If the fire he lit was intended to tarnish the military's image, it did succeed to a very limited extent but it back-fired far more on Pakistan's president. Did he then go whole hog to denounce Zardari in the hope of instigating a military coup, hoping that would embarrass the military? If so, he failed again.
But one thing is beyond dispute. Ijaz is an American, with no ties, no stakes in Pakistan. With such a high profile and such high stakes in the US, he certainly can't afford to be an agent of the ISI. On the other hand, if he is an agent of the CIA, he would be as safe as houses.
Since he, individually, may have lost something but certainly hasn't gained anything, at least not on the face of it, he must have had some compelling reasons to expose this charade. His compulsions could not, equally certainly, be Pakistani, in origin. Whatever the source of his compulsions, they had to be American. The same would apply to Admiral Mullen's memory loss and subsequent recovery of his memory.
Let's move on and attempt to examine the Salala attack.
My understanding of how things work in ISAF/NATO HQ in Afghanistan is that any officer can initiate the request for a "routine" operation, based on unidentified information received. The lowest level at which such an operation can be approved is at one-star level. In routine, thereafter, this "approved" request will travel up channels; it may or may not even be seriously viewed thereafter and, very rarely is it questioned.
While I have no way of knowing exactly what happened in NATO/ISAF or Pentagon/CIA, the impression that I got from the body-language and the response of senior military personnel of ISAF/NATO/Pentagon, is that this "hit" was not sanctioned at the highest level. Certainly not by the so-called American C-in-C; maybe not by the recently appointed Chairman Joint Chiefs; and perhaps not even the Commander NATO forces in Afghanistan.
Is it possible that there are "rogue elements" within the US military which could order and execute such a massacre on their own? I think so; if this is an attack by such rogue elements; it wouldn't be the first time and, perhaps not the last time.
But it would explain why so much time was required to "investigate" the incident. An inquiry should, in my view, not have taken more than 48 hours to find out what happened and who was responsible; OK, if they're slow and very meticulous, let's say one week. By no stretch of imagination should it require four weeks!
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
