What's new

CIA/Indian/Afghan Involvement in WoT in Pakistan

What is more preferable depends on what you hold more important - Pakistan as a state, or Pakistan as a people.

Nationalists often have to make a tough choice between the two.

Don't underestimate the power of Islamism to strengthen both nationalism and unity, especially in the face of a perceived assault on Pakistan's sovereignty by the US, which will inevitably get tied in with India's malicious intent.

Don't underestimate their power to shape a narrative that will sell - and we don't have to go as far as the Taliban to see this (though I know that for you Islamism starts and ends with Al Qaeda and Taliban), political parties like that of Nawaz Sharif in conjunction with the MMA will be the face of this Islamism (check out Nawaz's popularity ratings currently).

If US actions can disgust someone like me, who loathes Nawaz and the political (subtle not extreme) Islamism he advocates, then there is a major problem with the approach being taken in the region. And as Muse pointed out, is it realistic to think that the US does not see the consequences of its actions?
Lets wait for change in November. Perhaps the new administration will adopt a more sustainable and effective way to fight terrorism.
I agree with you there - possible if McCain and the 'pit bull with lipstick' don't get elected.

P.S: Apologies for my second line in my previous post, it was uncalled for.
 
Last edited:
Don't underestimate the power of Islamism to strengthen both nationalism and unity, especially in the face of a perceived assault on Pakistan's sovereignty, which will inevitably get tied in with India's malicious intent.

Don't underestimate their power to shape a narrative that will sell - and we don't have to go as far as the Taliban to see this (though I know that for you Islamism starts and ends with Al Qaeda and Taliban), political parties like that of Nawaz Sharif in conjunction with the MMA will be the face of this Islamism (check out Nawaz's popularity ratings currently).

I am fully aware of the uniting power of such ideologies, which thrive on pitting their people against the perceived enemy.

I don't see the similarity between Iran - which is governed by clerics, and a sort of soft Islamist agenda that Nawaz Sharif preaches anyways.

You were talking about isolation etc., so I assumed that it was a theocracy.

If US actions can disgust someone like me, who loathes Nawaz and the political (subtle not extreme) Islamism he advocates, then there is a major problem with the approach being taken in the region. And as Muse pointed out, is it realistic to think that the US does not see the consequences of its actions?
I agree with you there - possible if McCain and the 'pit bull with lipstick' don't get elected.

Frankly I haven no clue - there are several theories, and some say that the US is stuck in a positive feedback loop with the military-industrial complex influencing the establishment to fight more wars.

Its also the nature of this conflict itself, and the unnatural borders of Pakistan with Afghanistan, which make them impossible to police or control.
How many times will the American forces lose targets on the border before they finally decide to go after them?

The USA is a complex thing, and the guy who plans long-term foreign policy doesn't necessarily have immediate influence over the battle tactics.

P.S: Apologies for my second line in my previous post, it was uncalled for.

No need for apologies mate.
 
I don't see the similarity between Iran - which is governed by clerics, and a sort of soft Islamist agenda that Nawaz Sharif preaches anyways.

You were talking about isolation etc., so I assumed that it was a theocracy.

Nawaz's soft Islamism could possibly also result in isolation because if he adopts the policy he has publicly advocated, Pakistan will essentially have to cease cooperation with the US.

I do find it interesting that these raids have occurred almost immediately after the meeting between Adm. Mullen and Gen. Kiyani, which by all accounts seemed to have gone quite well.

Of course we would not necessarily be having this discussion if the US had actually picked the correct target.

Any Gun toting Pashtun = Militant ??

Cultural ignorance, or just a cowboy attitude of fck the consequences (and any women and children unlucky enough to get in the way).
 
Nawaz's soft Islamism could possibly also result in isolation because if he adopts the policy he has publicly advocated, Pakistan will essentially have to cease cooperation with the US.

I do find it interesting that these raids have occurred almost immediately after the meeting between Adm. Mullen and Gen. Kiyani, which by all accounts seemed to have gone quite well.

Of course we would not necessarily be having this discussion if the US had actually picked the correct target.

Any Gun toting Pashtun = Militant ??

Cultural ignorance, or just a cowboy attitude of fck the consequences (and any women and children unlucky enough to get in the way).

The missile strike was accurate apparently:

CTV.ca | Pakistan officials say four die in missile strike

The US forces don't attack a target unless they have specific intelligence regarding the target.
 
Indeed, far from the solution being to ‘put U.S. boots on the ground’ in Pakistan, ISAF should wish for Pakistani ‘boots on the ground’ in Afghanistan

Now theres an idea. Of course the US has to foot the bill for that war. Watch us clean up those drug lords.
 
