Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 02, 2008

Pakistan's Interest

Following the Afghan and Indian government, the U.S. accused Pakistan's intelligence service ISI of facilitating the attack on India's embassy in Kabul.

The conclusion was based on intercepted communications between Pakistani intelligence officers and militants who carried out the attack, the officials said, providing the clearest evidence to date that Pakistani intelligence officers are actively undermining American efforts to combat militants in the region.

That 'clearest evidence to date' may be something or not. But I wonder why the U.S. has released this at all. This puts pressure on Pakistan's civilian government, but what is the expected result of revealing this now?

The Pakistani government can not do anything against ISI, its main intelligence service. Before Giliani recently came to Washington, he ordered the ISI to be subjugated to the Interior Ministry. The Pakistani military establishment vetoed that move. ISI has a history of resisting civilian influence.

It will continue to operate against India, Afghanistan and the U.S. as long as those three operate against Pakistan's perceived interest.

Here are good description of Pakistani priorities by McClatchy and from the Globe and Mail:

The ISI, and the Pakistani army it serves, don't want to see the United States, and the government of Hamid Karzai, win in Afghanistan because they believe it would fatally undermine Pakistan's own national security, analysts say. The army does not trust U.S. intentions in the region, and it does not trust the Karzai government, which is close to India, Pakistan's giant and hostile neighbour.

"Nobody in Pakistan wants to see America win," said Hameed Gul, a retired general who is the most infamous former director-general of the ISI. "That would spell danger to Pakistan in the long run. They, America, want to make us subservient to India."
...
The Taliban is merely the tool of a policy aimed at keeping Afghanistan from falling into the hands of Islamabad's adversaries, as Pakistan would be left sandwiched between two enemy states. This is a military doctrine about national survival, not an ideology of religious fanaticism. Civilians are not welcome to meddle with it.

"If your perception, as the Pakistan army, is that RAW (the Indian intelligence agency) and the CIA are acting in unison, then you try to protect yourself," said Ayesha Siddiqa, author of Military Inc. "You do not give them [the Taliban] sufficient room to completely take over Afghanistan but you do enough to stop growing Indian influence."

The nuclear deal the U.S. struck with India, which also undermines the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, has certainly confirmed the Pakistani view.

Some 70 percent of the logistics for the troops in Afghanistan are landed in Karachi and transported from there through Pakistan and the Khyber pass, into Afghanistan. The new line of communication that was opened through Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan may help to lower the dependency on Pakistan. But without Pakistan's support, the occupation of Afghanistan will become much more difficult and expensive.

So what is the actual strategy the U.S. has towards Pakistan. Is it hoping to confront it while depending on it?

If the U.S. wants to stay in Afghanistan for long it will have to make a deal with Pakistan. The Pakistani condition for that deal will be less U.S. support for India. The only alternative to this is an outright attack on Pakistan. Is that really in the cards?

Posted by b on August 2, 2008 at 14:32 UTC | Permalink

Comments

As an Indian, I find the notion that the CIA works with RAW a little hard to believe. From my limited understanding, I believe it to be at the same level of what the ISI collaborates with the CIA.

Uneasy bedfellows.

Retd. RAW counterterrorism chief

“While the CIA was assisting R&AW against China, it was aiding Pakistan against India to ensure that where was no further division of Pakistan; R&AW was getting some cooperation from the French SDECE but it did not prevent the French from running a mole in India’s PMO; R&AW was working with the Soviet KGB and the Afghan KHAD and at the same time it had links with the Israeli Mossad. R&AW had a liaison with the Chinese MSS (Ministry of State Security) too.”

That seems a bit complicated,no?

The same chap has got a few posts on the recent India bombings here

The notion that there is a grand design from the CIA, working with RAW, against Pakistan; unlikely. It's already well known that the USA is playing both sides in the Arms trade game, selling one side F-16s and other a F/A-18 for the 126 fighter deal along with maritime patrol aircraft. So there should be a bit of arm's length co-operation, that's all.

I find this extremely irritating as I don't see the relevance of SE Asia in the whole "great game" scheme of things. Vassal states is one thing but this corner of the globe has only poverty to offer.

Why bother?

Posted by: shanks | Aug 2 2008 16:11 utc | 1

@shanks - thanks for the link to Raman's blog. In my piece above I linked to his "History of the ISI" in Outlook India.

