. The original plan was to design and develop Prithvi (Earth) Medium range surface-to-surface ballistic missile; Trishul (Trident) anti-ship missile; Akash (Sky) surface-to-surface air missile; Nag (Cobra) anti-tank missile and Agni ( Fire) an Intermediate-range Ballistic Missile (IRBM). However later Surya and Sagarika have been added to the IGMPD. The Surya is an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) with a range of 12,000 to 20,000 km, while Sagarika has range of 300 km and is a submarine launched ballistic missile. The Navy also wants a redesigned Prithvi ballistic missile for its use.
The hectic missile activity going on in India is a cause of great concern for her small neighbours. It is therefore the duty of every government to protect the country from foreign aggression and internal subversion. It was therefore appropriate and timely for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to declare, while addressing the National Defence College in Islamabad on April 6, 1998, his resolve to make Pakistan a strong, stable, prosperous and democratic country. Defence of Pakistan was being given priority as he considered a strong defence essential for economic development of the country.
The new BJP-led government in India has aggravated to a large extent Pakistan's defence problems owing to additional provocation and threats emanating from India. This is evident from its election promises and the action taken and contemplated on assuming power. Mr. Savita Pande, a research fellow at India's Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis writing in The Pioneer' of New Delhi in its issue of February 17, 1998 says that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), in its 31- page manifesto has promised to re-evaluate the country's nuclear policy and exercise the option to induct nuclear weapons. It has also declared its intent to expedite the development of the Agni series of ballistic missiles (India's intermediate range missile with a range of 2,500 kms). The author goes on to say that the party's (BJP) nuclear agenda can no longer be dismissed as mere pre-poll propaganda. As BJP's attaining power in India will place it in a position to call the shots in nuclear and strategic issues. The author concludes with the following words. By mentioning the completion of the Agni programme in the same breath as the induction of nuclear weapons, the BJP has made its posture more credible both inside and globally. How soon will the BJP government carry out its election promises is the deadly question which is receiving the urgent attention of India's small neighbours. The situation is also being watched by the Western government who have interest in South Asia and the region around it.
Russia is helping India to build a Sea-launched ballistic missile system that can carry a nuclear warhead and strike deep into Pakistan, the New York Times' (NYT) reported on April 27, 1998. In an exclusive report the Times' said India was getting Russian assistance since last three years. The newspaper quoting an official of the US administration said, despite assurances from Russia that its scientists were not contributing restricted technology to India's missile programme, the assistance had continued. US Vice President Al Gore and other senior administration officials had appealed to Russia to halt the support, but Russia paid little attention to it. India, the NYT noted, has long had military ties to Russia, it has been trying for years to develop a series of more powerful missiles. Although not tested , the sea-launched missile, the Sagarika, whose name means Oceanic in Hindi, is said to have a range of nearly 200 miles and is meant to be launched from submerged submarines.
The NYT said this would be a technological breakthrough for India in its arms race with Pakistan. American intelligence officials regard the simmering rivalry one of the most dangerous flash points for conventional or even nuclear war. Clearly this (Russian) cooperation with India raises questions said a senior US administration official, who, as with others, insisted on anonymity, because of political sensitivities and to protect American intelligence sources. Another officials who tracked the reports said the Russian help to India had included significant engineering services as well as parts and equipment necessary to build and launch the missile, said the Times.
It should be appreciated that India is making an all out effort to develop a large-scale missile industry capable of browbeating and dominating South Asia and the region around it. Missile technology was freely transferred from Western sources and is now being done by the Russian. India's acquisition of missiles and other high-profile defence equipment is well beyond her legitimate defence requirements. It poses a valid and active threat to the independence of her small neighbours. It is with this background that the successful test-firing of Pakistan's Hatf V (Ghauri) missile had been welcomed with some enthusiasm by the entire nation. The development of missile technology will give strength to the Prime Minister's resolve to make Pakistan militarily strong and giving priority to defence, as it contributes enormously to the well being of the country and its economic development. It must be remembered that weakness has over the ages invited aggression whereas adequate strength has deterred it.
The significance of Pakistan's missile technology resulting in the test-firing of Hatf V (Ghauri) and the impact it is likely to have on regional, particularly South Asian defence capabilities and the balance it will create has been discussed in great details in official circles and the press of both India and Pakistan. The upshot is, that at present India's Pakistan-specific Prithvi missile deployed on our borders covers most of the important towns, airfields and communication centres in Pakistan.

