According to an Israeli-based news website, New Delhi has agreed to purchase Iranian oil in gold while Tehran’s second largest export market, China, is poised to do the same.   By cutting out Wall Street and The City of London, the gold-for-oil deal allows New Delhi (and Beijing if it follows suit) to ensure a steady flow of energy while circumventing US and EU sanctions punishing financial institutions that do business with Tehran.   The biggest beneficiary of this new oil pricing model though is undoubtedly Iran. Not only does it make a laughing stock out of US-led sanctions; it has the power to severely curtail America’s death grip on the global economy.

Forget sabre rattling in the Strait of Hormuz; gold-for-oil poses the greatest threat to America’s influence on the world stage.  The lynchpin of US power isn’t its massive military. It’s the dollar’s role as global reserve currency; a position it owes to a 1973 decision by OPEC to only accept dollars for oil.  Every country which depends on oil (i.e. every industrialized nation on the planet) must keep dollar reserves both to secure their energy needs (the engine of economic growth) and defend against speculative attacks on their home currencies.   This ‘dollar hegemony’ comes with serious perks, like paying cut-rate prices to borrow money on global debt markets despite running up a 15 trillion dollar national debt.

Now, imagine the fallout if the US dollar were de-linked from oil…   

The blow to America’s economy would make the current recession seem like a paper cut.  The US would have no choice but to get its fiscal house in order (a wrenchingly painful process it has thus far lacked the political will to undertake), reduce its trade deficit, ramp up its gutted manufacturing sector and pay a much higher rate of interest on the loans it takes out (US government debt).

It begs the question: how far would America go to defend the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency?  Back in 2000, Baghdad decided to only accept Euros for Iraqi oil. While I don’t think this was the impetus for the 2003 US-led invasion, the reinstatement of petro-dollars post-Saddam must have been a welcome outcome.  Some observers have suggested that Gadhafi’s plan to ditch the dollar in favour of gold-backed dinars for Libyan oil led to his downfall. Again, I don’t see this as the main incentive for NATO’s Libya campaign, but it must have made allying with a bunch of hard-boiled jihadists a bit easier to swallow.

If Iran is indeed accepting gold for oil that would mean Ahmadinejad is now taking a swipe at the dollar.  I wonder how it will all work out…

No School Today

Another week, another scandal concerning the misuse of British aid in Afghanistan.  This time, the self-serving bureaucrats at DFID are accused of handing more than £3.2 million in British tax payer funds to a dodgy, third party German aid agency contracted to re-settle failed Afghan asylum seekers returning from Britain.  Even more appalling; DFID continued to throw money at the German outfit after evidence of fraud had been uncovered.

This is hardly news to anyone whose seen aid agencies operating in Afghanistan.   During my time as a security advisor in the country, I saw DFID, USAID, the UN and US Military Provincial Reconstruction Teams show charts to the media detailing how much money was being spent on development projects and where.   They would roll out a graph and the press would write stories about all the good work being done.  Never once did I hear a journalist ask what all that spending had actually achieved.

Had they bothered, I’m sure a very different picture would have emerged.  Case in point—girls’ schools.   According to UNICEF, 2.4 million girls are in school or university across Afghanistan.  How did they arrive at this number?  Not by going from province to province, counting heads in classrooms.  You see, UNICEF, like nearly all aid agencies in Afghanistan, does not send non-national staff to dangerous areas. They contract out the work to local third parties whose progress and use of funds are impossible to monitor. A third party can easily pocket the money for themselves and tell the aid agency heads sitting in Kabul whatever they like.  The bogus information is then plugged into a spread sheet and presto, a “successful” aid programme is born.

What is the reality of girls’ education in Afghanistan? Who knows, but I can tell you that I’ve personally seen a half-built girls’ school abondoned mid-construction, a recently built girls’ school burned down by the Taliban, girls’ schools that had no books, no desks, no chairs and no teachers, and girls’ schools with no students because the locals were either unwilling to send their daughters there or threatened with retaliation by fundamentalists if they did. How many of these schools were lauded as functioning educational institutions by the aid agencies charged with building them?  I wouldn’t be surprised if the rate was at or near 100%.

I concluded long ago that aid agencies are more concerned with writing weekly reports to justify their own existence than with producing actual results. For years now, DFID has safeguarded its budget by refusing to come clean about what can be realistically achieved in Afghanistan. International Development Secretary David Mitchell claims such abuses are now in the past and that the coalition has adopted a ‘zero-tolerance’ approach to the fraudulent use of aid funds.  If that is true, then how can the coalition possibly justify refocusing aid money on ‘conflict’ countries such as Pakistan and Somalia where the deployment of funds, not to mention programme results, are impossible to monitor?