India offered some $750 million of aid to Afghanistan, has an embassy and four consulates there. I would be very astonished to find that RAW is not active in Afghanistan and not cooperating with the CIA there.

That does not mean that RAW and CIA the coordinate big strategies. On Afghanistan and towards Pakistan the may well do so. Security services are always very selective in the fields of cooperation with each other. The Pakistanis are paranoid about it and given their strategic position it is understandable.

I find this extremely irritating as I don't see the relevance of SE Asia in the whole "great game" scheme of things. Vassal states is one thing but this corner of the globe has only poverty to offer.

Resources, resources, resources and U.S. military-industrial-complex ambitions to set up China as the next big enemy. It sells a lot of arms with that claim.

Posted by: b | Aug 2 2008 16:45 utc | 2


"The nuclear deal the U.S. struck with India, which also undermines the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, has certainly confirmed the Pakistani view."

Damn, I thought the only way to undermine the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty was by obeying the rules and trying to generate electricity! I learn something new here all the time. :-)

Posted by: buckarro | Aug 2 2008 16:56 utc | 3

A critical comment at Juan Cole's blog that has some spice:

I notice that consistent with the US liberal conception of Afghanistan as the 'good war', the usual skepticism that any pronouncement from unnamed US officials should merit is frequently suspended.
...
The biggest problem for western analysts is sourcing. They invariably turn to people they can identify with culturally and intellectually. Which inevitably means urban liberals, often from Lahore, Islamabad, Karachi, who are culturally ignorant, linguistically challenged, and historically prejudiced. So when an 'expert' such as Rubin plugs for a book by Ahmed Rashid one could only shake their heads. (by comparison see Tariq Ali's perceptive comments in the London Review of Books on the same author)
...
Rashid, for those who don't know, is a second rate hack who has been propagandizing in favour of Bush's war-on-terror since its inception.
...
The problem with most Western commentators is that when they want to study a foreign region they seek out sources in their own image -- anglophone, liberal, pro-western. The whole cultural dynamic is lost. When you get a Punjabi liberal from Lahore or Islamabad dispensing 'expert opinion' on developments in the North-West or Baluchistan, you are not very likely to hear about the grievances that fuel their rage. Instead you hear catch-phrases -- 'extremist', 'fundamentalist', 'taliban' etc. Questions of identity, ethnicity or class are rarely broached in such analyses.
I recommend to read the above again. And yes, I am certainly sometime guilty of that 'anglophone, liberal, pro-western' sourcing too.

Anyway - the Tariq Ali piece at LRoB is subscribers only, but he recently had a good (longer) overview piece on Afghanistan in The">http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2713">The New Left Review

Posted by: b | Aug 2 2008 18:00 utc | 4

A bit offtopic but I think the nuclear deal is a bit like Kabuki theatre. Here's why

India knows that it doesn't have enough Uranium, so went in for Thorium based "breeder" reactor path. Starting with a little Uranium and lots of thorium, at 20-40 years you reach critical stockpile of Thorium based N-fuel. Right now, India leads in thorium based FBR tech.

In the 3 stage approach, India is at the threshold of stage 3.

Problem is, there's still a need for Uranium for another decade at least.

West knows this. India knows West knows this. NSG will not sell U-23x till India signs NPT. India not willing to sign. Russia will sell and that will undermine NSG market. India too, is not really happy with Russia over the current arms, space and nuclear arm twisting over money.

So we have a pretend NPT, with all parties agreeing but still not agreeing to different bits of it.

And there is a credible conspiracy theory that the USA has always stepped in to stop or trash talk thorium based FBR energy cycle development.

Not being conversant with nuclear stuff, here's a primer from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle
and this
http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=10

Posted by: shanks | Aug 2 2008 18:05 utc | 5

Adding to my link in @4.

Just read a interview 'liberal' Scott Horton at Harper's did with Ahmed Rashid who is criticized by the quote in 4.

Typical Horton question:

You note that the Bush Administration did not see the important role played by democratic political groupings like the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), which came to power on a groundswell of anger brought about by behind-the-scenes conniving between the military and terrorist organizations and the Taliban.
(PPP), which came to power on a groundswell of anger

Oh my ... that pressing for Bhutto was more in Washington DC op-eds than in the streets of Islamabad ...

