NYT: Pakistani Govt Worried Over U.S. Redrawn Map Of Middle East

New York Time
By JANE PERLEZ
22.11.2008

Ringed by Foes, Pakistanis Fear the U.S., Too

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A redrawn map of South Asia has been making the rounds among Pakistani elites. It shows their country truncated, reduced to an elongated sliver of land with the big bulk of India to the east, and an enlarged Afghanistan to the west.

That the map was first circulated as a theoretical exercise in some American neoconservative circles. It has fueled a belief among Pakistanis, including members of the armed forces, that what the United States really wants is the breakup of Pakistan, the only Muslim country with nuclear arms.

That notion may strike Americans as strange coming from an ally of 50 years.

Pakistan, a 61-year-old country marbled by ethnic fault lines, is a collection of just four provinces, which often seem to have little in common. Virtually every one of its borders, drawn almost arbitrarily in the last gasps of the British Empire, is disputed with its neighbors, not least Pakistan’s bitter and much larger rival, India.

American military commanders, including Gen. David H. Petraeus, have started to argue forcefully that the solution to the conflict in Afghanistan, where the American war effort looks increasingly uncertain, must involve a wide array of neighbors.

Mr. Obama has said much the same. Several times in his campaign,

“If Pakistan can look towards the east with confidence, it will be less likely to believe its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban,” Mr. Obama wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine last year.

Pakistan’s army and intelligence agencies have long fought a proxy war with India by sponsoring militant groups to terrorize the Indian-administered part of the territory.

After the 9/11 attacks, Pakistan reined in those militants for a time, but this year the militants have renewed their incursions.

some Pakistanis are concerned about the reliability of the United States as a fair mediator. “Given the United States’ record on the Palestinian issue, where the Palestinians had to move 10 times backwards and the Israelis moved the goal posts, the same could happen here,” said Zubair Khan, a former commerce minister who has watched Kashmir closely.

It was discouraging, Mr. Khan said, that the United States ignored the importance of the huge nonviolent protests by Muslims in Kashmir against Indian rule this summer. “Anywhere else, and they would have been hailed as an Orange Revolution,” he said, referring to the wave of protests that led to a change in the Ukrainian government in 2004.

Such distrust has been exacerbated by what Pakistanis see as the Bush administration’s tilt toward India.

Exhibit A for the Pakistanis is India’s nuclear deal with the United States, which allows India to engage in nuclear trade even though it never joined the global Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Pakistan, with its recent history of spreading nuclear technology, received no comparable bargain.

“The United States has changed the whole nuclear order by this deal, […]” said Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani Army general.

Further, Pakistan is upset about the advances India is making in Afghanistan, with no checks from the United States, Mr. Masood said.

India has recently made big investments in Afghanistan, where Pakistan has been competing for influence. These include a road to the Iranian border that will eventually give India access to the Iranian port of Chabahar, circumventing Pakistan.

India has offered training for Afghanistan’s military,

The consulates, the Pakistanis charge, are used by India as cover to lend support to a long-running separatist movement in Baluchistan Province. (Baluchistan was even made an independent state on the theoretical map, which accompanied an article by Ralph Peters titled “Blood Borders: How a Better Middle East Would Look,” originally published in Armed Forces Journal.)

Both India and Pakistan in fact have a long and destructive history […]. Exhibit A for the Indians is the bombing in July of its embassy in Afghanistan, which American and Indian officials say can be traced to groups linked to Pakistan’s spy agency.

The commander of American forces in Afghanistan, Gen. David D. McKiernan, when he visited Islamabad and sat down with a group of about 70 members of Pakistan’s Parliament at the residence of the United States ambassador, Anne W. Patterson. Their attitude showed an almost total incomprehension of the reasons for American behavior in the region after Sept. 11, 2001.

“A couple of the questions I got were, ‘Why did you Americans come to Afghanistan when it was so peaceful, before you got there?’ ” General McKiernan recalled during an appearance at the Atlantic Council in Washington last week.

“Another one,” he said, “was, ‘We understand that you’ve invited a thousand Indian soldiers to serve in Afghanistan by Christmas.’ ”

Some commentators suggest that the United States is actually financing the Taliban. The point is to tie down the Pakistani Army, they say,

Full article

Related:

This New York Times article states that, “Pakistan’s army and intelligence agencies have long fought a proxy war with India by sponsoring militant groups to terrorize the Indian-administered part of the territory.” Governments sponsoring terrorists? If that is true and common place why has the Bush administration been meeting with Pakistani leaders? But don’t worry about that inconsistency in the story on the war on terror anymore because the U.S have already started bombing Pakistan this year as reported by the mainstream media and Obama says the U.S. must go after Bin Laden who Obama says is hiding in Pakistan. But why would Pakistanis think the U.S. funds terrorists? Does it actually have something to do with this video proof (40 seconds in) showing Zbigniew Brzezinski giving a peep talk to Muslim extremists, the Mujaheddin, who became Al Qaeda (the database)? Surely proof of the U.S. supporting Muslim terrorists could not make people think the U.S. supports terrorist? Covert government sponsored terrorists? Isn’t the world too innocent for such a thing? What use would it be to support terrorist groups, continued terrorist fighting would just keep the U.S. military in the Middle East, keep Haliburton rebuilding infrastructure for years, trillions of dollars would be spent on equipment and munitions and U.S. permanent bases. Besides Oil Barron George Bush said the Iraq war would be over in a few months, and as we know a long dragged out war in the Middle East is a disaster for us as this sent oil prices over $30 a barrel. This month in a CCN TV news item (click here) one reporter got furious because it was exposed that the U.S. government are funding a Russian nuclear facility that the U.S. government have labeled as an Iranian cover facility advancing Iran’s nuclear weapons program. If this makes you angry you must have failed to realise that the world is very innocent and everything that upsets your perception of reality is nothing to worry about because everything is either a coincidence or incompetence and that is common(cheap) knowledge. If people like the Bush family make millions from something like this it is just incompetence, a coincidence, and luck on other peoples bad luck all nicely mixed up. No need to worry about demanding investigations, trials and prison time. Remember this technique of “thinking” the next time something upsets your world view, with practice you can become an expert and it will just happen automatically, incompetence, coincidence and lucky are your best friends and can potentially work better than Prozac if you really believe your auto-”think”.

What to expect from Obama - in his own words (but if you don’t like what he says auto-”think” that he doesn’t really mean what he says or some other alternative. It’s actually easier than thinking, and I know you don’t want to be made fun of by auto-”thinkers” who will repeat the phrase, “you think too much!”)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D25kVj8XvvY

Brzezinski’s Peep Talk to Mujaheddin who became Al Qaeda (40 seconds in)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJTv2nFjMBk
End of Nations - EU Takeover and the Lisbon Treaty