The US forces don't attack a target unless they have specific intelligence regarding the target.

Oh Really!!! Thanks for telling. By the way, their intelligence is often wrong. 5 women & 3 children were killed day before yesterday attack. Leave women, were children also militants?

Credibility of intelligence information is often ignored by US.
 
Last edited:
Well people are fed up with this ongoing assualts inside Pakistan but then again i for one have no hope in NS as he too has the tendency to shift sides. We have seen it during his tenure in 1998. Someone like Imran Khan seems to be more favourable in this regard since he from day one is advocating the same thing, end cooperation with the US. I agree with AM that we need some hard liners on our side in the government. Honestly people have had it with this liberal ****. Amercians on the other hand will soon realize what they have lost once Pakistan decides to go the other way round.
 
The missile strike was accurate apparently:

CTV.ca | Pakistan officials say four die in missile strike

The US forces don't attack a target unless they have specific intelligence regarding the target.

The missile strike was accurate - the SF raid seems to have a disproportionate amount of civilian casualties and is what I was referring to. The latest missile strike has 4 children dead out of seven total (so far) casualties. The Afghans and the UN have confirmed that the US killed over 70 civilians in its raid in Afghanistan.

I'd have to say that the US has pretty well fckd up quite a few of its raids.
 
Well people are fed up with this ongoing assualts inside Pakistan but then again i for one have no hope in NS as he too has the tendency to shift sides. We have seen it during his tenure in 1998. Someone like Imran Khan seems to be more favourable in this regard since he from day one is advocating the same thing, end cooperation with the US. I agree with AM that we need some hard liners on our side in the government. Honestly people have had it with this liberal ****. Amercians on the other hand will soon realize what they have lost once Pakistan decides to go the other way round.

Sir Icecold, what about an idea of letting tribesmen handling this whole situation. Let them fight US and Pak withdraws it's troops from FATA. US will soon learn a lesson. Provide tribesmen with stinger missile & then rock n roll. I will see once US knows that tribesmen are having stringer missle or any other of that kind, how many helicopters violate our territory.
 
Sir Icecold, what about an idea of letting tribesmen handling this whole situation. Let them fight US and Pak withdraws it's troops from FATA. US will soon learn a lesson. Provide tribesmen with stinger missile & then rock n roll. I will see once US knows that tribesmen are having stringer missle or any other of that kind, how many helicopters violate our territory.

Under no circumstances should that be allowed. Already of what we are going through is because we trained the tailban. Most of them were in favour of Pakistan but certainly few went rouge. Its the job of the army to protect the borders of the country, tribesmen can surely provide assistance in this regard but if PA is being pulled out and tribals given Anza or stinger, one thing will be for sure that even if we agree in principle the US will not come over which i doubt because one stingers cant hit at 25000 feet incase of USAF, PA gunships would also suffer heavily if the tribals feel the other way round. Also once PA gets out and US starts suffering casualties, it will openly attack the FATA region and in that case PA would have to get involved.

There should be political move to it. We can threat them by saying that Pakistan is seriously reconsidering its stance on WOT, but then again just see what Mr.10% came up with. Statements like these actually help in building the moral of the Allied forces to continue their assualt and that is why we have just witnessed 3 strikes within 3 days although Pakistan foreign office launched strong protest, it wont matter unless the leaders take their heads out of their *** and condemn this move and threaten to withheld their support on WOT.
 
:


The US forces don't attack a target unless they have specific intelligence regarding the target.

Yes and that is why they killed 200 Civilians, followed by another 199 and about the same number of civilians including women and childern in Afghanistan in just one month.
 
More misguided missiles by Ahmed Quraishi ...

The article or rather report is authored by Mr. Gregory R. Copley, the President of well respected ISSA.

Here's trhe original and full report:


June 13, 2008

Analysis. By Gregory R. Copley, President, ISSA. Wishful thinking, a failure to look at history, and a belief in their own propaganda is inducing Washington policymakers and NATO analysts to believe that the NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is making major strides in the US-led campaign to create a Taliban-free society in Afghanistan.

Moreover, this artificial view of the situation causes Washington to blame all problems incurred in achieving “victory” in Afghanistan on the US’ own major ally, Pakistan, when Pakistan is, in reality, bearing far more than the US and NATO of the burden of a conflict which Pakistan did not initiate.

A “reality check” on the situation becomes critical as the ISAF command moves from US Gen. Dan K. McNeill to Gen. David D. McKiernan, who took command of ISAF on June 3, 2008.

US military and political demand for “immediate” — and therefore almost axiomatically unrealistic — solutions to entrenched and long-term obstacles in Afghanistan, along with a refusal to look at historical lessons and the consequences of current and earlier actions, has had the effect of deepening the conflicts in both countries while at the same time causing Washington’s allies to despair of the US as a reliable partner.

In some instances, US allies or their interests have been placed at serious risk by the refusal of US commanders, policymakers, and the media to absorb the complexities of the situations.

In the case of the conflict in Afghanistan, US impatience has resulted in a generic US view of the situation which is about 180 degrees from the realities on the ground. The result is that virtually no progress has been made in the effort to stabilize and unify Afghanistan, while at the same time the conduct of the war in Afghanistan, under US leadership, has created an enormous potential for instability in Pakistan, which Washington has claimed is a major “non-NATO ally” on which it depends.

US and Western media reporting currently portrays the problems facing ISAF as coming into Afghanistan from Pakistan, but the reality is the reverse of this: stirring the problem in Afghanistan causes problems to flow into Pakistan.

Always brushed aside in Washington discussions is the reality that Pakistan still cares for 3.5-million Afghani refugees remaining from the earlier proxy war which the US waged from 1980 to 1988 against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. And, with the US-led conflict against the Taliban in Afghanistan since September 11, 2001, the problems continue to pour from Afghanistan into Pakistan. Moreover, as the US intelligence community is well aware, this is a problem which is exacerbated not only by the Taliban alliance with the so-called al-Qaida movement, moving into Pakistan from Afghanistan, but also because of covert support by the Indian Government and its intelligence services — principally RAW, the Research & Analysis Wing — for the jihadist movement.

India’s involvement follows an historical geopolitical pattern, but much of it is institutionalized as “payback” for Pakistani Government support for the Muslim separatist movement in Indian-occupied Jammu & Kashmir over the past decades. At the same time, close US-Indian intelligence ties at a formal level and within the Afghan battlespace mean that India is feeding a range of “tailored intelligence” into the US system which shapes US political and intelligence perceptions of the situation, encouraging the belief that “Pakistan is the problem” in resolving the counter-Taliban conflict in Afghanistan.

There is no doubt that it is comforting for many US analysts and journalists to have a scapegoat for the frustrations of the conflict, and it certainly avoids any self-examination by US policymakers, or any considered view of recent and longer-term history.

One reality is that ISAF has only some 47,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan, and not all of those are along the Pakistan-Afghan border. Moreover, quite separately from anything which could be blamed on Pakistan, the Afghan Helmand province is home to a significant proportion of ISAF troops and yet still cultivates some 50 percent of the opium poppy produced in Afghanistan. Some 70 percent of the opium coming from Afghanistan — and funding the Taliban and al-Qaida/Iranian-linked terrorist movements in the region and as far afield as Kosovo and Bosnia — is produced in five Afghan provinces bordering Pakistan.

These are provinces “controlled” by ISAF, not by Pakistan, and the nexus between the drug mafia and the Taliban/al-Qaida is evidenced by the amount of money which Taliban members are paying to defectors from the Afghan security forces and other officials, as well as in the purchase of weapons for their own use. Indeed, the Taliban/al-Qaida ability to generate income and control derives not just from trafficking in narcotics on their own account, but also on their ability to charge “transit fees” and to demand payments for protection.

The whole process of poppy cultivation, transportation, processing, and the like is more than merely a Taliban/al-Qaida event; it is pervasive through much of Afghan society, and divides the population from both ISAF and national governance. Opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan rose from 104,000 hectares in 2005, to 161,000 hectares in 2006, to 193,000 hectares in 2007, despite the fact that 13 out of 34 Afghan provinces have been declared to be “drug free”. In terms of quantities produced, opium production rose by 59 percent from 2005 to 2006, and 30 percent from 2006 to 2007.

Afghanistan’s internal opium economy is worth some $4-billion, some 53 percent of the Afghan GDP (and some $50-billion on the international market). Clearly, if the bulk of the Afghan economy is narcotics-driven, then the ability of either the Afghan Government or ISAF to control the situation is limited, quite apart from the Taliban/al-Qaida input.

It is not surprising, therefore, that some 60 to 70 percent of the Afghan Parliament is occupied by former mujahedin, ex-communists, drug barons, and warlords, who not only control both houses of Parliament but, as a result, prevent the establishment of the Central Government’s writ across the country. It is clearly not in the interests of most of the lawmakers that the national Government should exercise law and order across the land, and, meanwhile, Pres. Hamid Karzai is hardly in a position to marginalize these lawmakers.

Indeed, 2008 is proving to be a pivotal year for Pres. Karzai. He has been unable to create any sustainable agriculture and employment in the country, and has been unable to create a climate of security. This situation is unlikely to improve: non-Pushtuns, and particularly the Afghan Tajik population, remain concerned that any unity within the Pushtuns would work against their interests, and consistently attempt to marginalize them. Pres. Karzai is a Pushtun.

The recent (2006-07) creation of the United National Front (UNF) party — essentially a new incarnation of the old Northern Alliance — (led by former President of Afghanistan Burhanuddin Rabbani) threatens Pres. Karzai, and he has launched a new party, the Hizb-e-Jamhuri Khwahan Afghanistan, to counter the UNF. So the instability in Afghanistan extends far beyond the issue of the resurgence of the Taliban or the presence of remnants of al-Qaida (or groups or individuals claiming allegiance to al-Qaida).

In essence, Taliban recruiting has thrived in the past few years because of the failure of the central Government, and ISAF, to develop any momentum with the economy, and, as a result, there has been a growing reliance on military action to resolve issues, further compounding the cycle. And while NATO forces increased the scale of their military attacks — with growing civilian casualties — Taliban operations in 2007 changed in doctrine from large-scale, set-piece battles to small-scale hit-and-run operations, gradually expanding Westward and Northward.

At the same time, the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) by Taliban forces has increased, and infra-red IEDs are now being introduced. IR IEDs began to be introduced into the Iraqi battlefield in about 2005, but are now finding their way into operations in Afghanistan, and, from there, potentially into Pakistani tribal areas.

Suicide attacks against Government and foreign targets has also increased, up from only 33 in the entire 2001-2005 timeframe to 131 in 2006, 154 in 2007, and at a rate in early 2008 which promises to see an increase again for the full year of 2008. Kabul, Baghlan, Kandahar, and Spin Boldak were the cities most affected by recent suicide bombings.

As well, the Afghan National Army (ANA) is falling behind in its recruiting, retention, and capability goals. It should have had 150,000 men on strength by 2006, but it still stands at only some 70,000 troops, and its units are not capable of undertaking independent operations. The National Police force (ANP) has fared little better. Some 58,000 personnel of the ANP, Highway Police, and Border Police have received training — mostly from Germany, with US assistance — and of these some 12,000 have received specialist training.

Only the presence of ISAF forces, in fact, keeps the nominal writ of the Afghan Government alive, and then only because of the advanced technology, logistics, and skills of the foreign military forces. But this is insufficient to achieve long-term success. Indeed, as the conflict extends, it broadens and forces an increase in unrest which spreads across into Pakistan.

Indeed, far from the solution being to “put US boots on the ground” in Pakistan, ISAF should wish for Pakistani “boots on the ground” in Afghanistan, but this would only compound Pakistan’s own problems, as well as its costs in human and economic terms. It may be that the US feels that Indian activities which put weapons in the hands of tribal members inside Pakistan keeps Pakistan on the defensive, and forces it to deal with the problems of the tribal areas — which have remained outside the control of the central Government since the times of British occupation in the mid-19th Century until the 21st Century — but the reality is that Indian stimulation of jihadism or tribal unrest in the Pakistani Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and elsewhere merely compounds the problem in the entire region.

The Afghan Government of Hamid Karzai is actively cooperating with the Indian intelligence agencies through the Afghan intelligence agencies, the Ministry of the Interior, and the Ministry of Borders and Tribal Affairs (under Karim Barahowie), in launching covert activities against Pakistani areas. Part of this may be out of concern over earlier (post-Soviet occupation, but pre-9/11) cooperation by Pakistan with the Taliban, although clearly Pakistan abandoned and then turned on the Taliban after the “Global War on Terror” began, and it became clear that the Taliban was engaged in supporting the spread of international terrorist activities.

Whatever the reason for Pres. Karzai’s support for Indian use of Afghanistan as a base of operations against Pakistan, it is clear that the US Government is aware of the cooperation and the input of substantial amounts of direct and indirect weapons and financial support to the jihadist, criminal, and terrorist movements operating inside Pakistan, and yet does nothing about it. Massive quantities of munitions, much of it identified as coming from India, have been captured by Pakistani forces operating against insurgents in Swat, FATA, and Baluchistan.

Apart from the strong presence of Indian advisors dominating the Afghan Government, India has established a string of consulates and intelligence posts inside Afghanistan along the border with Pakistan.

A report in Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis, on October 6, 2007, and entitled Pakistan: the Delicacy, and Inevitability, of the Political Transition Now Underway, noted:

The Indian Government has created a string of “consulates” along the Afghan side of the Pakistan border, largely as intelligence collection facilities, and the large number of Indian intelligence officials were working closely with Afghan intelligence officials. This has caused the Pakistan Government some concern, given that the US has facilitated the Indian intelligence build-up against Pakistan to be conducted while the Pakistan Army and Government have been working with the US in the area. There is more than a little feeling in Islamabad that this has been an act of poor faith on the part of the US toward Pakistan, on which the US is completely reliant.

At the same time, Pakistan, now facing a major food and energy shortage, continues to pump economic and other aid to the Karzai Government in Afghanistan. Pakistan has committed some $300-million to reconstruction in Afghanistan, and even while I was with Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on May 22, 2008, he was called by Pres. Karzai asking for Pakistan to release a further 30,000 or more tons of wheat aid to Afghanistan. Apart from that, however, the well-financed Afghan black market has the ability to finance wheat and flour smuggled across the border from Pakistan, causing Pakistani domestic prices and supply into a precarious position.

As this writer has noted elsewhere [Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis, May 20, 2008: Lessons of the Great War for Civilization], the entire epoch of war which has engulfed Afghanistan and much of Pakistan has caused the tribal areas of Pakistan’s FATA, Baluchistan, and areas of North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) to finally be broken open, and the control of this hitherto inaccessible area now possibly open to the writ of the national Government. In other words, it may now be possible — assuming that Islamabad can actually exert its writ over the tribal areas — to bring all of the country into the Pakistani entity.

But that cannot happen solely by force of arms. It involves not only ensuring the long-term ability of the Federal Government to enforce law and order, but also to introduce the priority of Pakistani nationalism ahead of tribal identity, and to ensure the introduction of the national educational curriculum, and the infrastructure required to integrate the tribal areas into the national economy.

As the 11th/12th century Persian poet Omar Khayyám said: “Ah Love! could thou and I with Fate conspire / To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire, / Would not we shatter it to bits ... and then / Re-mold it nearer to the Heart’s Desire!”

Despite the reality that this is a long-term process, the US Government has kept hinting — and privately insisting — that it should be allowed to put “boots on the ground” and intervene militarily in the complex FATA and other tribal areas of Pakistan, even though the US has been unable to manage affairs inside Afghanistan, or even to prevent the Afghan unrest from spilling in human, ideological, corruption, narcotrafficking, and weapons trafficking terms into Pakistan. Indeed, there is no consciousness of the reality that the situation began to unravel in Afghanistan as a direct result of US Pres. Jimmy Carter’s moves to destabilize and overthrow the Shah of Iran, which gained momentum in 1978 (and to which this writer had close, first-hand knowledge).

The Carter destruction of the Shah, with all of its unforeseen consequences, led to the downfall on April 29, 1978, of Afghan Pres. Mohammed Daud Khan, whom the Shah had long supported. The coup, led by Khalq-faction (communist party) chief Nur Mohammed Taraki, led to an invitation to the USSR to send troops into Afghanistan, and the war began which has continued in various forms until this day. This writer spent considerable time in Tehran during the 1970s, with the Shah, and then in Pakistan, watching these events unfold, and watching the tide of unrest and instability move across the Durand Line from Afghanistan into Pakistan.

And even as the US funded the anti-Soviet mujahedin in Afghanistan — via Pakistan and with the help of then-Pres. Mohammed Zia ul-Haq — India maintained a strong presence in Kabul, as it does now. This is a strategic imperative for India, but US officials should not be unaware of the consequences of India’s, or the US’, actions.

US media reporting and US officials, buying their own propaganda that the war against the Taliban is going well — a process known in the intelligence community as “drinking your own bathwater” — and insisting that the problem is only that Pakistan is “not doing enough in the war on terror” have failed to understand that (a) Pakistan has committed more men and lives to the “war on terror” than the US, but is also suffering far more from it than the US, and (b) that Pakistan is using both carrot and stick to achieve long-term victory over terrorism, insurgency, and secessionist or anarchical tendencies in its border areas.

Pakistan has significantly controlled the supply of weapons in the country, while trying to control the porous border with Afghanistan. It has issued a ban on new weapons’ licenses, a ban on displaying any kind of weapons, and a ban on the possession of illegal weapons. It has recovered some 600,000 weapons in the past few years, along with 3.5-million rounds of ammunition. It has promulgated a new Anti-Terrorism Act and established Anti-Terrorist Courts to deal speedily with terrorism cases.

It has dramatically reorganized, retrained, and upgraded its police forces. It has required the registration of the madarasas — Islamic schools — some of which were once used as recruiting facilities for jihadist fighters. The Government had, by May 2008, registered 14,800 madarasas and was in the process of registering a further 400, while at the same time legally demanding that these schools adhere to a Government-approved curriculum, and keeping a check on foreign students at these facilities. New madarasas can be opened only with Government permission.

Substantial new immigration controls have ensured that the normal flow of people into Pakistan through airports and official checkpoints can be strictly monitored through the PISCES (personal identification secure comparison and evaluation system) process.

The Pakistan Government has banned seven sectarian organizations, seven jihadi organizations, and one ethnic organization which were believed to have been engaged in questionable activities. The entire Government has reoriented its approach to intelligence and security at a strategic level, creating a capability which is now world class, and which has as a key component its counter-terrorist wing (CTW). As a result, Pakistan now cooperates with more than 50 governments worldwide.

Pakistani security forces had, since the start of the “Global War on Terror” and until late May 2008, conducted 407 raids on suspected foreign nationals in the country, arresting 871 individuals, of whom 600 were extradited. Pakistan was responsible for busting al-Qaida’s Anthrax Network in 2003, the al-Ghuraba Network in September 2003, the big UK-based Anglo-Pakistani network (March 2004), the Jandullah Group (June 2004), the Amjad Farooqi Network (September 2004), the Abu Faraj Network (May 2005), the Abu Talha Network (September 2004), the Hussain Bana Network (October 2005), the Taliban Media Support Network (October 2005), the Hamza Rabbia Network (November 2005), a key London-based network (August 2006), and a major suicide bomber group (February 2007), and so on.

The list of arrested senior terrorist figures, and the list of killed senior terrorist leaders, by Pakistani forces, is significant. It has also arrested (as of late May 2008) 298 senior Taliban figures, and most of these were repatriated to Afghanistan Government care. However, not only has the Afghan Government failed to account for what happened to these Taliban, the Pakistan Government has since identified that some of them were released by the Afghan Government despite being on so-called wanted lists of the Karzai Government. As a result, the Pakistan Government has, for the moment, stopped handing over some arrested Taliban figures so that they could be questioned by Pakistani officials.

Clearly, however, as anyone who has viewed the Afghan-Pakistan border can attest, there is no possibility that the Pakistan Government — nor the NATO forces — could control ingress and egress across the border, the 2,560km of the Durand Line. The terrain along the border, barren and mountainous, is not only difficult to access, but also determines the life and hardiness of the tribal populations along it. And, of course, many of these tribal peoples have been divided by the arbitrary nature of the border drawn (or approved) by Sir Mortimer Durand, the Foreign Secretary of the British Indian Government, in 1894-95.

The US Government quietly wants to insert Special Forces units into these areas to pursue Taliban and/or al-Qaida leaders, and has already violated agreements with Pakistan by launching air strikes into Pakistani territory several times in 2008 alone. But if the US wanted to “put boots on the ground”, it would be best served by offering to put US Army Corps of Engineers capabilities into the tribal areas to help build roads, clinics, schools, and the like, to ensure that the underpinnings are secured for the creation of a stable, educated, and productive population which can be persuaded to become Pakistani, removing them from the influence of either the funds and weapons being offered, tantalizingly, by the new generation of minor and major Afghani warlords, or their own maliks, the tribal chiefs or elders.

This is no easy task: the Pakistani tribal areas have a population of 3.8-million, of whom 90 percent live below the poverty line.

But first, however, US policymakers have to decide whether they really wish to win the conflict they are fighting in Afghanistan, or merely whether they wish to find someone to blame for their failure.
 
Afghans fed up with government, US

GHANI KHIEL, Afghanistan - The bearded, turbaned men gather beneath a large, leafy tree in rural eastern Nangarhar province. When Malik Mohammed speaks on their behalf, his voice is soft but his words are harsh. Mohammed makes it clear that the tribal chiefs have lost all faith in both their own government and the foreign soldiers in their country.

Such disillusionment is widespread in Afghanistan, feeding an insurgency that has killed 195 foreign soldiers so far this year, 105 of them Americans.

"This is our land. We are afraid to send our sons out the door for fear the American troops will pick them up," says Mohammed, who was chosen by the others to represent them. "Daily we have headaches from the troops. We are fed up. Our government is weak and corrupt and the American soldiers have learned nothing."

A strong sense of frustration echoed through dozens of interviews by The Associated Press with Afghan villagers, police, government officials, tribal elders and Taliban who left and rejoined the religious movement. The interviews ranged from the capital, Kabul, to the rural regions near the border with Pakistan.

The overwhelming result: Ordinary Afghans are deeply bitter about American and NATO forces because of errant bombs, heavy-handed searches and seizures and a sense that the foreigners do not understand their culture. They are equally fed up with what they see as seven years of corruption and incompetence in a U.S.-backed government that has largely failed to deliver on development.

Even with more foreign troops, Afghanistan is now less secure.

"It certainly is a mess. Security is the worst that it has been for years. Corruption is out of control. It impacts every single Afghan," says Doug Wankel, a burly 62-year-old American who coordinated Washington's anti-drug policy in Afghanistan from 2004 until 2007 and is now back as a security consultant. "What people have to understand is that what ordinary Afghans think really does matter."

The fear and fury is evident among the neighbors at Akhtar Mohammed's walled home deep within Nangarhar province, reached by a dirt road along a dirty brown canal. A dozen men lie on traditional rope beds beneath a thatched roof. Some wear the full-bodied beard of the devout, with a clean-shaven upper lip. Others have dyed their gray beards a flaming orange with henna to show that they have made the pilgrimage to the holy site of Mecca.

They live barely an hour's drive from an errant bombing last month that hit a wedding party and killed about 50 people. Khiel Shah says his home was raided two months earlier, and troops killed his nephew, a high school student.

An old man sits by moaning, "No, no, they weren't Taliban. They were going to the bathroom. They weren't even carrying guns."

Villagers want to know why people who give false information are not arrested, and they say American soldiers still can't sift the good intelligence from the bad.

"But now this is seven years. I am hopeless. They haven't learned until now," says Akhtar Mohammed.

NATO's top Gen. David D. McKiernan blames civilian deaths on insurgents who hide among the population. But the problem could also be one of strategy, says Robert Oakley, a former U.S. ambassador and National Security Council staff member.

"There is a contradiction between wanting to minimize Afghan civilian casualties and minimizing U.S. military casualties," he says. "For the former, we should go on the ground. For the latter, go in from the air."

An air strike in Herat province about two weeks ago killed dozens of people. A U.S. investigation concluded that most were Taliban, but the Afghan government and the United Nations say up to 90 civilians died, including children.

Villagers say the U.S. does not understand how complex alliances, violence and even drugs play out in their culture. The eyes of elderly Malik Bakhtiar well with tears as he recalls his brother's arrest by U.S. troops for apparently running a drug laboratory in his home. In certain regions of Afghanistan, people grow opium for their livelihood.

"They don't understand us," Bakhtiar says. "Every house has a gun. Every house has opium."

Inside the walled compound of the Independent Human Rights Commission in Kabul, workers are knee-deep in statistics that measure the dissatisfaction of Afghans. An army of workers crisscrossed 33 of the country's 34 provinces and took the opinions of 15,200 people, mostly in rural areas. The survey has not been released, but Ahmad Nader Nadery, the commissioner, gave The AP a preview.

The survey, done annually for the past three years, shows a steady deterioration in the social and economic stability of Afghans, Nadery says. Average debt last year was $1,000 and is now 20 percent higher. And up to 73 percent of Afghans say they cannot go to the government for help unless they have money or power.

"Elders say when they go to government officials, they face humiliation," Nadery says in his cramped ground floor office.

Najib, a policeman who asks not to be identified beyond his first name for fear of losing his job, reflects the general anger.

Since he joined Afghanistan's police force in 2001, he has been mistakenly bombed by a U.S. airplane that killed seven of his colleagues. He has paid bribes to government officials, he says, and taken bribes to balance his books. He recalls watching a friend buy a police job for $2,000, and notes that posts with better opportunities for bribery are available for upward of $10,000.

Corruption has made it easier for the Taliban to infiltrate police ranks and carry out lethal attacks, according to Najib.

"The president is crying, but nothing has changed," says Najib, who still walks with a limp from the U.S. bombing. "People are unhappy, and more and more it will become difficult for the Americans and good for the Taliban. These people (U.S. troops) are not making one mistake, but they are making one thousand mistakes and they are killing many people."

In an exclusive interview with the AP, President Hamid Karzai said the mistakes of troops are seriously undermining his government. But he also spoke candidly about what he described as his failure and gave a frank assessment of his track record, as he prepares to run for re-election next year. He said he had achieved some but not all of his goals for Afghanistan.

"Afghanistan does not have a properly functioning government yet," he said. "With regard to corruption, it's a deeper problem, it's an Afghan problem. It's the problem of an inefficient government machinery. ... It's a problem of so much money coming into Afghanistan, it's a problem of the international presence."

It is now so dangerous outside the capital that Afghans are afraid to travel hundreds of miles of newly-paved roads, and most international aid groups have forbidden their staff to do so altogether. Truck drivers who have no choice often say thieves and thieving police are a bigger worry than the Taliban.

"An Afghan trucker put it succinctly: 'Forget the Taliban, our biggest problems are with the police,'" says Seth Jones, an analyst with the U.S.-based RAND Corporation and author of a report on the rise of Afghanistan's insurgency.

Afghan Interior Ministry spokesman Zemeri Bashery puts the corruption level at barely 20 percent of the force, and says efforts are being made to tackle it. But many Afghans think otherwise.

Kidnappings in Kabul are in the double digits this year, according to the attorney general's office, and Afghans suspect police involvement. Most are for ransom rather than because of politics.

In the meantime, the Taliban is advancing.

Moiabullah, a black-bearded Taliban from the troubled province of Ghazni, fled to Iran after the Taliban collapsed in 2001 but returned several months ago.

"People are fed up with this government," he says. "No one is working honestly. If you provide a good life, factory or jobs, of course no one will follow Mullah Omar (the Taliban leader)."

Out at the heavily fortified, sprawling U.S. military base at Bagram, north of Kabul, Brig. Gen. Mark Milley says the Taliban and al-Qaida are enemy number one, and corruption is enemy number two. But he claims the troops are inching forward in bringing security to the country.

"The western forces, international forces, Americans in particular are the most disciplined in our use of deadly force," says Milley, the deputy commanding general of operations. "We think we are succeeding."

Back at the tribal council, or shura, in Nangarhar, the eldest of the elders disagrees.

"It is a shame for them," says Abdul Samad, a tall, lanky man in his seventies with a silver beard on his gaunt face. "It was a good opportunity after the Taliban. But it is gone."

AP IMPACT: Afghans fed up with government, US - Yahoo! News
 
Excellent article Munshi sahib.

And what has the US response been to Pakistani concerns?

Conduct unilateral attacks in a deliberate attempt to destabilize the country.

Why deliberate? Because the repercussions from such moves are patently obvious. This is a long term war with long term solutions, yet the imbecilic attitudes and ignorance that has drawn battle lines of the 'axis of evil' sort seem to have permeated through the a significant amount of the defense establishment (we know the government is sold on this, since it peddled this simplistic buffoonery bordering on bigotry).

How does the pro WoT GoP retain face with the electorate with this? How does it continue to survive in office when events like these create an outpouring of outrage that will eventually be impossible to control?

The goal here is quite obviously to push Pakistan towards internal destabilization.

The United States is no friend of ours, it is becoming clear (Muse was correct in this) and perhaps for the first time in my life I'm actually looking at an Islamist government in Pakistan as a favorable development.

you don't need to defend your argument, Agno. everyone has realized by now that Pakistan's allies do not have good intentions. the only way to rid afghanistan as well as the tribal areas of militancy, is to search and seize every pashtun household for guns. in the land of guns, as our reporter Jana puts it, guns are a part of culture for pashtuns and are just as sacred as their wives. You tell me, how could our allies even suggest such a thing when they know what consequences lie in store?

I hate groups like the ones in afghanistan and our tribal areas, where people are forced to live according to their interpretations. I only wish they could be more like the mujahideen, who dispersed and went about their ways after their job was done. however, it won't hurt Pakistan if they infiltrate these groups and reform them.

the only things I can see are either NATO packing its bags and leaving or they will attack Pakistan and vice versa. if that happens, you will see the army and intelligence do what they do best, bend the ideological groups to their will.

more importantly, Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) did make accurate predictions on current events, so i'm not surprised at all. I think some people may know what I'm getting at...
 
you don't need to defend your argument, Agno. everyone has realized by now that Pakistan's allies do not have good intentions. the only way to rid afghanistan as well as the tribal areas of militancy, is to search and seize every pashtun household for guns. in the land of guns, as our reporter Jana puts it, guns are a part of culture for pashtuns and are just as sacred as their wives. You tell me, how could our allies even suggest such a thing when they know what consequences lie in store?

I hate groups like the ones in afghanistan and our tribal areas, where people are forced to live according to their interpretations. I only wish they could be more like the mujahideen, who dispersed and went about their ways after their job was done. however, it won't hurt Pakistan if they infiltrate these groups and reform them.

the only things I can see are either NATO packing its bags and leaving or they will attack Pakistan and vice versa. if that happens, you will see the army and intelligence do what they do best, bend the ideological groups to their will.

more importantly, Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) did make accurate predictions on current events, so i'm not surprised at all. I think some people may know what I'm getting at...

Many of those Mujahideen you speak of, the ones not involved in negative actions during the anarchy spread by Taliban and remnants of the old Northern Alliance were killed from between 1994-2001 by various covert organizations and agencies, many of which were coordinated by the KGB, rogue ISI, RAW, Taliban and Rashid Dostum.
 
Back
Top Bottom