Democratic Pakistan Bans BBC World News Over "Secret Pakistan" Documentary

Image via WikipediaAccording  to BBC News, Pakistani cable television operators have begun blocking the BBC's international news TV channel, BBC World News. This move was apparently due to a critical documentary broadcast entitled Secret Pakistan. Excerpts:

The BBC said it was deeply concerned by the move, and called for its channel to be speedily reinstated.

"We condemn any action that threatens our editorial independence and prevents audiences from accessing our impartial international news service," a BBC spokesperson said.

"We would urge that BBC World News and other international news services are reinstated as soon as possible."

The two-part BBC documentary questioned the country's commitment to tackling Taliban militancy.
[...]
The decision to block BBC World News and other international news channels comes after a media uproar in Pakistan over a Nato air strike that killed 24 Pakistani troops near the Afghan border at the weekend.

The All Pakistan Cable Operators Association announced on Tuesday that all foreign news channels airing "anti-Pakistan" content would be barred from Wednesday.

The operators called on the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) "to revoke the landing rights of foreign channels" if they are found to be "propagating" information harmful to the country.
[...]
Correspondents say it is not possible to see BBC World News in most Pakistani cities, with the ban expected to be extended to rural areas by Wednesday.

Cable Operators Association spokesman Khalid Arain said that no foreign anti-Pakistan channel would "ever" be broadcast in the country.

"We want to send them a strong message to stop this. If they don't stop this, then it is our right to stop them," he said.

Correspondents say the Pakistani government is likely to have put pressure on the operators to impose the ban.

Active link added above.  Read in full here.

The two-part documentary is, of course, now available on YouTube for everyone to see and unless pulled by BBC for copyright issues, available to anyone with access to the web. 

Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 1
(Double Cross) | Length: 59:03
http://youtu.be/qSinK-dVrig

from BBC: In May this year, US Special Forces shot and killed Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. Publicly Pakistan is one of America's closest allies - yet every step of the operation was kept secret from it.

Filmed largely in Pakistan and Afghanistan, this two-part documentary series explores how a supposed ally stands accused by top CIA officers and Western diplomats of causing the deaths of thousands of coalition soldiers in Afghanistan. It is a charge denied by Pakistan's military establishment, but the documentary makers meet serving Taliban commanders who describe the support they get from Pakistan in terms of weapons, training and a place to hide.

This first episode investigates signs of duplicity that emerged after 9/11 and disturbing intelligence reports after Britain's forces entered Helmand in 2006.

Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 2
(Backlash) | Length: 58:59
http://youtu.be/G5-lSSC9dSE

from BBC: The second film in this timely and enthralling two-part documentary series reveals how Britain and America discovered compelling evidence that Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban and concluded they had been double-crossed.

It tells the story of how under President Obama the US has waged a secret war against Pakistan. Taliban commanders tell the film makers that to this day Pakistan shelters and arms them, and helps them kill Western troops - indeed one recently captured suicide bomber alleges he was trained by Pakistani intelligence.

Chillingly, the film also reveals that, based on some evidence, Pakistani intelligence stands accused of sabotaging possible peace talks. Pakistan denies these charges, but relations between Pakistan and America now verge on hostility.

Since it is inevitable that some clips of this documentary will bleed into prime time news, I suspect that a host of foreign channels will also be banned for "propagating information harmful to the country."

Perhaps, the cable operators would like to use the following programming filler - a music video, titled "Zindagi Hai Yahan."  This has been created to showcase the treasures of the beautiful valley of Swat and promote it as a premium tourist destination in Pakistan, with assistance from USAID and the people of the United States of America:

Read more on Tourism Takes On Taliban (IPS) and USAID Support to Tourism in Swat. 

Related articles

• BBC World News blocked in Pakistan (guardian.co.uk)
• Pakistani Cable Blocks BBC Over Critical Documentary (huffingtonpost.com)
• Pakistan withdraws from Afghanistan peace conference (telegraph.co.uk)
• Threat to foreign TV channels issued (nation.com.pk)
• Pakistani Cable TV Blocks BBC Over Documentary (abcnews.go.com)

US Embassy Kabul: Not Safe Even Inside the Bunker; One Amcit Killed, One Wounded by Afghan Employee

US Embassy Kabul Statement on the September 25 Evening Shooting Incident at an Embassy Annex:

"There was a shooting incident at an annex of U.S. Embassy Kabul in the evening of September 25.  The lone gunman, an Afghan employee, was killed.  The motivation for the attack is still under investigation. One U.S. citizen was killed and one wounded, who was evacuated to a military hospital with non-life threatening injuries. We mourn the loss of life in the incident, and express our heartfelt condolences to the families. The Embassy has resumed business operations."

CSMonitor has more on this attack:

"Sunday’s shooting could be of particular significance as it took place inside an area of the Embassy known to be used by the Central Intelligence Agency. It may also be the first time an Afghan working with a Western civilian organization killed his counterparts.

US officials have remained exceptionally tight-lipped about the incident, likely due to its potential link with the CIA. Intelligence officials have yet to offer any public comments and the Embassy issued only a brief statement confirming the shooting and saying, “The lone gunman, an Afghan employee, was killed. The motivation for the attack is still under investigation.”

Hamsters on the Titanic (Sure the deck's slanting, but this wheel is fun!) in And then they tried to blow up the CIA writes:

And it is on like Donkey Kong. Well, probably no more “on” than it was before insurgents apparently tried to blow up the Ariana Hotel, used by the CIA in Kabul. There was some gunfire in my neighborhood last night, which was probably related to a reported attempt by President Karzai to visit Rabbani’s home to pay final respects.

I don’t know if that gunfire was any kind of attack, or the ANSF attempting to disperse some kind of crowd, or what, but it doesn’t appear that there was an attack in my particular piece of the Kabul landscape. What did actually happen no one actually knows, since it all took place within the the confines of the Ariana.
[...]
Since the CIA compound is definitely a no-go zone for ANSF, they weren’t involved…at all. In fact, Afghan officials made that very clear to reporters last night, that they had no idea what was going on, and that reporters should ask ISAF. When ISAF was asked, they also said they had no idea, and that folks should contact the ANSF. Since no one’s involved, it has to be OGA. Still, great use of social media by NTM-A to say…nothing.

