The Neocons’ open up the Pakistani Warfront after the NIE closure of the Iranian Warfront

The Jewish Neocons’ success in raising the issue of Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons.
America’s jewish neocons, and their allies throughout the western world, have always had the goal of eradicating pakistan’s nuclear weapons and provoking the disintegration of pakistan as part of their plan to rearrange the greater middle east for the sake of jewish supremacism. Uncharacteristically for them, they’ve rarely discussed this objective. Firstly, because even in terms of their own grandiose warmongering designs, such a goal has been politically for many years far beyond their reach. And, secondly, because if they’d put pakistan in their cross hairs this would have made it obvious just how insanely ambitious they were about manipulating america into invading the whole of the greater middle east not just afghanistan, iraq, and iran, but syria, saudi arabia, egypt, and pakistan. For many years after pakistan developed nuclear weapons, the neocons had little traction over pakistan’s politics to stand any chance of achieving their twin objectives. This situation changed over the summer of 2007. It has changed dramatically since the assassination of benazir bhutto.

The september 11, 2001 pentagon and new york (p*ny) bombings gave the neocons their first significant degree of leverage over pakistani politics to enable them to believe they might eventually achieve their strategic objectives. The bush regime warned musharraf it would nuke pakistan if he did not join america in the so-called ‘war against terrorism’ and help to crush his former proxies, the taliban. In the 1990s, successive pakistani governments had set up the taliban and provided it with the logistical support to take control of afghanistan. Pakistani leaders saw it as a means of protecting their country’s interests in afghanistan. So when the bush regime forced musharraf to join the ‘war against terrorism’ it was in effect forcing him to act against his country’s own interests. But he had little other option than to fall in line.

The jewish neocons pushed america and other western states into the invasions of afghanistan and iraq. Although these invasions have turned out to be economically, militarily, and politically, disastrous for america they have been highly beneficial to the jews-only state in palestine. The jewish neocons have been condemned for these disasters but they have always known that once the american military had been planted in the middle east this would give them the opportunity to stir up trouble throughout the region. This gamble is now paying off in spectacular fashion as regards pakistan.

When the war in afghanistan spilt over into pakistan this opened up new opportunities for the jewish neocons to interfere in pakistani politics. After america’s invasion of afghanistan, al qaeda and most of the taliban fled to the tribal areas of pakistan. They used these areas as hideouts to recouperate, reorganize, and rearm, themselves. This enabled them to launch new attacks on nato troops in afghanistan which started turning the war in their favour. The bush regime forced musharraf, against his considered judgment, to launch an invasion of the tribal areas to capture or kill al qaeda/taliban fighters and prevent them from using the area as a sanctuary.

The invasion of the tribal areas was deeply unpopular in pakistan. "The White House and much of Congress seem unaware that most Pakistanis, regardless of their political outlook, oppose their country's role in the Bush administration's war on terrorism." (Rajan Menon ‘Leave Pakistan alone’ http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimesB85.html September 6, 2007). It undermined musharraf’s popularity. It pushed tribal leaders into the war alongside al quaeda/taliban. And it boosted popular support for al quaeda/taliban.

The pakistani military suffered considerable losses during the invasion and this provided musharraf with the excuse to ignore american pleas to prosecute the war with even more vigour. He forged a truce with tribal leaders in february 2005.

It is suspected the americans used pakistan’s invasion as cover to launch secret attacks on al quaeda/taliban fighters in the tribal areas.(1) These attacks continued after musharraf’s ceasefire with tribal leaders. The more these secret attacks became public knowledge, the more they inflamed anti-american sentiments in pakistan, the further they boosted public opposition to musharraf’s military dictatorship, and the more they increased popular support for al quaeda/taliban fighters. They also had the effect of boosting the numbers of pushtuns willing to fight to protect their homelands. This has created what simon jenkins calls the "Pashtun mujahideen" (Simon Jenkins ‘The west has not just repressed democracy. It has aided terror’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2237569,00.html January 9, 2008).

As pushtun mujahideen attacks on nato’s occupation of afghanistan increased, one of america’s leading jewish neocons took the opportunity to demand american military intervention in pakistan. Despite the disasters the american military had suffered in afghanistan and iraq, jewish neocons concluded the remedy was a new military adventure in pakistan. "In a perhaps not unrelated development, neocon and chief Iraq War propagandist Bill Kristol has been hired by the New York Times as a columnist in 2008. He told Fox News last July, "I think the president's going to have to take military action there over [in Pakistan] in the next few weeks or months. Bush has to disrupt that [al-Qaeda] sanctuary. I think, frankly, we won't even tell Musharraf. We'll do what we have to do in Western Pakistan and Musharraf can say, 'Hey, they didn't tell me.'" Notice how he leaves the Pakistani people and their reaction to such "action", military aggression against a sovereign state, entirely out of the picture." (Gary Leupp ‘Madness Compounding Madness Calls for Intervention in Pakistan’ http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp01022008.html January 2, 2008). Once again the jewish neocons were trying to manipulate the american military into fighting yet another proxy zionist war: this time in pakistan.

In july 2007, the jewish neocons and the bush regime eventually prevailed upon musharraf to embark on a second invasion of pakistan’s tribal areas to crush al quaeda/taliban fighters and the pushtun mujahideen. This has had even more adverse political, and military, consequences than musharraf’s first invasion. It has not merely further undermined musharraf’s popularity, it has even pushed the country towards civil war.

By late 2007, the bush regime had pushed pakistan into such a state of crisis that, for the first time, the jewish neocons were able to raise doubts about the ‘safety’ of pakistan’s nuclear weapons. No matter how grossly unrealistic these doubts may have been, the neocons succeeded in putting the issue on america’s political and military agenda.(2) "US special forces snatch squads are on standby to seize or disable Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in the event of a collapse of government authority or the outbreak of civil war following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. The troops, augmented by volunteer scientists from America's Nuclear Emergency Search Team organisation, are under orders to take control of an estimated 60 warheads dispersed around six to 10 high-security Pakistani military bases." (Ian Bruce ‘Special forces on standby over nuclear threat’ http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/foreign/display.var.1933388.0.Special_forces_on_standby_over_nuclear_threat.php December 31 2007).(3)

The jewish neocons are currently building a case for increased american military intervention in pakistan. They want further military protection for america’s military bases in pakistan and for american military supply routes through pakistan to afghanistan. "In November, USA Today quoted Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell as saying that the US military was reviewing contingency plans in case unrest in Pakistan began to affect the flow of supplies for American troops fighting in Afghanistan. He underscored that the supply lines were "very real areas of concern", since three-quarters of the supplies for the 26,000-strong US military deployment in Afghanistan flowed via Pakistan by land and air. "Clearly, we do not like the situation we find ourselves in right now," Morrell commented." (M K Bhadrakumar Bhutto's death a blow to 'war on terror' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA03Df02.html January 3, 2008). They want american military action to combat al qaeda/taliban in the tribal areas. But most of all they want military action to ‘protect’ pakistan’s nuclear weapons. The greater the case they can build for further military interventions in pakistan, the greater the support they might win from the american public, and the closer they will get to their ultimate objective of neutralizing or even abolishing pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

It behoves critics of the jewish neocons to understand the complexities surrounding pakistan’s politics lest they should end up inadvertently supporting neocon objectives for partitioning the country. In particular this means understanding the political objectives of former general pervez musharraf. There are those who denounce musharraf as busharraf i.e. george bush’s puppet. Some go even further and suggest musharraf is just another of the jewish neocons’ puppets like bush, blair/brown, sarkosy, merkel, howard, hosni mubarak, siniora, abbas, etc. The evidence suggests, however, that musharraf is a pakistani nationalist. He is neither busharraf nor another member of this disgustingly traitorous group of jewish puppets.

It is undoubtedly true that musharraf has often been forced into complying with many of the jewish neocons’ demands but there is also a case for arguing he has resisted many more of their demands. He is not their puppet and is not willing to devastate his own country to boost the regional dominance of the jews-only state in palestine. The neocons’ puppet in pakistan was benazir bhutto. Many of those on the progressive wing of politics who support democracy and human rights were well aware that bhutto was a member of the country’s landowning elite and that she permitted extensive corruption both in power and out of power. And yet they still clung to the hope she would have acted more democratically if she’d become pakistan’s prime minister for the third time. It seemed as if it was as difficult for progressives to resist the allure of her claims to be the country’s best hope for democracy and human rights, as it was to ignore her beguiling beauty. And yet, after the last three decades but especially the last six years, progressives should hear alarm bells whenever western, or westernized, politicians start talking about democracy and freedom because these concepts have been usurped by the jewish neocons. They have become the neocons’ trojan Horse for promoting jewish supremacism throughout the greater middle east.