The only way to ensure zero-tolerance on foreign aid fraud is to abolish ALL foreign aid programmes.  Yet the coalition is intent on throwing good money after bad by raising the foreign aid budget from £8 billion this year to £11.4 billion by 2015.  Prime Minister David Cameron argues that Britain has a ‘moral’ duty to the world’s poor.  Such altruism is dangerously naïve. The only Afghan lives I’ve seen transformed by western aid agencies are warlords who’ve used siphoned funds to build mansions, amass huge overseas property portfolios and arm private militias.

If Mr. Cameron is really interested in helping the poor then he should start with the millions of people in this country struggling to put a roof over their heads and food on their tables (perhaps if he ventured outside his bubble of privilege, he’d realize just how badly the majority of Brits are hurting right now).  How many council houses could be built for £11.4 billion? How many lives saved by an increase in winter fuel subsidies? How many British citizens would benefit from the reopening of schools, libraries, swimming pools and community centres forced to close as a result of spending cuts?   How many working class students could go to university if tuition fees were abolished?

Show some real heart Mr. Cameron and some real leadership.  Spend our considerable charity at home where it will actually do some good.

Afghanistan, Graveyard of Empires

In 2004, two years before British troops were deployed to Helmand, I escorted two television journalists from Kabul to Lashkar Gah by road.  Operating outside the security bubble of Kabul and military embeds was a real eye opener.   It was obvious that the locals did not support the coalition. I encountered a group of young Taliban down by the Helmand River who told me that should western troops ever attempt to set up bases in their province, there would be blood; an ominous prediction which indeed proved true.

Over the years, unilateral media excursions in Afghanistan became increasingly risky due to the deteriorating security situation.   The Taliban were regrouping effectively, targeting NATO troops and anyone believed to be associated with the coalition.  The evidence was indisputable. NATO casualties were steadily increasing year after year as were deaths of NGO personnel, the lynchpin of NATO’s hearts and minds strategy. Conditions outside Kabul became so dangerous for aid organizations that many were forced to abandon their projects or contract them out to local third parties whose progress, not to mention use of foreign aid funds, was impossible to monitor.  Sadly though, the British public was largely unaware of what was really happening in Afghanistan because our military and political leaders insisted the campaign was going swimmingly.

One of the greatest misperceptions about the Afghan conflict is that the Taliban is waging an insurgency against NATO.   There is no insurgency in Afghanistan; it’s a civil war in which NATO has taken sides.  The distinction is crucial for understanding the limits of what can be achieved.    The coalition backs the tribes of the former Northern Alliance which has been engaged in a festering 30-year civil war with the Pashtoon tribes of the southern and eastern provinces.   Against this context, it is easy to see why British, American and other NATO forces have and continue to encounter such fierce resistance in Helmand. As far as the local Pashtoon are concerned, NATO has sided with their mortal enemies.

With a 2014 deadline looming, NATO has reined in its ambitions.  Having given up on victory, it is now attempting to co-opt so-called ‘moderate’ members of the Taliban by offering them a stake in a future government.  Even if successful, this strategy will by no means guarantee a western friendly Afghanistan.  It may sound harsh, but history has shown that Afghans have no ideological allegiance.  They simply jump to the winning side.  This is not a national character flaw, but a survival instinct honed over generations of conflict.  I knew an Afghan who fought on behalf of the Soviets during their occupation.  When they left, he switched allegiance to the Northern Alliance. He then joined the Taliban.  Last I heard, he was working as an Afghan police officer in support of the NATO-backed Karzai government.  Who knows which faction he’ll be supporting three years from now.

Thanks to the ineptitude and spinelessness of our military top brass, British forces were deployed to Helmand in woefully insufficient numbers back in 2006.  Last year, having fought valiantly, our troops handed over control of the province to a much larger US contingent. Only then did a shocked British public start asking what had gone so very wrong in Afghanistan.

Today, that shock has given way to anger.  Our leaders took us to war on the lie that it would safeguard our streets against terrorism.  If anything, our involvement in Afghanistan has fostered a menacing wave of home grown Islamic militancy; hence why so few believe the lie anymore. For my part, I think we went to Afghanistan because our government is so desperate to preserve Britain’s standing as a major global player; it will do anything America asks of it, including going to war.  Even if the fight runs counter to our own national interest, when Washington says ‘jump’, Whitehall says ‘how high’.  Canada too went to war at Washington’s request and its troops fought bravely at the sharp end in Kandahar Province.  Overtime though, Canadian leaders recognized the futility of the Afghan campaign, bowed to public opinion and withdrew its troops.   Why do Britain’s leaders lack the political will to do the same?