Hatf VI (Ghauri) missile is deployed in Pakistan it will cover most of India except its eastern and southern portion and the coast, along the Bay of Bengal. It will deprive India of the advantage of strategic depth that it enjoys at present in relation to Pakistan. It will therefore give Pakistan a degree of defence parity that has been reducing in the last few years. Pakistan will now be in a position to hit back effectively if subjected to aggression by India and inflict unacceptable damage to India's important and vulnerable areas and particularly those areas which were hitherto considered safe, owing to the distance from the Pakistan border.

This should give any potential aggressor cause for genuine concern and caution its military planners.
In the modern defence concept, the missile system is the most essential element. In fact it is now the core of any viable defence structure and the cutting edge of an adequate defence capability of any nation. It cannot therefore be ignored by the defence planners. In Pakistan's security environment an adequate missile defence will prove an effective and reliable deterrent. The essence of deterrence worldwide, is a country's power to retaliate in kind. It was after all, the power of deterrence that prevented a third World War between the Western allies and the Soviet empire for over 50 years. In case of South Asia deterrence should provide the foundation for lasting peace and security on the basis of sovereign equality of nations and in accordance with the charter of the United Nations.

CIA Start Purging From Pakistan

The United States was never, and is not, an enemy of Pakistan. But the US political, military and intelligence thrust in Afghanistan over eight years has decidedly placed the US on the side of our enemies. This is a US choice, not a compulsion.
From day one, Washington chose to turn Kabul into the new hub of anti-Pakistanism in the region. A lot of evidence suggests a CIA role in tolerating and exacerbating anti-Pakistan insurgencies along our Afghan border. Today all anti-Pakistan terrorists take refuge in US-controlled Afghanistan. American political engineering inside Islamabad [‘Exhibit A: the crumbling coalition government’] is motivated by an overriding key objective: downsizing the Pakistani military and forcing the nation to accept Indian regional hegemony. If Pakistan does not accept this it will be punished.
The role of CIA drones in destroying Al-Qaeda is a myth. The agency’s figures on Al-Qaeda in Pakistan’s border regions are questionable, to begin with. The single-biggest achievement of drone missiles is pushing Pakistani tribesmen into the hands of terrorists and mind-control technicians who reprogramme them to kill Pakistani civilians and soldiers.
US claims about the Pakistani tribal belt becoming the most dangerous place in the world is another myth. Over the past 13 months, most of the terror plots in the United States and Europe came from US and European citizens, some of them were of Pakistani origin, who visited this region from the Afghan, not Pakistani, side, and under the noses of the US, ISAF and NATO. How these people managed to slip through tight American and European security procedures is inexplicable, but the stories were always timed with US pressure on Pakistan to start a new civil war against its own people in North Waziristan.
We must eliminate terrorists who kill Pakistanis, but also we must win back tribal Pakistanis. That is not possible without ending foreign meddling and terror sanctuaries in the CIA’s Afghan backyard. The TTP and Swat terrorists cannot survive if not for the American sanctuary in Afghanistan.
A third American myth that needs to be blown is our tribal belt being the source of US failure in Afghanistan. A few on our side of the border sympathising with the Pakhtun-led resistance in Afghanistan because of tribal affinities cannot turn the tables in Kabul. The impending US rout and the growing Pakhtun resistance are a direct result of America’s 2002 plan to punish the Pakhtuns—against strong Pakistani advice. That blunder is the driving force behind Afghan resistance, not Pakistan’s tribal belt.
Pakistanis have had it with this double game. The dramatic escape from Pakistan last month of CIA’s Islamabad station chief is one sign of this. He and his staff are involved in the murder of Pakistanis in an illegal covert war: the UN mandate for American occupation in Afghanistan does not include a role for the CIA to wage a covert war in Pakistan.
The CIA’s responsibility for these murders extends to Pakistanis killed in at least two attacks mounted by Pakistani forces earlier this year, one of them in Tirah Valley—based most likely on flawed CIA intelligence—resulting in the killing of more than 60 Pakistanis.
In the case of the two attacks based on CIA information, the data was so flawed in one case that the Pakistani army chief had to personally apologize for the wrongful deaths and compensate the victims. The bold move by the army chief indicated dismay within the military over innocent Pakistani casualties. It represented a break from the days of his predecessor Pervez Musharraf, whose administration sanctioned, and owned, the CIA’s Pakistan operations.
