Winter-solstice celebrations

An interesting article from www.ucg.org detailing winter solstice celebraions. This follows this post detailing the ancient origins of Christmas pracitces. For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Winter-solstice celebrations




Both of these ancient holidays were observed around the winter solstice — the day of the year with the shortest period of daylight. "From the Romans also came another Christmas fundamental: the date, December 25. When the Julian calendar was proclaimed in 46 C.E. [A.D.], it set into law a practice that was already common: dating the winter solstice as December 25. Later reforms of the calendar would cause the astronomical solstice to migrate to December 21, but the older date's irresistible resonance would remain" (Tom Flynn, The Trouble With Christmas, 1993, p. 42).



On the heels of the Saturnalia, the Romans marked December 25 with a celebration called the Brumalia. Bruma is thought to have been contracted from the Latin brevum or brevis, meaning brief or short, denoting the shortest day of the year.



Why was this period significant? "The time of the winter solstice has always been an important season in the mythology of all peoples. The sun, the giver of life, is at its lowest ebb. It is [the] shortest daylight of the year; the promise of spring is buried in cold and snow. It is the time when the forces of chaos that stand against the return of light and life must once again be defeated by the gods. At the low point of the solstice, the people must help the gods through imitative magic and religious ceremonies. The sun begins to return in triumph. The days lengthen and, though winter remains, spring is once again conceivable. For all people, it is a time of great festivity" (Del Re, p. 15).



During the days of Jesus' apostles in the first century, the early Christians had no knowledge of Christmas as we know it. But, as a part of the Roman Empire, they may have noted the Roman observance of the Saturnalia while they themselves persisted in celebrating the customary "feasts of the Lord" (listed in Leviticus 23).



The Encyclopaedia Britannica tells us that "the first Christians ... continued to observe the Jewish festivals, though in a new spirit, as commemorations of events which those festivals had foreshadowed" (11th edition, Vol. 8, p. 828, "Easter").



Over the following centuries, new, nonbiblical observances such as Christmas and Easter were gradually introduced into traditional Christianity. History shows that these new days came to be forcibly promoted while the biblical feast days of apostolic times were systematically rejected. "Christmas, the [purported] festival of the birth of Jesus Christ, was established in connection with a fading of the expectation of Christ's imminent return" (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, Macropaedia, Vol. 4, p. 499, "Christianity").



The message of Jesus Christ and the apostles—"the gospel of the kingdom of God" (Mark:1:14-15[14]Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,[15]And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.)—was soon lost. The Christmas celebration shifted Christianity's focus away from Christ's promised return to His birth. But is this what the Bible directs Christians to do?

Study: Gingrich Amnesty Bigger than '86 Amnesty‏

An urgent post from http://www.numbersusa.com/ analyzing Newt Gingrich's immigration proposal. This follows this post about California's Dream Act. This follows this post about the Presidential Candidate strongest on immigration.  This follows this post  about Louisiana suing about the appropriations of House Seats and the Electoral College(think about redistricting in your state)!   This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants such as the 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso, where President Barack Obama recently bashed immigration enforcement! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read a very interesting book HERE!

And Remember when contacting public officials to please be firm but respectful. Any over the top messages could result in law enforcement action against you. Just let these politicians know that you are aware of what they have done and that you intend to remove them from office in the 2012 elections.

Study: Gingrich Amnesty Bigger than '86 Amnesty‏




THIS ISSUE: Gingrich amnesty would not give citizenship but would give U.S. jobs to 3.5 million illegal aliens, says Pew Hispanic Center









The most recent polling finds that Republican voters have elevated Newt Gingrich to presidential frontrunner status. But it is difficult to believe that those supporting him agree with his amnesty plan, or are even aware that his proposal sounds like it would give U.S. jobs and residency to around 3.5 million illegal aliens (according to a new Pew Hispanic Center study). Unless Gingrich supporters push him to back off, he is promising a bigger amnesty than the giant blanket amnesty of 1986 that was supposed to be the first and last one ever.



(Watch the recording of our webcast yesterday that focused on the details of Gingrich's official immigration platform.)