M k bhadrakumar has argued that after bhutto’s assassination, the jewish neocons are peeved that pakistan has suddenly shot to the top of the global political agenda. "In one swift sweep, almost overnight, Pakistan replaces Iran on the Bush administration's radar screen. Israel may not like what is happening, but Vice President Dick Cheney and company won't have even a fighting chance of reviving the Iran bogey in the remaining term of the administration." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Al-Qaeda to the rescue for Bush's legacy’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA05Df02.html January 05, 2008). Having spent the last decade or so trying to push iran to the top of the international community’s political agenda it is understandable why they might seem frustrated by such a turnaround. But this would be a major political mistake, a failure to understand the neocons’ warmongering ideology. The jewish neocons’ ultimate objective in the greater middle east has always been the dismantling of pakistan and its nuclear weapons. This is by far and away the biggest "existential threat" faced by the jews-only state within the greater middle east. Sure, for the last decade or so, the neocons have been in a belligerent, paranoid frenzy to stop iran from acquiring nuclear weapons but this is as nothing in comparison to the all too real posed by pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Just as afghanistan was a mere stepping stone for iraq, and iraq was supposed to be a stepping stone for iran, so iran would, in turn, lead to pakistan. The neocons were pursuing a long term strategy to gradually encircle pakistan. To the north, there is the american military occupation of afghanistan; to the west there would one day be a devastated iran; and, to the east, there is now an india which has become increasingly compliant to the interests of the jewish neocons.

The neocons’ war front against iran was temporarily closed after america’s national intelligence services denied iran had a nuclear weapons programme. For a few short weeks it seemed the jewish neocons would be forced to take a long detour to get back on track to achieve their long term objectives. But, as it turned out, events in pakistan opened up a major short cut to the achievement of their objectives. The jewish neocons have opened up a new war front: pakistan.

The Jewish Neocons’ Constitutional Tango.
The bush regime’s pressure on musharraf to wipe out al qaeda/taliban in pakistan’s tribal areas has caused an ever widening spiral of violence. The more the bush regime forced musharraf to take military action against al qaeda/taliban, the more it undermined his popularity, the more it boosted anti-american sentiments in pakistan, the more it increased the pushtun mujahideen, and the more it boosted support for al qaeda/taliban in afghanistan. The bush regime’s response was to increase pressure on musharraf for more decisive military action.(4)

By the summer of 2007, the jewish neocons had become so dissatisfied with musharraf’s implementation of the ‘war on terrorism’ they started dropping hints about finding a replacement for him. They treated his efforts with contempt even though the pakistani security services had arrested hundreds of al qaeda supporters, far more than any other country, and even though pakistan’s military losses in the tribal areas were larger than those suffered by nato forces in afghanistan. The jewish neocons have always been disdainful of the sacrifices they have forced others to make on their behalf. They couldn’t care less what pakistan’s military losses were, what the damage was to pakistan’s national interests, and how they were pushing the country closer to a civil war. What they wanted was a quisling who would be ruthless enough to do their bidding no matter what the military, economic and political, costs might be to pakistan. Indeed, in terms of their long term plan for the abolition of pakistan’s nuclear weapons and the partition of the country, the greater the damage they could cause pakistan to inflict on itself, the better it would be for jewish supremacism. They first looked for a replacement for musharraf within the pakistani military but when nothing came of this they turned increasingly to benazir bhutto because she was willing to do their bidding.

The neocons, however, simply did not have the power to remove musharraf and replace him with bhutto. They were forced into adopting a compromise strategy. They would promote bhutto to share power with musharraf before she eventually replaced him altogether. They spun this strategy to suggest that bhutto would rescue musharraf politically because of his increasing unpopularity even though it was more plausible to believe that if musharraf gave away his powers to bhutto he would end up with less power not more power.

The jewish neocons concocted a highly elaborate constitutional tango for musharraf and bhutto.(5) Musharraf would start off with all the power but by the end of the dance it would have passed seamlessly to bhutto.
Number 1: Musharraf would pass a ruling known as the ‘national reconciliation ordinance’ withdrawing all corruption charges against bhutto.
Number 2: Bhutto would return to pakistan and her political party in the pakistani parliament would help to elect musharraf as president.
Number 3: Musharraf would then step down from the army.
Number 4: The army would then appoint a new leader. "The Bush administration has not formally presented any new proposals to Mr. Musharraf, who gave up his military role last month, or to his successor as the army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who the White House thinks will be more sympathetic to the American position than Mr. Musharraf. Early in his career, General Kayani was an aide to Ms. Bhutto while she was prime minister and later led the Pakistani intelligence service." (Steven Lee Myers, David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt ‘U.S. Considers New Covert Push Within Pakistan’ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/washington/06terror.html?ex=1357275600&en=d2c610d29c92dd8d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all January 06, 2008).
Number 5: Bhutto would then win the general election and be elected prime minister.
Number 6: Thereafter bhutto and musharraf would work together harmoniously. (The fact that they held markedly different political objectives suggests the neocons suspected this collaboration would last for only a short thereby allowing them to get rid of musharraf altogether).
Number 7: Pakistan’s ruling political parties would launch a publicity barrage to win public support for america’s highly unpopular ‘war against terrorism’ which is just a front for the jews’ promotion of world war three. "Washington will expect the civilian components of the new regime, the Pakistan Muslim League faction led by the Choudhury clan, Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) led by Maulana Fazlur Rahman and the Awami Nationalist Party (ANP), to hold the fort of public opinion whilst the army cracks down on the militants in the tribal border tracts." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Benazir's second homecoming’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IJ20Df03.html October 20, 2007).

There was one big flaw with the neocons’ dance choreography. Musharraf didn’t want bhutto back in pakistan. He didn’t want her back in power. He didn’t want to hand over his powers to her. He didn’t want to work with her in what he knew would be a highly impracticable, power sharing, arrangement. "The element of uncertainty still remains whether the "powers that be", the establishment, which includes the armed forces, will be prepared to accommodate Bhutto. Her return to Pakistan has been almost completely choreographed by Britain and the United States. The Musharraf regime needed to be dragged by the collar to the promised land of political cohabitation with Bhutto. Top officials of the George W Bush administration, laden with rich experience in making brutal despots in Latin America behave, repeatedly intervened with the Musharraf regime to play ball, at times cajoling, at times threatening, at times blackmailing." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Benazir's second homecoming’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IJ20Df03.html October 20, 2007).(6) Musharraf must have suspected that once bhutto was in power, she and the neocons would seek to sideline him as quickly as possible especially when his position as president would have been too weak to prevent them from deposing him.

Musharraf rewrites the Choreography.
Musharraf was being cajoled into going along with this elaborate charade. But he had no intention of co-operating in his own demise so he started rewriting the choreography. Musharraf knew that once he’d been elected president and then stepped down from the army, his political position would be vulnerable to challenge especially from the supreme court which had overturned some of his earlier rulings. So, before he stepped down as head of the pakistani military he scuttled the supreme court to prevent it from challenging his presidency. "On 3 November Musharraf, as chief of the army, suspended the 1973 constitution and imposed a state of emergency: all non-government TV channels were taken off the air, the mobile phone networks were jammed, paramilitary units surrounded the Supreme Court. Certainly no US spokesperson or State Department adjunct in the Foreign Office criticised the dismissal of the eight Supreme Court judges or their arrest: that was the quid pro quo for Washington’s insistence that Musharraf take off his uniform. If he was going to turn civilian he wanted all the other rules twisted in his favour. A newly appointed stooge Supreme Court would soon help him with the rule-bending." (Tariq Ali ‘Daughter of the West’ http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n24/ali_01_.html December 13, 2007). He replaced his enemies in the supreme with his allies who would help to protect his political power when he became president.

The choreography outlined above would have left musharraf politically vulnerable to the judiciary so by rewriting the moves he significantly increased his chances of survival. Musharraf also took steps to boost the political prospects of his political party, and others, to make it difficult for bhutto’s party to win a majority in the general election. "The opinion polls show that her old rival, Nawaz Sharif, is well ahead of her. Musharraf’s hasty pilgrimage to Mecca was probably an attempt to secure Saudi mediation in case he has to cut a deal with the Sharif brothers, who have been living in exile in Saudi Arabia, and sideline her completely. Both sides deny that a deal was done, but Sharif returned to Pakistan with Saudi blessings and an armour-plated Cadillac as a special gift from the king. Little doubt that Riyadh would rather him than Benazir." (Tariq Ali ‘Daughter of the West’ http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n24/ali_01_.html December 13, 2007). The more he could do to undermine bhutto’s power in parliament, the stronger he would have been as president.

If benazir bhutto had succeeded in winning the general election and becoming pakistan’s prime minister this would not have been a triumph for democracy. On the contrary, it would have been another triumph for the jewish neocons in successfully implementing a plan they’d designed to boost the interests of the jews-only state in palestine. In effect, they would have chosen pakistan’s new leader and then orchestrated another of their trade-mark, colour-coded, astro-turf, ‘democratic revolutions’ to dupe pakistanis into electing their quisling. Indeed, installing a jewish quisling in a country openly hostile and contemptuous of jewish supremacism, might have been their greatest political achievement. The jewish neocons demanded a general election in pakistan not because they wanted the pakistani people to choose their own leader but so they could manipulate the electorate into voting for the neocon candidate. If bhutto had become prime minister and implemented her jewish masters’ policies, who knows how much damage she would have inflicted on her own country before being booted out of power. Indeed, it is highly questionable whether pakistan would have survived her treacherous loyalty to the jews-only state. Real freedom and democracy emerges from the grassroots not from manipulations carried out by the world’s jewish colonialists.(7)

Bhutto was a Jewish Quisling.
There is more than enough evidence to suggest that, whilst in exile, bhutto sold out to the jewish neocons so they would help her to return to power in pakistan. She seemed to have become a quisling willing to carry out the jewish neocons’ policies no matter how damaging this would be for pakistan’s national interests.

