Military offers itself for accountability

Their actions would speak louder than their words.
http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/14/military-offers-itself-for-accountability-isi-admits-intelligence-failure-shamsi-base-under-uae-control-used-for-drone-spy-flights.html

By Amir Wasim and Iftikhar A. Khan | From the Newspaper (4 hours ago) Today
Security personnel standing alert outside the Parliament House during the In-Camera session of the Parliament House regarding the Abbottabad fiasco on Friday. – Online Photo

ISLAMABAD: In an unprecedented move, the country’s military offered itself to parliament on Friday for accountability over the intelligence failure and deficiencies that came to light in the wake of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden’s killing in a covert US commando raid in Abbottabad.

In an in camera briefing to a joint session of the two houses of parliament, top military officials admitted intelligence failure in not being able to locate the world’s most wanted fugitive taking up residence in Abbottabad for about five years and inability of Pakistani radars to track four US helicopters that carried out the May 2 operation, according to participants of the joint session.

It was the first time in Pakistan’s history that the military, which has ruled the country for more than half of 64 years of its life, came out with an open admission of failures and offered itself for accountability by parliament or any other forum.

After attending more than five hours’ briefing, several parliamentarians, from both opposition and treasury benches, told the media that the Director General of the Inter-Services Intelligence, Lt-Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha, even offered to resign if the parliament so wished. “I am a disciplined person. I do not want to stay glued to the office and will accept any decision taken by parliament and the government,” one PML-Q legislator quoted the ISI chief as telling the session which, besides Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, was also attended by all services chiefs.

A PML-Q MNA, Riaz Fatyana, told reporters outside the Parliament House that the military establishment had said it was ready to face any commission formed by parliament to probe the Abbottabad incident. He said the top military officials assured lawmakers that they were ready to act in line with the government’s decisions.

While the briefing was still in progress, Information Minister Firdous Ashiq Awan also came out of the chamber to divulge details of the proceedings to state-run and private television channels. She said the ISI DG had “surrendered” himself to parliament.

She said the military officials had reassured the lawmakers that the country’s nuclear assets were safe and fully protected. The armed forces were capable of defending the country’s frontiers, the minister quoted the officials as saying.

Firdous Awan quoted the ISI chief as saying there was no “intentional negligence” on the part of his organisation and that police and civilian agencies were also responsible for the intelligence failure.

She said General Pasha told the session he was prepared to present himself for accountability “before parliament or any other forum”. According to her, parliament was told that US authorities had kept Pakistani military authorities in “complete dark” and provided no prior information about their action in Abbottabad.

She said Gen Pasha highlighted the ISI’s achievements in the war against terror, saying it had “broken” Al Qaeda’s network by killing and arresting a number of its key operatives and that while elimination of Osama bin Laden was a common objective, the unilateral action by US Navy Seals commandos was “a clear breach of the country’s sovereignty”.

The minister also quoted the ISI chief as calling for revisiting Pakistan’s relationship with the US in the aftermath of the May 2 operation and that anti-state forces were hell-bent to create a cleavage between the military and civilian leadership.

Ms Awan quoted the Deputy Chief of Air Staff (operations), Air Marshal Mohammad Hassan, as telling the session that the American special forces used “stealth technology” during the operation. The technology allows helicopters to fly low and evade detection by radars. The radars were functioning smoothly on the day, he added.

According to a PPP MNA, who did not want to be named, military officials disclosed that the army chief had ordered shooting down the US helicopters, but by the time the PAF planes came into action, the helicopters were beyond the Pakistan airspace.

The session was informed that the US forces had kept jet fighters ready in Afghanistan to counter any Pakistani retaliation besides two of the four helicopters that took part in the operation — flying only about 35 metres above the ground — staying back in Kala Dhaka, to the northwest of Abbottabad.

The PPP MNA quoted General Pasha as saying that during his recent visit to the United States he had developed differences with Central Intelligence Agency chief Leon Panetta when he refused Mr Panetta’s request for permission to carry out covert operations in Pakistan.