Former House Speaker Gingrich agrees with Presidents Bush and Obama that the only major options for illegal aliens are deporting them or legalizing them (choices that nearly all mainstream media also insist on). His official immigration platform gives no hint of recognizing that there is a third option -- Attrition Through Enforcement -- that eliminates the jobs and benefits magnets for illegal aliens so that they will self-deport back to their home countries. Thus, Gingrich is at odds with most of the other GOP candidates and most GOP Members of Congress who favor the Attrition option.



Since boldly advocating his legalization plan in a debate last week, he has responded to critics by telling us to read his official 10 Steps to a Legal Nation and his 7-Point Plan. Weve read and studied both and are more frightened than ever.

Is “Democratic” Egypt Progressing or Regressing?

A very interesting post from http://www.jihadwatch.org/ about Egypt's recent elections. This follows this post analyzing the NATO attack on Pakistan. This follows this article about  American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE!


Is “Democratic” Egypt Progressing or Regressing?






As elections in Egypt continue, Western politicians and Western media assure us of one thing: that Egyptians can finally vote is great “progress.”



But is the mere right and act of voting a valid sign of “progress”? No, at root, democracy is a mode of governance that simply empowers the people. True “progress” is gauged by what these people do with their empowerment—the civilization they create, the codes they institute.



Consider this picture: on the right is a painting of an Egyptian woman, as women appeared some three thousand years before the invasion of Islam, when Egypt was among the first of civilizations; on the left is a typical Egyptian woman of today, a product of Arab-Islamic civilization.



Far from “romanticizing” the past, these juxtaposed portraits, separated by nearly 5,000 years, make a valid point. As many historians agree, ancient Egyptian women were “liberated” by antiquity’s standards. Today, on the other hand, not only are Muslim women in Egypt kept “under wraps,” but, indoctrinated by the words of their prophet, they maintain that “women are deficient in intelligence.”



So, euphemisms and semantics aside—“democracy,” ‘elections,” “voting”—is Egypt progressing or regressing in time?



In fact, with each passing decade, it has been regressing, bit by bit; and now that the people have spoken—empowering the Muslim Brotherhood and their Salafi henchmen—Egypt prepares to plummet headlong into a new dark age of primitivism.



Posted by Raymond

Your Help is Needed to Defeat RINOs‏

A very interesting post from http://www.petermorrisonreport.com/  about defeating RINOS in the next election particulary in an era of anti-Republican redistricting! This follows this post about mandated union laws. This follows this previous article about encouraging American energy independence. This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran  and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read a very interesting book HERE!

Your Help is Needed to Defeat Texas RINOs‏


Summary of this week's report:

RINOs are the curse of the GOP, but, as hard as it is to believe
after two years of Tea Party activism, many key RINOs are still in
office and Joe Straus is still the Texas Speaker. Despite the
current redistricting turmoil, we need to organize to give the boot
to as many RINOs in Austin and DC as possible.

Full report:

In 2012, Texas conservatives need to focus our energies on removing
our own RINOs from office, and keeping them off the Republican
ticket, this coming election.

It's impossible to overstate how important this task is, on both
the state and the national levels. RINOs are poison to a
conservative agenda. There is little real difference between them
and Democrats, and once elected they use their power to sabotage
attempts to enact good conservative legislation. We've seen this
take place in Austin over and over. No matter how loudly
conservatives speak at the polls, and how good prospects for
conservative legislation look, the RINOs in the party often manage
to water good bills down, or block them altogether.

On top of this, activist federal judges have thrown the election
into complete turmoil by throwing out the new legislative district
maps recently drawn up in Austin, creating their own maps, and
ordering the state to follow them. This was in response to a
lawsuit claiming that the maps drawn up in Austin discriminated
against non-white voters, particularly Hispanics. The court found
in their favor and drew up new maps that were much more to their
liking, because they include more districts where Hispanics are a
majority. (You can compare the legislature's map and the court's
map by doing an internet search for Texas District Viewer.) Given
long established voting patterns, what this boils down to is that
the court has created several more solidly Democratic districts,
and eliminated some solidly Republican districts.

