TaimiKhan
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,955
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
The ISI did it. (Or did it?)
Usman Ansari
You always hear stories about how Pakistan through the ISI is pulling some massive deception with regards the military adventure in Afghanistan.
For example, last year Harvard University researcher, Matt Waldman, wrote a report for the London School of Economics, in which he concluded that there is "a strong case that the ISI orchestrates, sustains and shapes the overall insurgent campaign".
I really find this hard to believe myself. Waldman said there was a "strong case" for his view; he did not say it 'was' the case. Also, what were Waldman's sources for coming to such a conclusion? It's no use just saying he is from Harvard. So what if he is?
One problem is that Afghan 'sources' used by western analysts and journalists, are probably the same old motley collection of Pakistan-bashers be they former Northern Alliance or so-called Pushtun/Pathan nationalists. The latter in particular make me laugh the most. Are the other ethnic minorities in Afghanistan going to welcome millions more Pushtuns/Pathans into the country to upset the ethnic balance? Pathans/Pushtuns are already nearly about 40-50 percent of the population. Do they want to be completely swamped with millions more therefore? Also, what makes anyone think the millions of Pathans/Pushtuns that live perfectly well in Pakistan want to suddenly become citizens of some fratricidal basket case like Afghanistan?
Anyway, military officers are posted to ISI for two years and then posted out. It's supposed to ensure they don't get too comfortable in dabbling with untoward things as a way of life. Pakistan can't be responsible for what retired officers get up to, because the west wouldn't hold itself up to that standard, so why should Pakistan?
In saying the ISI "orchestrates, sustains and shapes the overall insurgent campaign", (as it says in Waldman's report), what they're getting is that Pakistan is acting against the Pakistani Taliban, and leaving the 'Haqqani Network', the so-called Afghan Taliban, alone. Pakistan acts against the 'Pakistani Taliban' because the Pakistani Taliban is the main insurgent threat to Pakistan. They are the ones taking over parts of the country. They are the ones setting off bombs here, there, and everywhere. They are the ones launching attacks against any target they can manage to attack. So why should they be left alone? They are killing hundreds of people at every opportunity. They slit the throats of any Pakistani soldier they can capture alive, and post films of themselves doing so all over the web. Why should Pakistan leave these people alone?
Why does Pakistan have to abandon its own immediate domestic security interests which result in hundreds of civilians and soldiers dying just because NATO has screwed up its intervention in Afghanistan? This is despite Pakistan giving it a point by point guidebook on 'How to Military Intervene in Afghanistan - Lessons for a Foreign Military Power' right from September 2001 before any western soldiers set foot in the accursed place. (I should clarify that you cannot blame many of the western soldiers - definitely not the British or American ones really - but it is the fault of their respective governments).
In the same breath Pakistan gets castigated for allowing ground cleared of the Taliban to be reoccupied because it lacks the resources to take and hold ground. That is the view of the White House. Especially after the floods, if the Pakistan Army was to move into North Waziristan the Taliban would just walk right back into South Waziristan. In recognition of that the US has just put together a US$2 billion 'Security Assistance Package' to equip Pakistan to do just that, take and keep ground. So there is a lot of selective use of sources and events being used when people blame Pakistan for the mess in Afghanistan.
If Western analysts want to find someone playing a double game in Afghanistan they should look closer to home. The west said it was in Afghanistan until the job was done. It assured Pakistan that it would not turn its back and walk away like it had done in 1988/89. Pick up any paper you like and there are any number of analysts saying the west needs to do just that. The overwhelming public opinion is for just that. It is not Pakistan's fault that some European states with military forces in Afghanistan are too cowardly to actually fight the Taliban and are busy hiding behind the nearest wall of British and American dead bodies (again). Some of them actually pay the Taliban what amounts to ‘protection money' to be left alone. They themselves are funding the Taliban. Others end up dishing out money to Afghan ‘security' firms that periodically launch attacks themselves to ‘remind' their employers that it's a dangerous neighbourhood so need to be kept in employment.