According to the MNA, the ISI DG also expressed concern over what he called excessive issuance of visas to foreigners, saying that the ISI had some objections against some visitors.

The deputy chief of air staff told the house, according to the MNA, that drones used for spying flew from Shamsi airbase in Balochistan, while those carrying out missile attacks took off from Afghanistan and that the Shamsi airbase had been under the control of the UAE, and not of the PAF, since the 1990s.

A couple of PPP and PML-Q legislators quoted Chief of the Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Suleyman as saying the PAF was capable of shooting down drones and could do it if ordered by the government.

According to them, PML-N MNA Tehmina Daultana started a fiery speech at the outset of the briefing, targeting the ISI and the army for what she called their political role and asked the ISI chief to resign from office.

She was countered by PML-Q MNA Shahnaz Sheikh, who praised the army for its role in the war on terror, before both were asked to stop such exchanges by Acting Speaker of the National Assembly Faisal Karim Kundi.

Mr Kundi chaired the session in the absence of both Speaker Fehmida Mirza and Senate Chairman Farooq H. Naek. Mr Naek was acting as president while President Asif Ali Zardari was on a visit to Russia.

One PPP MNA said members of the treasury benches had been asked by PPP chief whip and Religious Affairs Minister Khursheed Ahmed Shah not to ask too many questions to avoid giving an opportunity to the opposition.

The briefing was also attended by the chief ministers of Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan and Gilgit-Baltistan and the Azad Kashmir prime minister.

PROTEST: Hundreds of activists of the Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaaf held a demonstration in the parade ground in front of the Parliament House in protest against the holding of in camera briefing. They chanted slogans and asked the president and the prime minister to resign for what they called their failure to protect national sovereignty.

Re: Military offers itself for accountability

The question is, would army punish those found guilty by “civilians”? but if civilians are not obeying law (govt not acting on SC orders) then what to expect of army :bummer:

Re: Military offers itself for accountability

Something beautiful happening in Pakistan. Long may it continue.

Re: Military offers itself for accountability

It should'nt been done in Pakistan , USA is palying game with us ! :@

Re: Military offers itself for accountability

what is our army , they came Shot OSAMA n went back and our politicians are saying we did know when n what hapened :>?? how can it be ?

Re: Military offers itself for accountability

Army has tried once again to awaken the ghairat brigade in the parliament. The need of the hour is to awaken the brains of Pakistani nation.

The News International: Latest News Breaking, World, Entertainment, Royal News or overhaul?**

Babar Sattar
Saturday, May 14, 2011

The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad.

Nawaz Sharif has sought the constitution of a high profile judicial commission to inquire into events surrounding the Osama bin Laden fiasco. This demand is reasoned, unobjectionable and a welcome departure from the grimy politics of our bedevilled democracy. If regime change was its paramount priority, the PML-N could have resorted to petty opportunism by laying the entire blame of the embarrassing and embittering events of May 2 squarely on the ruling PPP. Having declared to be in control of the ISI and unwilling to question khakis over Osama’s presence in Pakistan or the Americans over their unilateral military operation inside Pakistan, the PPP could easily be made the exclusive target of our nation’s outrage over proliferating terror networks within Pakistan and our tattered sovereignty.

The PML-N has not just done the Zardari regime another favour; it has also done the right thing. It is inexplicable why our ruling civil and military leadership is unable to grasp the magnitude of damage inflicted on Pakistan’s security, credibility, image and claims of defence preparedness by the Bin Laden catastrophe. Can it not comprehend that this epochal event cannot simply be brushed under the carpet? Even if we didn’t know of his presence, why did the world’s most wanted terrorist elect to make Pakistan his home? Why do all terror trails find their way to our country? Why have we been unable to make any progress in documenting the identity of our nationals and acquiring control over cross-border movement? Why are people in a country that has lost 30,000 civilians and 5,000 soldiers to terror grieving the death of the terror kingpin? Has our twisted security policy not transformed Pakistan into one big contradiction?