Attorney General Greg Abbott has filed an emergency appeal with the
US Supreme Court to put the enactment of this ruling on hold,
partly because Monday, November 28th was the first day a person who
intends to run for office could file paperwork for a place on the
ballot. When it's not even clear what districts will exist come
Election Day, it's pretty difficult to file the proper paperwork,
so everything is in flux right now. Hopefully common sense and
judicial restraint will prevail at the Supreme Court, and this
ruling will be put on hold, but that is by no means certain.
Furthermore, even if this ruling does wind up being eventually
overturned on appeal, the voting trends driven by huge population
growth among Hispanics in Texas virtually assure that the state
legislature and Congressional delegation will become increasingly
less Republican and more Democratic.

Given all these factors - the dim prospects of a truly conservative
presidential candidate, the state elections being up in the air,
and the massive demographic changes taking place in Texas, it's
imperative that we work harder than ever in 2012 to elect genuine
conservatives to the state house and to Congress. The 2010
elections demonstrated what we can do when we're truly motivated,
and we need to recapture that same level of energy and motivation
for the Republican primaries of 2012, which take place in early
March.

If a RINO currently represents your district in Austin or DC, or if
one is currently the favorite for the GOP nomination, start
organizing now to defeat him or her in the primary. Wherever there
are genuine conservative challengers, it's time to get behind them.
If there aren't currently any, it's time to recruit someone. If
you don't know of anyone else that might run, consider running
yourself! It's easy to think of reasons not to run or get involved,
but as Edmund Burke once said, "All that is necessary for evil to
triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Don't underestimate the impact you may have. All incumbents either
run unopposed or run scared. RINOs in particular know they have
betrayed their base and are scared of being called on it. Several
conservatives won in 2010 in the primary against well-funded
incumbents, like former RINO state representatives Tommy Merritt
and Delwin Jones. By running against someone, even if you lose,
you make them spend money, money that an unopposed incumbent can
use to prop up his fellow RINOs in other districts. If you lose
and do better than expected, you might still accomplish your goal.
Case in point: RINO Burt Solomons just announced he won't be
seeking re-election. Insiders I know report that this is because
he was shown to be weak in the 2010 primary when he squeaked by
with 53% of the vote against an opponent who spent a tiny amount of
money, and big money conservative donors were looking to run a very
strong race against him this year, so he chickened out. There's
nothing more humiliating for an incumbent than to lose in a primary
(and many of them are lazy from years in office with no serious
campaigns), so often fear of losing makes them quit, and you win by
default. This happened in 2010 when RINO Brian McCall decided not
to run after the Tea Party started organizing against him in 2009;
now that district is represented by a real conservative, Rep. Van
Taylor. Slowly but surely conservatives are removing the turncoats
who betrayed their constituents and elected Joe Straus as Speaker.

The Republican primary election date of March 6th is not very far
away at all. Right now, the candidate filing deadline is December
15th. That may change, depending on what happens in the courts.
In the next few weeks we'll have a definitive answer one way or
another on the redistricting map, so if your district is currently
in flux that should change soon. So keep an eye on the news, and
get ready to do battle this March with GOP sellouts!

If you have any specific questions about your district, such as
whether your incumbent deserves a challenger, feel free to email
in. I can find out if there is an existing challenger and help
connect you with some folks who can help you if you decide to run.

The Peter Morrison Report

http://www.PeterMorrisonReport.com
http://www.facebook.com/morrisonreport


Sources:

http://www.empowertexans.com/around-texas/the-very-definition-of-modern-judicial-activism/
http://www.empowertexans.com/features/judicial-gerrymandering/

PO Box 8742, Lumberton, TX 77657, USA

The ancient origins of Christmas customs

An interesting article from www.ucg.org detailing the ancient origins of Christmas pracitces. This follows this post analyzing the Bible and Christmas. For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

The ancient origins of Christmas customs

During the second century B.C., the Greeks practiced rites to honor their god Dionysus (also called Bacchus). The Latin name for this celebration was Bacchanalia. It spread from the Greeks to Rome, center of the Roman Empire.



