What's new

ISI aiding taliban or maintaining contacts?

AgNoStiC MuSliM

ADVISORS
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
25,259
Reaction score
87
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Afghan Strikes by Taliban Get Pakistan Help, U.S. Aides Say​

By MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT
March 26, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Taliban’s widening campaign in southern Afghanistan is made possible in part by direct support from operatives in Pakistan’s military intelligence agency, despite Pakistani government promises to sever ties to militant groups fighting in Afghanistan, according to American government officials.

The support consists of money, military supplies and strategic planning guidance to Taliban commanders who are gearing up to confront the international force in Afghanistan that will soon include some 17,000 American reinforcements.

Support for the Taliban, as well as other militant groups, is coordinated by operatives inside the shadowy S Wing of Pakistan’s spy service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, the officials said. There is even evidence that ISI operatives meet regularly with Taliban commanders to discuss whether to intensify or scale back violence before the Afghan elections.

Details of the ISI’s continuing ties to militant groups were described by a half-dozen American, Pakistani and other security officials during recent interviews in Washington and the Pakistani capital, Islamabad. All requested anonymity because they were discussing classified and sensitive intelligence information.

The American officials said proof of the ties between the Taliban and Pakistani spies came from electronic surveillance and trusted informants. The Pakistani officials interviewed said that they had firsthand knowledge of the connections, though they denied that the ties were strengthening the insurgency.

American officials have complained for more than a year about the ISI’s support to groups like the Taliban. But the new details reveal that the spy agency is aiding a broader array of militant networks with more diverse types of support than was previously known — even months after Pakistani officials said that the days of the ISI’s playing a “double game” had ended.

Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders publicly deny any government ties to militant groups, and American officials say it is unlikely that top officials in Islamabad are directly coordinating the clandestine efforts. American officials have also said that midlevel ISI operatives occasionally cultivate relationships that are not approved by their bosses.

In a sign of just how resigned Western officials are to the ties, the British government has sent several dispatches to Islamabad in recent months asking that the ISI use its strategy meetings with the Taliban to persuade its commanders to scale back violence in Afghanistan before the August presidential election there, according to one official.

But the inability, or unwillingness, of the embattled civilian government, led by President Asif Ali Zardari, to break the ties that bind the ISI to the militants illustrates the complexities of a region of shifting alliances. Obama administration officials admit that they are struggling to understand these allegiances as they try to forge a strategy to quell violence in Afghanistan, which has intensified because of a resurgent Taliban. Fighting this insurgency is difficult enough, officials said, without having to worry about an allied spy service’s supporting the enemy.

But the Pakistanis offered a more nuanced portrait. They said the contacts were less threatening than the American officials depicted and were part of a strategy to maintain influence in Afghanistan for the day when American forces would withdraw and leave what they fear could be a power vacuum to be filled by India, Pakistan’s archenemy. A senior Pakistani military officer said, “In intelligence, you have to be in contact with your enemy or you are running blind.”

The ISI helped create and nurture the Taliban movement in the 1990s to bring stability to a nation that had been devastated by years of civil war between rival warlords, and one Pakistani official explained that Islamabad needed to use groups like the Taliban as “proxy forces to preserve our interests.”

A spokesman at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington declined to comment for this article.

Over the past year, a parade of senior American diplomats, military officers and intelligence officials has flown to Islamabad to urge Pakistan’s civilian and military leaders to cut off support for militant groups, and Washington has threatened to put conditions on more than $1 billion in annual military aid to Pakistan. On Saturday, the director of the C.I.A., Leon E. Panetta, met with top Pakistani officials in Islamabad.

Little is publicly known about the ISI’s S Wing, which officials say directs intelligence operations outside of Pakistan. American officials said that the S Wing provided direct support to three major groups carrying out attacks in Afghanistan: the Taliban based in Quetta, Pakistan, commanded by Mullah Muhammad Omar; the militant network run by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar; and a different group run by the guerrilla leader Jalaluddin Haqqani.