The Bin Laden incident has placed us at the crossroads yet again. We can respond with denial and jingoism and consequently dig deeper the hole we find ourselves in. Or we can stop lying to each other and ourselves, disclose all related facts leading up to the May 2 incident with candour and responsibility, let individuals be held to account for their failings, and use the opportunity to revisit our security mind-set, overhaul our security policy and policy making mechanism. In this context, a non-partisan commission revealing the truth can serve as a necessary first step. But offering policy advice on national security, counter terrorism and foreign policy would fall beyond the mandate and expertise of a judicial commission. Once the facts are out, we will still need a high-powered bipartisan policy commission to review and overhaul our security mind-set, policy and policy-making mechanisms that caused the Bin Laden debacle and the many before it.

Let us get the nonsense about patriotism and ‘sticking by our institutions’ out of the way first. Is sticking by a corrupt government patriotic? Should we have celebrated the Dogar court or Musharraf’s rubber-stamp parliament as our token of love for Pakistan? How would unquestioning and unconditional support for everything the khaki leadership does promote Pakistan’s national interest? Are these not mortal men capable of making mistakes? Should they have a monopoly over the definition of national interest and patriotism? And how does holding the khaki high command to account for its acts, omissions and choices translate into lack of gratitude for the soldiers who stake and lose their lives in the line of duty and are the frontline victims of bad policy choices?

Was it not the self-serving use of the term patriotism that Samuel Johnson described as the “last refuge of the scoundrel”? Does our national security doctrine not affect the rest of us on an everyday basis and impinge on the most fundamental of our constitutionally guaranteed rights? Does it not impact everyone wearing a Pakistani identity for becoming an object of suspicion around the globe? The definition of patriotism that confers on our khaki high command the status of a holy cow is also a product of the same mindset that led to the dismemberment of Pakistan, contrived the jihadi project, manufactured the doctrine of strategic depth, gave us Kargil and is still at ease with preserving militants as strategic assets. Clemenceau was probably not being facetious when he declared that, “war was too important to be left to generals.”

We need a new concept of national security that focuses on maximising the security of Pakistani citizens. This will not happen by laying bare the facts of the Bin Laden incident alone. We will also need to review Pakistan’s counter-terrorism policy, security and foreign policy especially vis-à-vis Afghanistan and India, and Pakistan’s relationship with the United States. Can we preach respect for sovereignty if we are unable to account for who lives in Pakistan, control cross-border movement of men, arms and money or ensure that our territory is not used as sanctuary to plot attacks on other nations? After being in the throes of violence for over a decade now, why do we still lack a comprehensive counter-terrorism policy? Why is being a proscribed militant organisation in Pakistan of no legal consequence? Why is our criminal justice system failing to prosecute and convict terrorists?

What is the nature of our interest in the future of Afghanistan? We don’t want hostile neighbours on the eastern and the western borders. We don’t want growing Indian influence within Afghanistan. We don’t want the US to have a permanent footprint in our neighbourhood. We don’t want the US war to succeed in a manner that results in a permanent anti-Pakistan Northern Alliance dominated government in Afghanistan. We don’t want to betray the Afghan Taliban who have genuine following and might assume control of Afghan provinces bordering Pakistan once the US withdraws, and consequently face reprisals with them actively joining hands with Pakistan’s TTP and fuelling anarchy in our country. These are legitimate interests and concerns. Why can we not articulate them instead of resorting to hypocrisy?

Are we unaware of militant organisations flourishing in Pakistan, or are we being coy? Will we view the Osama bin Laden incident as another minor blow to the jihadi project or are we going to realise that the use of jihadis as strategic assets is history and it is time to liquidate them? Has anyone calculated the intangible cost of this misconceived project and the damage inflicted on the country and its citizens through the spread of intolerance, bigotry, arms and violence? Are we cognisant of the disastrous consequences that another Mumbai could inflict on the interests of Pakistan and its citizens? Will we have a stronger bargaining position in resolving our disputes with India if we have a strong polity, a stable economy, credibility and international support or if we possess surreptitious jihadis as strategic weapons?