Hiring an American Lobbying Firm.
"She had been schmoozing the Washington crowd for years. She had even hired a public-relations firm to help her do it at one point." (Charley Reese ‘The Bhutto Mistake’ http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=12160 January 5, 2008).

Cosying up to militant, Hardline, Jewish Fundamentalists.
"The Harvard-educated Benazir had close ties to US and British intelligence as well. She used the offices of neo-conservative US Congressman Tom Lantos when she was in Washington, according to informed reports, one reason Vice President Dick Cheney backed her as a "safe" way to save his Pakistan strategic alliance in the face of growing popular protest against Musharraf's declaring martial law last year." (F William Engdahl ‘Back to business in Pakistan’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA05Df01.html January 05, 2008).

Support for America’s Proxy Zionist invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
"She had returned the favour in advance by expressing sympathy for the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, lunching with the Israeli ambassador to the UN (a litmus test) and pledging to ‘wipe out terrorism’ in her own country." (Tariq Ali ‘Daughter of the West’ http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n24/ali_01_.html December 13, 2007).

Bhutto’s recognition of the Jews-only state in Palestine.
Pakistan does not recognize the jews-only state in palestine and limits its political and economic dealings with the racist state. In contrast, bhutto was willing to recognize and accommodate the jewish apartheid state.

Support for the Neocons so called ‘War against Non-Jewish Terrorism’.
Bhutto supported the bush regime’s ‘war against terrorism’ which is just a front for the jewish neocons’ third world war. "Once again, to win American backing for her return to Pakistan in 2007, which could only happen with US pressure on General Musharraf, Benazir Bhutto used the same strategy that had worked before: she would promise to do better than General Musharraf in advancing American interests in Pakistan. Over the past year, Benazir Bhutto has repeatedly pointed out that General Musharraf's war against terrorism in Pakistan was failing. Instead of curbing terrorism, the militants had become more daring during the General's tenure. She promised to do better. She would wipe out the "religious extremists," shut down "extremist" madrasas, and even hand over Dr. Qadeer Khan, the architect of Pakistan's nuclear program, to the US for questioning. Insistently, and loudly, Benazir Bhutto was seeking to assure the United States that she would do a lot better than their General." (M. Shahid Alam ‘A Pakistani Tragedy: The Life and Death of Benazir Bhutto’ http://www.counterpunch.org/shahid01022008.html January 2, 2008).

For bhutto, pakistan’s problems stemmed from islamic extremists causing violence and chaos within the country rather than the jewish neocons corrupting the country’s national interests to such an extent it was driving the country to civil war. She would rather provoke civil war than try to reach a peace accord between pakistan’s disparate groups. "Asked why she wanted to return to front-line Pakistani politics, Benazir said she felt her country was being threatened by extremists. "If the people from Pakistan vote for me, certainly I would to take on that job," Benazir said. "But this is more than a struggle for me: this is a struggle for the heart and the soul of Pakistan. We stand at the crossroads. Very critical choices have to be made between the forces of the past and the forces of the future. There is militancy, terrorism and violence. My government and I have had experience of dealing with it. If we could get another opportunity, I would certainly take the challenge. "The Red Mosque was just a warm-up for what will happen if the religious schools are not disarmed," Benazir told the news weekly Focus. She added that Islamist extremist leaders were plotting to overthrow Musharraf’s government and had converted Madrassas in cities into military headquarters with well-stocked arsenals." (‘Benazir refuses to back uniformed president’ http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=9304 July 30, 2007).

Support for American attacks on Pakistan.
Bhutto "said she would permit such attacks under certain circumstances." (Willis Witter ‘Musharraf to bar U.S. in Pakistan’ http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071004/FOREIGN/110040028/1003 October 4, 2007); "Bhutto, after all, favored bringing U.S. military forces into Pakistan, according to Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst and region specialist. If that’s an option President Bush planned to exercise, the loss of Bhutto is a grave blow to his policy." (Sheldon Richman ‘Hands Off Pakistan’ http://www.fff.org/comment/com0801a.asp January 4, 2007).

Promise to Purge the Pakistani Military of Islamists.
"She also made clear in a British television interview shortly before her death that she would clean out the Pakistan military and security services of corrupt and Islamist elements." (F William Engdahl ‘Back to business in Pakistan’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA05Df01.html January 05, 2008).

Bhutto and Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons.
Bhutto was willing to follow the bush regime’s neocon agenda for pakistan rather than protest against imperialist interventions and stand up for the country’s independence. It is not known what her views were about pakistan’s nuclear weapons. The jewish neocons have made it clear that they wish to see them neutralized/abolished so bhutto’s support for the bush regime’s plan was decidedly flirting with the possibility of acquiescing in their abolition. How could she follow the jewish neocons’ plans for pakistan without ending up helping them to realize their objectives about dissolving pakistan and its nuclear weapons?

Musharraf’s Defiance of the Jewish Neocons.
Although musharraf was forced into making a number of compromises with the bush regime (which should not be difficult to understand given its threat to nuke pakistan) he opposed virtually all of the neocons’ demands. If he had been busharraf he would have agreed with the same policies as bhutto.

Musharraf’s Refusal to Launch the First Invasion of the Tribal Areas.
Musharraf was opposed to using the pakistani army to invade the tribal areas because he knew what the political and military consequences would be. In the end he was forced to go through with the invasion but, after the all too predictable failures, he quickly reached an agreement with tribal leaders and withdrew the pakistani military from the tribal areas.

Musharraf’s Refusal to Launch the Second Invasion of the Tribal Areas.
For nearly three years musharraf defied the neocons’ demands for a second invasion of the tribal areas. "The Bush administration knows that Musharraf has been playing a double game over al-Qaeda and Taliban networks. Four months earlier, it had tried to exert quiet pressure on Musharraf over the issue, but had also continued its policy of portraying Musharraf as a loyal ally in the "war against terror", even after he signaled his rejection of any pressure." (Gareth Porter ‘It could be curtains for the Busharraf show’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IG10Df02.html July 10, 2007); "After eight years in power since his bloodless military coup in 1999, Musharraf finally appears to have been convinced that the time has come for him to shed his uniform and return the country to a semblance of democratic normalcy. The deal has been finalized at a critical juncture of the "war on terror" as Pakistan is under immense pressure to carry out a powerful military assault against al-Qaeda and Taliban bases in Pakistani territory. New US legislation aims to tie aid for Pakistan to its performance in fighting terrorism. Pakistan has received more than US$10 billion in US aid since 2001. The administration of President George W Bush has also made it clear that it will take matters into its own hands if necessary and conduct its own raids inside Pakistan to tackle militants." (Syed Saleem Shahzad ‘Pakistan ripe for regime change’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IH01Df01.html August 01, 2007); "A US weekly, Newsweek, has written that the Pentagon "wants [Musharraf] to turn much of Pakistan's military into a counterinsurgency force, trained and equipped to combat Al-Qaeda and its extremist supporters along the Afghan border." There, you have it, dear Pakistanis, in clear, bold print. What is this if not a plan for plunging your country into civil war, into a carnage far worse than what the Algerians have gone through?" (M. Shahid Alam ‘The Killer Elites of Pakistan: The Mercenary State’ http://www.counterpunch.org/shahid10122007.html October 12, 2007).

It was only in july 2007, after many leaks in the american media about the bush regime’s search for a new leader in pakistan, that musharraf was forced into launching a second invasion of the tribal areas.

It is doubtful whether musharraf will ever abandon the taliban because it had served pakistan’s interests in the 1990s and then again after america’s invasion of afghanistan by attacking the american backed karzi government which had excluded taliban representation. Musharraf succeeded in protecting the taliban whilst fleecing the bush regime of $10 billion of american military aid and then using some of this money to finance the taliban’s war against america’s proxy in afghanistan.

Musharraf’s Refusal to give up Qadeer Khan.
The jewish neocons in the bush regime had repeatedly demanded that musharraf allow them to ‘question’ qadeer khan, the father of pakistan’s nuclear bomb. They were desperate to interrogate him about the nuclear secrets he sold to iran so they could use this information as an excuse to attack that country. But musharraf refused their requests. This is even more remarkably defiant given that it would have been a relatively easy matter for him to have handed khan over to the americans.

Musharraf has opposed American Military attacks on Pakistan.
Musharraf has repeatedly opposed the use of american military forces in pakistan to attack al quaeda/taliban. He even defied dick cheney after a personal visit to press home his demands. "Vice President Dick Cheney visited Islamabad in late February, accompanied by Stephen R Kappes, deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), when unnamed US officials told the Washington Post that there was evidence al-Qaeda operatives in camps in Pakistan had resumed training of foreign jihadis. Just hours after Cheney had reportedly delivered a warning that aid would be cut by the US Congress if something was not done, the Musharraf government issued a statement insisting that "Pakistan does not accept dictation from any side or any source"." (Gareth Porter ‘It could be curtains for the Busharraf show’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IG10Df02.html July 10, 2007).(8)

M k bhadrakumar believes musharraf would have relented to american demands before bhutto’s assassination but believes this is no longer politically feasible. "However, Bhutto's assassination may have upturned the project for the deployment of US special forces in Pakistan. In the present volatile situation there is bound to be an overwhelming popular uproar if Musharraf is seen as acquiescing with US military operations, under whatever pretext, on Pakistani soil. With Bhutto's death, there has been a paradigm shift in the power calculus. Bhutto might have, arguably, gone along with the new US plan, but not Sharif." (M K Bhadrakumar Bhutto's death a blow to 'war on terror' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA03Df02.html January 3, 2008).