The toll of this conflict has been horribly grave. Hundreds of British soldiers have died, over a thousand have been wounded and who knows how many have been mentally scarred as a result of their service.   Thousands of Afghan civilians have been killed by military action and tens of thousands are dead through displacement, disease and lawlessness.  Then there’s the financial cost; billions of British tax payer funds wasted. The politicians, generals and bureaucrats who misled the public for so long about Afghanistan need to be held to account (how many produced rosy reports simply to justify their existence?).   Above all, the government needs to admit it made a mistake and withdraw our troops from Afghanistan immediately.  Let’s not sacrifice another British life to a civil war no outside force will ever win.

Pride

Never in my lifetime has Britain’s future been more in peril.  The government’s plan to cut roughly 19,000 full-time soldiers and replace them with part-time TA reservists is not merely an ill-conceived cost-saving exercise that will weaken our defensive capabilities. It is a declaration of war against one of the last British institutions that places the welfare of the nation above the interests of the ruling elite.

I’m not taking anything away from the TA, especially those who have and continue to serve in theatres of war. Their bravery and sacrifice are to be commended.  But the argument that combat readiness will not be compromised because more TA will be trained for frontline operations is bogus.  As someone who served 23 years in the military, I can tell you from experience that regular forces barely have time to hone all their soldering skills to perfection.    Furthermore, slashing regular troop numbers will have a devastating impact on our Special Forces. Our SF are arguably the best in the world because only the highest calibre candidates are admitted.  Shrink the recruiting pool however and the Special Forces will be faced with the stark choice; lower selection standards or be woefully undermanned.

Our national security is clearly on the line.  Indeed it has been the focal point of most criticisms of all defence cuts.   But something equally important also hangs in the balance; something which has largely been ignored by the mainstream media. Namely, the core values our armed forces embody.

When a young man or woman enlists in the military, they are not simply taking a job.  They are joining a community in which excellence, loyalty, discipline, courage, self-sacrifice, honour and the promotion of the common good are valued more highly than individual earning power.  Few if any professions in the private or public sector today impart such a sense of pride and self-worth.

Soldiers aren’t in it for the money. They have answered a higher calling. I believe this goes a long way toward explaining why so many of today’s soldiers have difficulty reintegrating into civilian life.  In the past, many rankers from working class backgrounds could return to tightly knit communities that shared many of the military’s values.  But three decades of profit-driven market reforms have decimated our working class communities. The steady manufacturing jobs that sustained them have been shipped overseas and the homes they lived in sold off in a wave of privatization.   What does a retired, working class soldier who has served on the frontlines have to return to today but a soul-sucking, poorly paid, service sector job and a rundown flat owned by a slum lord cashing in on the shortage of social housing.

Successive governments have justified the destruction of working class institutions on the grounds that what’s good for business is good for the nation.  That same argument is now being used to eviscerate our armed forces and privatize vast swaths of the military to enrich profit driven companies.  Rather than take a scalpel to bank bonuses, Prime Minister David Cameron and his cabinet of ruling elites are giving their mates in the City of London a free pass, arguing that tax hikes on banking profits will drive the financial sector abroad.  Meanwhile, they savage our defensive capabilities to pay for the crisis the bankers created.  If that weren’t obscene enough, the proposed defence cuts are also laying the groundwork for an even greater transfer of public tax funds into private pockets, for should our military find itself short of manpower to defend our sovereignty, it will have no choice but to fill the void with commercial security contractors.

I can scream from the rooftops against the wholesale gutting of our armed forces. But those best positioned to stop it are the officers tasked with carrying it out.  The odds aren’t good. In 23 years of military service I knew perhaps a dozen officers who were truly worthy of their command.   Thus far, the response from the military’s top brass has been true to form.  The Generals carp behind closed doors about their shrinking fiefdoms or leak anonymous statements to the press but to date, not a single one has resigned over defence cuts (speaking out against them after they’ve retired is too little too late).

I’m not aware of an officer from the rank of Brigadier or above who hails from a working class background, so this total impotence is not surprising.  A high-profile, public stand against defence cuts could jeopardize the top brass’s social standing within the ruling elite (not to mention the highly lucrative positions in the private security industry some are no doubt planning to retire to).