The US government and the CIA were quick to plant stories accusing the ISI of leaking Mr. Jonathan Banks’ name. But Mr. Banks’ identity is on record in the files of the Pakistani embassy in Washington and in the Foreign Office in Islamabad. This is why even the next CIA station chief is not safe as long as determined Pakistanis are out there seeking justice through a lawsuit.
Statements attributed to President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani clearly show they consented to Pakistani civilian casualties in CIA attacks. US journalist Bob Woodward quoted Mr. Zardari as telling senior US officials he was not concerned about civilian Pakistani deaths. And former US ambassador Anne W Patterson wrote in a diplomatic cable to Washington that Mr. Gilani encouraged US officials in a meeting to continue CIA drone attacks, and that he would cover up for civilian deaths in public. This is probably why drone attacks in just one year, 2010, at 136 attacks, exceeded the number of attacks in the preceding six years: 96 in 2004-2009.
Meanwhile, Pakistan’s envoy in Washington Husain Haqqani has been lobbying to get CIA agents and private US security contractors into Pakistan. His wish was granted last year when President Zardari allowed him the discretion to issue visas in Washington without verification. On one occasion, almost 500 such visas were granted in less than 24 hours. Mr. Haqqani has been bullish about allowing undercover US intelligence and military personnel into Pakistan and often argued with his diplomatic superiors over this. Last year, he even complained about the ISI chief to the prime minister over visas to Americans. The classified letter strangely leaked to an Indian television channel in New Delhi.
But if the pro-US Zardari government is involved, what is the Pakistani military doing? Perhaps Gen. Kayani does not wish to challenge the civilian government’s understandings with Washington because that could lead him down the slippery slope of military intervention, which the army chief doesn’t favor.
It is important that the CIA and its agents are purged from Pakistan as soon as possible. Here is a comment that an American left on a US website after reports that CIA drones killed tens of people in Pakistan in the last week of 2010: “It’s interesting to witness a country actively cooperating and assisting another country waging war against itself. What a proud nation that must be.”

Pakistan Army will support me: Pervez Musharraf

Former President Pervez Musharraf has said that he firmly believes that country’s army will support him once he returns to the country because he has served that institution for over 35 years.
Talking to Wajahat Khan at “Ikhtalaf”, an Aaj News programme, on Friday, he reiterated his plan about his return to the country, saying that he would definitely go to Pakistan and try to win next elections there as he was wants to play his role in the country’s politics and take the country out of challenges it is facing today.
Answering a question, he said the first task of any state is its people’s well-being and improvement in their quality of life. “State exists for people; their well-being and welfare,” he added. Talking about his aims and objects, he said he wants to win next elections with at least a simple majority to form government, adding that although he wants a single party with a simple majority forming the government, he sees no harm if there is a coalition government after the elections.
Answering a question, he said that although he now had disappointments with the Chaudhries, they were the best choice in 2002 to create PML-Q out of PML-N. Answering a question about his harsh criticism of the Sharif brothers, he defended his remarks against the two leaders, saying “I’m no Christian, I’m Muslim and will therefore retaliate with equal or even more force against their attacks on me”. He also defended his position in relation to action against Nawab Akbar Bugti and Lal Masjid operation, adding that these issues were required to be properly explained to the people. However, he added, the media did not play its due role in this respect.
Answering a question about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the former President said that it is not true that the entire PPP holds him responsible for her murder.
In answer to criticism on his remarks that ISI had been training Kashmiri Mujahideen, he denied that he ever made such remarks, adding that a German magazine had published those remarks out of context. He insisted that his stature has suffered no setback–from the days when he was on top of everything to his programmes with children in his last days at the presidency where he was often seen mumbling. “I have never mumbled or slurred,” he said, adding that his statures remains the same. According to him, he has a quite significant following and the lectures he delivers across the world are attended by a large number of people.

