Saturday, May 30, 2009


Ethnic Map of Pakistan

The video featured on this blog is sample of clips from the documentary film, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, which is still in production, and seeking finishing funds.


sets out to completely change our collective conversation about Afghanistan and Pakistan; to expose propagandist lies; and finally tell the truth about what has been happening in this war ravaged region of the world for more than three and a half decades.


The Taliban is a Pakistani paramilitary organization
. According to conversations with Afghans in the
United States, Europe and Australia, any other description of the Taliban is propaganda. Professor Ehsan Azari, of Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia states that the Taliban are trained, supplied and financed by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Agency ("ISI"), which does an exceptionally good job of disseminating misinformation and suppressing this basic truth. In a recent conversation, Professor Azari stressed that "peace in Afghanistan can only be achieved by separating the Taliban from ISI," but that this may not be possible.

Professor Azari has stated that the withdrawal of
U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan, would result in the collapse of the government, followed by renewed civil war, another takeover by the Taliban and a bloodbath against the civilians of that country. Their brutal abuse of power was demonstrated when they controlled Afghanistan in the 1990s, and more recently in the Swat region of northwest Pakistan.


hen the Pakistani government claims to be fighting the Taliban in the provinces of Pakistan which border Afghanistan, including Balochistan, Northwest Frontier Province (“NWFP”) and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (“FATA”), they are in reality fighting Balochi and Pashtun separatist rebels. Official media reports coming out of Pakistan, which are almost always sourced to the Pakistani government and/or military, constantly beat the drum that the Pakistan Army is fighting the Taliban in Northwest Pakistan. However,
Pashtun bloggers on complain that well known Taliban are able to reside comfortably within 100 yards of Army outposts, from which they are given "free hands to terrorize and intervene into the personal affairs the citizens." Conversations with Pashtuns reveal that in recent years, hundreds of local leaders in the Northwest Frontier Province ("NWFP") and Federally Administered Tribal Areas ("FATA") have been assassinated and replaced with radical Islamist Taliban, who have been terrorizing the people of the region and who recently instituted Sharia law. It is interesting to note that every time the Pakistani government negotiates a “treaty” with the Taliban, the Taliban receives millions of dollars in compensation. Treaty or contract?

The students of the madrassahs which spawned the Taliban were indoctrinated in the concept of global Pan-Islamism as a method of combating Pashtun nationalism in northwestern Pakistan and keeping Afghanistan unstable, so as to prevent a renegotiation of the Durand Line.

To clarify what is really happening in the conflict zone of Northwest Pakistan, Professor Azari explained that the Pakistan Army is fighting only those small factions within the Taliban which are pan-Islamist and anti-state, i.e., anti-Pakistan. He went on to explain that the Pakistan Army, in concert with Al Qaeda and other Taliban factions, are all three fighting against the Pashtun nationalist militia. Al Qaeda he claims are particularly uninterested in the advent of a Pashtun state because, unlike Pakistan vis-a-vis ISI, the Pashtuns would not continue to give
safe harbor to Al Qaeda's Arab militants.


U.S. policy with regard to Afghanistan and Pakistan has been slanted in favor of Pakistan since the early 1980s for a variety of reasons, but most particularly because key American policy makers, were strategically influenced through ownership stakes in the Badin oil fields in the Punjab and Sindh regions of eastern Pakistan. The individuals included:
  1. Congressman Charlie Wilson (D-TX, Ret.);
  2. James A. Baker,III (former Reagan White House Chief of Staff, Reagan Secretary of the Treasury and Bush Sr. Secretary ofState);
  3. Joanne Herring (former Honorary Consul for Pakistan and widow of Robert R. Herring, owner of Houston Natural Gas, which was later known as Enron); and
  4. Quite likely, and most importantly, former Vice President then President George H.W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush.

According Joanne Herring, "We turned to Charlie, cuz he was an old friend of the oil business."

The Badin oil fields were operated by Union Texas Petroleum, Occidental Petroleum ("Oxy") and the Pakistani national oil company in an exceptionally favorable split, whereby Union Texas and Occidental each held a 30% share of the fields. According to Union Texas' former Corporate Controller, this was a honey of a deal. Such a deal begs the question: what did Oxy, Union Texas (and its parent company, Allied Corporation) have to do to maintain this delightfully profitable arrangement?