"It was on or about December 21st that the ancient Greeks celebrated what are known to us as the Bacchanalia or festivities in honor of Bacchus, the god of wine. In these festivities the people gave themselves up to songs, dances and other revels which frequently passed the limits of decency and order" (Walsh, p. 65).



Because of the nocturnal orgies associated with this festival, the Roman Senate suppressed its observance in 186 B.C. It took the senators several years to completely accomplish this goal because of the holiday's popularity.



Suppressing a holiday was unusual for the Romans since they later became a melting pot of many types of gods and worship. Just as the Romans assimilated culture, art and customs from the peoples absorbed into their empire, they likewise adopted those peoples' religious practices.



In addition to the Bacchanalia, the Romans celebrated another holiday, the Saturnalia, held "in honor of Saturn, the god of time, [which] began on December 17th and continued for seven days. These also often ended in riot and disorder. Hence the words Bacchanalia and Saturnalia acquired an evil reputation in later times" (p. 65).



The reason for the Saturnalia's disrepute is revealing. In pagan mythology Saturn was an "ancient agricultural god-king who ate his own children presumably to avoid regicide [being murdered while king]. And Saturn was parallel with a Carthaginian Baal, whose brazen horned effigy contained a furnace into which children were sacrificially fed" (William Sansom, A Book of Christmas, 1968, p. 44).



Notice the customs surrounding the Saturnalia: "All businesses were closed except those that provided food or revelry. Slaves were made equal to masters or even set over them. Gambling, drinking, and feasting were encouraged. People exchanged gifts, called strenae, from the vegetation goddess Strenia, whom it was important to honor at midwinter ... Men dressed as women or in the hides of animals and caroused in the streets. Candles and lamps were used to frighten the spirits of darkness, which were [considered] powerful at this time of year. At its most decadent and barbaric, Saturnalia may have been the excuse among Roman soldiers in the East for the human sacrifice of the king of the revels" (Gerard and Patricia Del Re, The Christmas Almanac, 1979, p. 16).

Help Overturn California DREAM Act!

An urgent post from http://www.numbersusa.com/ about California's Dream Act. This follows this post about Michele Bachmann's plan to deport all illegals. This follows this post about the Presidential Candidate strongest on immigration.  This follows this post  about Louisiana suing about the appropriations of House Seats and the Electoral College(think about redistricting in your state)!   This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants such as the 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso, where President Barack Obama recently bashed immigration enforcement! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read a very interesting book HERE!

And Remember when contacting public officials to please be firm but respectful. Any over the top messages could result in law enforcement action against you. Just let these politicians know that you are aware of what they have done and that you intend to remove them from office in the 2012 elections.


Help Overturn California DREAM Act!









As you may know, Assemblyman Tim Donnelly filed a referendum that, if qualified, will allow voters to decide whether AB 131 (financial aid for illegal-alien students) will remain law. To qualify the referendum for the November 2012 ballot, the Stop AB 131 team must collect around 505,000 valid voter signatures before Jan. 6, 2012. He is aiming to collect 700,000 since some signatures are typically found to be invalid.





You can help by volunteering to:









•Collect signatures;





•Make phone calls;






•Cage petitions;






•Allow your business or local club to serve as a petition distribution center;





•Serve as a block or precinct captain or a regional coordinator; and





•Spread the word on Facebook or Twitter.









Please find a way to support the Stop AB 131 effort! If you are unable to help in one of the areas mentioned above, please visit the Stop AB131 web site to learn how to provide other backing.



New event! You can bring your completed petitions, or pick up new ones, at The John and Ken Show "Stop the Dream Act!" signature rally, which will be held on Wednesday, November 30th at 3:00 pm at Ayres Hotel & Suites Ontario Convention Center, 1945 E. Holt Blvd., Ontario, CA 91761.





Official web site - http://stopab131.com/





Official Facebook site - www.facebook.com/StopTheDreamAct





Official Twitter site - https://twitter.com/intent/user?original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fstopab131.com%2F®ion=screen_name&screen_name=StopAB131&source=followbutton&variant=1.1





General information line - 626-263-0834





Visit http://www.stopab131.com/ and enter your zip code on the home screen to see a complete list of pick-up locations nearest you, or click the "have petitions mailed to you" button if you are unable to pick up petitions. There are also handy downloads like informational fliers, petition distributor signs and rules for completing a valid petition. Assemblyman Tim Donnelly has produced a great video showing you how to fill out your petitions, so check it out here - http://stopab131.com/stopab/





When returning your petition sheets, please take time to check them first. You can return them to your distributor or mail them to:



http://www.stopab131.com/





PO Box 877,





Monrovia, CA 91017

A Deadly U.S. Attack on Pakistani Soil

A very interesting post from http://www.stratfor.com/ analyzing the NATO attack on Pakistan. This follows this post about the affect that blocking the supply lines will have on the U.S. in Afghanistan. This follows this article about  American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE!


A Deadly U.S. Attack on Pakistani Soil

December 1, 2011



By Nate Hughes



In the early hours of Nov. 26 on the Afghan-Pakistani border, what was almost certainly a flight of U.S. Army AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and an AC-130 gunship killed some two dozen Pakistani servicemen at two border outposts inside Pakistan. Details remain scarce, conflicting and disputed, but the incident was known to have taken place near the border of the Afghan provinces of Kunar and Nangarhar and the Mohmand agency of Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). The death toll inflicted by the United States against Pakistani servicemen is unprecedented, and while U.S. commanders and NATO leaders have expressed regret over the incident, the reaction from Pakistan has been severe.





Claims and Interests



The initial Pakistani narrative of the incident describes an unprovoked and aggressive attack on well-established outposts more than a mile inside Pakistani territory — outposts known to the Americans and ones that representatives of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) had visited in the past. The attack supposedly lasted for some two hours despite distressed communications from the outpost to the Pakistani military’s general headquarters in Rawalpindi.







(click here to enlarge image)

The United States was quick to acknowledge that Pakistani troops were probably killed by attack aircraft providing close air support to a joint U.S.-Afghan patrol near the Kunar border, and while U.S. Marine Gen. James Mattis, the head of U.S. Central Command, promised a high-level investigation, the United States and NATO seemed to be more interested in smoothing relations with Islamabad than endorsing or correcting initial reports about the specifics of the attack.



What has ensued has been a classic media storm of accusations, counteraccusations, theories and specifics provided by unnamed sources that all serve to obscure the truth as much as they clarify it. Meanwhile, no matter what actually happened, aggressive spin campaigns have been launched to shape perceptions of the incident for myriad interests. Given the longstanding tensions between Washington and Islamabad as well as a record of cross-border incidents, stakeholders will believe exactly what they want to believe about the Nov. 26 incident, and even an official investigation will have little bearing on their entrenched views.





The Framework



While statements and accusations have often referenced NATO and the ISAF, it is U.S. forces that operate in this part of the country, and this close to the border the unit involved was likely operating under the aegis of U.S. Forces-Afghanistan (the U.S. command in Afghanistan) rather than under the multinational ISAF. Indeed, many American allies have also expressed frustration over the incident, convinced that it undermines ISAF operations in Afghanistan.



Reports indicate that a U.S. special operations team (likely a platoon-sized element, but at least a 12-man detachment) accompanied by Afghan commandos (generally a seven-man squad accompanies a U.S. platoon, but 25- to 30-man platoons sometimes accompany 12-man U.S. teams) were involved in an engagement and called for close air support. It now seems clear that both sides opened fire at some point. At least one unidentified senior Pakistani defense official told The Washington Post that it had been the Pakistanis who fired first, opening up with mortars and machine guns after sending up an illumination round. However, most Pakistani sources continue to deny this.



Given that Washington has been trying to smooth over already tense relations with Islamabad, such an aggressive attack taking place without provocation seems unlikely. In any event, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) operated by the CIA essentially have free rein in Pakistani airspace over the border area and are often used for targeted assassinations, meaning that the involvement of attack helicopters rather than UAVs does lend credence to the close air support claim. (The principle of hot pursuit, which is understood and often exercised by U.S. patrols along the border, might also have been applied.)