Musharraf’s Refusal to hand over Pakistan’s Nukes to the Jewish Neocons.
Whilst bhutto might have handed over supervision of pakistan’s nukes to the americans, or to an international force of jewish muppets, this is not something musharraf would have done. If the jewish neocons succeed in pushing the american military into further interventions in pakistan which lead to a war between the two countries over pakistan’s nuclear weapons, such a war would be even more disastrous for america than a war against iran.

Musharraf’s Refusal to go Charging after Baitullah Mehsud.
The zionist dominated american media quickly placed the blame for bhutto’s assassination on a particular individual and demanded that musharraf launch an attack to capture or kill him. But musharraf has no intention of doing so. "The Pakistan government has identified a militant leader with links to Al Qaeda, Baitullah Mehsud, who holds sway in tribal areas near the Afghanistan border, as the chief suspect behind the attack on Ms. Bhutto. American officials are not certain about Mr. Mehsud’s complicity but say the threat he and other militants pose is a new focus. He is considered, they said, an "Al Qaeda associate." In an interview with foreign journalists on Thursday, Mr. Musharraf warned of the risk any counterterrorism forces, American or Pakistani, faced in confronting Mr. Mehsud in his native tribal areas. "He is in South Waziristan agency, and let me tell you, getting him in that place means battling against thousands of people, hundreds of people who are his followers, the Mehsud tribe, if you get to him, and it will mean collateral damage," Mr. Musharraf said." (Steven Lee Myers, David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt ‘U.S. Considers New Covert Push Within Pakistan’ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/washington/06terror.html?ex=1357275600&en=d2c610d29c92dd8d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all January 06, 2008).

Musharraf’s Opposition to a US attack on Iran.
Musharraf even stuck his neck out by suggesting that an american attack on iran would be disastrous. "President Pervez Musharraf said a possible US attack on Iran would be a "terrible mistake", in an interview published here on Friday. "It will be a terrible mistake if President George Bush orders an attack against Iran," Musharraf told Sarajevo daily Dnevni Avaz ahead of his visit to Bosnia. "I’m concerned about the possibility that a US attack on Iran (would cause) turbulence in the region," he said, warning it would spark "radicalism"." (‘Iran attack would be terrible mistake: Musharraf’ http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=7479 April 28, 2007).

Conclusions.
There are some revealing comparisons between musharraf and bhutto. There were some similarities. She used her political power to enrich her family, her relatives, and the landowning elite to which she belonged. Musharraf has also enriched himself and the pakistani military elite.(9) He was no democrat but, in practice, this wasn’t all that much different from her. The biggest political difference between them was that whilst he is a nationalist, she was not. Musharraf passed through the ranks, and eventually commanded, the highly nationalistic pakistani army. He defied the bush regime over a wide range of issues because he is a pakistani nationalist.

As a nationalist, musharraf opposed the bush regime’s ‘war against terrorism’ because it threatened to undermine pakistan’s national interests and the progress he had made in transforming the country. "The leaders of the Pakistan military, of which Musharraf is a typical example, do not see themselves primarily as "pro-American moderates" battling with "anti-American extremists." They see themselves as responsible for building a powerful militarized state in Pakistan representing the heritage of Islamic empires in South and Central Asia against the threat from India and the selfish maneuvers of politicians (not necessarily in that order). In the course of doing so, they have enriched themselves and gained control of much of the economy and civilian administration. The military has always aspired to control the judiciary as well, and Musharraf has now restored to that institution the supine illegitimacy that it possessed under General Zia. This means of course that the use of institutional power for private gain by the military is legal (as the judiciary has no power over the military), while similar use of institutional power by civilians is "corruption."" (Barnett R. Rubin ‘Pakistan's Power Puzzle’ http://icga.blogspot.com/2008/01/pakistans-power-puzzle.html January 1, 2008).

In stark contrast, bhutto was a jewish quisling, a traitor to pakistan’s national interests. She was all too willing to support ‘the war against terrorism’ which is a front for the jewish neocons’ insane ‘world war three’ whose sole beneficiary is believed to be the jews-only state in palestine.

Musharaff’s disarmingly amiable defiance of the bush regime has been remarkable, even more so given the bush regime’s threat to nuke pakistan if he did not abandon his country’s national interests and support america’s invasion of afghanistan. Such a threat would have crushed many political leaders but musharraf not merely survived the ultimatum but recovered his composure to frequently defy bush’s demands. Musharraf has played a brilliant game of deception to maintain his country’s independence whilst fooling the americans into believing he was working on their behalf. "This wouldn't be the first time that the generals in Rawalpindi have done their homework as regards their corporate interests and proceeded to set aside Washington's unsolicited counsel. Time and again in Pakistan's history it has appeared that the unequal relationship between the US and Pakistan is far from a one-dimensional tie-up. It would be a mistake to regard Pakistan as a mindless American proxy, which is part of the reason why China and Russia have an abiding interest in that country." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Pakistan shakes off US shackles’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IK06Df02.html November 06, 2007).

One of the main reasons for musharraf’s success in protecting his country’s national interests, and its sovereignty, against almost overwhelming american political interference, was his deliberate fostering of china’s involvement in pakistan. Musharaff cultivated highly beneficial economic, technological, and military, links with china in order to significantly reduce pakistan’s dependence on american aid. From its side, china is all too willing to assist pakistan because it serves as a geopolitical counterweight to india and even to america. It is possible that musharaff’s attack on the red mosque in july 2007 was carried out to punish the islamic fundamentalists who’d earlier killed a number of chinese civilians working in islamabad rather than because of american insistence on implementing the so-called ‘war against terrorism’. The last thing that musharaff wanted was for china to withdraw its personnel from the country because he couldn’t protect them.

M. shahid alam has suggested that all those in pakistan’s political elite are as corrupt as each other. The implication being that musharraf was just as corrupt as bhutto. "That was Benazir Bhutto's fatal flaw; but it was not only a personal flaw. Behind this fatal flaw lay the sad history of a country whose elites time and again chose to prostitute the state, to compromise national interests, and sacrifice the lives of Pakistanis for their personal gains. That is what makes Benazir Bhutto's murder a Pakistani tragedy. In a single tragic event, it crystallizes the malfeasance of Pakistan's political classes and the failure of Pakistanis to bring them to account for their treasonous crimes." (M. Shahid Alam ‘A Pakistani Tragedy: The Life and Death of Benazir Bhutto’ http://www.counterpunch.org/shahid01022008.html January 2, 2008). It has to be counterted, however, that whilst both may have enriched themselves musharraf didn’t sell himself to the jewish neocons as bhutto did. If he’d wanted to enrich himself he would have worked harder to fulfil the neocons’ demands.

What sort of Military Dictator was Musharraf?
During his time as the country’s military dictator, musharraf has been nothing like as barbaric as his military predecessor general zia ul-haq. He is much more akin to a benevolent dictator. It’s true that after the protests arising from his removal of supreme court chief justice iftikhar mohammed chaudhry, he arrested thousands of middle class protestors. He was duly condemned for such an action. "But Musharraf has demonstrated readiness to use harsh, authoritarian measures to hang on to power, as he did during emergency rule, when he jailed more than 5,000 political opponents and suspended the constitution." (Laura King ‘Musharraf apparently riding out crisis’ http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/itsonlyfair/latimes0012.html January 6, 2008). But he didn’t string up their leaders as ul-haq or the shah of iran would have done.

Musharaff has been fairly lenient towards critics of his dictatorship. "The independent TV networks continued to broadcast reports that challenged official propaganda. Investigative journalism is never popular with governments and the general often contrasted the deference with which he was treated by the US networks and BBC television with the ‘unruly’ questioning inflicted on him by local journalists: it ‘misled the people’." (Tariq Ali ‘Daughter of the West’ http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n24/ali_01_.html December 13, 2007). There has been more criticism of musharraf in the pakistani media than there has been criticism of bush in the zionist dominated american media.

Tariq ali condemns musharraf’s use of his dictatorial powers but also points out the considerable freedoms he allowed pakistanis to enjoy which we in the west can only marvel at. "The state of emergency targeted the judiciary, opposition politicians and the independent media. All three groups were, in different ways, challenging the official line on Afghanistan and the ‘war on terror’, the disappearance of political prisoners and the widespread use of torture in Pakistani prisons. The issues were being debated on television in a much more open fashion than happens anywhere in the West, where a blanket consensus on Afghanistan drowns all dissent. Musharraf argued that civil society was hampering the ‘war on terror’. Hence the emergency." (Tariq Ali ‘Daughter of the West’ http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n24/ali_01_.html December 13, 2007).

It could even be argued that musharraf is more democratic than bhutto because he’s more of a nationalist than she is. He’s intent on meeting the wishes of the people who oppose a civil war in pakistan whilst bhutto would have defied their wishes to promote such a proxy zionist war.