@NTMA_CSTCA
NTM-Afghanistan

"The insurgency has been turned back… and Afghan National Security Forces are increasingly strong and capable.

Gotta love that social media.


All I can say is if that lone gunman was a locally engaged staff (know as LES or more kindly, as Foreign Service Nationals), that is a scary thought.  That means even the bunker is no longer safe.  It may have an impact on job creation in US diplomatic and consular posts in Afghanistan.

And if that lone gunman was a locally engaged staff but was not a guard, this would even be more troubling, as how did he managed to get a weapon inside an annex that is presumably well-guarded given its purported occupants.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought all the local hire staff in Afghanistan already get a polygraph as part of their employment package. Of course, it's not like a poly is as good as the precogs of Minority Report.

More scary thoughts about the bunker, I'm going to have nightmares tonight. 


 

Related articles

• US Embassy shooting in Kabul heightens concerns about Afghan security (csmonitor.com)
• Two die in Kabul embassy shooting (edition.cnn.com)
• American shot dead at 'CIA building' in Kabul (telegraph.co.uk)
• Afghan U.S. gov't employee kills 1 American (cbsnews.com)

USA vs. Ishmael Jones (Pen Name): Secrecy Agreement Does Not Violate First Amendment Rights

Image via WikipediaVia Secrecy News:

"Judge Gerald Bruce Lee of the Eastern District of Virginia ruled at a June 15 hearing (pdf) that the CIA officer, who goes by the pseudonym “Ishmael Jones,” would be held liable for publishing his 2008 book “The Human Factor: Inside the CIA’s Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture” in the face of a refusal by the CIA’s Prepublication Review Board to clear the volume for publication."

According to the author's website:

"Ishmael Jones, a pseudonym, was born in the United States and raised in the Middle East, East Asia, and East Africa. He attended universities in the US and served as an officer in the US Marine Corps. In the late 1980’s he joined the Central Intelligence Agency where he served as a deep cover officer focusing on human sources with access to intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. His assignments included more than 15 years of continuous overseas service in numerous exotic countries and several rogue nations. He resigned from the CIA in good standing."

On the 2010 CIA lawsuit over Jones' book published in 2008:

"The CIA requires that its employees submit manuscripts before publication in order to make sure that no classified information is revealed. After review, the CIA sends authors a list of what sentences need to be removed or rewritten. For The Human Factor, the CIA was unable to find any classified information in the manuscript, but objected to its criticism of the CIA, and took the unusual step of disapproving every single word in the manuscript. During the year that the CIA spent evaluating the manuscript, Jones repeatedly offered to remove or rewrite anything in the manuscript. 

Initially, the book drew relatively little attention, but as Jones continued to work toward intelligence reform and to meet with members of Congress and the Administration, he began to get more traction. In July 2010, more than two years after the book was published, the CIA filed a lawsuit against Jones. Jones learned about the lawsuit in September 2010, when the CIA served him papers."

Below is Judge Gerald Bruce Lee of the Eastern District of Virginia ruling excerpted from the June 15 hearing transcript obtained by Secrecy News.

Let the record reflect this matter is before the Court on the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment as to liability. And this is a case as we've heard involving the publication of a manuscript that was not approved by the Agency in prepublication review as required by the secrecy agreement.

So the issue is whether the Court should grant the Government's motion for summary judgment as to liability where the plaintiff signed a secrecy agreement which is attached to the complaint as Government Exhibit A. And, the Agency required under the secrecy agreement that the plaintiff obtain written permission from the Central Intelligence Agency's publication review board prior to publishing any work. And the plaintiff did not secure Agency approval prior to having his book published.

The facts are not in dispute, it seems to me. Plaintiff admits that he was signatory to the secrecy agreement. He did prepare a manuscript which he submitted to the publication review board multiple times, and he was given feedback from the Agency about what was publishable and what was not.

His opinion is that the Agency's refusal to approve publication of his book was unreasonable and deprived him of his rights under the First Amendment, and he decided to publish the book without securing Agency approval.

I don't think that this is really a very difficult question. I think the Snepp case would control here. It seems to me that where he signed a binding secrecy agreement that prevented from publishing any materials prior to receiving written consent, that under Snepp this liability for the Government has been established.

His signing a secrecy agreement does not violate his First Amendment rights. And his claim that the Court should deny summary judgment because of genuine issue of fact about whether the plaintiff's counterclaim alleging First Amendment violations creates a genuine issue of fact for trial.

It seems to me that the judgment that he exercised at some risk, according to his own counsel, to publish a matter without securing Agency approval does not demonstrate that the Government breached the contract first because plaintiff acknowledges that under the process in effect that once the prepublication board denied his request for publication, that he had a remedy and that remedy was to come to U.S. District Court and to pursue a claim to have the Court determine if the Agency's withholding of permission was unreasonable. Not having exercised that right, I do not see how the Government could be held liable for breach when they were pursuing the process as set forth in the agreement.

So, I am first of all holding that the Snepp case controls here. They're both -- Snepp was an agent and so is this plaintiff. They both signed secrecy agreements. They both failed to adhere to them knowing what they were -- the agreement said.

I don't think any discovery is necessary because the plaintiff admits that he published without the permission. And the issue of whether the Government breached first because of some sham appellate review, the process was never over. And, his judgment to go forward without the completing -- pursuing his remedies before the court was the breach. It was not the Government's breach. The Government was carrying out it's agreement.

So, for those reasons, it is the -- the case is also very similar to Marchetti, but I don't think we needs to go as far as Marchetti. I think that Snepp is sufficient.

Motion for summary judgment for the Government is granted, and the case will be dismissed as it relates to his claim, counterclaim. So, partial summary judgment liability is granted.

What remains to be done is the issue of what remedy the Government is entitled to because of the breach of secrecy agreement.