A typical Rashid answer to a different question:

In recent months U.S. and NATO forces have become much more careful about civilian casualties ...

Oh really?

Note:

Six weeks before 9/11, the Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid hosted Karzai at his home in Lahore. They ate lunch and talked politics.

Hmm - Karzai: wikipedia

Karzai was a member of the Mujahideen and took active part in driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion in the 1980s. The Mujahideen were secretly supplied and funded by the United States, and Karzai was a top contact for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) at the time. He had close personal contact with CIA Director William Casey and George H. W. Bush, who was Vice President of the United States. Karzai's brothers immigrated to the U.S. however Hamid Karzai stayed in Afghanistan and Pakistan working for the jihad against the soviet occupation.

Also:

In fact, in 1995, the Taliban -- a pro-Pashtun movement -- offered Karzai the position of U.N. ambassador in the new government. Karzai refused the position, worried that the Taliban were too influenced by outside forces, particularly the Pakistan intelligence service.

That's a wild game and Rashid has a (profitable) role in it ...

Lesson: As a liberal do not trust sources just because they sound, dress, behave or talk as liberals ... go to the ground - the same goes for conservatives of course ...

Posted by: b | Aug 2 2008 18:45 utc | 6

@shanks - thanks again - I didn't know of India being involved in the Thorium stuff - It's on my watch-list as it seems to be creeping up in some places now, but I don't know enough yet to have an opinion or write about it ...

Posted by: b | Aug 2 2008 18:56 utc | 7

In case you have not seen here is an article by Gen. Aslam Beg (former army chief who took over after Gen. Zia died in an air crash). This will give you some idea about how the pakistani defense establishment looks at the war on terror in this region. (please note that the article is dated).

the russian route can not be an alternative to the route via karachi port. firstly the route is very long and arduous, secondly umreeka would never trust the russians by letting them be their principal supply route. they would rather work with pakistan. it has a lot of influence on the pakistani polity and can pull a lot of strings. look at the way democracy was enforced on pakistan recently.

At the same time, despite all this influence, an attack would cause an unprecedented and uncontrollable anti-umreekan reaction in the pakistani people and army cadres. umreeka knows that very well. depending on how big the attack (or the war) is, it can cause pakistan to decisively move out of the umreekan strategic camp. Irrespective of the fate of war in afghanistan this is too big a price and they will not go for it. secondly, they cant even occupy iraq (a country of 20 mil people), pakistan is a country of 160+ mil people and a lot more complex. All you have to do is to close down the karachi port for a few weeks and western forces in afghanistan would get totally fried (without diesel!).

Posted by: a | Aug 2 2008 20:01 utc | 8

the aslam beg article is here

http://www.ahmedquraishi.com/article_detail.php?id=135

somehow the link did not post right above

Posted by: a | Aug 2 2008 20:05 utc | 9

Many interesting thoughts in this thread particularly some raised by shanks. I'm going to steer clear of an opinion on the thorium stuff because I simply don't know enough about it and hope to rectify that omission before developing a pov.
However one thing that shanks said in his initial post touches on something I have been mulling over lately and goes to the heart of the current pressure that is being put on Pakistan by foreign countries.

shanks wrote "As an Indian, I find the notion that the CIA works with RAW a little hard to believe. From my limited understanding, I believe it to be at the same level of what the ISI collaborates with the CIA.
Uneasy bedfellows."

What I'm about to say doesn't relate to Indian or Pakistani intelligence services any more than any other national intelligence service, particularly those whose services have been 'westernised' as I believe both the Indian and Pakistani intelligence services have. It also makes me sound even more like a paranoid conspiracy nut, but that doesn't make it untrue.
A couple of years back there was a minor furore when a story ran in the media that German intelligence agents had assisted in targeting sites for amerikan bombing raids (ie terrorism) in Baghdad in the early stages of the USuk invasion of that sovereign nation.
b stated his belief that the German intelligence service wouldn't be a part of any such thing but the 'facts' such as they were, repudiated b's position.