If the leaders at the top won’t save our military and defend its values, then the officers below them must act; the Colonels, half Colonels, Majors and Captains.   Many will hold their tongues, reasoning that there is nothing to be gained from a lower ranking officer falling on their sword.  But they can make a difference.

A crucial difference.

During the Falklands War, my Squadron Commander resigned over an operational plan that would have needlessly massacred the troops under his command.  He sacrificed his career so that his men could live to fight another day for this country.  Now more than never, what Britain needs are a few good officers like that Major; patriots who are willing to put the greater good before their careers.  If just one officer were to say a very public NO to defence cuts by openly resigning, others may follow that brave example and eventually the government would be forced to rethink its policy.  Those few good officers won’t receive medals or titles. But when they look in the mirror, they’ll see a genuine hero.

Will western aid change their lives?

Having bitten the hand that feeds it too often, Pakistan is being punished with the loss of $800 million in US military aid.  Withholding the portion earmarked for training and equipping Pakistani forces will sting. But the biggest blow is the $300 million cash reimbursement for money Pakistan has already spent on operations along the Afghan border; a penalty some commentators claim will end up harming the broader economy because the payment goes directly into Pakistan’s treasury.

When I hear such warnings, I can’t help but wonder how much of those treasury funds end up lining the pockets of the country’s military elite, not to mention the ISI (which is largely staffed by former military)? In my view, it’s pointless separating Pakistan’s broader economy from the military because the army controls how the country’s resources are allocated.  The real question to ask therefore is not who will aid cuts impact, but why should the west continue to provide any form of aid to Pakistan?

Take Britain for example. In April, Prime Minister David Cameron outlined plans to make Islamabad the single biggest recipient of British foreign aid by increasing the amount of education aid to Pakistan to £650 million over the next four years (the total UK aid spend to Pakistan for 2009-10 was £140.4 million).   Honestly, I don’t know why Mr. Cameron doesn’t simply bypass the middleman and wire the funds directly into the offshore bank accounts of corrupt Pakistani officials because that’s where much of it will likely end up. Mr. Cameron put a national security spin on the proposed package, claiming that by tackling illiteracy in Pakistan we will be eliminating a “root cause” of Islamic extremism and terrorism.  I hate to break it to the Prime Minister, but over the past six years, I’ve met a handful of captured, hard-line Taliban from Pakistan and all of them had university educations.  It wasn’t illiteracy that had radicalized them, but western policies in South Asia and the Middle East (the same policies have radicalized British-born Pakistani militants as well).

It’s time to face facts: education and other hearts and minds initiatives in Pakistan have a dismal track record and to throw good money after bad at a time when Britain is closing libraries, village schools and pricing higher education beyond the reach of the average citizen is grossly irresponsible.

Some will counter that if the West doesn’t buy influence in Pakistan, China will step into the vacuum.  Beijing already has by investing billions in Pakistan. And unlike the west, it does not conduct drone strikes in the tribal areas or demand Pakistan’s military weed out Afghan Taliban, nor does it make a big deal about human rights violations.  In fact, Beijing turns a blind eye to the systematic oppression of ethnic Baluch in Baluchistan province where it is developing a treasured deep water port.

So far, China is getting a great return on its investment, gaining a strategic foothold in the Arabian Gulf and selling Pakistan military aircraft and submarines. But should Pakistan’s millions of downtrodden rise up and demand their fair cut, Beijing and every other nation that has propped up Pakistan’s corrupt and ineffective establishment could very well get their comeuppance. In the meantime, Pakistan’s military will continue to play its double game of going after anti-Islamabad militants while coddling Afghan Taliban targeting coalition forces.

So let’s cut all of  our aid to Pakistan and spend the money at home.  Islamabad can go cap in hand to some other nation.  Because until they are challenged from within, Pakistan’s corrupt elite will do as they like, aid or no aid.

Taking photographs in Paktika Province, Afghanistan, 2004

I’ve snapped over a thousand images in hostile environments over the past decade, some of which I’ve used as visuals in talks for my books. Many people who’ve attended those presentations have suggested afterward that I post my photographs online. Well, at long last, I’m acting on their advice and launching an online  Photo Gallery.

I’m kicking off with a selection of images that have influenced my fiction books including my debut novel, The Infidel, a modern day military thriller inspired by Rudyard Kipling’s The Man Who Would Be King, and my forthcoming novel, The Good Jihadist, an action thriller set against the duplicitous landscape of modern-day Pakistan that follows ex-SAS Sergeant Matt Logan’s hunt for a Pakistani Taliban leader.