And what are all the secret military deals we have cut with the US? Did Senator Dianne Feinstein, Chairman US Senate Intelligence Committee, not wonder what was all the fuss about the drone attacks when they were flying out of a Pakistani base? Did Lt General Shahid Aziz, former chief of general staff, not reveal that General Musharraf handed control of the Jacobabad base (and also Pasni) to the US? Do actions of our civilian and military leaders not bear out accounts from Wikileaks and the Guardian that they had agreed to privately allow and publicly condemn drone strikes and the unilateral US military action against Bin Laden? Do these secret deals serve Pakistan’s national security interests? Are they justifiable under law?

Neither hypocrisy nor a facelift will redeem Pakistan after the Osama fiasco. We need to come clean and use this as an opportunity to overhaul our security policy and policy-making mechanism. We have skeletons in our closet. It is time to drag them out, confront them and bury them for good.

Email: [email protected]

Re: Military offers itself for accountability

they were not held accountable by the government +

they chose to admit because the public was getting vocal about their failure +

no word of changes.

= political stunt

Re: Military offers itself for accountability

Berating General Pasha: Pakistan’s Spy Chief Gets a Tongue-Lashing

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2071412,00.html#ixzz1MLhcNLNF

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2071412,00.html

The head of Pakistan’s powerful Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) offered his resignation to the country’s prime minister on Friday as he sought to defend the role of the spy agency. Lieut. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the ISI chief, conceded that Osama bin Laden’s presence in Pakistan had been an “intelligence failure” and that he was prepared to step down and submit himself to any scrutiny, parliamentarians from both government and opposition parties told TIME on condition of anonymity. Gen. Pasha was speaking at a rare, closed-door briefing to Pakistan’s parliament where the lawmakers swore an oath not to reveal details discussed.
“I present myself to the Prime Minister for any punishment and am willing to appear before any commission personally,” Gen. Pasha said, according to the parliamentarians who spoke to TIME. “But I will not allow the ISI, as an institution, or its employees, to be targeted.” According to those present, the general offered his resignation to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, but it was neither accepted nor openly declined. “He did offer to resign, but there was no reaction,” a parliamentarian tells TIME. During the briefing, the spymaster was subject to rare and fierce criticism from opposition lawmakers. Pasha is serving the final year of a two-year extension as ISI chief. He was appointed by, and remains close to, Army Chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. Sources close to the military told TIME that Gen. Pasha had offered Gen. Kayani his resignation before the corps commanders’ meeting at military headquarters on May 5, but the army chief declined to accept it.
(See pictures of Osama bin Laden’s Pakistan hideout.)
The ISI has been subject to rare public criticism and scrutiny since the U.S. Navy Seal raid on Osama bin Laden’s hiding place, in a compound in the Pakistani garrison town of Abbottabad. The revelation that he had been hiding in plain sight has been a source of deep embarrassment for many Pakistanis, with some calling for “heads to roll.” The failure to locate him, and the unilateral U.S. decision to capture and kill him, has set off allegations of complicity or incompetence. While no evidence has emerged of Pakistan hiding bin Laden, the country’s military leadership has struggled to respond to the crisis as tensions have risen with the U.S.