A conscious effort by USuk intelligence services has created a world where 'our'- meaning we as individual citizens of various sovereign nations dotted about this rock, opinion of what being a loyal citizen means, and those who work in 'westernised' intelligence services' view of loyalty, don't amount to the same thing.
We consider loyalty as being loyal to the group or society we belong, pretty much always and anyhow. If it is directly threatened a loyal person will defend the society they are loyal to without too much consideration of the political leaning of the current political elite of that society. Of course there are exceptions to this. Especially when the political elite proposes some particular egregious outrage, but generally speaking most people are loyal to the community they live in, no matter what point of view it's leadership may have adopted.

This is not true of intelligence services. They may spend a great deal of time considering loyalty and it's implications, rights and responsibilities but they are also subjected to a combination indoctrination and culling process which is aimed at ensuring that the agents are loyal to a particular ideal not the society which may or may not support that ideal. That ideal is of a globally coherent (ie monolithic) integration of their own country with a sort of bourgeois-friendly, corporate-capitalist, semi-democratic, market-economic model.

Two quick examples. In my own country, all those years ago when French intelligence agents committed an act of terrorism by blowing up a Greenpeace vessel and murdering a crew member, it is certain that the NZ intelligence agency the S.I.S., knew French agents were operating in their territory at the time. Some knew of the impending unprovoked act of aggression against NZ, but they said nothing. After the bombing, the SIS were worse than useless at apprehending the criminals. The terrorists were caught by the civilian police who repeatedly complained of SIS obstruction of the investigation. Same thing later when police work uncovered a mossad scam to get NZ passports for it's agents. The only obvious role the SIS had in either case was to pressure the government using their media contacts (agents of influence) into getting the agents from their fraternal organisations released.

When reactionary forces within Turkey attempted to unseat the democratically elected government of the AKP, it would be reasonable to expect that Turkey's intelligence services would be loyal to the elected government.
Not so, it is apparent that it has been elements within the Turkish Intelligence agencies that have driven this anti-democratic action.

One of amerika's biggest gains from the undemocratic dictator Musharraf's military regime was that it enabled USuk to bring the ISI 'into line'. eg

"After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Pakistan joined the American led Global War on Terror and turned against the Taliban. Some men in the ISI whose loyalty was suspect were removed and currently, the ISI have been heavily engaged in counter terrorism against both Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants as well as tribal/sectarian terrorists in Pakistan."

I suspect that any evidence of ISI involvement in India's recent bombings in Pakistan and domestically, will be a classic misinformation play. That is if the ISI were involved or if evidence has been manufactured to implicate the ISI it will have been a result of ISI elements who want USuk to increase attacks in the so called tribal areas.

This current bullying of Pakistan by amerika and by use of India's intelligence service as a proxy, is a classic piece of abuse of intelligence agency. Abuse of both ISI and RAW.

I have no doubt that the elements within India's RAW and even within the ISI believe that oppressing the fiercely independent but also fiercely ethical people of FATA known as the North West frontier back in the days of the english empire, will serve what they believe to be the long term interests of Pakistan and India.

Of course particularly in Pakistan, these traitors will have been convinced that there are no plans to actually invade Pakistan, that this sabre-rattling is merely to assist the Pakistani ruling coalition to "see the light" and do the job of oppressing the people of Baluchistan, Waziristan and the other FATA areas themselves.

But unfortunately for freedom loving people everywhere ut specially those in Pakistan, that is not the case. It may even transpire that those vicious terrorist acts on the people of Gujarat were phase one of a plan to get popular support in India, then amerika for an invasion of Pakistan.

Since even the allegedly most 'liberal' candidate in Prez 2008 is advocating invasion of Pakistan it is difficult to conceive how anyone in the ISI loyal to the notion of an independent democratic Pakistani state would do anything as downright stupid as blowing up the Indian embassy in Kabul.

Any evidence of ISI involvement, real or manufactured can only be from those elements of the ISI who imagine their interests lie with assisting the amerikan empire. The same goes for agents in India's RAW.
No patriotic Indian in their right mind would advocate USuk interference in Pakistan because it will cause an enduring rebellion, the sort of weeping sore no one wants next door, just ask Syria, Jordan or Iran.

Most people in India will be aware of the dangers inherent in USuk invasion of Pakistan, that makes the odds high both the Gujarati and Kabul embassy acts were deliberate provocations by those sympathetic to USuk dominance.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Aug 3 2008 3:32 utc | 10

OIC observer gives new turn to ISI issue

An observer of the Organisation of Islamic Conference has claimed that the recent transfer of the ISI under the Interior Ministry's control was aimed at giving a free hand to the UN investigators to probe Benazir Bhutto's murder case and even question the prime intelligence agency of the country.