Dennis C. Blair, the director of national intelligence, recently told senators that the Pakistanis “draw distinctions” among different militant groups.

“There are some they believe have to be hit and that we should cooperate on hitting, and there are others they think don’t constitute as much of a threat to them and that they think are best left alone,” Mr. Blair said.

The Haqqani network, which focuses its attacks on Afghanistan, is considered a strategic asset to Pakistan, according to American and Pakistani officials, in contrast to the militant network run by Baitullah Mehsud, which has the goal of overthrowing Pakistan’s government.

Top American officials speak bluntly about how the situation has changed little since last summer, when evidence showed that ISI operatives helped plan the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, an attack that killed 54 people.

“They have been very attached to many of these extremist organizations, and it’s my belief that in the long run, they have got to completely cut ties with those in order to really move in the right direction,” Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said recently on “The Charlie Rose Show” on PBS.

The Taliban has been able to finance a military campaign inside Afghanistan largely through proceeds from the illegal drug trade and wealthy individuals from the Persian Gulf. But American officials said that when fighters needed fuel or ammunition to sustain their attacks against American troops, they would often turn to the ISI.

When the groups needed to replenish their ranks, it would be operatives from the S Wing who often slipped into radical madrasas across Pakistan to drum up recruits, the officials said.
{Okay, this is just silly - ISI officials do not have supernatural powers of persuasion that require only 'S-Wing' individuals to go recruit people - good analysis going bad here}

The ISI support for militants extends beyond those operating in the tribal areas of northwest Pakistan. American officials said the spy agency had also shared intelligence with Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistan-based militant group suspected in the deadly attacks in Mumbai, India, and provided protection for it.

Mr. Zardari took steps last summer to purge the ISI’s top ranks after the United States confronted Pakistan with evidence about the Indian Embassy bombing. Mr. Zardari pledged that the ISI would be “handled,” and that anyone working with militants would be dismissed.

Yet with the future of Mr. Zardari’s government uncertain in the current political turmoil and with Obama officials seeing few immediate alternatives, American officials and outside experts said that Pakistan’s military establishment appears to see little advantage in responding to the demands of civilian officials in Islamabad or Washington.

As a result, when the Haqqani fighters need to stay a step ahead of American forces stalking them on the ground and in the air, they rely on moles within the spy agency to tip them off to allied missions planned against them, American military officials said.

Mark Mazzetti reported from Washington, and Eric Schmitt from Washington and Islamabad, Pakistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/world/asia/26tribal.html?_r=1&hp
 
OK - I purposely highlighted only the alleged Pakistani POV in the report since the other side has been heard ad nauseum, and it is such a rarity to have the NYT people actually report the other side of the story.

Of course even here the Pakistani view point is a side show, with the headline and first few paragraphs laying out the conclusions that the authors want their audience to draw.

The Pakistani views highlighted in green are especially important, since they coincide with the statements made in the past as well as the little 'slip' by the DG ISI in his interview with Der Spiegel. Pakistan maintains contacts with some Taliban groups for various reasons, but there is no policy in place to aid them against NATO.

Even the authors admit that 'top officials' are not involved, though the same Mazetti was a few months ago quoting 'Intelligence officials' swearing that the 'top officials were involved - yeesh, make up your minds on what lie/propaganda you guys are going to release to the press.
 
Last edited:
By NYT an Mazetti standards, a balanced piece on the Af-Pak situation right before Obama announces the new US strategy for the region. What does this portend I wonder?
 
what does it portend?

a new ultimatum.

there are 2 questions. what is an appropriate policy? who decides?

who has the power to decide what?

i remember obama during the campaign saying he would go right into pakistan no matter what the pakistanis said.

he also chose to disregard pakistan sovereignty vis a vis the drone attacks.
 
what does it portend?

a new ultimatum.

there are 2 questions. what is an appropriate policy? who decides?

who has the power to decide what?

i remember obama during the campaign saying he would go right into pakistan no matter what the pakistanis said.

he also chose to disregard pakistan sovereignty vis a vis the drone attacks.