Simply put, to maintain their sweet deal, U.S. policymakers:

  1. Looked the other way while Pakistan trained, armed and used American dollars to finance brutal Islamic fundamentalist cutthroats, including Gulbaddin Hekmatyar, Jalaluddin Haqqani and Abdul Rasul Sayaf, in the war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, while moderate Afghan leaders were starved for supplies, and later simply assassinated. The creation of seven Afghan factions, as opposed to a single well-coordinated militia, was part of a long-standing Pakistani policy of dividing and conquering the Afghans;
  2. Agree to the "Evil Airlift" in November 2001, in which the majority of Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership who were surrounded by Coalition forces in Kunduz, were airlifted to safety in Pakistan. Any Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders who missed out on the Evil Airlift, such as Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, were allowed to escape from Tora Bora, when, against military requests to the contrary, a former Taliban collaborator was given control of the eastern flank of that operation;
  3. Criminal war lords, with lengthy histories of human rights violations, such as Abdul Rasul Sayaf and Rashid Dostom, were restored to power by the U.S. military in 2001 and installed as part of the Karzai government; and
  4. Executed "Operation Enduring Freedom" on the cheap, with too few resources and too little manpower to secure the peace and allow for reconstruction in Afghanistan after the Taliban was overthrown in 2001, thereby creating the perfect environment for the Taliban to regroup and re-invade, which clearly they have done.

CONCLUSION: According to the Afghans interviewed for this project, there will only be peace in Afghanistan when Pashtunistan and Balochistan achieve independence from Punjabi controlled Pakistan. Punjab is a region of Pakistan which borders India, and the Pakistani military (which runs the country) is dominated by Punjabis. The Pakistani government has long held that control these regions and Afghanistan is necessary for purposes of "strategic depth" in case of an invasion from India, despite the fact that India has long demonstrated a lack of interest in such an invasion. Additionally, the ruling elite of Punjab have been extracting natural resources from Pashtunistan and Balochistan for many years and are very determined to maintain control over these two western provinces. The ethnic and provincial division of Pakistan roughly follows the Indus River, which was the ancient and natural border between Afghanistan and India. Thus, the Indus River would be the logical border between Pakistan, Pashtunistan and Balochistan.


In 1978, Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, conceived what he called the “Afghan Trap”, a policy designed to lure the Soviet Union into a Vietnam-like quagmire in Afghanistan. Brzezinski’s plan worked. Unfortunately, he neglected to consider the deeper motivations of his Pakistani partners in the scheme and the catastrophic consequences for the Afghan people and the world.

What were those “deeper motivations”? They were, and still are, mostly concerned with the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, known as the Durand Line. The Durand Line was arbitrarily drawn on a map in the late 19th Century, and it not only divides the Pashtun people in half, it literally cuts towns in half. According to Professor Tom Johnson of the U.S. Naval Post Graduate School, “There are places along the border where you can eat lunch in Pakistan and go to the loo in Afghanistan.” The problem is that the Pashtun people do not recognize the border, and the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan cannot agree on what to do about that. The harsh fact for the people who live in the border region is that, as a result, Pakistan’s goal, since the early 1970s, has been to control Afghanistan, and to keep it and the Pakistani Pashtun region weak and unstable.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST demonstrates, among other things, how the people popularly credited with aiding the "cause of the Afghans" -- i.e., Charlie Wilson, James A. Baker,III, Joanne Herring and possibly George H.W. Bush -- were, in reality, being strategically influenced through ownership stakes in the Badin oil fields in the Punjab and Sindh regions of eastern Pakistan.

The Badin oil fields were operated by Union Texas Petroleum, Occidental Petroleum ("Oxy") and the Pakistani national oil company in an exceptionally favorable split, whereby Union Texas and Occidental each held a 30% share of the fields. According to Union Texas' former Corporate Controller, this was a honey of a deal. It begs the question: what did Oxy, Union Texas (and its parent company, Allied Corporation) have to do to maintain this delightfully profitable arrangement?

In 1997, Union Texas' assets were purchased by ARCO, a subsidiary of British Petroleum ("BP"). In November of that year, just as the deal was about to close, the entire auditing department of Union Texas Petroleum was assassinated in Karachi, Pakistan, when their car was pulled over 1 block from their hotel, and shot into from two sides. This incident was portrayed in the media as a terrorist attack against Americans (despite the fact that one of the men was a Nigerian citizen); and that said attack was committed by a group which curiously had never been heard of before, and which was never heard from again.

In the film, a former Union Texas auditor who had previously worked in Pakistan and who was close friends with the victims, speculates that if his friends may have discovered evidence suggesting that the Taliban was being supplied with resources from the Badin Fields. Such information would have had a devastating affect on Union Texas' stock price and could have even derailed the entire sale of the company to ARCO/BP.

Finally, CONFLICT OF INTEREST shows the British military has been caught in the past year, not only giving "aid and comfort" to the Taliban, but quite literally training and supplying them in Afghanistan. Could it be that ownership interest in the Badin fields is continuing to exert undue influence with regard to Afghan policy? You be the judge.