Back to the 'Afghan' Taliban in Pakistan though, admittedly the Army cannot act against some of them because they are 'enjoying the protection' of some of the tribes in North Waziristan. To do so with an under equipped and under funded army would only lead to a full scale insurrection along the Frontier. Who picks up the pieces then? It would be worse for everybody. The west is falling over itself to get the hell out of Afghanistan. Realistically, they could not give a damn about Pakistan beyond hoping its nuclear arsenal does not fall into the wrong hands. If they woke up tomorrow and Pakistan had become part of India overnight, they would heave a sigh of relief. That is just cold hard politics.
At the same time, the west now wants to have some kind of negotiated settlement so it can withdraw. Who the hell do they want to talk to? They want to talk to the same people they want Pakistan to kill. How does that work? Pakistan knows that the Taliban, in one guise or another are a fact of Afghanistan's framework that cannot be bombed away. They are overwhelmingly Pushtuns/Pathans, and because that ethnic group has been marginalised by the rise and grip on power of some former Northern Alliance warlords under an ineffectual kleptomaniac who also wants to talk to the Taliban (Karzai), they are going to want a say in what goes on in their country.
Also, what makes anyone think that stopping some of the Taliban from running across the border into Pakistan would end the insurgency in Afghanistan itself? Just how much control of Afghanistan does the NATO Coalition have? Why don't any of these western analysts and journalists blaming Pakistan look at a map of Afghanistan where the NATO Coalition has no control whatsoever? How would they explain the controlling presence of the Taliban (and NATO's total lack of control) in places that are nowhere near the Afghan-Pakistan border? Musharraf offered to fence and mine the entire border, it was the NATO Coalition and the Afghan government that refused. Why? Who is playing the double game here? Why does a wall built in Palestine (that cements a blatant land grab for more Israeli colonies) get the green light for stopping suicide bombers killing Israelis, but a fence intended to stop western soldiers getting killed get a red one?
As for tactics, the Taliban are using the same tactics that the Afghan Mujahideen used in the 1980s, or ones that were refined in Iraq like the IED. They do not need Pakistan to tell them how to do it because they have their own experience in doing so. The place is awash with weaponry, they do not need any from Pakistan. They do not even need recruits from Pakistan because there is an army of willing volunteers sick to the back teeth of the corruption, grinding poverty, and oppression that is the hallmark of the inept and ineffectual Afghan government. The Afghan Taliban is basically a self sustaining enterprise now. Under the circumstances they could probably carry on forever. Even areas under the full control of the NATO Coalition and Afghan government are not exactly anything to crow about, because investment is actually being ploughed into areas that are being contested by the Taliban to win the population over. Under those circumstances it is actually worth the while of Afghans to sign up with the Taliban. It means people pay attention.
Western analysts always lose sight of the fact that Pakistan needs a stable Afghanistan because it wants access to Central Asia. It wants Central Asian gas pipelines to route through Afghanistan and into Pakistan. It wants Central Asian states to use the Pakistani port of Gwadar as their main point of import/export. That project alone has lost Pakistan billions because of the instability in Afghanistan (plus poor project management it has to be said). In that respect the only beneficiary has been Iran, because Iran has been able to try and get the gas pipelines and import/export routes running through its own territory with Indian help. What does Pakistan have to gain from continued instability in Afghanistan therefore? Pakistan is actually losing, economically, politically, and in security terms. Are western analysts implying that the ISI cannot see this?
How many countries have their fingers in the Afghan pie? Under those circumstances how is the ISI, with far less resources, able to dance around them all and supposedly play such a double game? If the ISI was half as capable as it was made out to be, would Pakistan be in such a misruled state? If the ISI can supposedly destabilise a whole country and take the west for a ride at the same time, why can it not permanently sort out kleptomaniac and treacherous scum like Nawaz Sharif and Zardari?
If the ISI is half as good and capable as it is made out to be, if it is a law unto itself, the wretched domestic situation clearly shows it is massively underperforming.
http://usmanansari.com/
Usman Ansari
You always hear stories about how Pakistan through the ISI is pulling some massive deception with regards the military adventure in Afghanistan.
For example, last year Harvard University researcher, Matt Waldman, wrote a report for the London School of Economics, in which he concluded that there is "a strong case that the ISI orchestrates, sustains and shapes the overall insurgent campaign".
I really find this hard to believe myself. Waldman said there was a "strong case" for his view; he did not say it 'was' the case. Also, what were Waldman's sources for coming to such a conclusion? It's no use just saying he is from Harvard. So what if he is?
One problem is that Afghan 'sources' used by western analysts and journalists, are probably the same old motley collection of Pakistan-bashers be they former Northern Alliance or so-called Pushtun/Pathan nationalists. The latter in particular make me laugh the most. Are the other ethnic minorities in Afghanistan going to welcome millions more Pushtuns/Pathans into the country to upset the ethnic balance? Pathans/Pushtuns are already nearly about 40-50 percent of the population. Do they want to be completely swamped with millions more therefore? Also, what makes anyone think the millions of Pathans/Pushtuns that live perfectly well in Pakistan want to suddenly become citizens of some fratricidal basket case like Afghanistan?
Anyway, military officers are posted to ISI for two years and then posted out. It's supposed to ensure they don't get too comfortable in dabbling with untoward things as a way of life. Pakistan can't be responsible for what retired officers get up to, because the west wouldn't hold itself up to that standard, so why should Pakistan?
In saying the ISI "orchestrates, sustains and shapes the overall insurgent campaign", (as it says in Waldman's report), what they're getting is that Pakistan is acting against the Pakistani Taliban, and leaving the 'Haqqani Network', the so-called Afghan Taliban, alone. Pakistan acts against the 'Pakistani Taliban' because the Pakistani Taliban is the main insurgent threat to Pakistan. They are the ones taking over parts of the country. They are the ones setting off bombs here, there, and everywhere. They are the ones launching attacks against any target they can manage to attack. So why should they be left alone? They are killing hundreds of people at every opportunity. They slit the throats of any Pakistani soldier they can capture alive, and post films of themselves doing so all over the web. Why should Pakistan leave these people alone?
Why does Pakistan have to abandon its own immediate domestic security interests which result in hundreds of civilians and soldiers dying just because NATO has screwed up its intervention in Afghanistan? This is despite Pakistan giving it a point by point guidebook on 'How to Military Intervene in Afghanistan - Lessons for a Foreign Military Power' right from September 2001 before any western soldiers set foot in the accursed place. (I should clarify that you cannot blame many of the western soldiers - definitely not the British or American ones really - but it is the fault of their respective governments).
In the same breath Pakistan gets castigated for allowing ground cleared of the Taliban to be reoccupied because it lacks the resources to take and hold ground. That is the view of the White House. Especially after the floods, if the Pakistan Army was to move into North Waziristan the Taliban would just walk right back into South Waziristan. In recognition of that the US has just put together a US$2 billion 'Security Assistance Package' to equip Pakistan to do just that, take and keep ground. So there is a lot of selective use of sources and events being used when people blame Pakistan for the mess in Afghanistan.
If Western analysts want to find someone playing a double game in Afghanistan they should look closer to home. The west said it was in Afghanistan until the job was done. It assured Pakistan that it would not turn its back and walk away like it had done in 1988/89. Pick up any paper you like and there are any number of analysts saying the west needs to do just that. The overwhelming public opinion is for just that. It is not Pakistan's fault that some European states with military forces in Afghanistan are too cowardly to actually fight the Taliban and are busy hiding behind the nearest wall of British and American dead bodies (again). Some of them actually pay the Taliban what amounts to ‘protection money' to be left alone. They themselves are funding the Taliban. Others end up dishing out money to Afghan ‘security' firms that periodically launch attacks themselves to ‘remind' their employers that it's a dangerous neighbourhood so need to be kept in employment.
Back to the 'Afghan' Taliban in Pakistan though, admittedly the Army cannot act against some of them because they are 'enjoying the protection' of some of the tribes in North Waziristan. To do so with an under equipped and under funded army would only lead to a full scale insurrection along the Frontier. Who picks up the pieces then? It would be worse for everybody. The west is falling over itself to get the hell out of Afghanistan. Realistically, they could not give a damn about Pakistan beyond hoping its nuclear arsenal does not fall into the wrong hands. If they woke up tomorrow and Pakistan had become part of India overnight, they would heave a sigh of relief. That is just cold hard politics.
At the same time, the west now wants to have some kind of negotiated settlement so it can withdraw. Who the hell do they want to talk to? They want to talk to the same people they want Pakistan to kill. How does that work? Pakistan knows that the Taliban, in one guise or another are a fact of Afghanistan's framework that cannot be bombed away. They are overwhelmingly Pushtuns/Pathans, and because that ethnic group has been marginalised by the rise and grip on power of some former Northern Alliance warlords under an ineffectual kleptomaniac who also wants to talk to the Taliban (Karzai), they are going to want a say in what goes on in their country.
Also, what makes anyone think that stopping some of the Taliban from running across the border into Pakistan would end the insurgency in Afghanistan itself? Just how much control of Afghanistan does the NATO Coalition have? Why don't any of these western analysts and journalists blaming Pakistan look at a map of Afghanistan where the NATO Coalition has no control whatsoever? How would they explain the controlling presence of the Taliban (and NATO's total lack of control) in places that are nowhere near the Afghan-Pakistan border? Musharraf offered to fence and mine the entire border, it was the NATO Coalition and the Afghan government that refused. Why? Who is playing the double game here? Why does a wall built in Palestine (that cements a blatant land grab for more Israeli colonies) get the green light for stopping suicide bombers killing Israelis, but a fence intended to stop western soldiers getting killed get a red one?
As for tactics, the Taliban are using the same tactics that the Afghan Mujahideen used in the 1980s, or ones that were refined in Iraq like the IED. They do not need Pakistan to tell them how to do it because they have their own experience in doing so. The place is awash with weaponry, they do not need any from Pakistan. They do not even need recruits from Pakistan because there is an army of willing volunteers sick to the back teeth of the corruption, grinding poverty, and oppression that is the hallmark of the inept and ineffectual Afghan government. The Afghan Taliban is basically a self sustaining enterprise now. Under the circumstances they could probably carry on forever. Even areas under the full control of the NATO Coalition and Afghan government are not exactly anything to crow about, because investment is actually being ploughed into areas that are being contested by the Taliban to win the population over. Under those circumstances it is actually worth the while of Afghans to sign up with the Taliban. It means people pay attention.
Western analysts always lose sight of the fact that Pakistan needs a stable Afghanistan because it wants access to Central Asia. It wants Central Asian gas pipelines to route through Afghanistan and into Pakistan. It wants Central Asian states to use the Pakistani port of Gwadar as their main point of import/export. That project alone has lost Pakistan billions because of the instability in Afghanistan (plus poor project management it has to be said). In that respect the only beneficiary has been Iran, because Iran has been able to try and get the gas pipelines and import/export routes running through its own territory with Indian help. What does Pakistan have to gain from continued instability in Afghanistan therefore? Pakistan is actually losing, economically, politically, and in security terms. Are western analysts implying that the ISI cannot see this?
How many countries have their fingers in the Afghan pie? Under those circumstances how is the ISI, with far less resources, able to dance around them all and supposedly play such a double game? If the ISI was half as capable as it was made out to be, would Pakistan be in such a misruled state? If the ISI can supposedly destabilise a whole country and take the west for a ride at the same time, why can it not permanently sort out kleptomaniac and treacherous scum like Nawaz Sharif and Zardari?
If the ISI is half as good and capable as it is made out to be, if it is a law unto itself, the wretched domestic situation clearly shows it is massively underperforming.
http://usmanansari.com/
