The War on Terror is a Zionist racket

“The Americans were responsible for creation of a gangster state headed by an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders,” – Sir John Troutbeck wrote in his letter to the foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin on June 2, 1948.

“Of course the people don’t want war….but after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether, it’s a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a Communist dictatorship,” – Dr. Herman Georing, Hitler’s propaganda minister.

The former British Minister of Environment, Michael Meacher, in his article titled The war on terrorism is bogus (Guardian, September 6, 2003) – wrote that the 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its world domination.

On February 7, 2001 – former CIA director George Tenet (born as David Cohen) eerily described to the Congress what did occured six months later: “Terrorists are also becoming oprationally more adept and more technically sophisticated  (inside Afghanistani caves!) in order to defeat counter-terrorism measures…”

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), was a Zionist think tank, which during 1997-2006 – played a very significant role in reshaping the Middle East map by Washington which has made Israel is the greatest beneficiary of the so-called “War on Terror”. Zionist William Kristol and Robert Kagan who founded the PNAC – urged Bill Clinton to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, though, both countries posed no military or economic threat to the US. The Jewish controlled mainstream media provided support to PNAC hoax by inventing propaganda lies of WMDs, Saddam’s involvement in 9/11; his invasion of Kuwait, and his use of chemical warfare against Shias and Kurds – which all were carried out by western blessings. However, to sell their evil agenda against the Muslim world – they needed a “New Pearl Harbor” some horrible tragedy to happen on the very soil of America – which did happen on September 11, 2001. Nine days after the 9/11 (September 20, 2001) – PNAC sent a letter (authors included Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Scooter Libby) to Dubya Bush urging him to bring a ‘regime change’ in Iraq, while projecting Islamic Iran as “the future threat” to the US: “Over the long term, Iran may well prove a large threat to US interests in Persian Gulf as Iraq has. And even should US-Iranian relations improves, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be a essential in US security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region…”

The PNAC, after successfully completing its goal of destroying any possible threat to the zionist entity – closed down their shop in 2006 – and most of its members joined the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), another Jewish think tank with intimate links to the Likud Party in Israel.

Gideon Long (Reuters, May 28, 2003) quoting Amnesty International Report 2002, wrote: “Washington’s war on terror has made the world more dangerous by curbing human rights, undermining international law and shielding governments from secrutiny….”

One of the other Zionist think tanks which plays an important part in American imperialism around the world – is The International Crisis Group . Its board members include Jewish billionaire George Soro, Morton Abramowitz, Kenneth Adelman, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and former president of Council on Foreign Affairs, Leslie H. Gelb.

Mahboob Khawaja PhD in his July 14 article under the title The War on Terrorism that America lost, wrote:

The premise of the American led “war on terrorism” was based on the Nazis blueprint of flagrant lies and perpetuated “fear” to drain out all the positive and creative thinking of the American people and to enslave them for years to come while the Neo-conservatives dominated Bush Administration with overwhelming indoctrination of Nazism continued the militancy towards freedom of thought and conscience, human rights and legal justice denying America’s own history and rich values. America lost the war the day it invaded Iraq. The American Empire had no purpose and strategy to fight Islamists and its delusion represents failure and self-defeat on all the fronts.