My subject matter is as diverse as the places I’ve operated in.  This first batch of images includes an Apache helicopter, Russian attack helis, a US artillery gun, US army operating on the ground in Afghanistan, Afghan security forces training at the KMTC, children’s war art, Pakistani jihadists, riot police in Islamabad, a tank graveyard,  landscapes, villages and a winding mountain pass just to name a few.

I’m not a professional photographer.  All of my photographs were taken either on the move or during time outs whilst looking after clients in hostile environments (my camera allowed me to maintain a lower profile with media clients and not stick out as “the security man”.  It also served as an ice breaker in tense situations).

I hope you enjoy the Photo Gallery. For those of you who have read The Infidel and who plan to read The Good Jihadist when it is released this August, I hope it enhances your enjoyment of both novels.  If you like the gallery, please do check back, as I will be adding to it regularly. Next up is a selection of photographs from The Circuit, my non-fiction account of the private security industry.

Heading for a Yugoslavia-style bust up?

The assault last night on Mehran Naval Air Base in Karachi that left at least a dozen soldiers dead and destroyed anti submarine/ marine surveillance aircraft is the strongest evidence to date that Pakistan is losing the battle against home grown militants. Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani described this latest attack by the Pakistani Taliban as a “cowardly act of terror”. While I certainly don’t condone the militants’ actions, as someone with 23 years military experience, I can say without reservation that last night’s raid was hardly cowardly.  Unlike previous attacks, the Pakistani Taliban did not detonate a vehicle borne explosive device or take a few pot shots and run away.  They staged a direct ground assault on a secure military installation.  An operation of that nature takes supreme confidence, good organization and a healthy dose of fearlessness.

This is an extremely alarming development, especially given that Pakistan’s military installations have been on high alert since the assassination of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad earlier this month. Because if the country’s security forces can’t stop insurgents from penetrating a well-fortified military base, why should anyone believe they can defend the nation’s nuclear assets against terrorists?  It is more important than ever now that we examine the goals and motives of Pakistan’s insurgent groups and how the pursuit and/or realization of those goals would impact western interests in the region.

ETHNIC NATIONALIST AGENDAS

Islamabad is currently battling two significant home grown insurgent groups, both of which are trying to overthrow the state; the Pakistani Taliban and Baluch rebels in Baluchistan province (Pakistan’s largest and most resource rich).  Though born in different eras and political climates, both insurgencies are, at their heart, ethnic rebellions against a central government and army dominated by ethnic Punjabis and Sindhis.

In my capacity as a security advisor in the region, I’ve had the opportunity to speak with many ethnic Pashtun from Afghanistan and Pakistan’s tribal belt; the breeding, recruiting and training ground for the Pakistani Taliban.  The overwhelming majority of Pashtun I’ve encountered have felt hard done by the Durand line; the 1893 British drawn border which currently separates Pakistan from Afghanistan.   The Durand line divided the Pashtun tribes between the two countries and it has long been a Pashtun dream to see it abolished and their homeland reunited as a nation in its own right—Pashtunistan.  Baluch rebels also desire to create their own nation by ending what they see as the illegal occupation of native Baluch lands by Pakistan and neighbouring Iran.

EAST-WEST LOYALTIES

How could Pashtun and Baluch nationalist agendas impact western interests in the region and beyond?  The answer pivots greatly on geo-political loyalties.  There are currently two superpowers vying for hegemonic influence over Pakistan; China and the United States. While Washington’s relationship with Islamabad has been steadily declining, Beijing’s has been on the up, thanks to military cooperation and China’s development of an energy corridor through Pakistan.  At present, China is Islamabad’s closest ally. Indeed some of the hostages taken during last night’s siege on Mehran Naval Air Base were Chinese “maintenance” workers (at least, that’s how Pakistan’s Interior Minister described them).

The jewel in the crown of China’s energy conduit through Pakistan is the deep water port in Gwadar, Baluchistan (which some analysts believe may double as a Chinese naval base).  The development of this port has done little to benefit ethnic Baluch in the province and has even dispossessed many of their ancestral lands.  Baluch rebels have plenty of reasons not to like Beijing.  So should they get their longed-for homeland, it is entirely possible they’ll turn West toward their future, not East.