Musharraf currently has a bad image in the western media. This is partly because he was a military dictator who usurped power from a democratically elected prime minister. It is also partly because of his sacking of iftikhar mohammed chaudhry. He has also been made to look bad because so many commentators suggested he was responsible for bhutto’s assassination. But, most critically of all, musharraf’s negative image is due to america’s zionist dominated media which is critical of his refusal to implement the jewish neocons’ wishes. The neocons have been publicizing the need for democracy in pakistan. From this perspective, bhutto appeared to be the hero, no matter how corrupt she was and how indebted she was to a foreign power, whilst musharraf seemed to be the villain for standing in the way of progress. The zionist-dominated western media has given musharraf good publicity when he appeared to be complying with the jewish neocons’ demands but bad publicity for defying his jewish masters. The fact that he has been given more bad publicity than good publicity is testament to his independence. The zionist dominated western media has treated musharraf almost as bigotedly as it has treated vladimir putin.

Democracy or Sovereignty, Individual Liberties or Pakistan’s National Independence?
Any progressively minded person would welcome full scale democracy and constitutional rights in pakistan. But such goals would not have achieved by the jewish neocons forcing musharraf and bhutto to participate in a bizarre constitutional tango. Some might argue, however, that this meticulous choreography would at least push the country in the direction of these political principles. It could be countered, however, that there is another factor in pakistani politics which is even more important than the flowering of democracy i.e. the preservation of pakistan’s sovereignty, pakistan’s ability to make its own choices in its own best interests. In turn, this proposition could be challenged by suggesting that the establishment of musharraf/bhutto led semi-democratic system in pakistan would have contributed substantially to enhancing the country’s independence. But the reality is that the musharraf-bhutto tango was a jewish neocon plan. It was yet another example of the bush regime imposing its own solution on pakistan thereby underlining the country’s loss of national independence.

America has always interfered in pakistani politics, as it has interfered in many other countries around the world to protect whatever it conceived of at the time as its national interests. However, after the september 11, 2001 p*ny bombings this interference in pakistan has become so extensive as to almost resemble a nation-building enterprise. The most blatant example of this interference was the bush regime’s threat to nuke pakistan if it did not support america’s invasion of afghanistan. Since then the bush regime has become involved in virtually micro-managing pakistani politics as could be seen most blatantly from the charade of the musharraf-bhutto tango. "One of the most remarkable developments in Pakistani politics since the events of 9-11 is the transparency, shall we say, daring, with which the United States now intervenes in Pakistan's affairs. Conversely, Pakistani leaders also work openly to advance American interests in Pakistan. In an earlier era, the Americans generally took care to conceal their meddling in Pakistani politics. As a result, only the politically astute understood the depth of their influence over Pakistan. Now, this knowledge has become commonplace." (M. Shahid Alam ‘A Pakistani Tragedy: The Life and Death of Benazir Bhutto’ http://www.counterpunch.org/shahid01022008.html January 2, 2008).(10)

In terms of the political values of pakistan’s two leading politicians, musharraf sought to protect pakistani sovereignty at the expense of democracy whilst bhutto supported democracy whilst sacrificing the country’s sovereignty. What bhutto was offering was a sham democracy which might have benefited, to a minor degree, the interests of the country’s landowning elite but which was intended primarily to further the jewish neocons’ plans for world war three. Bhutto had sold herself in exile to the jewish neocons and, in power, she would have sold the country to them as well. In the process, she would have undermined musharraf’s courageous and wily efforts to uphold his country’s independence. If musharaff had bhutto assassinated there is a strong case for arguing he did so for the sake of protecting pakistani sovereignty. There was a clear cut choice of political principles between these two political leaders. Bhutto represented democracy and servility to the jewish neocons, whilst musharraf may have been a military dictator but he was also pakistan’s best prospect for maintaining the country’s independence. Whilst musharraf defied global jewish power, bhutto relished it like a blair or brown.

It is proposed here that pakistan’s primary political objective should be the fight for its independence, its ability to make its own decisions based on its own national interests. The last development that pakistan needs is to be manipulated by the jewish neocons’ sham democracy. First comes a war of liberation, then comes democracy. A democracy under occupation is a quislings’ paradise. Pakistanis should fight for a democracy once they’ve liberated themselves from jewish neocon imperialism. They should be especially wary of being fooled into supporting elections to install leaders chosen by foreign powers to reinforce foreign control over the country.

Pakistanis should not belittle musharraf’s achievements lest they lose the degree of independence he has won for them. The former prime minister of pakistan nawaz sharif, head of the muslim league has called for musharraf’s resignation. "He is a one-man calamity and the source of all the problems. The country is burning."" (Quoted in Juan Cole ‘Nawaz: Musharraf Must Go’ http://www.juancole.com/2008_01_01_juancole_archive.html January 01, 2008). But musharraf is not the problem in pakistan. He has done much to protect his country from the bush regime which wanted him to relinquish pakistani influence over afghanistan and to crush al qaeda/taliban which would have devastated the tribal areas and boomeranged badly on the rest of pakistan. And he has protected the country from the jewish neocons who are as intent on destroying pakistan’s nuclear weapons as they were on destroying saddam’s, iran’s, and syria’s, non-existent nuclear weapons.

The priority for national sovereignty is not some optional extra. The difference between an independent country and one ruled by democratically elected leaders loyal to another country, the jews-only state in palestine, is fundamental. The jewish neocons would force their quislings in pakistan to attack al qaeda/taliban which would lead to a civil war between pushtuns and punjabis. This would unleash further ethnic tensions that could result in the break up of pakistan. It could even lead to increasing american military interventions in pakistan to protect american military facilities but, most importantly, to take control of pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

The Global struggle for National Independence against Global Jewish Imperialism.
The recommendation that the primary goal of pakistani politics should be the establishment of sovereignty over the country’s own affairs, rather than allowing jewish neocon imperialists to determine the country’s policies, should be applied to many other countries. Jewish neocons have usurped power not merely in pakistan but in america and the rest of the western world to name but a few. These countries need to liberate themselves from the jewish neocons who control their political systems and are trying to push them into world war three.

The best thing the american military can do for world peace is to piss off back to america and start laying seige to congress and the white house until it forces the jewish neocons to surrender. It can then put them on trial for treason against the american people and the american republic.

The Jewish Neocons have swopped Iran for Pakistan.
After the publication of america’s intelligence services’ report, the national intelligence estimate, that iran did not have a nuclear weapons’ programme, the prospects of the jewish neocons manipulating america into an attack/invasion of iran has receded. The death of benazir bhutto seemed like another huge setback for the jewish neocons because they lost a quisling who seemed willing to give them whatever they wanted. However, it quickly became a huge boost to their political objectives since it put pakistan’s nuclear weapons onto america’s political agenda. The jewish neocons opened up a new front in their pursuit of world war three: boosting american military involvement in pakistan. They are publicizing four main rationales for further american intervention in pakistan.

Protecting america’s military facilities in pakistan.
Protecting the american military’s supply lines through pakistan to afghanistan.
Crushing al quaeda/taliban, and,
Preventing moslem extremists from getting their hands on pakistan’s nuclear bombs.

The jewish neocons are already baying for an invasion of pakistan. "It is during a crisis that the establishment hoists its true colors for all to see. With few exceptions, the most prominent voices in politics and the news media are chanting in unison that Bhutto’s assassination proves that the United States needs to be more involved in Pakistan than it has been. What is so fascinating is how impervious the political and media establishments are to the lessons of reality. After all that’s happened, the dominant voices still insist that Bush redouble efforts to determine Pakistan’s future." (Sheldon Richman ‘Hands Off Pakistan’ http://www.fff.org/comment/com0801a.asp January 4, 2007).

The jewish neocons’ goal is to abolish or at the very least neutralize pakistan’s nuclear weapons, bring about the country’s partition into ethnic mini-states, and boost america’s military presence in these mini-states in preparation for an attack/invasion of iran. After the invasion of iraq, they’d hoped world war three would unfold from afghanistan to iraq, and then iran, followed by pakistan and the arab states. After bhutto’s assassination, they believe they might be able to take a shortcut to a war with pakistan which would enable them move against iran.(11)

Pakistan’s descent into a Nightmare is solely due to the Jewish Neocons.
The jewish neocons were hoping to use bhutto to edge musharraf out of power. Now that bhutto is no longer there to do this, the question is just how much they have politically wounded musharraf by forcing him to give up his post as the head of the pakistani military. "It is the military as an institution that delivers the goods, not individual generals. Musharraf has no legitimacy left since he discarded his uniform. Hence Bush's insistence that the elections go ahead despite a mass boycott, imprisoned judges, a neutered media, key politicians under house arrest and the public execution of Ms Bhutto." (Tariq Ali ‘The Dark Night is Far From Over: Pakistan: the Aftermath’ http://www.counterpunch.org/tariq12312007.html December 31, 2007). The jewish neocons wanted to get rid of him but he is one of the few politicians who is capable not merely of defying bush and the neocons but of balancing the various centrifugal forces within pakistan to maintain civility.