The overriding motivation for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are shielded by political smokescreen that the US and UK will run out of sufficient hydrocarbon energy supplies in 2010, whereas, the Arab and Muslim world would control almost 60% of the world oil producing capacity and perhaps more significantly 95% of the remaining global oil production capacity. The news media reports indicate that the US is predicted to produce only 39% of the domestic oil production in 2010, whereas in 1990, it produced 57% of its total oil consumption. The UK Government had projected ”severe” gas shortages by 2005, and indicated that 70% of the electricity will be drawn from gas and 90% of gas will be imported. It is interesting to note that Iraq is said to have 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to approximately 15 – 20% of the world oil reserves. In another research report by the Commission on America’s National Interests (July 2000), it observed that the most promising new energy resources are found in the Caspian Sea, Central Asian region and it would avoid the US exclusive dependence on the Saudi Arabian oil imports. The report outlined the feasible routes for the Caspian Seas oil deliveries, one hydrocarbon pipeline via Azerbaijan and Georgia and another pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan would ensure the future strategic demands of the US government. To counteract the USSR influence in Afghanistan, Taliban group was created with active support of the US intelligence agencies and the Peoples Party of Pakistan under the former PM Miss Bhutto. The Taliban group was helped to form a government in Afghanistan and to ensure the future passage of a hydrocarbon pipeline via Afghanistan and Pakistan onward to the Arabian Sea. The leadership included Osama bin Laden, the close affiliate of the US sponsored war against the Soviet Union. For years, the US officials held discussion with these groups to finalize formal agreement for the passage of the oil and gas pipelines in Afghanistan. If the author of the Forbidden Truth has any credibility, the US and Taliban negotiators continued discussion of the possible pipeline until August 2001. After the 9/11 attacks, the US government was outraged and asked Pakistan’s military leader General Pervez Musharaf to dismantle the Taliban government from power in Kabul. The US government never made any claim or evidence public to suggest that Taliban as a group were involved in the September 2001 attacks on the US.

After President Barrak Obama was sworn in as the new President, America looked morally exhausted and militarily lost, being unable to think of the much needed strategic change but more importantly, searching desperately for a navigational change in wars against the Islamists.

Gwynne Dyer, a well known British author (“The International Terrorist Conspiracy”), asserts that terrorism is not an ideology but a political technique and those groups willing to opt for violence in support of their goals, may resort to it. Dyer maintains that “there is no shadowy but powerful network waging a terrorist war against the West, the whole thing is a fantasy….there never was much of an Islamist “terrorist network” anyway – certainly nothing to compare the extensive cooperation between the extreme left-wing “urban guerrilla” of the developed world (Germany’s Baader-Meinhof Gang, Italy’s Red Brigades, the Japanese Red Army etc.)…..”

3-Way Relations: Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia

by Dr Ahmad Faruqui

Conventional wisdom has it that three A’s sum up Pakistan’s policy matrix: Allah, Army and America. But this is a half-truth. To complete the picture, one has to add a fourth A (Saudi Arabia) and a C (China) to the list. While Pakistan has long-standing ties with both patron states, these have become more nuanced since America emerged as a global hyper-power and India emerged as a regional power.China’s influence on Pakistan stems from its geographical proximity to Kashmir and Pakistan’s northern areas. For decades, it supported Pakistan on its forward Kashmir policy and Pakistan supported it on the One China policy. During the Cold War era, China competed with the Soviet Union for leadership of the communist bloc. Its border skirmish with India in 1962 made it a natural ally for Pakistan.Eventually, Pakistan supported China’s membership in the UN and served as China’s gateway to the Muslim world, earning the epithet of “China’s Israel” from at least one analyst.However, much has changed. Beijing is a global power house. It has independently established ties with all Muslim capitals. Moscow has become its biggest arms supplier and trade with New Delhi, at $20 billion a year, dwarfs its trade with Pakistan by a factor of four.

So where does that leave Sino-Pakistani ties? Some important clues can be assessed by reviewing the agreements that President Hu signed during his recent visit to Pakistan and even more by the ones he did not sign. Hu waxed eloquent, in good Mandarin tradition, saying that “our relations are higher than the Himalayas, deeper than the Indian Ocean and sweeter than honey.”

Hu’s visit provided a much-needed boost to the embattled regime of General Musharraf. It was the first in a decade by a Chinese president. There was a lot of razzle-dazzle, parades and garlands. But support on Kashmir was lacking. In fact, this had been lacking since President Jiang Zemin addressed the Pakistani Senate in 1996 and asked Pakistan to make peace with India, signaling China’s desire to have peace along its southern borders.

Even though Pakistan and China signed 18 economic, social and defense deals during Hu’s visit, topped by a free trade agreement (FTA) and a five-year pact to boost “trade relations, joint ventures and investment opportunities in Pakistan,” the much-awaited agreement to build six additional nuclear power plants was not signed, a salute perhaps to Washington’s hyper-power status. Nor was there any visit to Gwadar, a silent tribute to Akbar Bugti.