Obama has so far merely continued Bush's policy, which is going nowhere. There has been no significant change in his approach towards the region as of yet, though we expect one.

If these Mazetti reports on the ISI are to be taken as 'ultimatums' then we have had about a dozen or so, some quite a bit more alarmist, slandering the COAS and 'top officials'. Haven't done much have they, these ultimatums.

Ultimatums only work IMO if they also offer a feasible option for the concerned parties to follow. If the ultimatums leave a choice between 'a rock and a hard place', then chances are the concerned parties will likely stick with the original 'rock' and tell the ultimatum giver to shove off.

Will Obama have a 'feasible option' in his Af-Pak plan?
 
By NYT an Mazetti standards, a balanced piece on the Af-Pak situation right before Obama announces the new US strategy for the region. What does this portend I wonder?

Strikes in Baluchistan or bounties on people inside Pakistan, I am afraid. More go-it-aloneness from USA.

NY Times has now become an independent voice on US foreign affairs, and this article does not sound like it is a planted leak by the administration. So what Obama does may be different from what NY Times says.
 
We're really quite nice. The British ask politely if you'll consider being nice to Afghanistan this election season in your coordination meetings with the taliban. WE plan AID packages to you instead of strike packages upon you.

You've done it. You've actually stayed true to the course and got everybody to accept that it's perfectly fine to support and use proxy armies from your soil without fear of censure, withholding of aid, economic embargo, or even war.

We PAY you to make WAR on us. Can't get any sweeter than that.

There's no nuance to understand. You expect to tear into Afghanistan the moment we put our last boots on a plane. "Contacts"? For what? Another civil war?

We are truly, truly fcuking stupid.:crazy:
 
If lower level ISI officials are maintaining contact with Taleban, then surely its sanctioned by the higher level ones.

So the question is, is the contact as benign as the ISI wants us to believe? This policy of using proxies to push foreign policy is an old one, has achieved nothing but destruction and death. Yet Pakistan wants to keep pushing it to counter 'indian influence' in afghanistan.

is afghanistan pakistan's fiefdom?
 
US and its allies are themselves willing to talk to so called moderate talibans.

If Pakistan or ISI does the same then what is wrong.

Regarding S-2 comments I have a different view. During 80's we were caught unprepared when suddenly Americans lets us in the middle of a war and we had to cope with all the back lash.

This time perhaps we wish to have a backup plan. There is nothing wrong about that. US has its own objectives and interests and we have our own. We won't allow India to gain a foot hold in Afghanistan.
 
Strikes in Baluchistan or bounties on people inside Pakistan, I am afraid. More go-it-aloneness from USA.

NY Times has now become an independent voice on US foreign affairs, and this article does not sound like it is a planted leak by the administration. So what Obama does may be different from what NY Times says.

Its become an independent voice in the matter of a few months?

Hard to believe. Its still the same Mazetti quoting the same 'anonymous intelligence and administration officials', meaning he could be getting fed propaganda or the truth - who knows. We do know that his source shave made him report two wildly different claims on the alleged culpability of 'top Pakistani officials'.

Nonetheless, even if he towed the US line overall, including the view point of the Pakistani officials was welcome.

I dunno about strikes in Baluchistan right now, Gates comments in his testimony to the senate do not suggest something along those lines at this moment in time, though that may change depending upon the environment created after the deployment of the additional 17000 troops, who might carry out ops in districts of Afghanistan adjacent to Baluchistan.

Bounty on B Mehsud - I'm all for it. That PoS is wanted dead by a lot of Pakistanis as well.
 
We're really quite nice. The British ask politely if you'll consider being nice to Afghanistan this election season in your coordination meetings with the taliban. WE plan AID packages to you instead of strike packages upon you.

You've done it. You've actually stayed true to the course and got everybody to accept that it's perfectly fine to support and use proxy armies from your soil without fear of censure, withholding of aid, economic embargo, or even war.