When musharaff was a military dictator he faced an almost impossible position. Since he became president its become an impossible situation. The pakistani military is the symbol and guarantor of national unity. "In fact, it would be the height of folly for Washington to try to create dissensions within the Pakistani army, which is the only institution that transcends the various templates of ethnic, regional, and religious differences that threaten the country's unity and integrity. As long as the army stays united, the Pakistani state has inherent stability and a fair chance of outliving the weaknesses of its civilian institutions, democratic elections or any of the fragilities associated with civil society." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Musharraf remains the US's best option’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IK17Df05.html November 17, 2007). But it opposes democracy. Pakistan’s middle classes, many with relatives in the west, want western style democracy. Many pakistanis want a nation-state like those in the west but increasing numbers of people with different ethnic backgrounds want independence from pakistan. Musharaff needs the taliban to promote pakistan’s national interests in afghanistan countering indian influence in that country. But the americans want him to wage a war against al qaeda/taliban. Pakistani military attacks in the tribal areas are provoking resistance from tribal leaders and what is fast becoming a pushtun mujahideen. The more that musharraf is forced to associate himself with american policies, and the more american attacks there are in pakistan’s tribal areas many of which miss their targets and end up killing innocent people, the more unpopular musharraf becomes and the greater the likelihood of a civil war. A civil war would cause ruptures within the pakistani military and bring about the country’s disintegration.

The americans argue they must take military action in the tribal areas of pakistan to stop al qaeda/taliban attacks from attacking nato forces in afghanistan. But the more they do so the more popular the pushtun mujahideen becomes requiring an even bigger american militarily intervention. Whilst it is in america’s national interests to get out of south east asia before they suffer even bigger political and military disasters, the jewish neocons within the bush regime insist on further american military adventures because of the huge benefits they bring to the jews-only state in palestine. Whilst the disintegration of pakistan would not be in america’s national interests, it would provide a huge benefit to jewish supremacism in the greater middle east. Given such complexities: "The idea that a sudden infusion of "democracy" is going to solve Pakistan's problems is a Western delusion that should have died a quick death in the sands of Iraq, and didn't." (Justin Raimondo ‘Panic Over Pakistan: Why precipitous intervention is not the answer’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12141 December 31, 2007).

Breaking up the War Mongering States.
This article has criticized the jewish neocons for seeking pakistan’s disintegration. It has to be suggested, however, that if pakistan dissolved into its ethnic constituencies this would not be anything like as devastating as might be thought. Although in the short term it might cause some bloodshed, in the longer term punjabis, pushtuns, baluchis, and shiites, might live more peacefully within their own states. When countries try to establish democracies they require, initially, a degree of ethnic homogeneity if they are to stand a good chance of survival. It is perfectly possible for mature democracies to become increasingly heterogeneous but in the beginning they need homogeneity to help consolidate stability. Pakistan has never been such a homogenous entity. The break up of pakistan into its ethnic components could create mini-states with sufficient homogeneity to enable them to establish and maintain functioning democracies. The break up of pakistan would not necessarily lead to chaos and ethnic wars. However, it would probably lead to the end of the pakistani bomb since it would be unlikely that any of the successor states would be wealthy enough to sustain such enormously expensive weapons over the long run.

This article is not recommending the break up of pakistan. On the contrary, what is being advocated here is the break up of america. For many decades the american constitution seemed strong enough to prevent america from lapsing into an empire but the jewish neocons, experts in constitutional gerrymandering, have shown this is no longer true. America’s pre-emptive and illegal war against vietnam was hugely destructive: far more so than the pre-emptive and illegal invasions of afghanistan and iraq. But it wasn’t being fought to enable america to set up an empire. However, this is precisely what the jewish neocons are intent on doing - but not for the benefit of america or the world but to increase the regional dominance of the jews only state in palestine.

The best way to prevent the jewish neocons from manipulating america into a third world to create a global empire is to break up america into its 50 states. The power of america’s ruling jewish elite cannot be curbed through political reforms of the federal state. It can be achieved only by abolishing the federal government.

This would not necessarily mean the end of freedom and democracy in the former united states. All of these states could adopt a miniature version of the american constitution. Indeed, americans might even be able to win back the freedoms they have had to sacrifice during the efforts made to establish a jewish led american empire. At the very least they would be better off because they would no longer be burdened by paying federal taxes. They would no longer have to fund america’s grossly bloated military nor an equally grossly bloated homeland security agency. America could break up as a consequence of the boomerang effects of the jewish neocons’ efforts to forge an american empire. But it would be better if americans abolished the federal state before the american empire grows too unwieldy and eventually collapses thereby devastating the country.

End Notes
(1) Alleged American Attacks on Pakistan.
Late 2004.
"(Baitullah) Mehsud was an unknown figure outside the movement until late 2004, when he rose in the ranks after the death of another Pakistani Taliban commander, Nek Mohammed, who was killed in a U.S. cross-border airstrike in South Waziristan." (Imtiaz Ali and Craig Whitlock ‘Taliban Commander Emerges As Pakistan's 'Biggest Problem'’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/09/AR2008010903400_pf.html January 10, 2008).

December 2005.
"In the past also, the military authorities have explained similar occurrences as a consequence of explosions accidentally caused by bomb-makers. One notable case of similar nature was the attack on a house a couple of years ago in which alleged al-Qaeda figure Hamza Rabia was killed along with some local tribesmen in a village near Mir Ali, also in North Waziristan. The government insisted on that occasion also that Hamza Rabia and the tribesmen were killed while making bombs but a tribal journalist, Hayatullah, proved it wrong by taking pictures of shrapnels of missiles fired by a US drone while attacking the al-Qaeda hideout. Hayatullah was soon afterwards abducted and his bullet-ridden body was found five months later." (Rahimullah Yusufzai & Mohammad Yasin ‘32 killed in attack on Waziristan Madrassa’ http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=8574 June 20, 2007); "In December 2005, al-Qaeda leader Hamza Rabia was killed by a CIA predator aircraft in the town of Mir Ali, North Waziristan." (Syed Saleem Shahzad ‘US to hunt the Taliban inside Pakistan’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IG03Df03.html July 03, 2007).

January 13, 2006.
After nightfall on Jan. 13, 2006, an unmanned Predator aircraft guided by the CIA fired missiles at two houses in the northwestern Pakistani village of Damadola, a few miles from the Afghan border. The target was a dinner celebrating the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha. CIA officials had received intelligence that Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's deputy leader, had been invited to attend. The missiles destroyed the houses and killed more than a dozen people. Zawahiri was not among them, but Pakistani officials soon said the fatalities included several other high-ranking al-Qaeda leaders. Musharraf identified one of the dead as Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, an Egyptian who had overseen al-Qaeda's research into chemical weapons and carried a $5 million U.S. government bounty on his head. Musharraf and other Pakistani officials said those buried in the rubble also included Abu Obaidah al-Masri, the Egyptian chief of the al-Qaeda military wing that plots attacks in the West; Khalid Habib, a field commander for al-Qaeda in Afghanistan; and Zawahiri's son-in-law, Abdul Rahman al-Maghribi. U.S. and Pakistani officials now say that none of those al-Qaeda leaders perished in the strike and that only local villagers were killed." (Craig Whitlock ‘The New Al-Qaeda Central’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090801845_pf.html September 9, 2007); "CIA drones tried to take out al-Qaeda No 2 Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri in January 2006 in Bajur Agency. Zawahiri survived, but 18 people died." (Syed Saleem Shahzad ‘US to hunt the Taliban inside Pakistan’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IG03Df03.html July 03, 2007); "The C.I.A. has launched missiles from Predator aircraft in the tribal areas several times, with varying degrees of success. Intelligence officials said they believed that in January 2006 an airstrike narrowly missed killing Mr. Zawahri, who had attended a dinner in Damadola, a Pakistani village. But that apparently was the last real evidence American officials had about the whereabouts of their chief targets." (Steven Lee Myers, David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt ‘U.S. Considers New Covert Push Within Pakistan’ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/washington/06terror.html?ex=1357275600&en=d2c610d29c92dd8d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all January 06, 2008).

June 2007.
"Last month, US Central Intelligence Agency drones targeted a madrassa in North Waziristan, and 20 people were killed." (Syed Saleem Shahzad ‘US to hunt the Taliban inside Pakistan’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IG03Df03.html July 03, 2007).

August 26, 2007.
US-led and Afghan troops struck Taliban posts inside Pakistan, which denied giving permission, as new clashes left more than 30 rebels dead and there were claims Sunday of civilian casualties. The US-led coalition said it received the go-ahead from Pakistan to strike across the border on Saturday, but this was rejected by the chief military spokesman in Islamabad. "There was no attack, no firing from our side of the border. And there was no permission asked by them or given by us," Major General Waheed Arshad said. US military spokeswoman, Captain Vanessa Bowman, insisted to AFP however that "this was fully coordinated with Pakistan and agreed on."" (‘Afghan forces strike Taliban inside Pakistan’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070826/wl_sthasia_afp/afghanistanusunrest_070826193341 August 26, 2007).