  1. "CONFLICT OF INTEREST shows the British military has been caught in the past year, not only giving "aid and confort" to the Taliban, but quite literally training and supplying them in Afghanistan. Could it be that ownership interest in the Badin fields is continuing to exert undue influence with regard to Afghan policy? You be the judge."

    gee, anybody who doesn't bend over & beg to get butt-loved by American corporations is *always* a 'rebel'.

    you know, ask the union organizers for Chiquita Banana or Coca-Cola employees in Columbia.

    they really enjoy all those WHINSEC graduates the US keeps churning out.

    if a NATO nation tries to HELP AFGHANS get out from the CIA-backed OPIUM thuggery or the Taliban... why... that means they're 'Anti-American'?


    The Pentagon tried that crap with Canada when we said we should dig up the American LANDMINES that were killing Afghan civilians & children...

    g*d forbid non-American NATO Forces try to win a few hearts & minds & show up with food, medical aid, economic/community stabilizing supports...

  2. Dear BlueBerry,

    The Afghans truly want the Canadians and all other NATO soldiers to help them fight off the Taliban. It is only the British who are causing problems. It is Afghans who tell me that they want the British, and only the British, to leave.

    Thank you for reading!

  3. *Which* Afghans?
    I'm pretty sure it makes a difference which ones you ask or who volunteer information.

    Given that the CIA helped create the opium trade, the 'Christian Warriors' drive around blowing the crap out of people 'For Jebus' & generally supplying the arms trade...

    it would depend who you asked.
    I'm pretty sure they want *everybody with a gun* the hell out.
    Much like they didn't take kindly to any other incursion during the last few millennia.

    IN fact, the British military has been begging the US to stop being trigger-happy during NATO missions, because its causing NATO deaths & Afghan backsliding from any gain of 'hearts & minds'.
    Its a travesty of American education/media that they think 'The British' cause more problems than the World's largest military & surveillance engine. (Much like any other heritage of 'screwing around where they don't belong' from Spain, Portugal, France, Germany... but then, US analysts need translators in those regions to understand the legacy of discontent.)

    as quoted by Charlie Wilson, "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the World... and then we fucked up the endgame."

    meaning: the US provided billions in anti-USSR armaments & cultivating the opium trade... then walked away after the incendiary smoke cleared, providing none of the humanitarian supports they'd promised.

    It wouldn't have taken much to have prevented the perfectly predictable rise of a religious fanaticism that backfilled the vacuum of economic & social stability ... all under a totalitarian, militaristic regime.

    If only that totalitarian, militaristic regime had remembered to bend over & say thank you when it was time to start laying down some pipelines... nobody would have noticed them.

    As for UBL... well, if you ask me... if a multi-billionaire religious fanatic had his choice,
    ...would he pick a cave in Af'Pak... ?
    ...or a remote Muslim island paradise somewhere in Indonesia?

    just say'n.

    It all depends on who you ask.

    Methinks: Afghans want to be left the fuck alone & treated as equals in their own nation. Provide the promised supports & remove the military thuggery... & perhaps they'll treat the Rest of the World as equals, not invaders.

  4. Melissa,
    For the first time I am reading a factual account of the af-pak issue. Indian government has been crying hoarse for the last 60 years or so but to no avail. Pashtun issue has always been at the heart of Indo- Pak issue. It never was kashmir.
    Jinnah( the whiskey guzzling, pork eating) founder of Pakistan, lifted Mehsud tribes men in truckloads and used them to invade kashmir in the year 1948 and broke the stand still agreement with Maharaja Hari singh.

    With regard to Afghanistan, much before the jihad in the 1980s, Pakistan had already begun using Islamist proxies for its projection of power. Let us recall the mediatory efforts by the Shah of Iran in Afghan-Pakistan relations.

    It was in 1973 that the then prime minister Zulifikar Ali Bhutto provided sanctuary to Islamist leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar with a view to undermine the established government in Kabul. That was four years prior to the Communists take-over in Afghanistan and six years before the Soviet intervention.

    The Pakistani subversion of Afghanistan used Sunni Islamists drawn from the Pashtun community. This was a deliberate policy with a long-term objective of undercutting Pashtun nationalism, which was broadly secular-minded and based on traditional tribal structures and identity.

    Pakistan views Pashtun nationalism as an existential threat and this has been at the root of the 60-year history of its blatant interference in the neighbouring country's internal affairs. Since the Pashtunistan issue is an explosive subject linked to Pakistan's state formation and its 2500-kilometre disputed border with Afghanistan, no one wants to talk about it.

    When we discuss the 'Af-Pak strategy', we tend to emphasise a 'regional approach'. The argument goes that for stabilising Afghanistan, you need to stabilise Pakistan; for stabilising Pakistan, you should push India to take steps to alleviate Pakistan's threat perceptions and sense of insecurity; and, this, of course, means addressing Kashmir [ Images ] issue.

    That is, if only India 'cooperates', Pakistan's strategic anxiety can be eased and its military leadership can concentrate on tackling its internal challenges and help the international community vanquish the Taliban [ Images ] insurgents and Al Qaeda [ Images ] in Afghanistan.