The Snepp case mentioned above is SNEPP v. UNITED STATES, 444 U.S. 507 (1980) where SCOTUS held that:

"A former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, who had agreed not to divulge classified information without authorization and not to publish any information relating to the Agency without prepublication clearance, breached a fiduciary obligation when he published a book about certain Agency activities without submitting his manuscript for prepublication review. The proceeds of his breach are impressed with a constructive trust for the benefit of the Government."

In the NYT review of Snepp's book Irreparable Harm in 1999, James Bamford writes:

"[...] The C.I.A. would later admit in court, the book contained no secrets at all.  Unable to go after Snepp for unauthorized release of classified information, the C.I.A. and the Justice Department instead sued him for violating a clause in his original agency contract demanding prepublication review. The goal, Snepp says, was to reduce him to penury and seal his lips and fingers with legal superglue. In court, the Government argued that Snepp should be stripped of all earnings from the book -- virtually every penny he had made in the nearly two years it took to write it -- as well as all future profits. At the same time, the C.I.A. asked the court to impose a lifetime gag order on him, demanding that he submit all writings -- articles, scripts, novels, speeches, everything, true or fictional -- for prior censorship. The only exceptions were cookbooks and treatises on gardening. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, but Snepp ultimately lost, sending him into a financial and emotional tailspin from which he is only now recovering. (Even this memoir had to be vetted before he could give it to his editor.)"

A lifetime gag. Holy mooolly guacamole! A lesson for the ages ... fighting with city hall is a perilous enterprise.

So it looks like -- if you put in your book for prepublication review, and the board tasked with clearing it sits on it like jerks, or even deny you permission to publish it given the secrecy agreement you signed, you cannot just go ahead and publish the book. Even after claiming First Amendment protection.  After denial by a prepublication board, it looks like you have to take the agency/USG to a U.S. District Court so a judge (or jury?) can decide if the denial of permission to publish is unreasonable.  I wonder if anyone has ever tried that.

I haven't read these books but now have an excuse to borrow both books from the library. 

 

 

 

Osama Bin Laden Is Dead; Killed in Abbottabad, One of the Best-Known Hill Resorts of Pakistan

At 11:35 P.M. EDT, President Obama announced that Osama Bin Laden is dead. The military operation occurred at a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. U.S. officials have custody of the body:

Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.  A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability.  No Americans were harmed.  They took care to avoid civilian casualties.  After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.

For over two decades, bin Laden has been al Qaeda’s leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against our country and our friends and allies.  The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda.

Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort.  There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us.  We must –- and we will -- remain vigilant at home and abroad.

As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not –- and never will be -– at war with Islam.  I’ve made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam.  Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims.  Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own.  So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.

Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was.  That is what we’ve done.  But it’s important to note that our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding.  Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people.

Read the whole statement here.

Former US President Bill Clinton said in a statement: "This is a profoundly important moment not just for the families of those who lost their lives on 9/11 and in al-Qaeda's other attacks but for people all over the world who want to build a common future of peace, freedom, and cooperation for our children." - BBC News

Former President George W. Bush said in a statement: "The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done." - - BBC News

NYT's Nicholas Kristof writes:

"So what does this mean? First, it is good for the United States reputation, power and influence that we finally got bin Laden. Bin Laden’s ability to escape from the U.S., and his apparent impunity, fed an image in some Islamist quarters of America as a paper tiger — and that encouraged extremists. Bin Laden himself once said that people bet on the strong horse, the horse that will win, and the killing underscores that it’s the United States that is the horse to bet on. Moreover, this sends a message that you mess with America at your peril, and that there will be consequences for a terror attack on the United States."

CNN reports that U.S. diplomatic facilities around the world were placed on high alert following the announcement of bin Laden's death, a senior U.S. official said, and the U.S. State Department should be sending out a new "worldwide caution" for Americans shortly. Some fear al Qaeda supporters may try to retaliate against U.S. citizens or U.S. institutions.

As of this writing, the "Worldwide Caution" has not been updated yet. But be careful out there. 

Where exactly is Abbottabad in Pakistan? Below is a brief description according to Wikipedia:

Abbottabad (Urdu: ایبٹ آباد) is a city located in the Hazara region of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, in Pakistan. The city is situated in the Orash Valley, 50 km northeast of Islamabad and 150 km east of Peshawar at an altitude of 4,120 feet (1,260 m). The city is well-known throughout Pakistan for its pleasant weather, high standard educational institutions and military establishments. It remains a major hub for tourism of regions in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir in the summer.

 
Below is another description of Abbottabad from a medical school in the area:

Abbottabad, the headquarters of Hazara Division, situated at an altitude of 1,225 m (4002 ft) above sea level and surrounded by refreshing green hills of Sarban, is one of the best-known hill resorts of Pakistan. It is situated on the Karakoram Highway (Silk Route) to China, 120 Km from Rawalpindi/Islamabad and 205 Km from Peshawar. The climate is temperate with 4 distinct seasons-spring, summer, autumn and winter. The summer is pleasant while the winter is moderately cold with occasional snowfall. The city is non-industrial, situated in the green Orash valley and is free from environmental pollution. It has a population of over 300,000.

The modern city of Abbottabad was founded by Major Abbott, the British deputy commissioner of Hazara (1849 to 1853) during British rule in the subcontinent. Major Abbott is credited with making major changes in the administrative setup in the region, so that after his departure, the city was named after him. The British maintained a sizeable military presence here, evidenced even today by the Pakistan Military Academy (PMA), which has remained as the major training academy for military officers. The PMA provided fame to Abbottabad for many years, prior to the recent development of the city, from a non-industrial backward area, to a busy modern business, economic and academic centre.

The medical school mentioned above touts the city as one of the most sought after summer resorts in Pakistan. Also this:

Abbottabad boasts the highest number of educational institutions in the country per population or area. The literacy rate is also among the highest in the country. Two other medical colleges in private sectors are already established with one in the pipeline. Besides PMA, Abbottabad Public School, Army Burn Hall, Beacon House and some other very famous educational institutions are situated here. Visitors and tourists are pleasantly surprised to note the abundance of good hotels, restaurants, dining places and tourist facilities.

In fact, there was a poem written about Abbottabad's splendor and beauty. And contrary to what you might expect as rugged and cave-like dwelling/hiding place for OBL, his place of residence boasts of some golf clubs, too, like the Abbottabad Golf Club and the Piffers' golf club reportedly  maintained by Pakistan's Army.

One wonders how long was OBL a resident of that compound in Abbottabad. At least since August last year, but probably longer, hard to say.  But our General  Petreaus may have been in the same city in 2010 as this (until today) most wanted man in the world.

In Feb. 24, 2010, then U.S. Central Command commander Gen. David Petraeus visited Pakistan, Feb. 22-24, to consult with Pakistan leaders and U.S. Embassy officials in Islamabad.  According to CENTCOM's press shop, while in Pakistan, Gen. Petraeus met with Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari; Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani; Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Chief of Army Staff; and several other senior Pakistani government officials. He also visited the Pakistan Military Academy in the North-West Frontier Province near Abbottabad and addressed students there.

The PMA is located 5 km northeast of Abbottabad city.

Small world. Got a lot smaller today.



Updated @11:05 pm PST
Read The Envoy's Laura Rozen post here with inside details of the raid from an official brief. Also read Steve Coll's piece here in the New Yorker on the implication of OBL's hideout located in a military cantonment in Pakistan. Read Marc Ambinder here on the secret team that killed OBL.

Click here for the background briefing from a Senior Officials on the killing of Bin Laden at 12:03 A.M. EDT (published by State's IIP Digital, the new America.gov).

Related articles

• News Of Osama Bin Laden's Death Spreads Like Wildfire On Twitter (techcrunch.com)
• Report: Osama bin Laden Is Dead; U.S. Has The Body (mediaite.com)
• Bin Laden Killed (waronterrornews.typepad.com)
• VIDEO: This Is The Inside Of Osama Bin Laden's Mansion (businessinsider.com)

Officially In: President Obama's New "A" Team

"So, Leon Panetta at the Defense Department; David Petraeus at the CIA; Ambassador Crocker and General John Allen in Afghanistan -- these are the leaders that I’ve chosen to help guide us through the difficult days ahead.  I will look to them and my entire national security team for their counsel, continuity, and unity of effort that this moment in history demands.  And our people on the frontlines -- our brave troops, our outstanding intelligence personnel, our dedicated diplomats -- we’ll look to them for the leadership that success requires."

The transcript of the President's Remarks is here:

Related articles

• AP: Obama Settles On New Leaders For CIA, Defense Department (huffingtonpost.com)
• General David Petraeus to be new head of CIA (mirror.co.uk)
• Obama Shakes Up National Security Team: Panetta to Pentagon, Petraeus to Head CIA (news.firedoglake.com)

Officially In, Tomorrow: Panetta to DOD, Petreaus to CIA, Crocker and Allen to Kabul

Image via WikipediaSo -- the WH conducted a background briefing by conference call today on the personnel changes that had the beltway buzzing.  Here are some excerpts:

Tomorrow the President will announce four important appointments of the national security team.

• First he’ll announce that Leon Panetta, currently the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, will be nominated as Secretary of Defense to succeed Secretary Gates. 
• Second, he will announce his intention to nominate General Dave Petraeus as the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency. 
• Third, he’ll announce his intention to nominate Ryan Crocker as the United States next ambassador to Afghanistan. 
• And fourth, he’ll announce his intention to nominate General John Allen, currently the Deputy Commander for CENTCOM, as General Petraeus’ successor as commander for ISAF and commander for U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

On Ambassador Eikenberry moving on, and nothing to do with President Karzai:

"Karl Eikenberry, ambassador to Kabul, his appointment or tour was coming to an end after two years this spring, and we needed to make a change there." 

On this new team:

"And if you work through this -- and we can go through each of the positions -- you have in Ryan Crocker, one of the nation’s most experienced and well-respected diplomats; in General Dave Petraeus, obviously, one of the nation’s preeminent military leaders; Leon Panetta, a deeply experienced public servant; and John Allen, really one of the great leaders of his generation in the military."

They're great, they're great -- I don't doubt it. But I want to know how they will wrap up this war and bring the troops home already. 

Some excerpts from the Q&A following the briefing:

General Petreaus will retire from the military:

"With respect to your question about whether or not General Petraeus would serve in uniform as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the answer is that he would not, and that he would retire from the military to take on the position of director of Central Intelligence Agency."

Ambassador Crocker offered the position on March 30:

I think it is important to point out, though, in response to your question and underscore Ambassador Crocker’s experience on civilian and military political affairs, where he is really, as you know, really one of our most experienced diplomats in that area.  Ryan has 37 years in the foreign service -- I’m looking at the list here -- five ambassadorships:  Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Kuwait, Lebanon.  In Iraq, as you know, he worked very closely with General Petraeus; was instrumental in reconciliation efforts, which is an important priority for the United States in the next period of time here in Afghanistan.

Another important fact which I should have mentioned at the outset -- I’ll give you two other facts here, Peter, on this -- is that in January 2002, Ambassador Crocker was sent to Afghanistan to reopen the American embassy in Kabul.  And indeed, we received agrement from the government of Afghanistan this morning in a conversation between President Karzai, who obviously knew him then, and the United States representative talking to him today.

The last thing I will say is, again, this is the result of a multi-month process, consultation with Secretary Clinton.  And the President met with Ambassador Crocker and offered him this position on March 30.

Eikenberry, Crocker and oh, the Afghan President

Q    Hi there.  It’s been no secret that the relationship between Ambassador Eikenberry and President Karzai has been a difficult one.  Do you think that while you’re hoping that given his wide range of experience, Ambassador Crocker will be able to improve that relationship between the Afghan President and the top U.S. representative, or are the differences that we’ve seen more a function of a different view of the conflict between the governments, rather than just personality?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes, thank you.  Let me say a couple of things about that.  The first is that Ambassador Eikenberry has served nearly five years in Afghanistan on three tours, two as a military officer and one as U.S. ambassador.  And during his time as ambassador and in large part working with General Petraeus at the direction of the President in a conflict where the United States had a real shortage of resources and, frankly, a lack of strategy, he has worked as an integral member of this team to put in place the inputs and to develop a strategy for moving ahead.  And it’s resulted, in our judgment -- in quite a bit of progress.

And we would expect, as I said earlier, Ambassador Crocker -- who is one of the most experienced diplomats we have and, in particular, one of the most experienced diplomats we have in terms of civilian-military political operations -- to take up that task; to continue the work with the military moving towards transition; to support the work led by the Afghan government -- and working very closely, by the way, with our Special Representative, Marc Grossman, on the efforts toward reconciliation and moving the peace process forward; and obviously working very closely with the military as the military draws down its resources.

So I guess I would answer it this way, that the President has nominated a person with a deep experience in the region, tremendous experience and success with political-military efforts.  So I guess I’d answer your question by pointing out the quality and qualities of Ryan Crocker as an ambassadorial nominee.

To read this awesome and exciting development, click here. Formal announcement, tomorrow.


So, then if the Iraq dream team is reunited in Kabul, it will only be for a brief duration. This time around it'll be Crocker-Allen until the next shuffle. 

 

US Mission Pakistan: Who should get points for botched handling of Raymond Davis case?

I'm sure somebody would send me a nice email after this blog post saying the embassy handled the Raymond Davis case quite well.  After all, wasn't Mr. Davis pardoned, released, and now presumably back in the United States?

Sure, sure... but see now, I'm wondering how much goodwill the United States earned in the aftermath of the Pakistani floods remains after you subtract the Raymond Davis incident? The RD case will certainly have repercussions for years to come in that part of the world where the United States is already viewed as an enemy by a large swath of the population. Just how badly this was handled, let me count the ways.     

On February 15, SFRC Chairman John Kerry in Lahore expressed sorrow for the loss of lives in the Raymond Davis incident. Below is an excerpt.

“I’m here, because in the middle of events that seem to be focusing people narrowly, we need to remember and think about the things that we care about and that we’re both fighting for the bigger, the bigger strategic interests: stability in the region, opportunity for jobs for people, the right for people not to have their lives disrupted or ended suddenly and violently by radical extremists. This is in all of our interest. And these are the bigger issues that we need to be focused on and working hard. And we cannot allow one thing or another that might divide us in a small way to take away from the things that unite us in a big way.”

“So let me say, I know that in recent days emotions have been very stressed by an extraordinarily unfortunate incident involving a diplomat assigned to the United States Embassy. We’re all aware of that. And I want to come here today to express our deepest regret for this tragic event and to express the sorrow of the American people for the loss of life that has taken place. Personally, I’ve been through these kinds of losses. And I know the pain that the families of lost loved ones feel. I understand that…It is important, I think, and I express this on a very personal level, to understand the degree to which we really do feel the sorrow of what has happened and we express our sympathies to those families.”

“I’ve come here to listen. I haven’t come here to order anybody to do anything; I haven’t come here to dictate. I’ve come here to listen carefully, to meet with your leaders and have an opportunity to find a path forward so that we can all live by the law and hopefully find a way to deal with some really urgent pressing issues for both of our countries.”

Full text of Mr. Kerry's statement is here. I thought that was a just the right tenor with enough heart and empathy.

Photo from US ConGen Lahore

Why it took three weeks for somebody to say this out loud, I don't know.

Two days before the Lahore incident, Ambassador Cameron Munter and his wife, Dr. Marilyn Wyatt had a conversation with university students broadcast by PTV.  The American-style "town hall" titled "We Really Believe in You" was part of a series of efforts by the US Ambassador and his wife who now works for USAID to "meet Pakistanis from different walks of life and discuss their concerns and aspirations."

{Note to PAS Islamabad: whoever thought of that title ... that is a fantastically bad, cringy event title. Can't you hear how kon-duh-sen-ding that sounds? And please stop making the first couple at the mission do duet in videos. That is so Sonny and Cher!}

Anyway,, now that I got that off my chest -- the day after the Lahore incident, the embassy issued this very brief statement (01/28/2011):

January 28, 2011
Islamabad - A staff member of the U.S. Consulate General in Lahore was involved in an incident yesterday that regrettably resulted in the loss of life. The U.S. Embassy is working with Pakistani authorities to determine the facts and work toward a resolution.

 

On January 29, 2011, the U.S. Embassy Calls for Release of American Diplomat. In the same statement it says, "we regret that this incident resulted in loss of life."

It was an official statement, but there was no face to go with the regrets. Somehow the people-to-people diplomacy failed right there.

Then we had the State Department spokesman saying from the podium that Raymond Davis is not the correct name.  Pakistani press had previously identified the person arrested as Raymond Davis and Mr. Crowley said, "The name that’s out there is wrong."  That's the agency spokesman, folks; can't get more official than that. 

Which confuses the heck out of everyone. And led some local Pakistani papers to accuse Mr.Davis of using a fake identity, which in turn added fire to the blaze already burning hot in the streets of Pakistan. 

Heck, I even believed PJ, until I didn't.

Later, an embassy spokesman reportedly walked back Mr. Crowley's comments. That was super bad, okay?

On February 11, the US Consul General in Lahore, Carmela Conroy said, "This incident was a tragedy, and we feel tremendous sorrow over the loss of life. We extend our deep sympathy to all the family members who have been affected."

So almost two weeks after the incident, we finally had a face to go with the sorrow.

Then, of course, on February 15, we had Senator Kerry.

Two days after that the US Embassy in Pakistan issued a statement by U.S. Ambassador Cameron Munter largely borrowed from Senator Kerry:

Islamabad - Reacting to today's hearings in Lahore, U.S. Ambassador Cameron Munter said the United States is disappointed that the Government of Pakistan did not certify that Raymond Davis has diplomatic immunity. He added that the U.S. has made its position on this case clear.

 "Senator Kerry's visit to Pakistan manifested our intention to work with the Government of Pakistan to resolve this issue." Ambassador Munter said. "As the Senator said during his visit, we want to work together as two countries that have a common interest in the same goal and find a path forward."

Echoing Senator Kerry, the Ambassador added, "I would also like to convey to the people of Pakistan our deepest sorrow for the loss of life that occurred in the tragic incident in Lahore.   We all feel the pain and the anguish of families who have lost loved ones."

So, exactly three weeks after the incident, we had that odd, mostly borrowed statement. Like no one at PAS Islamabad had the time to write something a bit more original under the ambassador's name? Anyway, an official statement nonetheless. But. Three. Weeks.     

Which left us wondering -- how is it that the chief of mission and personal representative of President Obama in Pakistan was not the main public face expressing regret over this tragic incident?

Would an earlier expression of sorrow have helped this case? Perhaps not. But it's impossible to know that now.  Still, if you have watched the events unfolding in Pakistan, you would also see that the perceived bitter taste on how this incident played out will not be forgotten anytime soon.

Al Jazeera had an excellent rundown on the Raymond Davis case in Spy game: The CIA, Pakistan and 'blood money' . It may be that this was self defense, it may be that those killed were small pawns in a spy game gone sour. We'll never know now. But three people were dead, and soon there were four. And there was one man in jail. I doubt very much that Mr. Davis would have gotten a fair trial in Pakistan, there were dozens ubber ready to testify against him. There were more who wanted to just put a rope around his head and call it quits.        

Still -- I think that by not responding quickly and addressing the obvious human loss in understandable emotional terms, we allowed the anti-American forces in Pakistan to hijack the Davis case.  It made what was already a murky case, a public theater in wide angle with apportioned losses all around.  It gave those who hate America in Pakistan one more excuse to point at us and and claim arrogance of extreme proportion.  It was not a difficult sell in a country that already viewed America in unfriendly terms.

And by  they way, whoever feed that item about Raymond Davis as an incorrect name to the State Department spokesman, should be made to write a thousand times on the white board "I will not feed false information to the person who stands at the podium."  Because we all know that a few more things like that and the official spokesman's credibility would be a freakin' gaping hole in the dark.

And if that's not enough --  local news surmised that the US Embassy knew as early as March 10 that Davis would be released, as this was the date of Ambassador Munter's statement that was sent to the media when Davis was released on March 16.  The embassy spokesman later clarified that this was 'inadvertently' included in the statement.

Tzao gao! Mistakes were made!

In any case, I have to wonder out loud --  whatever happened to the embassy's huge public affairs "team?"  Islamabad is totally brimming with about a dozen public affairs professionals.  The constituent posts of Lahore, Karachi and Peshawar each has its own PA team.  Altogether, I am told a total of 23 public affairs personnel for US Mission Pakistan.  But the response to the Davis affair feels like a ...like a lumbering, smelly Bigfoot; far from smart, and far from agile engagement. Rapid response this was not, in the response that really mattered.  In fact, this was painfully slow, awkward and evasive. And it looks so tightly controlled you could see -- hey your purple slip is showing!

I call them teams but teamwork, of course, is more often, aspirational than reality in a place where strong individualism and competition can be called institutional DNAs.  Constituent posts do tend to lose their seats at the table, especially in high profile cases like this.  Was that what happened here?  Zzzzend me an email if you know the answer.      

And if this were the military, somebody would have already distributed a lessons learned memo or an After Action Report on the handling of the Raymond Davis affair.  But since this is State ... one gotta ask... anybody out there thinking about lessons learned or an FSI course? What? Speak up, I can't hear you. 

Finally, the old cynic that I am have to point out that April is just around the corner.  Regardless of how this played out, somebody lucky (could be somebodies) will have the RD affair etched in his/her/their EER/s! Ya'betcha!

Related articles

• U.S. thanks Pakistan after contractor pardoned (reuters.com)
• CIA spy escapes murder case in Pakistan after US pays 'blood money' (guardian.co.uk)
• Official: U.S. government to pick up payment to Pakistani families (cnn.com)
• 'Blood Money' Deal Frees CIA Contractor From Pakistan (abcnews.go.com)

US Mission Pakistan: When is a good time for a post drawdown? Strategerically-speaking, like never....

The things going on in Pakistan are causing my nerves to go into hyper apprehensive disorder.  In January, a sitting governor was murdered by his own guard, and was showered with rose petals on his way to jail. This week, Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian politician and Pakistan's minister for minorities was shot dead in broad daylight. Bhatti's police guard was reportedly due to meet him at his office. The Guardian describes Mr. Bhatti as "an unassuming man with a gentle manner, was not the most powerful of Pakistan's politicians, nor the most prominent. But he was unquestionably among the bravest." His assasins fired about 25 bullets, at least 8 hit the minister. This report notes that "two hours after his death was confirmed, it was back to business for the country's boisterous TV channels, which focused instead on the cricket World Cup, political intrigue in the Punjab, and the fate of incarcerated CIA contractor Raymond Davis."

We love you not, we love you not, we love you not, and the CIA plot


The Guardian also reported that on TV Zaid Hamid, a rightwing commentator, said Bhatti's killing was part of a CIA plot to divert attention from the Davis affair.  And the chance that a good number in the local population would actually believe that the Bhatti killing is a CIA plot or that the CIA actually has some pull on the weather is not terribly nutty if you already believe that Pakistan has been sleeping with the enemy called the United States of America. Local reports say that religious parties have now condemned the murder of of Mr. Batti, and have already termed it a conspiracy "to divert the public opinion from the Raymond Davis issue and increase pressure on Islamabad for the release of the US spy."


It seems to me that the only things that have not yet been blamed on CIA plots are monsoon rains and earthquakes. But it's only a matter of time.


In last week's piece in WaPo, Karin Brulliard quotes Aslam Hayat, 54, a construction worker who spoke after prayers at a mosque in Rawalpindi saying, "The Americans want to destroy Pakistan." [...] "That's why people like Davis are roaming all around the country, assigned with different tasks against our country."


WaPo also writes that "as outrage over the Davis shooting mounts, suggestions that all U.S. personnel are spies are feeding popular suspicion about the battery of American programs here and renewing reservations about the U.S. presence in general."


During Senator Kerry's visit to Lahore, the Express Tribune reported that a man introducing himself as a representative of the US Consulate called Waseem Shamshad, brother of Fahim Shamshad (one of the victims), on his mobile phone and asked if the family could meet with the senator.

“I told him that we do not want to meet with any US official because we consider them our enemies,” he said. “I want them to see that we will not accept a settlement.”

And he's not alone.


A Pew Research Survey indicates that only 17% of Pakistanis have a favorable view of the United States. Roughly six-in-ten (59%) Pakistanis also describe the U.S. as an enemy, while just 11% say it is a partner.

US public perception of Pakistan is equally low according to a Gallup poll on February 11.  Some 18 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Pakistan and 76 percent viewed it unfavorably. Only two other countries have lesser favorability ratings: Iran and North Korea.


One grand gamble and international obligations


Raza Rumi writing recently in Raymond Davis case: Bitter truths says that "this is now a battle between Pakistan’s elected and unelected institutions. Facts have been lost in the rhetoric and fiction prevails, regurgitating the narratives that we have weaved about ourselves and the rest of the world. Hate the US and blame it for all our weaknesses, even if it entails violating our international obligations."

Pakistan's weak elected institutions, and its international obligations.


Pakistan's weak institutions are dragging its feet on a dangerous gamble that time heals all wounds.  That may be a long wait and sometimes time may just make old wounds fester. Meanwhile, a Pakistani writer, Sabir Shah, in writing about US diplomats killed abroad since 1780 reminds us of American diplomats who perished in Pakistan:

Of these 111 US Foreign Service officials, who have were killed during their foreign postings, at least eight have met their deaths in an unnatural way in Pakistan.

These eight American Foreign Service personnel, who died unnaturally in Pakistan, are Sergeant Steven Crowley, US Army Warrant Officer Bryan Ellis, Arnold Raphel (US Ambassador to Pakistan), Brigadier General Herbert Wassom (Chief of the US military group in Pakistan), Gary Durell (a CIA communications technician), Jackie Van Landingham (a consulate secretary), Barbara Green (US Embassy Islamabad) and David Foy (a Facilities Maintenance Officer at the US Consulate Karachi).

While Sergeant Steven Crowley, a 20-year old Marine Security Guard was hit by a lethal bullet during the siege of the US Embassy in Islamabad on November 21, 1979, the burned corpse of a 30-year old US Army Warrant Officer, Bryan Ellis, was also recovered from his apartment on the same day.

Crowley and Ellis were killed a day after Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini had claimed that Americans were behind the November 20 takeover of the Grand Al-Haram Mosque at Makkah.

As soon as Khomeini’s claim was repeated in media on November 21, 1979 a group of enraged Pakistani students had stormed the 32-acre US Embassy at Islamabad. The rioters were also infuriated by incorrect radio reports that Washington had bombed the Grand Mosque at Makkah.

After bringing the embassy gate down, the mob fired gunshots and pelted stones at the building’s windows. As Ambassador Arthur Hummel Jr., was out of the building for lunch, Marine Steven Crowley was posted on the Embassy roof to assess the demonstration.

A corporal assigned to the Marine Security Guard Battalion Detachment in Islamabad, Crowley was shot by a sniper just above his left ear while he was doing his job.

Although the US Embassy staffers had organized themselves into groups by blood type similar to Crowley’s, in case a transfusion was needed, their injured colleague never actually regained consciousness.

At sunset, as the rioters had begun to disperse, Sergeant Lloyd Miller climbed the roof and brought down the body of Crowley over his shoulder. Within just two days, some 400 shocked US diplomats had flown out of Pakistan.

The Pakistani government had reportedly paid US $121 million to the US, as a cost to rebuild the Embassy compound, after having failed to prevent the incident.

Read this piece in full here.

Rumi's piece above is a cautionary tale on how an infuriated mob can turn into dangerous rampage based on rumors and incorrect information.  The mob attack happened in 1979 but it also highlights the limits of security even with a Marine detachment. Makes you appreciate more the finer points of the fortress embassies that we have now. But that's only 30% of the US diplomatic facilities worldwide.

Pakistan is responsible for the security outside US mission properties in Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore and Peshawar. Just as the USG is responsible for the foreign diplomatic facilities in the United States, including every chancery, consulate, or other office notified to the US government as diplomatic or consular premises in accordance with the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations.

I'm not a lawyer, but here's what's confusing -- if Pakistan cannot resolve the immunity issue under the same convention, how can one trust that it can and will abide by its security obligations under the same international agreement? And even if it wishes to, it appears not to have any control over its provincial bodies. What if one of its provincial governments simply decide that it does not have an obligation to provide perimeter security over USG or other foreign diplomatic facilities?  What happens then?
     

Christopher Hitchens in Slate notes rather grimly:

Not to mince words, then, Davis is a hostage. In addition to the usual sense of the word, he is a hostage to the Pakistani authorities who dare not—even if they wish—make an enemy either of the Islamist mobs or the uniformed para-state run by the intelligence services. He is also a hostage to the inability or unwillingness of the U.S. government to call things by their right names. [...] [T]hey all talk as if Pakistan were a country of law, and they all talk as if Pakistan were not a client state. Its client status, indeed, is what leads so many Pakistanis to detest America, without whose largesse and indulgence it would long ago have faced collapse. Thus to the final irony: We are denied leverage by the fact of the very influence for which we are hated.

So, a post drawdown in the stars?


In 2010, when the Office of the Inspector General reviewed the US Mission in Pakistan, it says that "Security for U.S. Government personnel is among the highest mission priorities. Especially in Peshawar, but also in Islamabad, Karachi, and Lahore, official American and LE staff lives are put at risk every day. Mission leadership and Washington policymakers recognize and accept this risk in order to pursue vital national strategic and security priorities. The security situation also limits the mission’s efforts to monitor assistance and development projects; oversee contracts and grants; conduct broad public diplomacy outreach; and further the person-to-person exchanges across social, economic, and political lines that are the foundations of diplomacy." (italics added)


The same review reports that US Mission Pakistan had 640 U.S. direct-hire staff, 1,503 LE staff and a nonmilitary assistance in FY 2009 that totaled approximately $1.25 billion. The USAID office in Peshawar also managed and monitored $750 million FATA Development Program and is responsible for planning and managing more than $1 billion of new assistance for the NWFP. Peshawar’s consular district will receive a major portion of the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund ($400 million) and the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund ($700 million) before the end of FY 2011. Note that in October 2009, President Obama signed the five-year, $7.5 billion Kerry Lugar Berman bill which tripled non-military aid to Pakistan.


But the writer below could not wrap his head around so many US diplomats operating inside Pakistan:

"China is investing $20 billion in the next five years in Pakistan. China has thousands of its nationals working in Pakistan involved in billions of Dollars of infrastructure projects.  It has only 87 diplomats. Somethings is wrong with this pictures. Why does the US have so many diplomats. Either they are very inefficinet and cnnot run the embassies, or most of the people are not really diplomats."

So to recap quickly --

• Restricted ability to work and operate in a country where Americans are largely viewed as enemies ...
  
  
• Suggestions floated around that all U.S. personnel in the country are spies
  
  
• Unnamed sources assumes that many Americans are "US Special Forces – including members of the covert Delta Force of the United States Army – and therefore are considered armed and dangerous."
  
  
• Then there's the alleged connection between GPS chip recovered from Raymond Davis and  drone attacks in North Waziristan....
  
  
• Jeff Stein writes about a "Ray Davis rescue" which was apparently called a 'mission impossible,' by a CIA veteran.  Nonetheless, speculating rescue scenarios will certainly bring the paranoia level in Pakistan to the crazy bad level.
  
  
• Allegations elsewhere on a CIA plot (there it is again) to poison Raymond Davis to shut him up. The dogs apparently are tasting his food.
  

The kiss of death and the long way forward


Bruce Riedel, a former long-time CIA officer recently writes in the Daily Beast about what undeniably is the worst job in the world -- Marc Grossman's job.  In it he writes that "The United States is so unpopular in Pakistan today that its endorsement of a politician is the kiss of death."  Then there is this: 

[A jihadist, nuclear-armed Pakistan is a scenario that must be avoided at all costs. That means working with the Pakistan of today to try to improve its very spotty record on terrorism and proliferation. While many (on both sides of the U.S.-Pakistan dialogue) are pessimistic that cooperation/engagement between America and Pakistan will succeed, there is every reason to try, given the alternatives.
[...]
Pakistan is a complex and combustible society undergoing a severe crisis, which America helped create over the years. If it does not come to Pakistan's aid now, it may have to deal with an extremist Pakistan sooner rather than later, or witness a repeat of 9/11, this time originating from Pakistan. Even worse, a crisis in the subcontinent could lead to a nuclear war in South Asia. These all-too-possible nightmare scenarios should impel the United States to focus on the current state of Pakistan. It needs to do better in Pakistan. For Obama, 2011 may be the year of Pakistan.

Enough to scare your pants off?  I should note that Mr. Riedel also chaired President Obama's strategic review of policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2009.


Strategerically-speaking, I don't think we'll be seeing any drawdown anytime soon. The Obama administration accepted the risks in 2009 with a civilian and an aid surge to Pakistan, it cannot just do a turnaround now.  Unless... well, that's the part that is worrisome. 

I noticed by the way, that all posts in Pakistan, except Peshawar are now running contests in their Facebook pages (with videocams, ipods and cricket set as prizes). And watch out U.S. Embassy Colombo FB and American Center New Delhi FB -- ConGen Lahore and ConGen Karachi are both gunning actively running for the top spot in State's FB presence in South Central Asia.         


On a related note -- President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan has an op-ed in the March 6 issue of the Washington Post, available online here in which he writes in part:

Our nation is pressed by overlapping threats. We have lost more soldiers in the war against terrorism than all of NATO combined. We have lost 10 times the number of civilians who died on Sept. 11, 2001. Two thousand police officers have been killed. Our economic growth was stifled by the priorities of past dictatorial regimes that unfortunately were supported by the West.
[...]
Our desire to confront and deal with the menace in a manner that is effective in our context should not become the basis for questioning our commitment or ignoring our sacrifices.
[...]
We are committed to peaceful adjudication of the Davis case in accordance with the law. But it is in no one's interest to allow this matter to be manipulated and exploited to weaken the government of Pakistan and damage further the U.S. image in our country.

Similarly counterproductive are threats to apply sanctions to Pakistan over the Davis affair by cutting off Kerry-Lugar development funds that were designed to build infrastructure, strengthen education and create jobs. It is a threat, written out of the playbook of America's enemies, whose only result will be to undermine U.S. strategic interests in South and Central Asia. In an incendiary environment, hot rhetoric and dysfunctional warnings can start fires that will be difficult to extinguish.

Hitting all the keywords.  Obviously written for a special kind of audience inside the beltway.

I don't know about you but even after reading Mr. Zardari, my nerves remain in hyper apprehensive disorder about this whole mess.

If I go over to Twitter for some charliesheen pills would that make me feel better?




Previous op-eds by Mr. Zardari below:

• WaPo: Partnering With Pakistan | January 28, 2009
• WaPo: The Frontier Against Terrorism | June 22, 2009
• NYT: The Terrorists Want to Destroy Pakistan, Too  | December 8, 2008
• WaPo: Democracy Within Our Reach | September 4, 2008

 

Related articles

• US tried to shield Pakistani official - Boston Globe (news.google.com)
• Pakistan Buries Assassinated Christian Minister (abcnews.go.com)
• Pakistani Christians protest after slaying (sfgate.com)
• Another Christian Martyred in Pakistan (time.com)
• Killing over blasphemy law deepens misery of Pakistani Christians (independent.co.uk)
• Shahbaz Bhatti: Yet another hero falls... (pakliberals.wordpress.com)
• An Army Without a Country (nybooks.com)