January 1, 2008.
"In the wake of last week's assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the Pakistan bureau chief of Asia Times is laying responsibility for the killing on a new and more radical splinter group of al-Qaeda. According to journalist Syed Saleem Shahzad, the United States retaliated against the head of that faction immediately following the attack on Bhutto: "This nest of takfiris and their intrigues was on the radar of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the day after Bhutto's killing Sheikh Essa was targeted by CIA Predator drones in his home in North Waziristan. According to Asia Times Online contacts, he survived, but was seriously wounded. Sheikh Essa had only recently recovered from a stroke which had left him bedridden."" (Muriel Kane ‘Report: Day after Bhutto assassination, US Predator targeted Islamist ideologue’ http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Report_Day_after_Bhutto_assassination_US_0101.html January 1, 2008).

(2) "The Pakistan army is half a million strong. Its tentacles are everywhere: land, industry, public utilities and so on. It would require a cataclysmic upheaval (a US invasion and occupation, for example) for this army to feel threatened by a jihadi uprising. Two considerations unite senior officers: the unity of the organisation and keeping politicians at bay." (Tariq Ali ‘Daughter of the West’ http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n24/ali_01_.html December 13, 2007).

(3) See also. "Consider the debate among four Democratic presidential candidates on ABC News last Saturday night. In the previous week, the price of a barrel of oil briefly touched $100, unemployment hit 5 percent, the stock market had the worst three-day start since the Great Depression, and the word "recession" was in the headlines and in the air. So when ABC debate moderator Charlie Gibson announced that the first 15-minute segment would be taken up with "what is generally agreed to be … the greatest threat to the United States today," what did you expect? As it happened, he was referring to "nuclear terrorism," specifically "a nuclear attack on an American city" by al-Qaeda (as well as how the future president would "retaliate"). In other words, Gibson launched his version of a national debate by focusing on a fictional, futuristic scenario, at this point farfetched, in which a Pakistani loose nuke would fall into the hands of al-Qaeda, be transported to the United States, perhaps picked up by well-trained al-Qaedan minions off the docks of Newark, and set off in the Big Apple. In this, though he was surely channeling Rudy Giuliani, he managed to catch the essence of what may be George W. Bush's major legacy to this country." (Tom Engelhardt ‘The $100 Barrel of Oil vs. the Global War on Terror: The Bush Legacy (Take Two)’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=12178 January 9, 2008); "The Pakistani senator gazed at the headline in despair. It read: "US weighs new covert push in Pakistan". Washington was authorising "enhanced CIA activity" in the country while US Democratic candidates declared they were all ready "to launch unilateral military strikes in [Pakistan] if they detected an imminent threat". Hillary Clinton wanted "joint US-UK oversight" of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. In a country where anti-Americanism is almost a religion, said the senator, this is "an answer to a Taliban prayer"." (Simon Jenkins ‘The west has not just repressed democracy. It has aided terror’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2237569,00.html January 9, 2008); "Obama, who provided some hope for change, undercut his support on the eve of the New Hampshire primary by declaring that he would invade Pakistan in order to protect America." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘No Escape from War and Unemployment’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01112008.html January 11, 2008).

(4) See for example. "In the past, the administration has largely stayed out of the tribal areas, in part for fear that exposure of any American-led operations there would so embarrass the Musharraf government that it could further empower his critics, who have declared he was too close to Washington. Even now, officials say, some American diplomats and military officials, as well as outside experts, argue that American-led military operations on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan could result in a tremendous backlash and ultimately do more harm than good. That is particularly true, they say, if Americans were captured or killed in the territory. Hasan Askari Rizvi, a leading Pakistani military and political analyst, said raids by American troops would prompt a powerful popular backlash against Mr. Musharraf and the United States. In the wake of the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, many Pakistanis suspect that the United States is trying to dominate Pakistan as well, Mr. Rizvi said. Mr. Musharraf, who is already widely unpopular, would lose even more popular support. "At the moment when Musharraf is extremely unpopular, he will face more crisis," Mr. Rizvi said. "This will weaken Musharraf in a Pakistani context." He said such raids would be seen as an overall vote of no confidence in the Pakistani military, including General Kayani." (Steven Lee Myers, David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt ‘U.S. Considers New Covert Push Within Pakistan’ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/washington/06terror.html?ex=1357275600&en=d2c610d29c92dd8d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all January 06, 2008).

(5) There are a couple of alternative suggestions as to who authored the choreography.
John Negroponte and Gordon Brown.
"The single, strong parent in this case was a desperate State Department, with John Negroponte as the ghoulish go-between and Gordon Brown as the blushing bridesmaid, fearful that if it did not push this through both parties might soon be too old for recycling." (Tariq Ali ‘Daughter of the West’ http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n24/ali_01_.html December 13, 2007).

Condoleeza Rice.
"The NYT reported that US Secretary of State Condi Rice tried to fix Musharraf's subsequent dwindling legitimacy by arranging for Benazir to return to Pakistan to run for prime minister, with Musharraf agreeing to resign from the military and become a civilian president. When the supreme court seemed likely to interfere with his remaining president, he arrested the justices, dismissed them, and replaced them with more pliant jurists. This move threatened to scuttle the Rice Plan, since Benazir now faced the prospect of serving a dictator as his grand vizier, rather than being a proper prime minister. With Benazir's assassination, the Rice Plan is in tatters and Bush administration policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan is tottering." (Juan Cole ‘Pakistan's 2007 Crises Come to a Crescendo; Benazir Assassinated: Implications for US Security’ http://www.juancole.com/2007_12_01_juanricole_archive.html December 27, 2007).

(6) After the first bomb attack on bhutto after her return to pakistan, akbar ahmed, the former pakistani ambassador to britain, seem to encapsulate musharraf’s exasperation over his enforced participation in this neocon charade. "Ahmed said Musharraf, who is waiting to see if the Supreme Court confirm his eligibility as president, will most likely take this opportunity to strengthen his position. "He will say, 'I told you so, He will tell Washington I told you so. He will tell Benazir Bhutto I told you so. This is not the time for you to come back, stay out let me handle the administration, let me be the strong man,' " Ahmed said. Officials had warned Bhutto to delay her return because there were reports that some "extremist elements were bent on hurting her, because she was seen as coming with an American agenda," said Tariq Azim Khan, Pakistan's information minister." (Blasts confirm instability, polarization in Pakistan’ http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/10/18/pakistan.analysis/index.html?section=cnn_latest October 18, 2007).

(7) Most commentators are of the opinion that the jewish neocons’ constitutional tango was designed to create a long term, power sharing, arrangement between musharraf and bhutto.

Bush always supported Musharraf.
One of the key pieces of evidence indicating that the bush regime’s goal was a power sharing arrangement was that bush continually supported musharraf. "Although some officials and experts have criticized Mr. Musharraf and questioned his ability to take on extremists, Mr. Bush has remained steadfast in his support, and it is unlikely any new measures, including direct American military action inside Pakistan, will be approved without Mr. Musharraf’s consent. "He understands clearly the risks of dealing with extremists and terrorists," Mr. Bush said in an interview with Reuters on Thursday. "After all, they’ve tried to kill him."" (Steven Lee Myers, David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt ‘U.S. Considers New Covert Push Within Pakistan’ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/washington/06terror.html?ex=1357275600&en=d2c610d29c92dd8d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all January 06, 2008).

Bush’s show of understanding for musharraf’s predicament is solely public relations given that a few years earlier his regime had threatened to nuke pakistan if it did not do what america wanted! Bush had no other option but to publicly support musharraf, whilst surreptitiously seeking to replace him, because of the damaging political repercussions of being seen to dictate to a country who its leader ought to be.

F William Engdahl.
F william engdahl has proposed that bhutto’s role was to provide musharraf with an element of democratic credibility. "The ploy was to have Bhutto make a face-saving deal with Musharraf to put a democratic face on the dictatorship, while Washington maintained its strategic control. According to the Washington Post of December 28, "For Benazir Bhutto, the decision to return to Pakistan was sealed during a telephone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just a week before Bhutto flew home in October. The call culminated more than a year of secret diplomacy, and came only when it became clear that the heir to Pakistan's most powerful political dynasty was the only one who could bail out Washington's key ally in the battle against terrorism ... As President Pervez Musharraf's political future began to unravel this year, Bhutto became the only politician who might help keep him in power."" (F William Engdahl ‘Back to business in Pakistan’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA05Df01.html January 05, 2008).

This hypothesis doesn’t make sense. Why would the neocons want bhutto, a jewish puppet, to share power with someone who had repeatedly defied their demands?

Putting pressure on Musharraf to do as he was told.
F william engdahl has also proposed that dick cheney was using the threat of bhutto’s re-election as a means of putting political pressure on musharraf to accept american troops in pakistan. "Informed intelligence sources claim a cynical deal was cut behind the scenes between Washington and Musharraf. Musharraf is known to be Cheney's preferred partner and Cheney is said to be the sole person running US-Pakistan policy today. In terms of this, were Musharraf to agree to the stationing of US special forces inside Pakistan, "Plan B", the democratic farce with Bhutto, could be put aside in favor of the continued Musharraf sole rule. Washington would "turn a blind eye"." (F William Engdahl ‘Back to business in Pakistan’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA05Df01.html January 05, 2008).

Once again, why would bush or cheney want musharraf, an unreliable puppet, when they could have the bhutto, the reliable puppet? Time will tell whether musharraf will finally allow american forces to be stationed in pakistan. If this does not happen then such an analysis of musharraf will prove to be false.