Should CIA Start Wearing Military Uniform?

The first four Directors of the CIA (from 1947-1953) were military officers, but since then, there has been a tradition (generally though imperfectly observed) of keeping the agency under civilian rather than military leadership. That's why George Bush's 2006 nomination of Gen. Michael Hayden to the CIA provoked so many objections from Democrats (and even some Republicans).

The Hayden nomination triggered this comment from the current Democratic Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein: "You can't have the military control most of the major aspects of intelligence. The CIA is a civilian agency and is meant to be a civilian agency." The then-top Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, said "she hears concerns from civilian CIA professionals about whether the Defense Department is taking over intelligence operations" and "shares those concerns." On Meet the Press, Nancy Pelosi cited tensions between the DoD and the CIA and said: "I don't see how you have a four-star general heading up the CIA." Then-Sen. Joe Biden worried that the CIA, with a General in charge, will "just be gobbled up by the Defense Department." Even the current GOP Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Pete Hoekstra, voiced the same concern about Hayden: "We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time."

Of course, like so many Democratic objections to Bush policies, that was then and this is now. Yesterday, President Obama announced -- to very little controversy -- that he was nominating Gen. David Petraeus to become the next CIA Director. The Petraeus nomination raises all the same concerns as the Hayden nomination did, but even more so: Hayden, after all, had spent his career in military intelligence and Washington bureaucratic circles and thus was a more natural fit for the agency; by contrast, Petraues is a pure military officer and, most of all, a war fighting commander with little background in intelligence. But in the world of the Obama administration, Petraeus' militarized, warrior orientation is considered an asset for running the CIA, not a liability.

That's because the CIA, under Obama, is more militarized than ever, as devoted to operationally fighting wars as anything else, including analyzing and gathering intelligence. This morning's Washington Post article on the Petraeus nomination -- headlined: "Petraeus would helm an increasingly militarized CIA" -- is unusual in presenting such a starkly forthright picture of how militarized the U.S. has become under the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner:

Gen. David H. Petraeus has served as commander in two wars launched by the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. If confirmed as the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Petraeus would effectively take command of a third -- in Pakistan.

Petraeus's nomination comes at a time when the CIA functions, more than ever in its history, as an extension of the nation's lethal military force.

CIA teams operate alongside U.S. special operations forces in conflict zones from Afghanistan to Yemen. The agency has also built up a substantial paramilitary capability of its own. But perhaps most significantly, the agency is in the midst of what amounts to a sustained bombing campaign over Pakistan using unmanned Predator and Reaper drones.

Since Obama took office there have been at least 192 drone missile strikes, killing as many as 1,890 militants, suspected terrorists and civilians. Petraeus is seen as a staunch supporter of the drone campaign, even though it has so far failed to eliminate the al-Qaeda threat or turn the tide of the Afghan war. . . .

Petraeus has spent relatively little time in Washington over the past decade and doesn't have as much experience with managing budgets or running Washington bureaucracies as CIA predecessors Leon E. Panetta and Michael V. Hayden. But Petraeus has quietly lobbied for the CIA post, drawn in part by the chance for a position that would keep him involved in the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Yemen.

It's rare for American media outlets to list all of our "wars" this way, including the covert ones (and that list does not even include the newest one, in Libya, where drone attacks are playing an increasingly prominent role as well). But Barack Obama does indeed preside over numerous American wars in the Muslim world, including some that he started (Libya and Yemen) and others which he's escalated (Afghanistan and Pakistan). Because our wars are so often fought covertly, the CIA has simply become yet another arm of America's imperial war-fighting machine, thus making it the perfect fit for Bush and Obama's most cherished war-fighting General to lead (Petraeus will officially retire from the military to take the position, though that obviously does not change who he is, how he thinks, and what his loyalties are).

One reason why it's so valuable to keep the CIA under civilian control is because its independent intelligence analyst teams often serve as one of the very few capable bureaucratic checks against the Pentagon and its natural drive for war. That was certainly true during the Bush years when factions in the CIA rebelled against the dominant neocon Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Feith clique, but it's been true recently as well:

Others voiced concern that Petraeus is too wedded to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- and the troop-heavy, counterinsurgency strategy he designed -- to deliver impartial assessments of those wars as head of the CIA.

Indeed, over the past year the CIA has generally presented a more pessimistic view of the war in Afghanistan than Petraeus has while he has pushed for an extended troop buildup.

That's why, noted The Post, there is "some grumbling among CIA veterans opposed to putting a career military officer in charge of an agency with a long tradition of civilian leadership." But if one thing is clear in Washington, it's that neither political party is willing or even able to stand up to the military establishment, and especially not a General as sanctified in Washington circles as Petraeus. It's thus unsurprising that "Petraeus seems unlikely to encounter significant opposition from Capitol Hill" and that, without promising to vote for his confirmation, Sen. Feinstein -- who raised such a ruckus over the appointment of Hayden -- yesterday "signaled support for Petraeus."

The nomination of Petraeus doesn't change much; it merely reflects how Washington is run. That George Bush's favorite war-commanding General -- who advocated for and oversaw the Surge in Iraq -- is also Barack Obama's favorite war-commanding General, and that Obama is now appointing him to run a nominally civilian agency that has been converted into an "increasingly militarized" arm of the American war-fighting state, says all one needs to know about the fully bipartisan militarization of American policy. There's little functional difference between running America's multiple wars as a General and running them as CIA Director because American institutions in the National Security State are all devoted to the same overarching cause: Endless War.

What is happening between the US and Pakistan? Or is it CIA vs ISI Now !!!!

Those who recall my attempt some months ago to explain Joe Biden’s hurriedly-arranged visit to Pakistan, would recall that I tried outlining why and how Pakistan was assisting the Afghans to find an Afghan solution for their future — a future in which all Afghans across the ethnic divide would participate, including the various chapters of the Afghan Taliban. While Pakistan would assist, the ‘(Burhanuddin) Rabbani initiative’ was intended to be exclusively Afghan.
I also mentioned in the same article that, when Biden’s hurriedly-scheduled visit was announced, The Washington Post (concluding from the briefings he received) outlined his messages to Pakistan. Apart from increased military and civil aid/assistance, these included a reassurance that no ground attack by US/Isaf forces would occur on Pakistani soil, the US would no longer press for an operation by the Pakistan Army in North Waziristan Agency (NWA) and, that “Pakistan has an important, if not dominant role in Afghanistan”.
A month later, we were caught up in the Raymond Davis imbroglio. However, that, too, was settled amicably and CIA operatives in Pakistan were grossly reduced. It should have been expected that relations between these two ‘allies’ would improve. But what has happened since? Let us examine recent developments before attempting to understand why these have occurred.