In what lawmakers present described as an emotional speech, Gen. Pasha determinedly pushed back against suggestions that the ISI could have had any role in hiding Bin Laden. “If we had shielded Osama bin Laden, why would we have killed and arrested so many al-Qaeda leaders?” he asked with discernible indignation, according to parliamentarians. “Would we have hidden such a large target in such an exposed area? Without any guards or escape route? Our job is safeguarding the country.” The CIA, Gen. Pasha said, did not share intelligence with the ISI in the lead up to the raid.
(See pictures of the battle against the Taliban.)
The enduring threat posed by militants linked to al-Qaeda was on brutal display earlier in the day when two suicide bombers attacked recruits from the Frontier Constabulary paramilitary force at their training center in the volatile northwest. At least 80 people were killed, just as the recruits, who had graduated a day before, were preparing to board vans and head home for leave. The attack, which was claimed by the Pakistani Taliban, was the first retaliation in the country for the slaying of bin Laden. The Pakistani security forces were being targeted, the Pakistani Taliban claimed, because they had failed to protect the country from the U.S.
During the closed-door briefing in parliament, Pasha vented his own frustration at the U.S. “We are at a point in our history,” he said, according to two parliamentarians, “where we have to decide whether to stand up to America now or have [following] generations come to deride us.” His American counterparts see Gen. Pasha as partial to recalcitrance. One senior western diplomat in Islamabad describes Pakistani spy chief as “intense,” especially in comparison to his army chief. Kayani was also at the briefing, but remained characteristically quiet throughout.
(See why America is stuck with Pakistan.)
Relations between the ISI and the CIA have been in decline since December 2010, when the U.S. spy agency’s Islamabad station chief was forced to leave after his identity was exposed. At the time the CIA alleged that the ISI was responsible for leaking the station chief’s name, in retaliation for Pasha being named in a New York City case involving victims of the 2008 Mumbai massacre. Tensions rose further during the six-week standoff over Raymond Davis, a CIA contractor who had been held in Pakistan for killing two Pakistani men in February.
During an exclusive interview with TIME on Wednesday, Prime Minister Gilani said that he could see “no level of trust” between the CIA and the ISI. Gen. Pasha reinforced the observation at the briefing, when he recalled his last meeting with CIA chief Leon Panetta in April, a fortnight before the Bin Laden raid. At that meeting, Pasha said, he had told Panetta that arrangements between the U.S. and Pakistan were all unwritten, and that he had said such a situation could not go on any longer.
(See “The bin Laden Raid: Pakistan Feels the Heat of U.S. Mistrust.”)
Pasha was the third military leader to speak before the lawmakers, and the only one not in uniform. At the start of his speech, the general, though he conceded intelligence failure, passionately defended the ISI. He argued that the U.S., U.K. and India did not ridicule their intelligence agencies after 9/11, the 2005 London subway bombings and the 2008 Mumbai massacre. In those countries, retorted Senator Pervez Rashid of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s opposition party, there is no history of military takeovers, a not unsubtle hint to the primacy of the armed forces in Pakistani politics. “There was no response from Pasha,” says a parliamentarian.
Perhaps the most popular intervention came from Javed Hashmi, a veteran from the southern Punjabi city of Multan. “We are with you,” Hashmi, who served five years in prison on trumped up charges of “subversion” against the military. “We know that you have lots of responsibilities. How about you give some of them back to us?” The light-hearted remark aroused smirks on both sides of parliament, and led to loud, desk-thumping approval.
See a video of where the U.S. goes from here.
See TIME’s complete coverage of Osama bin Laden.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2071412,00.html#ixzz1MLhVp48L