The Border



The “border” between Afghanistan and Pakistan in this area is part of the Durand Line agreed upon between the Afghan monarch and the colonial authority of British India in 1893. Not only is the border poorly marked, it also divides extraordinarily rugged terrain and essentially bisects the Pashtun population. And from the British perspective, the agreement was intended to establish a broad buffer between British and Russian interests in Central Asia by establishing a line along the distant, outer frontier of British India. British priorities had little to do with the day-to-day realities of a fixed linear boundary, and to this day the specific border exists primarily on paper.



The border is characterized by a string of outposts — often little more than prepared fighting positions and some crude shelters that are difficult to distinguish between military, government or civilian structures — manned by the paramilitary Frontier Corps on the Pakistani side. These positions presumably are selected for their tactical value in monitoring and dominating the border, and the troops occupying those positions invariably know the general location of the border before them. Similarly, U.S. special operations teams are well trained and practiced in land navigation at night, regularly conduct operations in the area and are there to patrol that very border. Both sides know full well their general positions relative to the border.





Reuters

A post-attack image of the Pakistani outpost involved in the Nov. 26 cross-border incidentThe point is that, whatever the specifics of the Nov. 26 incident, it appears largely consistent with and governed by the underlying tactical realities of the border. A small Pakistani outpost that perceives a threatening, armed entity will take advantage of its position and heavier weaponry in engaging the force rather than let it slip any closer — and this will be more true the smaller and more isolated the garrison. Under fire, a U.S. interdiction patrol (as distinct from a reconnaissance patrol, for which breaking contact is prescribed if feasible) will move quickly to advantageous terrain dictated by the direction of fire and the immediate geography around it, regardless of the border. If the situation dictates, the patrol may engage in hot pursuit across the border after being attacked.



The border is a highway for insurgents (both those who use Pakistan as a sanctuary for their fight in Afghanistan and those who are doing the reverse), other militants and supplies. That’s why the border outposts are manned and U.S.-Afghan teams conduct patrols — to interdict both types of insurgents. But it also means that there are plenty of armed formations moving around at night, and from the perspective of both a Pakistani outpost and a U.S. patrol, none of them is friendly.





Close Air Support



Pakistani forces have regularly shelled targets on the Afghan side of the border, and on a number of occasions U.S. forces have killed Pakistani troops — in firefights, with artillery, with UAVs and with attack helicopters. Indeed, standard U.S. operating procedures allow Pakistani troops and militants alike to know the probable American response in a given tactical scenario — including what it takes to get close air support called in.



Any dismounted American foot patrol that takes fire from both mortars and heavy machine guns is going to call for whatever fire support it can get. And given the frequency of incidents and the rugged terrain near the border, special operations teams operating near the border are likely to have a flight of Apaches close by ready to provide that support.



The forward-looking infrared sensor mounted on the nose of the AH-64 Apache is capable of remarkable resolution — sufficient to make out not only adult individuals but the shapes of weapons they may be carrying. But the history of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is also rife with incidents where aircrews, acting on the information available to them (and with the context of being called in to support friendly forces under fire), engaged targets only later to find that the activity or weaponry had not been as it appeared — a reporter with a long, telephoto lens on a camera rather than a rocket launcher or children picking up pinecones instead of insurgents emplacing an improvised explosive device.



Particularly on the border, the pilot and gunner are making the same distinction Pakistani outposts and American patrols are likely to make in the area: Armed individuals and groups not known to be friendly are probably hostile. The position of friendly forces will be communicated by the air controller in contact with the aircrew and also generally by infrared strobes or other means. Though the air controller will indicate the immediate threat, any non-friendly position could quickly be judged hostile. Any unit firing or maneuvering with what appears to be weaponry may quickly be deemed hostile in the exigency of the moment and the uncertainty of the environment based on limited information. And while ISAF has tightened its rules of engagement and added additional oversight for close air support in Afghanistan in response to domestic outrage over collateral damage, there is still going to be an enormous difference between the restraint exercised in, say, Marjah, where a population-centered counterinsurgency campaign is actively under way, and an isolated special operations patrol near the Pakistani border in an area known to be frequented by militants.





The Big Picture



In a way, the Afghan-Pakistani border is a microcosm of the U.S.-Pakistani relationship. The U.S. patrols and the Pakistani outposts are there for entirely different and in some cases directly opposing reasons. The Pakistanis are spread thin in the FATA and are focusing their efforts on the Pakistani Taliban, which have their sights set on Islamabad. Not only are they less interested in confronting the Afghan Taliban as a matter of priority, but Pakistani national interest dictates maintaining a functional relationship with the Afghan Taliban as leverage in dealing with the United States and as a way to control Afghanistan as the United States and its allies begin to withdraw.



Hence, elements of the Pakistani military and the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate are actively engaged in supporting the Afghan Taliban and have in some cases come to see common cause with them — not only in supporting the Afghan Taliban but also in actively undermining U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and disrupting Pakistani cooperation with the United States. Indeed, the timing and magnitude of the Nov. 26 incident — which was entirely plausible under a number of scenarios — calls into question whether it may have been staged or intended to provoke the response it did. Some reports have indicated that the Taliban may have staged an initial attack intended to draw the Pakistani positions and the American patrol into a firefight with each other.



Whatever the case, factions that benefit from a greater division between Pakistan and the United States will be aided by the incident and subsequent public outcry — as will the Pakistani state, which is now holding its own cooperation hostage for better terms in its relationship with Washington.



Ultimately, however, there is a reason for the long, established history of cross-border incidents and skirmishes. The United States and Pakistan are playing very different games for very different ends on both sides of the border and in Afghanistan. They have different adversaries and are playing on different timetables. The alliance is one of necessity but hobbled by incompatibility, and near-term American imperatives in Afghanistan — lines of supply, political progress, counterterrorism efforts — clash directly with the long-term American interest in a strong Pakistani state able to manage its territory and keep its nuclear arsenal secure. The near-term demands Washington has made on Islamabad weaken the state and divide the country. Obviously, the Pakistani government intends to retain its strength and keep the country as unified as possible.



The reality is that as long as the political objectives that dictate U.S. and Pakistani military strategies and tactics are generally at odds, there will be tension and conflict. And as long as Pakistani and American forces are both patrolling a border that exists primarily on paper, they will be at odds. Tactically, this means armed groups with many divergent loyalties will be circling one another.





The Fallout



What actually happened early on Nov. 26 is increasingly irrelevant; it is merely a symptom of larger issues that remain unresolved, and the fallout has already taken shape. Pakistan is leveraging the incident for everything it can and is already demonstrating its displeasure (both for political leverage and to satisfy an enraged domestic populace) by doing the following:



Closing the crucial border crossings at Torkham near the Khyber Pass and Chaman to the south

Giving the CIA 15 days to vacate the Shamsi air base in Balochistan from which it conducts UAV operations (though Pakistani airspace reportedly remains open to such flights)

Reviewing its intelligence and military cooperation with the United States and NATO

Boycotting the upcoming Dec. 5 Bonn conference on Afghanistan, though there are some hints already that it may reconsider; it is difficult to imagine what a conference on Afghanistan without Pakistan might achieve, but Islamabad would face other risks in not attending such a conference.

The larger question is whether the calculus for an alliance of necessity between the United States and Pakistan still holds. As the American and allied withdrawal from Afghanistan accelerates, without a political understanding between Washington, Islamabad, Kabul and the Afghan Taliban, there is little prospect of American and Pakistani interests coming into any closer alignment. The United States and its allies are moving for the exits while the Pakistanis try to ensure optimal circumstances surrounding the withdrawal and at the same time ensure maximum leverage to manage whatever ends up being left behind. The two countries still have numerous incentives to continue cooperation, but all the ingredients for cross-border incidents and skirmishes — as well as the opportunity to stage, provoke and exploit those incidents and skirmishes — remain firmly in place.









Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence, including the hyperlink to STRATFOR, at the beginning or end of the report.



"A Deadly U.S. Attack on Pakistani Soil is republished with permission of STRATFOR."









Read more: A Deadly U.S. Attack on Pakistani Soil
STRATFOR