You only need to look at an atlas to see the potential benefits of a western-friendly Baluchistan. It would cement western hegemony in the oil-rich Arabian Gulf by moving Gwadar firmly into western-friendly hands, and help physically contain Iran (which has arms and energy deals with Beijing).

The potential benefits of Pashtun nationalism to the West are more difficult to gauge.  On the downside, an independent Pashtunistan could become a haven for al-Qaeda foreign fighters and its formation would undoubtedly escalate the decades-long civil war in Afghanistan (the southern and eastern Afghan provinces are ethnically Pashtun). Furthermore, there’s a possibility that an independent Pashtunistan would fall into Beijing’s orbit given that China has already made significant economic inroads into Pashtun parts of Afghanistan.

Even so, many Pakistani and Afghan Pashtun warlords hunger for an independent homeland and western support of Pashtun nationalist ambitions could very well set the stage for a peace settlement with the Afghan Taliban; a necessary pre-condition for the full withdrawal of coalition forces from Afghanistan; a development the United States, Britain and other coalition forces would welcome with open arms.

THE BIG ISSUE: NUKES

While there are certainly plenty of geo-political scenarios to ponder, the fate of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal eclipses all other considerations.  After last night’s attack, anyone who doesn’t believe that the country is heading for a Yugoslavia-style, ethnic civil war is burying their head in the sand.  The global community can no longer take Islamabad’s word for it that Pakistan’s nukes are one hundred percent secured, especially the tactical nuclear weapons that were test-fired last month. Not only is it in the West’s interest to do everything possible to force Pakistan to open its nuclear facilities to outside inspection, it is in China’s interests as well.  Because though Washington and Beijing may have competing agendas in Pakistan, if the country’s nukes fall into rogue hands, East and West could end up paying a terrible price.

The United States reportedly launched the attack on bin Laden’s luxury, Pakistani hideaway without informing the Pakistani authorities. The failure to gain prior consent lays bare the lack of trust which has characterized relations between Islamabad and Washington since the beginning of the War on Terror.  Speculation has been rife for years that Pakistan has been playing a double game with the West – posing as a cooperative ally in the war in neighbouring Afghanistan while secretly aiding the Afghan Taliban which gave bin Laden sanctuary.  Classified US documents posted online by Wikileaks repeatedly accuse the ISI, Pakistan’s most powerful intelligence agency, of supporting the Afghan Taliban.

Not surprisingly, Islamabad has vigorously denied all charges that it has or continues to help the Afghan Taliban, often citing its own fight against the Pakistani Taliban; a bogus comparison in my view given that the Pakistani Taliban is committed to the destruction of the government in Islamabad as opposed to the ouster of the US-led coalition from Afghanistan.  Moreover, the location, scale and opulence of the compound where bin Laden met his end would seem to suggest that there are at the very least powerful elements in Pakistan’s establishment
sympathetic if not supportive of al-Qaeda’s war against the West.  The secured, luxury villa worth a reported £600,000 was built five years ago in Abbottabad, an affluent garrison town firmly under the control of Pakistan’s military elite and home to its main military academy.

NUKES IN THE BALANCE

 The fact that bin Laden was hunted down and killed just a stone’s throw from Pakistan’s version of Sandhurst/West Point puts Islamabad between a rock and hard place.  It is doubtful the civilian-led Pakistani government has the power to clean house and ruthlessly weed out Afghan Taliban and al-Qaeda supporters in the military and security services without inviting a coup.   And if they throw their hands up and claim that they had no idea bin Laden was living comfortably right under their noses, it will completely undermine claims that Islamabad can prevent terrorists from doing as they like in the country– including exploiting Pakistan’s most precious military asset; its nuclear arsenal.

For years, Islamabad has refused to allow outside observers to check the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, stating it will never allow any country to have direct or indirect access to its nuclear facilities.  Whether Islamabad pleads ignorance on sheltering bin Laden or starts purging its military and security services of al-Qaeda sympathizers, it will be very difficult now for Pakistan to resist US offers to help secure its nuclear assets (especially if the US secures the backing of the United Nations for such a plan).

THE NEW GREAT GAME

 If the US can get its foot in Pakistan’s proverbial nuclear door, it will be the ultimate game changer.  Contrary to popular belief, the US and
Britain are not Pakistan’s most treasured allies.  It’s China (not only have I blogged frequently about this strategic relationship over the past year; it serves as the backdrop for my forthcoming novel The Good Jihadist, ).  China has huge influence with Islamabad; selling Pakistan arms and investing billions in developing natural resources and energy routes through the country including highways and a strategically important port in Gwadar, Baluchistan.