Re: Military offers itself for accountability

Yes, and you do realize Musharraf, who was the COAS from 1999 to just recently would be the one made accountable.

Re: Military offers itself for accountability

And it’s amazing how only a handful of politicians dared to speak out against the ISI and Army’s incompetence in their own Parliament. It was only Tahmina Daultana and Opposition Leader Chaudhry Nisar, while some of the new recruits in the Govt, the PML[Q] ppl were saying how they would cut the tongue of people questioning the army. Shameful indeed.

**ISLAMABAD: ** Though it was a lingering concern, it still seemed unexpected. The chief of the country’s premier intelligence agency was greeted with taunts right from the moment he rose to brief an incredibly tense special joint sitting of Parliament.

Aside from a barrage of questions, many, including the spymaster himself, must have known it wasn’t going to be easy.
And it wasn’t.
However, the proceedings proved to be more charged than even the most adventurous of estimates – even resulting in verbal clashes between the politicians themselves.
Director-General of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Ahmad Shuja Pasha was at the rostrum, just about to begin his briefing, according to sources present, when MNA Tehmina Doultana rose from her seat and unleashed a tirade against the armed forces.
In her fiery, and strong-worded, remarks, Doultana, a legislator from the Pakistan Mulsim League-Nawaz (PML-N), shouted that the Pakistan Army had been conquering only its own country and people, and in that process had, itself, played havoc with the country’s sovereignty. Those present, including the DG ISI, seemed shell-shocked.
Doultana thundered that the unilateral US operation to find and kill Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil, in a major urban centre without the knowledge of Pakistan’s armed forces, had established the “inefficiency and in competency of the establishment.”
However, said sources inside, after the initial shock wore down, another legislator, Senator Gulshan Saeed, from the Pakistan Muslim League Quaid (PML-Q), launched a counter tirade – threatening to cut the tongues of those who uttered “blasphemous” remarks against the military establishment.
It was left to Deputy Speaker Faisal Kundi, who was presiding over the joint sitting of the parliament, to bring the situation under control so that the ISI chief could start his briefing.
But the hiccups at the start were not to be the only turbulence during the session.
Later, another heated exchange took place between Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan and the chief of PML-Q Senator Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain.
As the question and answer session began, Nisar got up from his seat and launched into a hard-hitting speech – typical of the fiery leader of the opposition in recent sessions.
But a bitter rival, Chaudhry Shujaat, got up to complain to the deputy speaker that speeches were not on the agenda, as agreed to by all parties attending the session. He taunted Nisar, saying that, instead of questioning the military leadership, the PML-N leader wanted to deliver a speech.
Nisar shot back by telling the speaker that he was not surprised by the intervention of Shujaat, who, he said, had just entered into a marriage of political expedience with the ruling PPP to get his share of the ‘plunder’.
The military top brass, meanwhile, continued to await questions as the exchange continued. But when the questions came, they were tough.
Osama was already ‘dead’
Also causing a stir in the session was Lt Gen Pasha’s comment that Bin Laden was already a “dead man” when the US got to him. The ISI chief said that the world’s most wanted man had been in isolation for the last five years and was not in a position to launch an attack against any country. He said that it was due to the ISI’s efforts that Bin Laden’s network had been crippled, and hence he was rendered useless. However, he lamented, despite all this, just one intelligence lapse had brought the spy agency under fire at both home and abroad.
The sense in the house after these remarks, said a source, was that the ISI chief was suggesting that they knew where the global terror icon was since they were so sure about his situation. However, Pasha hastened to add that he meant that Bin Laden was living the life of a dead man, as evidenced by his living conditions.
The questions and the resignation offer
The questions put forward to the ISI chief by the political leadership were unrelenting furious – and Pasha was found short on a number of occasions.
Cornered and unable to provide answers, the spy chief is then said to have finally offered to resign.
However, in one of the ISI chief’s statements, he tacitly put forward a question of his own. Though Pasha was careful not to blame the civilian leadership of anything, his question was, in essence, directed to the entire leadership of the country: If the top leadership was informed of the operation after it was over at just past 2 am on May 2, as the ISI chief said in his briefing – why wasn’t any sort of emergency meeting called?
The parliament was informed by Lt Gen Pasha that he had informed Army Chief General Kayani at 2.05am about the American operation – who, in turn, made a telephone call to Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and then to the President Zardari. Gilani was said to have then called up the foreign secretary.
But there was nothing other than that.
Why didn’t the Troika – the President, Prime Minister and Chief of Army Staff – meet urgently, and discuss a possible response? Why did the leadership wait for a call from US President Barack Obama at 7 am – five hours after the operation was brought into their knowledge?
Some questions, as Lt Gen Pasha will testify, have no answers.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 14th, 2011.

Re: Military offers itself for accountability

@Spock
Not just him, not just him.
Regardless of my differences with Vulcan High Command, i believe what is happening is quite unimaginable.

Re: Military offers itself for accountability

It's just an ego boosting drive by the Government, they just wanted to show Pakistani people that they can question a serving General and that they are in-charge and satisfy their egos.

Just look at how Ch. Nisar was happy after the briefing, has anything been done? It was only a briefing and any real thing is yet to be done!

Re: Military offers itself for accountability

Not ego boosting, that is what politicians job is. They are elected to represent collective will of the people. Army needs to be under civilian control & govt should not be under army's control. These clowns are responsible for ruing the country more than any politician.