Gordon Prather.
Gordon prather presents the odd thesis that musharraf was so much of a bush puppet that bush had to force him out of office! "Well, you can imagine how that outrageous public threat by Bush against the top military man in Pakistan to "shape up or ship out" played all across Pakistan. When President/General Musharraf, already widely considered to be a Bush puppet, couldn't deal with our "problem" to Bush's satisfaction, he was essentially forced by Bush to resign as Pakistan's army chief of staff. Then, at least partially as a result of pressure by congressional Democrats and the impose-democracy-on-the-world crowd, President Bush essentially forced President Musharraf, now even more widely considered to be a Bush puppet, to schedule "free" elections for January 2008 and work out some sort of power-sharing arrangement with former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto." (Gordon Prather ‘Special Forces on Standby’ http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=12158 January 5, 2008).

It seems a little contradictory that bush should want to depose a military leader who was allegedly such a good american puppet. This thesis seems even less plausible given that other jewish quislings had often clung onto power without being removed. Blair had clung on to power in britain for years despite his increasing unpopularity and siniora has also remained in power in lebanon despite massive demonstrations against his government by nearly a third of the country! The jewish neocons aren’t in the slightest bit bothered about how unpopular their quislings are as long as they’re in power pulling the levers of power.

Whilst much of pakistani public opinion has turned against musharraf because he was deemed to be bush’s puppet he was not hated to such an extent that he seemed likely to be overthrown. It was not the pakistani public that wanted musharraf out of the way, it was the jewish neocons. It should also be pointed out that if the pakistani public was turning against bush’s puppets then, given that objectively bhutto was far more of a puppet than musharraf, why would they support her rather than him? The only reasonable explanation for what the bush regime was trying to do in pakistan was that it wanted to get rid of musharraf because he wasn’t enough of a puppet.

Mahnaz Ispahani.
"Even in October 2007, when Bhutto was sent back to Pakistan with the Bush administration imprimatur, the U.S. intention was not to help strengthen a moderate civilian political constituency but rather to use Bhutto's electoral potential to prop up a dictator in decline. Bhutto was little more than yet another transitional strategy to provide life support for Musharraf, a leader who, some $10 billion in aid later, has proved himself an inept ally. Bhutto took what she could get from the United States and went home. In her brief time there, and unlike her political counterparts, she spoke out daily against the evils of extremism, about who is truly a Muslim. Knowing the risks she took, she kept her eye on the prize: freedom for Pakistan from the shackles both of soldiers and religious zealots—and, of course, a bit of glory for the Bhuttos." (Mahnaz Ispahani ‘The Lessons of Benazir Bhutto: Crafting a better Pakistan policy by studying her achievements’ http://www.slate.com/id/2181459/ January 07, 2008).

The absurdity of ispahani’s analysis becomes clear when he then goes on to argue that the united states government (i.e. the jewish neocons) should provide financial support to foster the growth of democracy in pakistan. "Any attempt at a civilian Pakistani future will require external support. To help a legitimate civilian government in Pakistan, the United States and its allies should send a clear message to Musharraf that he must not seek to dismember the PPP as it regroups after the death of its leader. They should also promise a prompt infusion of U.S. aid: $2.5 billion for starters, just a quarter of what Musharraf has reportedly got, to be used solely for social and economic development, dollars that would directly assist the voting public. The United States never offered such significant economic support to civilian political parties when they were in power. For moral and strategic reasons, it must do so if Pakistan is to be secured." (Mahnaz Ispahani ‘The Lessons of Benazir Bhutto: Crafting a better Pakistan policy by studying her achievements’ http://www.slate.com/id/2181459/ January 07, 2008). The neocons only foster democratic movements intended to provide them with political power.

China Hand.
"First, the U.S. is openly committing to keeping Musharraf in power. We are allying with the most despised political force in Pakistan." (China Hand ‘Dumbageddon: Bush's Delusional Policy Pushes Pakistan to Brink of Catastrophe’ http://www.counterpunch.org/china01102008.html January 10, 2008).

(8) See also. "Pakistan has made clear it will not tolerate a US military operation against Osama bin Laden or other al-Qa'ida targets inside its territory, as Washington continues to push President Pervez Musharraf to do more to confront militants." (Andrew Buncombe ‘Pakistan warns US not to send troops after al-Qa'ida’ http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2798524.ece July 25, 2007); "President Pervez Musharraf put the United States in the middle of Pakistan's presidential campaign yesterday, saying that if re-elected he would not allow U.S. forces to attack terrorist targets inside Pakistan. Gen. Musharraf's statement came after exiled opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, his leading political rival, said she would permit such attacks under certain circumstances." (Willis Witter ‘Musharraf to bar U.S. in Pakistan’ http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071004/FOREIGN/110040028/1003 October 4, 2007); "President Pervez Musharraf warned that U.S. troops would be regarded as invaders if they crossed into Pakistan's border region with Afghanistan in the hunt for al-Qaida or Taliban militants, according to an interview published Friday. Musharraf, whose popularity has plummeted amid a surge in extremist attacks in recent months, also told Singapore's The Straits Times that he would resign if opposition parties tried to impeach him following next month's parliamentary elections. "If they come without our permission, that's against the sovereignty of Pakistan. I challenge anybody coming into our mountains," he said in the interview in the garrison city of Rawalpindi. "They would regret that day."" (‘Musharraf cautions US on tactics’ http://www.kansascity.com/451/story/439879.html January 10, 2008).

(9) Simon jenkins’ portrait of musharraf is far too harsh. "But there is nothing in this man's track record to suggest that he is not a paid-up member of the dictatoring classes. His agents treat democrats with contempt and he funnels huge sums into his pockets and those of his generals. About 80% of US aid to Pakistan since Musharraf came to power has gone on military assistance, less than a quarter of it used even remotely against the Taliban. The virtual collapse of the state school system has followed a fall in education spending from 4% to 1.8% of GDP, one of the lowest in Asia. In its place have mushroomed the free madrasas, from a few hundred to over 10,000, financed by Wahhabist Saudi money and formerly in league with American-financed mujahideen training camps. Intended to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, they have since become a network of "faith training" for the poor, teaching little but the Qur'an. This is Musharraf's (and America's) most lethal bequest to Pakistan's political economy." (Simon Jenkins ‘The west has not just repressed democracy. It has aided terror’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2237569,00.html January 9, 2008).

It wasn’t musharraf’s fault that american aid went to the pakistani military. The americans gave the aid to fight the so-called ‘war against terrorism’. It is highly unlikely the country would have got any american aid if it had not been pursuing jewish american military objectives. It is true that pakistan’s state education system has nearly collapsed but the reason for this is that musharraf has allowed the saudis to fund education in pakistan. This is an important part of his islamization policy. However, musharraf has acted cleverly to boost general prosperity in pakistan by encouraging the chinese to carry out development work in the country. This is work which the americans would never have funded. The pakistani economy has grown significantly because of development work being carried out by china – for which see later. It is also possible that if bhutto had got back in power she would have booted the chinese out of pakistan in order to satisfy america’s imperial demands and this would have severely damaged general prosperity in pakistan.

(10) See also. "This might look like the finest hour in the foreign-policy record of the George W Bush administration. Officials from Washington are camping in the leafy US Embassy compound in Islamabad, painstakingly putting together a new power structure for Pakistan. What is unfolding in Pakistan could have been enacted in any of the banana republics in Latin America in which US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte served as ambassador in the Cold War. Yet regional powers show no interest in taking note of the enormous groundswell of Pakistani public opinion desperately desiring a "regime change" in their hapless country. The regional powers are inclined to accept that democracy should take a back seat in the current circumstances in the overall interest of "regional stability". They are disinclined to react to the highly intrusive role being played by the United States, with potentially catastrophic consequences." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Deep flaws in Afghan peace drive’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/II15Df01.html September 15, 2007).

(11) One of the ironies of this new political development is that the head of america’s central command, william fallon, played a critical role in preventing the jewish neocons from manipulating the bush regime into an attack on iran because he believed pakistan was a much bigger strategic threat than iran.

Fallon made his opposition to a war against iran known from the start and regarded the neocons with contempt. "Fallon's refusal to support a further naval buildup in the Gulf reflected his firm opposition to an attack on Iran and an apparent readiness to put his career on the line to prevent it. A source who met privately with Fallon around the time of his confirmation hearing and who insists on anonymity quoted Fallon as saying that an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch". Asked how he could be sure, the source says, Fallon replied, "You know what choices I have. I'm a professional." Fallon said that he was not alone, according to the source, adding, "There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box." (Gareth Porter ‘Commander's Veto Sank Threatening Gulf Buildup’ http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=37738 May 15, 2007). And yet his concerns regarding pakistan may unleash the devils he had so successfully contained. "The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. "He is very focused on Pakistan," said a source familiar with Fallon's thinking, "and trying to maintain a difficult status quo with Iran." By the time Fallon took command of CENTCOM in March, Pakistan had become the main safe haven for Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda to plan and carry out its worldwide operations, as well as being an extremely unstable state with both nuclear weapons and the world's largest population of Islamic extremists." (Gareth Porter ‘Superior Derided Petraeus as Suck-Up, Opposed the Surge’ http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=11606 September 13, 2007).