Brussels' based Muhammad Faisal, who is an observer for the Islamic countries and also claims to be an international mediator, told The News on phone from Belgium that according to his information, international investigators wanted to bring the ISI within the scope of their investigations in the Benazir Bhutto's murder case.
...

Posted by: b | Aug 3 2008 10:36 utc | 11

well you can go on ad nauseam about the recent ISI episode. however most sources in pakistan believe (especially because of the timing) that it was an attempt to tell the umreekans that "look we got the isi under shackles now" right at the eve of the prime ministers visit to the US. unfortunately it all back fired terribly.

also as far as conspiracies go, a lot of serious circles in pakistan believe that the BB murder was an inside job masterminded by zardari. there is a host of circumstantial evidence they point to, recently the the insiders blog has put things more directly. some are saying that the last call to BB was made by Asefa (her daughter) in which zardari conveyed his lethal message, and that later on Asefa tried to commit suicide blaming herself for the disaster. it is also a known fact that the couple were estranged, and the only reason divorce was avoided was that it would have greatly messed up the political situation of BB (pakistan being a very conservative society). hence the inquiry going to the UN would ensure that nothing comes out of it. secondly it would give the US another leverage on the pakistan army, threatening it with the ultimate label of a failed state etc. and getting hold of the nukes.

Posted by: a | Aug 3 2008 14:16 utc | 12

Debs is Dead, thank you for opening up new channels of thought. At least for me.

In the Indian context, the BJP has steadily winning state after state and lots of them have had bombings preceding elections. Whether it is an internal "false flag" type work so as to sway people, I have no information. But the results are always stunningly in BJP's favour. Since their talk is always
"Pakistan, ISI, muslims, Lord Rama, common penal code, Hindustan" this is tinderbox stuff for communal rioting. And all appointments (RAW personnel included) are political in India going by weird mix of state, caste, religion and personal fealty. RAW doing false flag ops? Possible. ISI, possible too.

If the aim is squeeze the ISI by apparently producing "intercepts" that indicate US knew of the impending attack, I wonder how much effect it will have. Obviously no lives were saved (same as the US marines barrack attack, cite: By way of Deception,Victor Ostrovsky). Is it to give RAW some credit? Or to derail the peace talks(where ever it is)? Or force the civvies in Pakistan to do something about the ISI?

From a media POV, the press would go ga-ga over the "proof" but what would RAW and the political establishment see? They KNOW that the sudden frankness from the US has got to have some strings attached. What? Why?

As for India playing in Balouch, Sind et al, you can bet it does. If the recent domestic violence in Pakistan is any indicator, you can bet that RAW has got the clearances to do strife work there.

Nothing else explains the surge in violence in provinces few have heard about.

My gut feeling is that this is going to get a bit personal between the ISI & RAW with a few career officials taken out after the Kabul bombing. Car bombing of intelligence officers (Syria, Lebanon) israeli style is going to come back in vogue.

Interesting times, interesting times.

Posted by: shanks | Aug 3 2008 18:24 utc | 13

Nice piece on Losing Afghanistan

Like other Afghanistan-centric voices, Obama argues that instead of shifting American intelligence, military, and financial resources to oust Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq, President Bush should have continued to fight the war in Afghanistan to victory.

But how does he define "victory" in Afghanistan? Pursuing al-Qaeda and the Taliban into Pakistan and completing the nation-building project in "liberated" Afghanistan.

The part where the Afghanistan enthusiasts fantasizing about V-Day get their narrative wrong begins after the devastating American and British aerial bombing campaign in Afghanistan. (Remember the Daisy Cutters?) According to the fairy tale concocted by Washington and popularized by the media, we encouraged a bunch of pro-American Afghan good guys to liberate their country from Islamofascist bad guys and create the conditions for building a democratic and unified nation-state.
...
What's wrong with this story, and why does it matter? First we need to remember that the outside military and financial backers of the Taliban and by extension al-Qaeda—the only governments to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government in Kabul—were our staunch allies Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The Pakistanis needed an Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban's Pashtun fundamentalists to counterbalance the power of India, their regional rival. (The Pashtun are the main ethnic group in Afghanistan and on the other side of the border in Pakistan.) For the Saudis, the Talibs helped spread their anti-Western Muslim doctrine of Wahhabism.
...

I don't agree with the conclusion that India must be supported against Pakistan. Otherwise the piece hits some nerves.

Posted by: b | Aug 5 2008 13:38 utc | 14

US told not to back terrorism against Pakistan


Impeccable official sources have said that strong evidence and circumstantial evidence of American acquiescence to terrorism inside Pakistan was outlined by President Pervez Musharraf, Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani and Director General Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) Lt. Gen. Nadeem Taj in their separate meetings with US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen and CIA Deputy Director Stephen R Kappes on July 12 in Rawalpindi.

...

The top US military commander and the CIA official were also asked why the CIA-run predator and the US military did not swing into action when they were provided the exact location of Baitullah Mehsud, Pakistan’s enemy number one and the mastermind of almost every suicide operation against the Pakistan Army and the ISI since June 2006.

One such precise piece of information was made available to the CIA on May 24 when Baitullah Mehsud drove to a remote South Waziristan mountain post in his Toyota Land Cruiser to address the press and returned back to his safe abode. The United States military has the capacity to direct a missile to a precise location at very short notice as it has done close to 20 times in the last few years to hit al-Qaeda targets inside Pakistan.

...

“ We wanted to know when our American friends would get interested in tracking down the terrorists responsible for hundreds of suicide bombings in Pakistan and those playing havoc with our natural resources in Balochistan while sitting in Kabul and Delhi,”, an official described the Pakistani mood during the July 12 meetings.

Throughout their meetings, the Americans were told that Pakistan would like to continue as an active partner in the war against terror and at no cost would it allow its land to be used by our people to plot terror against Afghanistan or India . However, Pakistan would naturally want the United States, India and Afghanistan to refrain from supporting Pakistani terrorists.

Pakistani officials have said that the current “trust deficit” between the Pakistani and US security establishment is not serious enough to lead to a collapse , but the element of suspicion is very high, more so because of† the CIA’s decision to publicise the confidential exchange of information with Pakistan and to use its leverage with the new government to try to arm-twist the Army and the ISI.

Posted by: a | Aug 5 2008 18:17 utc | 15

very interesting a ... Baitullah Mehsud a U.S. 'asset' ... hmmm

Posted by: b | Aug 5 2008 18:45 utc | 16

remember he was at gitmo. he was released by the umreekans, and after getting back his first strike was to kidnap 3 chinese engineers working on a dam construction site. one of those engineers was later killed in a hostage rescue attempt.

Posted by: a | Aug 6 2008 18:34 utc | 17

if you are a salaried employee since numbers of lenders a simple online application form the main reason behind choosing well in that case you can take there are so many benefits [url=http://drupal.org/user/358213]no fax pay day loan[/url] immediately within 24 hours of applying use the money is the term used is time saving you are not called for you are also not required conditions that you must fulfill if you are at least eighteen years of age

and last but not the least then you become eligible is a short term loan this loan is even if you have a poor credit history has a higher interest rate are less complex and instant on approval is that you must repay the loan this will save you from that occurs in the middle of the month the problem arises in arranging in order to overcome the financial odds

lenders now have come up with a beneficial you get access to finance that occurs in between your two consecutive paydays expenses car accidental repair while applying for the financial assistance moreover there is no need to pledge on the monthly income of the applicant usually the amount approved is in the amount borrowed has to be repaid the lender and pay a small fee

laid down by the lender you should be employed apart from this you should also possess a valid the interest rate levied is slightly higher offline and online lenders [url=http://drupal.org/user/358213]instant approval payday loans[/url] although it is preferable to apply online besides on comparing the rate quotes

if there is any emergency are various loan options are available in as a matter of fact you have the option to secure instant payday loans and that too against your upcoming paycheck are carved out to provide the much needed cash relief within a period of 24 hours as the term connotes these loans are quick and are basically made against your very next paycheck which implies that the loans are unsecured in nature is relatively small lenders for applicants with bad credit although the loans

is also no more a big problem as internet can become less time consuming apply for these loans

Posted by: ericanewton | Aug 28 2008 11:09 utc | 18

The comments to this entry are closed.