    It is a persuasive argument. But it is not only flawed but also couched in sophistry.

    The heart of the problem as i said is pashtoon nationalism and Pakistan has always been wary of this and I am sure you understand it better than the US administration set up. Sometimes I am forced to think that this TTP is nothing but Pashtoon nationalism under the cover of islamism as there is no other way uniting these warring tribes. Islam is seen as the glue and motivator. Durand line had done a great injustice to pashtoons and it is time that it must be removed. The british duplicity in partitioning India and carving out a homeland for the 'moslems' was nothing but a ploy to maintain their hold on the 'wells of power'. They thought that nation comprising of muslims where in Islam will be the glue, will have a better chance of survival than the multi ethnic, multi religious and multi lingual India.

    India was not 'supposed' to survive this far and even now the Anglo-saxon block ( US/UK) keep on demanding concessions from India for assuaging their still born child, retarded child pakistan. The role muslim league played during the quit India movement made the Churchil sure of his beliefs that a pliable Muslim nation is far better than India. He even lied to American regarding the number of Muslims serving in Indian army.

    It is time Durand line is erased and Baluchis are also given their homeland. Khan of Kalat wanted to be part of India. Thanks to Mountbatten coaching and Edwina's 'Love' our Nobel obsessed and sexually frustrated Nehru opened up pre maturely and Khan got angry.

  5. Pashtoonkhwa, Baluchistan and pakistan( comprising of Punjab & Sindh) shd be new order of the day and correct this mistake. Northern areas of Kashmir, rightfully belong to India. In case they want to be part of us, India should take only the Shia parts of Gilgit & Baltistan. Others are too radicalised.

    There are too many secrets hidden n the cupboard and Pakistan can spill the beans. The price India and the Afghans have paid has been tremendous in terms of human life and money. We could have lifted our masses out of the poverty, better education but for the Terrorist state of pakistan Army

  6. Melissa,
    I agree with you statement and the grievance Afghans have with British. They are the originators of this cancer in this region. They encouraged the muslim league and handed over a 'Strategic piece of land' to Jinnah. In the process never setting the earlier wrong right.
    They should have erased the Durand line then and there in 1947 itself before leaving. When the Khan of Kalat was contemplating merger with India they again got in a hyper mode and dissuaded Nehru. Nehru's friend and philospher spoke prematurely on the radio and Khan got got upset. Caroe( The former foriegn secratary of british India & player of great game) realised without Baluchistan there was no Pkaistan. Baluchis bad luck was their land been next to iran and middle east oil wells and this was the real estate british were interested in and since caroe was advising US foreign office too.

    They denied India the chance to reclaim nothern areas of kashmir and british officers in Pak army and Indian army created a leadership confusion to halt the campaign. Rest of the role was played by ill advise of Mountbatten to Nehru to go to UN thus realising the aim of Denying India the access to Central Asia through afghanistan.

    Pakistan was a creation to serve UK and US interests in this region and this patchwork of ethnicities never worked, will not work.

  7. I read your recent article in Huffington Post and I've to admit that your analysis on Af-Pak is rich and succinct. I urge you to take your analysis to the mainstream media that may hopefully lead to a constructive debate on Af-Pak. As a South Asian, I sense your work is capable of shifting the American paradigm on a hotly debated issue.
    I'm not a war-monger but when I hear cries to pull troops out of Af-Pak, I wonder if the American citizens understand the problem and if they are capable to see through the fog of confusion. The battle in Afghanistan will be won or lost in Pakistan. I’d argue that the US should form a coalition of the willing countries, including the regional countries, with an intention to stay in Afghanistan for the long haul and to undercut the toxic Pakistani influence in the region.

    Thank you.

  8. Pakistan has cultivated many terrorist groups as buffer forces to wage covert wars in the region under the cover of plausible deniability. The Pakistani army, the ISI and some retired army-men collude with religious zealots and terrorists to cleverly further state objectives. India and Afghanistan have been the victims of the covert war perpetrated by Pakistan for the last 60 years over the contested borders. However, Pakistan has been let to get away with every misadventure because of the long leash given by the West.

    Since the 1970’s, the West, in return for weapons and money, has bought the superficial alliance of Pakistan. The military aid that Pakistan received has been promptly used to fuel insurgencies in India and in Afghanistan. Some argue the West is compelled to protect Pakistan because of its interests in the natural resources there. Others argue, Pakistan is protected because it’s a repository of many dirty secrets and is capable of spilling the beans that may embarrass several influential people, both retired and in office, in Washington and in London.

    Ironically, the status quo continues. When I hear Obama declare Pakistan as the primary ally in the surge in Afghanistan I am certain the war is headed towards a failure. The US should rely on India, not on Pakistan, if it wants to succeed in Afghanistan and bring this war to a respectable end.