The Sino-Pakistani nexus is not just commercially beneficial to both parties.  By serving as a direct energy conduit between oil rich Gulf nations and Western China, Pakistan is vital to Beijing’s future security.  In turn, Beijing offers Islamabad a powerful buffer against its most bitter enemy, India (whose nuclear ambitions are currently being supported by the US).

Just last week, the The Wall Street Journal reported that Pakistan’s Prime Minister was attempting to cut the US out of Afghanistan’s future by reportedly urging Afghan President Karzai to forget about a long-term US military presence in his country and instead embrace Pakistan and China as allies.   The article went on to quote unnamed US officials, saying that ‘the idea of China taking a leading role in Afghanistan
was fanciful at best.’

Anyone who has been following China’s commercial progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan knows full well that Beijing is in a prime position to be the hegemonic power in the region.  But by finally killing bin Laden, the United States has shown it is not about to abandon South Asia to forces beyond its control.

]]> http://bobshepherdauthor.com/2011/05/02/bin-laden%e2%80%99s-death-a-game-changer-in-pakistan/feed/ 10 bobshepherdauthor http://bobshepherdauthor.com/2011/03/29/i%e2%80%99m-not-a-libya-expert-nor-are-you-mr-cameron/ http://bobshepherdauthor.com/2011/03/29/i%e2%80%99m-not-a-libya-expert-nor-are-you-mr-cameron/#comments Tue, 29 Mar 2011 18:17:08 +0000 bobshepherdauthor http://bobshepherdauthor.com/?p=465 ]]> I’ve never made breakfast for myself in Libya (the litmus test for claiming ‘expert’ status on a nation).  Indeed, I’ve never visited the country nor interacted with its various tribal groups; hence why I would never be so arrogant as to believe I could manipulate the outcome of a military intervention in Libya to my advantage.  If only Downing Street would admit the same.

Even before the first western missiles rained down on Gaddafi’s military infrastructure, my gut reaction to the no-fly zone operation was that it will compromise British national security. Though my heart goes out to the innocent Libyans who’ve been persecuted and oppressed by Gaddafi’s regime, I am not prepared to endorse airstrikes that could very well invite revenge attacks on British interests and open Libya to exploitation by anti-British, anti-western elements. 

The most important question to ask about the no-fly zone is who exactly is it benefiting?  Britain’s coalition government and most of our media keep referring to the anti-Gaddafi rebels as ‘pro-democracy forces’; an image promoted by the Benghazi-based Libyan Interim Transitional National Council. This 31-member rebel group which claims it will guide the country toward free elections has cleverly appointed Mahmoud Jibril, an American educated professor, as its special envoy.

With a western-friendly interlocutor making the rounds, decision makers in the US, Britain and France have grown more confident that there is a democracy-loving, freedom fighting government-in-waiting to take the helm once Gaddafi is gone.  But not all members of the opposition are as palatable as Jibril.   An article in The Telegraph reported that Libyan  rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted to an Italian newspaper that not only had he recruited around 25 al-Qaeda fighters from eastern Libya to fight coalition forces in Iraq but that some of those jihadists are now fighting on the frontlines of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion.  This corroborates what we already knew from the so-called Sinjar Records; al-Qaeda documents seized by US forces in Iraq which establish conclusively that the epicentre of the Libyan revolt is an al-Qaeda breeding nest.

As a general rule, Islamic fundamentalists reject the western liberal democratic model on the grounds that it gives non-Muslims a voice in government.  Perhaps Mr. al-Hasidi has grown more tolerant and is genuinely prepared to embrace universal suffrage. Perhaps not.  All I know is that if a post-Gaddafi power struggle ensues, my money won’t be on the political science professor with fond memories of his American university days but the hard-boiled, Islamic jihadist.

When I see the amount of attention Washington and Whitehall are lavishing on Jibril and the ITNC, I can’t help but be reminded of Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi National Congress member who fed the US a boatload of false intelligence on Iraq in order to spur an invasion.  A savvy PR opportunist, Chalabi styled himself as the man who could deliver Iraq to a peaceful, democratic, western-leaning future once the evil dictator Saddam Hussein was ousted.  It turned out Chalabi had zero influence in post-Saddam Iraq and the country swiftly disintegrated into a sectarian civil war.  In the end, not only did the US-led coalition not get the Iraq it had hoped for; its sacrifice of blood and treasure backfired in the worst possible way by enabling Iran to become a major power broker in Iraq’s internal affairs.

Is the West once again placing its trust in a charlatan who can’t deliver?  I really hope not.  But common sense tells me our political leaders are in no position to judge.  Look no further than the botched British secret mission to make contact with Libyan rebels that resulted in the arrest of an MI6 officer and his Special Forces escort team (all of whom were fortunately released unharmed). Sure, you can fob it off as a misunderstanding.  But the episode says volumes about Britain’s lack of understanding when it comes to Libya’s internal affairs.

It’s time for a little perspective. It is far from certain that the Muslim Brotherhood will be voted into power (indeed it’s a wide open question whether the military government will even allow elections). But let’s assume for argument’s sake that the Muslim Brotherhood is swept into office by popular vote.  It is unlikely that they will follow in Iran’s footsteps because the Brotherhood is not compromised primarily of clerics but professional men who embrace a profitable business climate as much as the Koran.  

The yearning among Egyptians religious and secular for a more prosperous future is likely to ensure the peace treaty with Israel will continue to be honoured.  Egypt has nothing to gain from invading Israel—the Sinai was returned after all. Moreover, the first whiff of aggression toward Israel would invite at best crippling economic sanctions and at worst, bombs. And don’t forget who’s been supplying Egypt’s armed forces. Most of their hardware and software is American.  If it chooses, Washington can shut down the Egyptian military machine with a flip of the proverbial switch. 

Of course, none of what I’ve written so far is terribly insightful. Even casual observers of Middle East affairs are familiar with these facts.  So why all the scare mongering about clerics and broken treaties? The answer is simple. Israel does face a serious threat from Egypt’s revolution, but not the one the hawks in Tel Aviv would have us believe.

 For six decades, Israel’s powerful propaganda machine has portrayed Arabs as violent, irrational and therefore incapable of summoning the civility and restraint a functioning liberal democracy requires.  As the last line of defence against these lesser evolved societies, Israel demanded blanket support for any actions taken in the name of security.  The events in Egypt this week have blown this myth wide open.  The revolution launched by the young protestors in Tahrir Square was largely peaceful.  If the military transition does midwife free and fair elections, Tel Aviv will lose its claim to being the only nation in the region that shares western liberal values — especially if Egypt elects a secular minded leader.  Not only would Cairo emerge as the civil and moral equal of Tel Aviv, it would have the political clout to pursue what has eluded the greatest powers on earth for decades; a  credible Middle East Peace solution.

 This is the real threat to Israel.  Hosni Mubarak supported Israel’s apartheid policies toward the Palestinians out of deference to his American pay masters and fear of Hamas emboldening Egyptian Muslim groups.  A democratically elected Egyptian government would not have such constraints. Indeed it is far more likely to reflect the will of its people.  I would not be surprised if a civil government in Cairo were to fully restore the flow of goods and services over the Rafah border crossing thereby ending Israel’s blockade of Gaza.

Israel would no doubt raise the alarm and ask America to support maintaining the blockade.  In the past, that would happen without question. But Egypt’s revolution is altering the rules of the game.  It would be unwise of Washington to alienate a democratic Egypt in order to defend an Israeli policy that is illegal under international law.   And if other Arab nations follow in Egypt’s footsteps, the US will face even greater pressure to end its blind endorsement of Israel’s colonialist policies.   Imagine if Oman embraces democracy.  The Straits of Hormuz are of far greater strategic importance to America than any slice of real estate in Israel.  

The US and Britain need to break with the past and prove they are capable of being fair brokers in the Middle East. Failure to do so will risk ceding influence to a new hegemonic power. Remember, China already controls the port at Gwadar, Pakistan on the Arabian Sea—an asset it gained through diplomacy and economic incentives.  Washington and Whitehall should put real pressure on Israel to pull back settlements that encroach on Palestinian lands (a suspension of credit lines should do the trick), appoint a credible envoy the Arabs can trust (Tony Blair’s appointment was tantamount to making Osama bin Laden mayor of New York City in my view) and insist that Israel free jailed Palestinian political figures capable of uniting the West Bank and Gaza. Marwan Barghouti, Palestine’s Nelson Mandela, comes to mind.

Israel will probably resist any significant changes in US Middle East policy. Perhaps that’s the biggest threat of all posed by Egypt’s revolution.  Old-style hawkishness can no longer guarantee Israel’s security and indeed, could run counter to it.  In the new Middle East, a just and lasting peace between Israel and Palestine is the best way to ensure the Jewish state survives.