It remains to be seen whether the FTA will bring forward a tripling of trade. Governmental agreements make for good rhetoric but cannot force the pace of the marketplace beyond its natural limits. If trade grows, the likely losers will be Pakistani manufacturers, who cannot compete with their Chinese counterparts. The main beneficiaries will be Pakistani consumers and raw material suppliers so this will largely involve a redistribution of income.

The visit confirmed that Beijing is likely to remain Islamabad’s largest arms supplier. Joint production of AWACS is now on the table. The Pakistan army’s arsenal is heavily of Chinese origin as is PAF’s inventory of combat aircraft. The two countries are on track for co-production of the JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft and may co-produce the F-22P naval frigate. Chinese hardware, while hardly the best in class, performed poorly in the Iran-Iraq and Gulf wars. But its low cost and plentiful availability make it an attractive choice for the generals in Islamabad who are apparently following Vladimir Lenin when he noted, “Quantity has a quality of its own.”

Pakistan’s relationship with Saudi Arabia continues to grow. After his coup in October 1999, Riyadh was the first foreign capital on the itinerary of General Pervez Musharraf as he ventured abroad in search of legitimacy.

Subsequently, Saudi Arabia accepted the deposed Prime Minister, Nawaz Shariff, into exile. This eliminated a major embarrassment for the man who, while wearing the same uniform as General Zia, did not wish to be seen as yet another vindictive dictator.

As a follow-up to his 2002 peace plan for the Israelis and Palestinians, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia gave Pakistan the green light to publicly enter into a diplomatic conversation with the Israelis. Talks were held in Istanbul between the foreign ministers of the two countries but went nowhere, since there was no support in Pakistan for recognition of Israel prior to the creation of a Palestinian state.

When Azad Kashmir and northern areas of Pakistan were devastated by an earthquake, Saudi Arabia topped the list of donor countries.

Defense cooperation continues to be a priority between the two countries. In the past, Pakistan has provided two divisions of troop ostensibly to protect the two holy mosques but in reality to guard the royal family against an indigenous revolt.

Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s largest arms importers and Pakistan is seeking to wean it off its traditional European and US suppliers. Encouraged by the visit of the Saudi Crown Prince and Defense Minister in April, Islamabad is seeking to sell up to 150 Al Khalid tanks to Riyadh, a deal which may be worth $ 600 million. In addition, the intelligence agencies of the two countries are engaged in an intense hunt for the leaders of al-Qaeda, including Saudi-born Osama bin Laden.

A complicating factor on the horizon is the warming up of ties between Saudi Arabia and India. The Kingdom is India’s largest supplier of crude oil and host to more than a million workers. Symbolizing a new interest in India, King Abdullah witnessed the Republic Day military parade in 2005 from the Red Fort in Delhi.

Whether and how this new relationship will affect the Kingdom’s long-standing relationship with Pakistan remains to be seen. But what is apparent that the Kingdom, like China, has begun to push Pakistan toward seeking a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir problem.

This was noticeable during the Kargil crisis in 1999 and was visible a year ago when the Saudis offered to mediate in the dispute. As expected, the Indians demurred, killing the proposal.

Pakistan is likely to continue to depend on the largesse of its patron states, even though its special status with these states has been eroded by India. The remarkable thing is that New Delhi has done so without coming under anyone’s tutelage. While some of this is undeniably due to India’s larger size, much of the credit goes to India’s democratic dispensation that allows for the formulation of an independent foreign policy.

8-52

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 21st, 2006 at 1:41 pm and is filed under The Muslim Observer, International . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Source: Muslim Media Network
http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=585

How Israel Lobby took control of US foreign policy

AIPAC becomes foreign agent dominating American foreign policy while disguised as domestic lobby.

In the early 1960s, Senator William J. Fulbright fought to force the American Zionist Council to register as agents of a foreign government. The Council eluded registration by reorganizing as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC has since become what Fulbright most feared: a foreign agent dominating American foreign policy while disguised as a domestic lobby.

Israelis and pro-Israelis object when they hear that charge. How, they ask, can we so few wield such influence over so many? Answer: it’s all in the math. And in the single-issue advocacy brought to bear on US policy-making by dozens of ‘domestic’ organizations that now compose the Israel lobby, with AIPAC its most visible force.

The political math was enabled by Senator John McCain whose support for all things Israeli ensured him the GOP nomination to succeed Christian-Zionist G.W. Bush. McCain’s style of campaign finance reform proved a perfect fit for the Diaspora-based fundraising on which the lobby relies. Co-sponsored by Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, this change in federal election law typifies how Israeli influence became systemic.

‘McCain-Feingold’ raised the amount (from $1,000 to $2,300) that candidates can receive from individuals in primary and general elections. A couple can now contribute a combined $9,200 to federal candidates: $4,600 in each of the primary and general elections. Primary elections, usuall low-budget, are particularly easy to sway.

Importantly for the Diaspora, this change also doubled the funds candidates can receive without regard to where those contributors reside. A candidate in Iowa, say, may have only a few pro-Israeli constituents. When campaign support is provided by a nationwide network of pro-Israelis, that candidate can more easily be persuaded to support policies sought by Tel Aviv.

Diaspora-based fundraising has long been used by the lobby with force-multiplying success to shape US foreign policy. Under the guise of reform, John McCain doubled the financial resources that the lobby can deploy to elect and retain its supporters.

Fulbright was Right

The influence-peddling process works like this. Candidates are summoned for in-depth AIPAC interviews. Those found sufficiently committed to Israel’s agenda are provided a list of donors likely to “max out” their campaign contributions. Or the process can be made even easier when AIPAC-approved candidates are given the name of a “bundler.”

Bundlers raise funds from the Diaspora and bundle those contributions to present them to the candidate. No quid pro quo need be mentioned. After McCain-Feingold became law in 2003, AIPAC-identified bundlers could raise $1 million-plus for AIPAC-approved candidates simply by contacting ten like-minded supporters. Here’s the math:

The bundler and spouse “max out” for $9,200 and call ten others, say in Manhattan, Miami, and Beverly Hills. Each of them max out ($10 x $9,200) and call ten others for a total of 11. [111 x $9,200 = $1,021,200.]

Imagine the incentive to do well in the AIPAC interview. One call from the lobby and a candidate can collect enough cash to mount a credible campaign in most Congressional districts. From Tel Aviv’s perspective, that political leverage is leveraged yet again because fewer than ten percent of the 435 House races are competitive in any election cycle (typically 35 to 50).

Additional force-multipliers come from: (a) sustaining this financial focus over multiple cycles, (b) using funds to gain and retain seniority for those serving on Congressional committees key to promoting Israeli goals, and (c) opposing any candidates who question those goals.

Jewish Achievement reports that 42% of the largest political donors to the 2000 election cycle were Jewish, including four of the top five. That compares to less than 2% of Americans who are Jewish. Of the Forbes 400 richest Americans, 25% are Jewish according to Michael Steinhardt, a key funder of the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC was led by Jewish Zionist Senator Joe Lieberman when he resigned in 2000 to run as vice president with pro-Israeli presidential candidate Al Gore.

Money was never a constraint. Pro-Israeli donors were limited only by how much they could lawfully contribute to AIPAC-screened candidates. McCain-Feingold raised a key limit. The full impact of this foreign influence has yet to be tallied. What’s known, however, is sufficient to apply the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Of the top 50 neoconservatives who advocated war in Iraq, 26 were Jewish (52%).

Harry Truman, a Christian Zionist, remains one of the more notable recipients of funds. In 1948, he was trailing badly in the polls and in fundraising. His prospects brightened dramatically in May after he recognized as a legitimate state an enclave of Jewish extremists who originally planned to settle in Argentina before putting their sights on Palestine.

That recognition was opposed by Secretary of State George C. Marshall, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the bulk of the diplomatic corps, the fledgling Central Intelligence Agency and numerous distinguished Americans, including moderate and secular Jews concerned at the troubles that were certain to follow. Not until 1984 was it revealed that a network of Jewish Zionists had funded Truman’s campaign by financially refueling his whistle-stop campaign train with $400,000 in cash ($3 million in 2009 dollars).

To buy time on the public’s airwaves, money raised from the Israel lobby’s network is paid to media outlets largely owned or managed by members of the same network. Presidents, Senators and Congressmen come and go but those who collect the checks rack up the favors that amass lasting political influence.

The US system of government is meant to ensure that members of the House represent the concerns of Americans who reside in Congressional districts—not a nationally dispersed network (a Diaspora) committed to advancing the agenda of a foreign nation. Federal elections are meant to hold Senators accountable to constituents who reside in the states they represent—not out-of-state residents or a foreign government.

In practical effect, McCain-Feingold hastened a retreat from representative government by granting a nationwide network of foreign agents disproportionate influence over elections in every state and Congressional district. Campaign finance ‘reform’ enabled this network to amass even more political clout—wielding influence disproportionate to their numbers, indifferent to their place of residence and often contrary to America’s interests.

This force-multiplier is now wielded in plain sight, with impunity and under cover of free speech, free elections, free press and even the freedom of religion. Therein lies the perils of an entangled alliance that induced the US to invade Iraq and now seeks war with Iran. By allowing foreign agents to operate as a domestic lobby, the US was induced to confuse Zionist interests with its own.

Is India really interested in resolving all outstanding issues?

Is India really interested in resolving all outstanding issues?Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh left for a visit to France and Egypt, during which he will meet his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani on July 16. Ahead of his meeting with Prime Minister Gilani in Sharm-el Sheikh in Egypt on the occasion of NAM Summit,

Prime Minister Singh made it clear that New Delhi would do all that is necessary to resolve all outstanding issues if Pakistan takes credible action to deal with terrorist elements targeting India. He said that he was hoping that the Pakistani leader would give a renewed reaffirmation to bring the perpetrators of 26/11 attacks to justice and that they would not allow Pakistani soil to be used for terror acts directed against India. The talks between Indian and Pakistani Prime Ministers would take place after Indian Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon and his Pakistani counterpart Salman Bashir had discussed what Islamabad has done to bring to book perpetrators of November 26, 2008 attacks and dismantle terror infrastructure.

Ironically, India is not serious in confidence building measures with Pakistan, which appears to be essential before seriously sitting on the table to discuss any of the outstanding issue. India government is presently in an intoxicated state of becoming permanent member of United Nations Security Council (UNSC). France has already announced that it will back India in its move, while the present Prime Minister Singh’s visit is also in the same regard. Quite disturbingly, before India could honour its words, a propaganda campaign has been started by Indian intelligence in which new baseless allegations have been leveled on Pakistan to internationally defame Islamabad.

While Pakistan is seriously doing its best to link home grown under clouds groups with Mumbai attacks but things appears not working. India must refrain from putting too much pressure because in that case innocent groups and individuals may be prosecuted for face saving. Although the militants killed during Mumbai also comprised of Maoists and Tamils and other Indian indigenous home grown elements but India till to-date is not linking them with Mumbai attacks.

A few days back on July 11, Maoist carried out attacks in Chhattisgarh, brutally killing 30 Indian Police officials including Superintendent of Poilice (SP), Vinod Kumar Choubey. Ironically, India government in this case is hesitating to call it terrorism and is referring it as violence. India has come up with a new claim that there was no evidence of local help for the gunmen involved in the November 26 Mumbai attacks and a series of calls made by Lashkar-e-Taiba handlers prior to the attacks was only to keep the internet telephony account active. In this regard, Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) Rakesh Maria said that they have verified every call that was made to India including the random ones and there was no evidence of local support found.

India claims that the statements of all the persons who received calls had been recorded and nothing suspicious had been found about them and also that handlers called numbers randomly which is evident since the calls lasted only between 30 to 40 seconds. Ironically, even an ordinary citizen of any country can make out from the photographs of militants involved in Mumbai attacks, released to press in November 2008, that majority of them had no resemblance with Pakistanis. However, Indian government is still adamant that there was no evidence of local help for the gunmen involved in the Mumbai attacks.India, in renewed efforts, has started a proactive blame game against Pakistan in order to internationally defame Islamabad as perpetrator of terrorists’ activities on Indian soil.

Allegations are being leveled on Pakistan that it has trained at least 15 terrorists at Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJ&K) to target the 450 MW Baglihar power project in Indian held Jammu and Kashmir (IHK). India claims that a secret tunnel is being dug from Sialkot to connect AJ&K with IHK to attack on Baghliar dam across Chenab at Chanderkote-Ramban. Indian intelligence also claims to have arrested two Lashkar-e-Tayyiaba (LeT) Mujahideen from the forests of Shamashabari range in Kupwara. It is true that Pakistan raised objections to Baghliar power project, claiming that it would obstruct flow of water as the size of the dam was above the normal size but the Indian propaganda is baseless. This is a technological age in which India claims to be far ahead many countries.

India acquired Radar Imaging Satellite (RISAT) from Israel, which was launched on April 20. RISAT is equipped with spying capabilities and capable of taking high-resolution images of 1 metre at night and through clouds. It is strange to observe that India has failed to release any imageries of secret tunnel being dug from Sialkot to connect AJ&K with IHK. Since there is no truth in this propaganda so India will never be able to do this. In a latest development, India has also started moving its regulars to Rajasthan area for the purpose best known to New Delhi and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

In a recent statement Director General of Police, Harish Chandra Meena cautioned that terrorists might attack western region of Rajasthan anytime. He claims that an intelligence agency has got concrete information that lakes in the state would be attacked and that since then whole state has been put on high alert. Director General of Police Meena disclosed that Jodhpur Police recovered a map of Jodhpur from the Mujahid who was arrested in Srinagar recently. Pakistan does not doubt Indian intentions that New Delhi is not serious to do all that is necessary to resolve outstanding issue with Pakistan but the uncalled for blame game must end from Indian side in order to develop a cordial atmosphere. As talks between India and Pakistan are going to fail in an atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust, so as a first step, confidence building measures must continue from where the point they got derailed.

Pakistan Objects to U.S. Plan for Afghan War

Newyork Times
By ERIC SCHMITT and JANE PERLEZ
Published: July 21, 2009

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan is objecting to expanded American combat operations in neighboring Afghanistan, creating new fissures in the alliance with Washington at a critical juncture when thousands of new American forces are arriving in the region.

Pakistani officials have told the Obama administration that the Marines fighting the Taliban in southern Afghanistan will force militants across the border into Pakistan, with the potential to further inflame the troubled province of Baluchistan, according to Pakistani intelligence officials.

Pakistan does not have enough troops to deploy to Baluchistan to take on the Taliban without denuding its border with its archenemy, India, the officials said. Dialogue with the Taliban, not more fighting, is in Pakistan’s national interest, they said.

The Pakistani account made clear that even as the United States recommits troops and other resources to take on a growing Taliban threat, Pakistani officials still consider India their top priority and the Taliban militants a problem that can be negotiated. In the long term, the Taliban in Afghanistan may even remain potential allies for Pakistan, as they were in the past, once the United States leaves.

The Pakistani officials gave views starkly different from those of American officials regarding the threat presented by top Taliban commanders, some of whom the Americans say have long taken refuge on the Pakistani side of the border.

Recent Pakistani military operations against Taliban in the Swat Valley and parts of the tribal areas have done little to close the gap in perceptions.

Even as Obama administration officials praise the operations, they express frustration that Pakistan is failing to act against the full array of Islamic militants using the country as a base.

Instead, they say, Pakistani authorities have chosen to fight Pakistani Taliban who threaten their government, while ignoring Taliban and other militants fighting Americans in Afghanistan or terrorizing India.

Such tensions have mounted despite a steady rotation of American officials through the region. They were on display last weekend when, during a visit to India, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said those who had planned the Sept. 11 attacks were now sheltering in Pakistan. The Pakistani Foreign Ministry issued an immediate rebuttal.

Pakistan’s critical assessment was provided as the Obama administration’s special envoy for the region, Richard C. Holbrooke, arrived in Pakistan on Tuesday night.

The country’s perspective was given in a nearly two-hour briefing on Friday for The New York Times by senior analysts and officials of Pakistan’s main spy service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence. They spoke on the condition of anonymity in keeping with the agency’s policy. The main themes of the briefing were echoed in conversations with several military officers over the past few days.

One of the first briefing slides read, in part: “The surge in Afghanistan will further reinforce the perception of a foreign occupation of Afghanistan. It will result in more civilian casualties; further alienate local population. Thus more local resistance to foreign troops.”

A major concern is that the American offensive may push Taliban militants over the border into Baluchistan, a province that borders Waziristan in the tribal areas. The Pakistani Army is already fighting a longstanding insurgency of Baluch separatists in the province.

A Taliban spillover would require Pakistan to put more troops there, a Pakistani intelligence official said, troops the country does not have now. Diverting troops from the border with India is out of the question, the official said.

A spokesman for the American and NATO commands in Afghanistan, Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith, said in an e-mail message on Monday that there was no significant movement of insurgents out of Afghanistan, and no indication of foreign fighters moving into Afghanistan through Baluchistan or Iran, another concern of the Pakistanis.

Pakistani and American officials also cited some positive signs for the alliance. Increased sharing of information has sharpened the accuracy of strikes against militant hide-outs by Pakistani F-16 warplanes and drones operated by the Central Intelligence Agency. And Pakistani and American intelligence operatives are fighting together in dangerous missions to hunt down fighters from the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the tribal areas and in the North-West Frontier Province.

But the intelligence briefing clearly illuminated the differences between the two countries over how, in the American view, Pakistan was still picking proxies and choosing enemies among various Islamic militant groups in Pakistan.

The United States maintains that the Afghan Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, leads an inner circle of commanders who guide the war in southern Afghanistan from their base in Quetta, the capital of Baluchistan.

American officials say this Taliban council, known as the Quetta shura, is sheltered by Pakistani authorities, who may yet want to employ the Taliban as future allies in Afghanistan.

In an interview last week, the new leader of American and NATO combat operations in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, paused when asked whether he was getting the cooperation he wanted from Pakistani forces in combating the Quetta shura. “What I would love is for the government of Pakistan to have the ability to completely eliminate the safe havens that the Afghan Taliban enjoy,” he said.

The Pakistani intelligence officials denied that Mullah Omar was even in Pakistan, insisting that he was in Afghanistan.

The United States asked Pakistan in recent years to round up 10 Taliban leaders in Quetta, the Pakistani officials said. Of those 10, 6 were killed by the Pakistanis, 2 were probably in Afghanistan, and the remaining 2 presented no threat to the Marines in Afghanistan, the officials said.

They also said no threat was posed by Sirajuddin Haqqani, an Afghan Taliban leader who American military commanders say operates with Pakistani protection out of North Waziristan and equips and trains Taliban fighters for Afghanistan.

Last year, Washington presented evidence to Pakistani leaders that Mr. Haqqani, working with Inter-Services Intelligence, was responsible for the bombing last summer of the Indian Embassy in Kabul that killed 54 people.

Pakistani officials insisted that Mr. Haqqani spent most of his time in Afghanistan, suggesting that the American complaints about him being provided sanctuary were invalid.

Another militant group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, is also a source of deep disagreement.

India and the United States have criticized Pakistan for allowing Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba, to be freed from jail last month.

The Pakistani officials said Mr. Saeed deserved to be freed because the government had failed to convince the courts that he should be kept in custody. There would be no effort to imprison Mr. Saeed again, in part because he was just an ideologue who did not have an anti-Pakistan agenda, the officials said.

Source: Newyork Times