The day after Davis’s release, a drone attack in NWA killed around 44 civilians (no militants). For the first time, Pakistan launched a genuinely strong protest; so much so, that the army chief, General Kayani, vocally condemned the attack (a first). For some days, the Pakistan Air Force patrolled the skies along the Durand Line and drone attacks halted. In the meantime, our ISI chief travelled to Washington for a meeting with his counterpart at the CIA.
He had not yet set foot in Pakistan when, on April 22, another drone attack in NWA killed 22 people, including women and children! I have frequently commented that, since 2008, drone attacks by the CIA have become increasingly accurate in targeting militants and the (indecent term) ‘collateral damage’ has become minimal. Suddenly, after Davis’s departure, these have become even more inaccurate than they were in the period from 2006-2008! Why?
In his online article, “Carving up Pakistan: The Balochistan gambit”, Tony Cartalucci wrote on April 22: “In a broader geopolitical context, these constant and seemingly random attacks in western Pakistan serve a more diabolical purpose. With each attack on ‘suspected militants’, the all-inclusive term used to describe CIA targets, the authority and stability of Pakistan’s establishment is undermined and whittled away. With many of the attacks claiming the lives of civilians, outrage and unrest is purposefully being fanned and spread. The recipient of this outrage and unrest is a national government seemingly bent to the will of the United States as it callously murders Pakistanis. In particular, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is being intentionally weakened, undermined and isolated from the whole of Pakistan”.
The last sentence is given credence by the fact that, after a considerable interval, during which the ISI was not subjected to false allegations by the US, suddenly US military chief Admiral Mullen found it necessary to castigate this organisation again. With such vehemence did he do so, that once again, Pakistan’s army chief had to decry this ‘negative propaganda’!

Then there is the incident of the two-day firefight in Dir! Where did that come from? It certainly isn’t al Qaeda, which maintains only a token presence in Afghanistan, having moved to greener pastures in the Middle East and Iraq. Equally certainly, it wasn’t the Taliban.
In his online article “CIA Directs and Funds Terrorism In Pakistan CIA’s Afghan Kill Teams Expand US War in Pakistan”, published September 21, 2010, Spencer Ackerman points at the likely perpetrators. “Let there be no doubt that the US is at war in Pakistan. It’s not just the drone strikes. According to insider journalist Bob Woodward’s new book, the CIA manages a large and lethal band of Afghan fighters to infiltrate into Pakistan and attack al Qaeda’s bases. What could possibly go wrong?” He adds, “Administration officials didn’t just confirm the existence of the teams — they bragged about them. ‘This is one of the best Afghan fighting forces and it’s made major contributions to stability and security,’ says one US official who would only talk on condition of anonymity — and who wouldn’t elaborate”. Ackerman concludes, “One of the larger political narratives Woodward’s book apparently presents is President Obama’s inability to either bring the Afghanistan war to a close or find good options for tailoring it to the US’ main enemies in Pakistan. When the CIA comes to the Oval Office with a plan for inflicting damage on the safe havens — no matter how fraught with risk and blowback the plan is — is it any surprise that Obama would approve it?”
Ackerman’s comments seem to confirm my growing belief that US foreign policy, at least towards this region, is not tailored in the White House, but in the Pentagon and Langley. If the GHQ has a definite input in our foreign policy, it seems we are only following the sterling example of ‘the World’s Greatest Democracy’, the US of A!
And what is more, the US has, once again, linked this seizure of promised aid as well as its intent to continue its inaccurate drone attacks in NWA to the precondition that Pakistan undertake a military operation in NWA — if not, no aid and drone attacks now (rather obviously) targeting civilians will continue!
“Elementary, my dear Watson”, as the inimical Sherlock Holmes would have said, “the US has to destabilise Pakistan”. The only question is: Why?

Cruise Missile, Hatf-8. Pakistan has conducted a successful test flight near Kashmor.

The nuclear-capable missile test is part of the continuing process of improving the technical parameters of the weapon system. The RA’Ad missile, with a range of over 350 km, has been developed exclusively for launch from aerial platforms. The state of the art Ra’ad cruise missile with stealth capabilities is a low altitude, terrain-hugging missile with high maneuverability, and can deliver nuclear and conventional warheads with pinpoint accuracy. The successful launch has been appreciated by the president and prime minister of Pakistan, and chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee who have congratulated the scientists and engineers on their outstanding achievement.