We PAY you to make WAR on us. Can't get any sweeter than that.

There's no nuance to understand. You expect to tear into Afghanistan the moment we put our last boots on a plane. "Contacts"? For what? Another civil war?

We are truly, truly fcuking stupid.:crazy:

I don't see us making war on you- the Pakistani POV is that the relationship has remained limited to contacts, and the contacts are legitimate and useful. Pakistan has to consider its security as well, and while you may consider the Indians an ohm chanting, software churning bunch of altruistic vegetarians, we have experienced a very different side of them.

Pakistan should not be taking any chances, and keep its 'contacts' open, just in case.

You guys are not Fkin Stupid - there has been an unprecedented level of interaction between the current COAS and DG ISI and Western Military, Defense and Foreign Affairs officials. I would argue that the information we get in the media is likely nothing compared to the information that is shared and concerns that are aired in these meetings.

Obama's future plan will tell us whether the Pakistani side was able to convince Western interlocutors of its concerns and needs, or whether it will indeed boil down to a choice between a 'rock and a hard place', or some third somewhat feasible option.
 
Obama is a politician (no snide remark there.)
During election season, he did say he would go into Pakistan and there would be no more Mr. Nice Guy.
Now ofcourse since he's running the show, ground realities have shown him that it's easier to say that in an airconditioned debate. When you have to put boots on the ground in the Hindu Kush or in Quetta, that's a different story.

There's no way, American troops will be crossing the Durand Line in anger anytime soon - unless our leaders escort them in.
 
This policy of using proxies to push foreign policy is an old one, has achieved nothing but destruction and death.

True, but this policy is not a Pakistani invention and it certainly has never been a Pakistani monopoly either. The Americans, the Indians and the Iranians have all backed and heavily aided groups in Afghanistan that have far from shiny human right records.:disagree:

Yet Pakistan wants to keep pushing it to counter 'indian influence' in afghanistan. is afghanistan pakistan's fiefdom?

No, I wouldn't use the word 'fiefdom', but it certainly is our backyard much like what Cuba was to the US in 1962 and Nepal and Sri Lanka were to India (at least Pakistan never tried to send regular forces into Afghanistan). Try to remember that concepts like relativity and proportion do exist in this world.

We PAY you to make WAR on us. Can't get any sweeter than that.

Looks like S-2 has figured it out all by himself. Now if only less informed people like Admiral Mullen and President Obama were as perceptive…:lol:
 
who does "our leaders" refer to?

who would have the authority to defy the americans or the taliban?

the government of pakistan will take a compromise position depending on different forces that pressure it.

the government of pakistan does not formulate policy. that would be like letting the monkeys run the zoo.
 
We're really quite nice. The British ask politely if you'll consider being nice to Afghanistan this election season in your coordination meetings with the taliban. WE plan AID packages to you instead of strike packages upon you.

You've done it. You've actually stayed true to the course and got everybody to accept that it's perfectly fine to support and use proxy armies from your soil without fear of censure, withholding of aid, economic embargo, or even war.

We PAY you to make WAR on us. Can't get any sweeter than that.

There's no nuance to understand. You expect to tear into Afghanistan the moment we put our last boots on a plane. "Contacts"? For what? Another civil war?

We are truly, truly fcuking stupid.:crazy:
Actually we're the one who are aiding you in killing us :D.

What have you lost? Zilch. Zilch compared to us. We have to aid you, while you don't take care of the Indian Embassies. It will be very stupid of Pakistan to not maintain contacts with the Taliban. Maintaining contacts and aiding them are two different things. This backdoor dealing has helped us in arresting scores of Indian spies infiltrating right out of under your noses into our territory and conducting terror upon our civilians.

It takes two to tango.

The end result we seek is total elimination of terrorism from our soil. The result India seeks is the total shift of terrorism from Afghanistan into Pakistan. You really are stupid, we're not.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom