Some Frontier Corps jawans desert force

Some Frontier Corps jawans desert force

By Iqbal KhattakPESHAWAR: Some jawans of the Frontier Corps (FC) are reportedly deserting the force due to regular and violent attacks by the militants in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, sources told Daily Times on Friday. Military spokesman Major General Waheed Arshad, however, called the desertion of a “few jawans insignificant incidents”.An FC soldier who met Daily Times earlier this week said he had deserted from the force days before his deployment to North Waziristan because he did not “want to fight his own people”. The soldier, asking not to be named, said that he did not desert the force because he feared death, but it was difficult for him to understand whether the fighting in Waziristan was “Islamic or not”. Asked why he thought so now after remaining in the force for 14 years, the soldier said: “This question is haunting several other soldiers and this confusion is stopping them from putting up a tough fight.” “We ask ourselves that if we die fighting in Waziristan will we be martyrs? No one is here to give an answer,” said the deserter who is now looking for a job to feed his family. Maj Gen Arshad said that small-scale desertions could take place in any force and in any country for one reason or another. He added that thousands of people had enrolled for recruitment in the FC recently. The deserter hails from a poor eastern suburb of Peshawar where around six FC jawans reportedly deserted the force – the first line of defence against the Taliban and Al Qaeda elements in North and South Waziristan. Another deserter said that insufficient salary was also one of the reasons the soldiers had deserted the force. “I was being paid Rs 4,500 only,” he said. There are also reports of desertion among army soldiers in Waziristan, but these desertions don’t reflect the overall situation prevailing among the security forces. By 2006, more than 700 soldiers, including officers, were reported killed in clashes in the ongoing war on terror. A military officer said the army suffered higher casualties because “the soldiers do not follow the standard operation procedures”.

US permitted forces to enter Pakistan

US permitted forces to enter Pakistan’

SAN FRANCISCO: Newly uncovered “rules of engagement” in the war on terror show the US military gave elite units broad authority more than three years ago to pursue suspected terrorists in Pakistan, with no mention of telling Pakistanis in advance.

The documents obtained by The Associated Press offer a detailed glimpse at what US Army Rangers and other terrorist-hunting units were authorised to do earlier in the war on terror. And interviews with military officials suggest some of those same guidelines have remained in place, such as the right to “hot pursuit” across the border.

Pakistan, a key US partner in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, has long viewed such incursions as a threat to its sovereignty. Islamabad protested loudly this month when Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama pledged to grant US forces the authority to unilaterally penetrate Pakistan in the hunt for terrorist leaders. Washington repeated assurances it would consult before any such incursions.

But summaries of the rules of engagement on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in April 2004 say chasing Al Qaeda leaders across the frontier was fair game. One summary states that entry into Pakistan was authorised for the following reasons: “Hot pursuit of Al Qaeda, Taliban and terrorist command-and-control targets from Afghanistan into Pakistan.”

If the head of US Central Command, which oversees American forces in the Middle East and Central Asia, approved direct action “against The Big 3,” listed as Osama bin Laden; his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri; and Taliban supreme leader Mullah Omar. The three are still believed to be hiding in the border region. If the US defense secretary approved such an incursion.

Other grounds for incursions into Pakistan, according to this summary, were “personnel recovery,” including rescuing troops after the downing of aircraft; and troops “in contact with” the enemy, meaning under fire.

As for “geographic limits,” the memo states, “General rule: penetrate no deeper than 10 km”.

Told of the guidelines, Pakistan Army Spokesman Major General Waheed Arshad said, “This is all nonsense. Pakistan never allowed the coalition forces to enter into our territory while chasing militants. There was no such agreement, there was no such understanding.” Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Todd Vician said this week that he could not comment. “As a policy we don’t talk about rules of engagement, certainly not about current rules in place for any operations in Afghanistan, Iraq or any other operation,” he said. ap

Hate calls made to families of RAF members from Pakistan

Taliban terrorises RAF families

By TOM NEWTON DUNN Defence EditorAugust 22, 2007
COMMENT ON THIS STORY
TALIBAN fanatics terrorised the wife of an RAF officer by phoning her and saying: “You’ll never see your husband alive — we have just killed him.”
Rebels in Afghanistan are targeting British forces’ families with hate calls after tapping into Our Boys’ mobile phones.
The tearful wife rang the RAF fearing the worst after receiving the midnight call — and was told her husband was safe and well.
But the Taliban calls are a sick new plot to destroy morale, and British forces in Afghanistan have now been BANNED from using mobiles.
Army chiefs believe extremists are using sophisticated eavesdropping equipment to trace home numbers when forces call their loved ones in Britain.
Intelligence analysts have tracked the hate calls to numbers in Pakistan, a hotbed for Islamic extremism and the Taliban’s prime recruiting ground.


Pakistan’s notorious ISI spy agency — a known supporter of the Taliban — is believed to be intercepting Our Boys’ calls. It is also feared the Taliban may be getting intercept information from Iran.
Now all British troops’ welfare calls have to be made on secure military phone lines. But squaddies are fuming as they are only allowed 30 minutes’ call time each week.
One senior officer said: “We assume these days that every conversation over mobile phones is being heard by our enemies.
“They have some pretty powerful friends and allies, who are giving them some very sophisticated help. They will use that information in any way they can to damage us, whether it is physically or mentally.”
Hate calls are the latest tactic in the ever-more sophisticated war raging in Afghanistan’s lawless south.
A British forces spokesman in Afghanistan confirmed the hate calls, adding: “We are fully aware of the security implications of using personal mobile phones in Afghanistan and have therefore imposed a ban on their use to protect individuals and their families.”
The MoD confirmed that families of troops in Iraq have also suffered from “nuisance calls” in the past year.

Pakistani minister says jews behind 9/11

Minister blasts pro-US foreign policy
By Our Staff Reporter
ISLAMABAD, Aug 21: Federal Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Dr Sher Afgan Niazi on Tuesday stunned both the treasury and opposition senators when he roundly criticised the foreign policy, describing it as one of appeasement at the cost of national interests, sovereignty and honour.He also condemned recently-passed US legislation and the derogatory statements about Pakistan made by some American presidential candidates.Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal’s Prof Khurshid Ahmed immediately stood up to endorse most of the views expressed by the minister, and welcomed the “change of heart,” describing it as part of the change that had taken place in the wake of the July 20 landmark Supreme Court judgment.Interestingly, taking cognizance of the strongly-worded speech of the minister, the Foreign Office reacted officially, saying that only the foreign minister’s statement would be true representation of Pakistan’s foreign policy and Pakistan’s relations with various countries.However, not a single PPP or the PML-N lawmaker took part in the debate during which statements of US presidential candidates and a recently-approved Pakistan-specific law were severely criticised.Commenting on the statements made in the Senate on Tuesday, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that the foreign mQinister would wind up the debate on the subject on Aug 22.Dr Niazi said in his speech that the key role Pakistan played in bringing about the downfall of the former Soviet Union was a blunder. It resulted in the emergence of a unipolar world and gave the US a licence to attack any country it wished, he said.He said that American presidential candidates’ statements threatening Pakistan’s internal security were a reflection of the jaundiced thinking of US leaders who had forgotten lessons of history and the glorious past of Muslims.Lashing out at the recent US law attaching strings to financial assistance to Pakistan, Dr Niazi described it as insulting and demanded that “we must return and refuse to accept such assistance”.He said the country should learn to stand on its own feet by rejecting all foreign assistance as a proud Muslim nation.Recounting events of the 1971 war with India and the country’s dismemberment, he said Islamabad kept waiting for the arrival of the Sixth US fleet in the Bay of Bengal as had been promised by the then US government. But the fleet never turned up, he said, adding that no good should be expected of the US in future as well.He said while the US officials never stopped the mantra of “do more”, ignoring the fact that Islamabad had rendered tremendous sacrifices in the war on terror, the US signed a civil nuclear agreement with India, instead of Pakistan. He said while India was encouraged when it had carried out nuclear tests in 1974 and 1998, heavy sanctions were slapped on Pakistan when it conducted nuclear tests and aspersions were still being cast on nuclear assets of the country.The minister said that events which followed the 9/11 incident proved that it was the brainchild of Jews. He said that according to holy Quran, Jews and Christians could never be friends of Muslims.Prof Khurshid Ahmed of the MMA said that the American presidential candidates’ statements had exposed Gen Musharraf’s US-centric policies, because after staking everything, national interest, pride and sovereignty Pakistan was still accused of doing little in the so-called war on terror.He said while the Iranian leadership had staunchly resisted the US pressure with full backing of its people, Pakistan’s military government had abjectly surrendered to the US dictates because of lack of genuine support from the people.He accused Gen Musharraf of compromising everything on a single telephone call of the American President.Treasury bench members Nisar Memon and Anwar Bhinder supported President Musharraf’s foreign policy, saying it was based on “ground realities”.Dr Kausar Firdaus called for review and revision of the foreign policy, and said the government should consider withdrawing Pakistan from the so-called war on terror that had cost the country dearly in terms of losses of life and national dignity.Senator Shahid Bugti said that an individual had put the country’s solidarity at risk only to prolong his rule.

National Security Archive Documents: Pakistan and the taliban

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing

Documents Detail Years of Pakistani Support for Taliban, Extremists

Document 17
From [Excised] to DIA Washington D.C., "IIR [Excised] Pakistan Involvement in Afghanistan," November 7, 1996, Confidential, 2 pp. [Excised]
Similar to the October 22, 1996 Intelligence Information Report (IIR), this IIR reiterates how "Pakistan's ISI is heavily involved in Afghanistan," but also details different roles various ISI officers play in Afghanistan. Stating that Pakistan uses sizable numbers of its Pashtun-based Frontier Corps in Taliban-run operations in Afghanistan, the document clarifies that, "these Frontier Corps elements are utilized in command and control; training; and when necessary - combat. Elements of Pakistan's regular army force are not used because the army is predominantly Punjabi, who have different features as compared to the Pashtun and other Afghan tribes."
According to the document, Pakistan's Frontier Corps provide some of the combat training in Kandahar or Herat provided to Pakistani madrassa students that come to Afghanistan to fight with the Taliban. The parents of these students apparently know nothing regarding their child's military involvement with the Taliban "until their bodies are brought back to Pakistan."

Britain Best Friend, Pakistan Worse for Americans

Britain Best Friend, Pakistan Worse for Americans

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Out of a list of 25 countries, most people in the United States regard Britain as their country’s closest ally, according to a poll by Harris Interactive. 70 per cent of respondents feel this way about Britain, while at least 42 per cent also see Israel, Australia and Canada as close allies.

Conversely, 37 per cent of respondents believe Pakistan is an enemy of the U.S., followed by China and Colombia with 23 per cent each, and Russia with 17 per cent.

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the U.S., Britain committed troops to both the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and the U.S.-led coalition effort in Iraq. In his address to the U.S. Congress in September 2001, U.S. president George W. Bush declared, "America has no truer friend than Great Britain."

On Aug. 11, Bush and French president Nicolas Sarkozy met in Maine. Sarkozy discussed his views on bilateral relations, saying, "The U.S. is a large, big democracy. It’s a country of freedom and it’s a country that we’ve always admired because it’s the county that brought a constitution and freedom to the world. And France is friends with democracies, not with dictatorships."

France is regarded as a close ally of the U.S. by 20 per cent of respondents.

Polling Data

Do you feel that (country) is a close ally of the U.S., is friendly but not a close ally, is not friendly but not an enemy, or is unfriendly and is an enemy of the U.S.?

	Close ally	Friendly, but not a close ally	Not friendly, not an enemy	Unfriendly and enemy	Not sure
Britain	70%	21%	6%	1%	3%
Canada	57%	31%	9%	1%	2%
Australia	54%	28%	10%	1%	7%
Israel	42%	26%	19%	8%	5%
Japan	38%	34%	14%	10%	4%
Italy	35%	40%	16%	3%	7%
South Korea	29%	25%	20%	20%	6%
Germany	28%	39%	20%	6%	8%
Mexico	27%	39%	21%	10%	4%
Norway	27%	38%	21%	2%	12%
Netherlands	26%	44%	18%	1%	12%
Spain	25%	48%	16%	2%	8%
Sweden	22%	50%	19%	2%	7%
Greece	20%	43%	24%	3%	10%
France	20%	38%	27%	11%	4%
Taiwan	20%	36%	27%	6%	11%
India	18%	43%	21%	8%	9%
Brazil	15%	39%	30%	3%	12%
Chile	12%	39%	27%	7%	14%
South Africa	10%	42%	31%	5%	12%
Argentina	8%	41%	29%	8%	14%
Colombia	8%	24%	33%	23%	12%
Russia	6%	33%	37%	17%	6%
China	5%	25%	40%	23%	6%
Pakistan	4%	21%	32%	37%	5%

Source: Harris Interactive
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,010 American adults, conducted from Jul. 10 to Jul. 16, 2007. Margin of error is 3 per cent.