What's new

Ex-CIA Officer Michael Scheuer on ISI

CIA does not pick winners in American political system. After Watergate they are not even involved in any domestic politics in any manner. Their overseas actions are subject to more civillian oversight.

There's nothing that can stop them...
 
I stand corrected. They never destabilize civillian governments in their home countries
The Australian service or the American intelligence services do not destabilize civillian governments

Hardly correct when you were trying to make a completely different point before.

Anyways, the last real example of the ISI interfering in domestic politics was during the '90s. Are you going to make a fool of yourself and bring up something from twenty years ago to prove your point? I should just keep talking about Watergate as proof that the CIA has, and always will interfere in domestic American politics.
 
Hardly correct when you were trying to make a completely different point before.

Anyways, the last real example of the ISI interfering in domestic politics was during the '90s. Are you going to make a fool of yourself and bring up something from twenty years ago to prove your point? I should just keep talking about Watergate as proof that the CIA has, and always will interfere in domestic American politics.

I am sure ISI was not involved in the recent PTI/PAT protests against Nawaz.

CIA involvement in Watergate was minimal. They did not protect Nixon.

There's nothing that can stop them...

CIA has too many failures - they are hardily omnipotent
 
Here's Robert Grenier, US CIA Station Chief in Islamabad, on ISI Pakistan, in an interview with Pakistani journalist Nasim Zehra:

"If I were Pakistani, I would have done exactly what Pakistan did to conduct nuclear tests after the Indians did the same in 1998 in spite of the US sanctions"

"CIA and ISI had little cooperation between 1999 and 2001 but very close cooperation after 911"

"My experience is that the ISI is not a rogue organization. They are very disciplined military organization and they follow their orders"

"Pakistan cooperated with US at the cost of instability at home"

"Taliban is not a creation of Pakistan but of the environment. Pakistan did support them after they were created"

"False and unchecked allegations from dubious sources (Northern Alliance) against Pakistan against his advice were believed in Washington that embittered CIA-ISI ties"

"There was close cooperation between US and Pakistan on the ground but the US excluded Pakistan at the political and policy level"




 
Last edited:
You are sure, but you have no proof.


Doesn't rule out the fact that there was the involvement of intelligence agencies.

i am not naive to see who runs things in Pakistan. military thorugh the ISI has been indulging in machinations to control things in the background.

Nixon won the 1972 elections by a landslide. he did not need Watergate or CIA to win. please read the American political history books
 
Certainly the ISI does some of the same things the "Anglos" do, like collect information on the enemy. But there's more and less to the ISI than that.

The key difference is the lack of political oversight and legitimacy. Politicians don't have the power to remove incompetent/criminal commanders or appoint anyone other than the C-i-C. That's a characteristic of a military junta, not a democracy.

In a junta everything seems solid from the outside but the reality is that cliques form and to advance officers need support from other officers: if discipline is too close that threatens the clique. I figure that in covert intelligence units that means officers work with very little supervision or oversight and have a great deal of freedom to act - and in effect, set policy - all by themselves.

In the U.S., CIA oversight was revamped starting in the mid-1970s. Inspector generals were appointed by Congress after the CIA tried to get around such limits in the 1980s. Lots of lawyers review covert actions to approve of reject them when they are proposed, not only for cya duty afterward.

Pappy,

Living in your eternal innocence of ' do no wrong " you conveniently forgot the FBI director The J man E Hoover----remember him----. It is all a matter of time----once the politicians settle down and start working for the country rather than themselves---things will change----.
 
Pappy,

Living in your eternal innocence of ' do no wrong " you conveniently forgot the FBI director The J man E Hoover----remember him----. It is all a matter of time----once the politicians settle down and start working for the country rather than themselves---things will change----.

Hoover never picked political winners. He fought undesirables as he defined them. "Fought" implies collecting intel.
He did not execute anybody.
 
Hoover never picked political winners. He fought undesirables as he defined them. "Fought" implies collecting intel.
He did not execute anybody.

Former Maharashtra IG SM Mushrif revealed in his book "Who Killed Karakare?" that it is a "power establishment" that is in charge of India, and it does not want to expose the Hindutva terrorists. One example is the blasts in Samjhauta Express, which the IB said was carried out by Pakistan’s ISI. Mushrif quotes a report in The Times of India that said, “the Center had blamed the ISI on the basis of the IB’s findings.” However, during a narco-analysis test under Karkare, Lt. Col. Purohit had admitted having supplied the RDX used in the blast. The IB, which draws its power from its proximity to the Prime Minister (its director briefs the PM every morning for half an hour), did not want Karkare’s investigation that blew the cover off the IB’s shenanigans, to continue.

Haq's Musings: Hindutva Terror to Spark India-Pakistan War?
 
Former Maharashtra IG SM Mushrif revealed in his book "Who Killed Karakare?" that it is a "power establishment" that is in charge of India, and it does not want to expose the Hindutva terrorists. One example is the blasts in Samjhauta Express, which the IB said was carried out by Pakistan’s ISI. Mushrif quotes a report in The Times of India that said, “the Center had blamed the ISI on the basis of the IB’s findings.” However, during a narco-analysis test under Karkare, Lt. Col. Purohit had admitted having supplied the RDX used in the blast. The IB, which draws its power from its proximity to the Prime Minister (its director briefs the PM every morning for half an hour), did not want Karkare’s investigation that blew the cover off the IB’s shenanigans, to continue.

Haq's Musings: Hindutva Terror to Spark India-Pakistan War?

there is an establishment in India just like every other country. the IB in India does collect political intelligence

they do not pick favorites in elections
they do not fund political parties

I am not sure how competent the IB is

"Taliban is not a creation of Pakistan but of the environment. Pakistan did support them after they were created"


Is that your imagination ?
 
i am not naive to see who runs things in Pakistan. military thorugh the ISI has been indulging in machinations to control things in the background.

You are just deluding yourself. Every country is receptive to change, but Good 'Ol Pakistan will always remain the same and continue to be ruled by the military and intelligence even though there is no real proof or evidence to say so. When the military did get the chance to get involved, they decided not to, for whatever reason which goes against your ridiculous claims that either them or the ISI had a hand somewhere in the protests.

Nixon won the 1972 elections by a landslide. he did not need Watergate or CIA to win. please read the American political history books

Not talking about elections, nitwit.

there is an establishment in India just like every other country. the IB in India does collect political intelligence

they do not pick favorites in elections
they do not fund political parties

I am not sure how competent the IB is

Parotting the same lines over and over again, I see.
 
You are just deluding yourself. Every country is receptive to change, but Good 'Ol Pakistan will always remain the same and continue to be ruled by the military and intelligence even though there is no real proof or evidence to say so. When the military did get the chance to get involved, they decided not to, for whatever reason which goes against your ridiculous claims that either them or the ISI had a hand somewhere in the protests.

The Pakistani army does not want to take over direct control for four reasons

they achieve most of what they want through indirect control

the people of Pakistan will hold them accountable for economic performance. Now pakistanis can blame incompetent civillian politicians for all their ills.

The exit strategy is tricky. At some point you have to handover to the civillians

power corrupts. it is to the detriment of their primary mission
 
Back
Top Bottom