Monday, December 30, 2024
What's new

Explosive: EX-ISI Chief Durrani Aljazeera Interview abt Pak Military, OBL & Policy

1-And then the same afghans empowered TTP with all sorts of weapons and Pakistan has become a security state after 2002.
Not the same Afghans... actually the sworn enemies of same Afghans..... the mice of 'northern alliance' who were an armed branch of Iran, occupying north of Afghanistan... they jointly with US killed every single pashtoon they found in Afghanistan.... you cannot find a single 50 year plus pashtoon in today's Afghanistan. How come elements of Talibans regime are claimed to be living?

2-Pakistan is not criticized for its role in 1980 war but what it did afterwards uptil 2014 when Gen Raheel took up the charge and started a clean up.

Afterwards 1980 is same as in 1979 and 1980..... what are you trying to say.

General-Zia-ul-Haq.jpg


See this ugly mug he was an exemplary general mullah right at the top did some rather extreme things public lashing of political prisoners not to mention hanging of a sitting PM. Creating using feeding the so called jihad all of his handy work and of course so much credit to go around countless names....
url

url

If Ugly being a criteria of criticism, than Asif Ali Zardari is more ugly. What about Mamnoon Hussain... dam i had to google for his name!
 
.
Gen Asad Durrani is only defending his past.

He retired almost 2 decades ago and now or even in last decade or so has nothing to do with policy making. Its his own understanding of events and right or wrong (mostly wrong) understanding, he is entitled to it with such sensational news.
 
.
Gen Asad Durrani is only defending his past.

He retired almost 2 decades ago and now or even in last decade or so has nothing to do with policy making. Its his own understanding of events and right or wrong (mostly wrong) understanding, he is entitled to it with such sensational news.

You meant it is another case of lost "valor"? :lol:

Look around. Things that these people did, have caused so much suffering and loss to so many people not the least of whom are Pakistanis themselves.
 
.
You meant it is another case of lost "valor"? :lol:

Look around. Things that these people did, have caused so much suffering and loss to so many people not the least of whom are Pakistanis themselves.
far better than the disgraced iranian generals dying in Iraq, where they are only running death brigades and gassing Syrian kids. Neither the role of Iranian generals, in today's Afghanistan is very promising.
 
.
far better than the disgraced iranian generals dying in Iraq, where they are only running death brigades and gassing Syrian kids. Neither the role of Iranian generals, in today's Afghanistan is very promising.

The Iranian Generals are protecting Iranian interests. So that crazies do not run around inside Iran killing Iranians as they are doing in Pakistan. This is the critical difference, that you will never be able to understand.
 
.
The Iranian Generals are protecting Iranian interests. So that crazies do not run around inside Iran killing Iranians as they are doing in Pakistan. This is the critical difference, that you will never be able to understand.
Iranian generals are passing through those masked men into Syria, obviously not alone neither empty handed and neither on foot, and you telling me they are protecting Iran from them!
Terrorists are branding equipment for which Iraq's puppet army is trained for and delivered to.
this is so obvious that you can't even fool the kids.
What's happening in Pakistan is that terrorists are being protected in Afghanistan, where 10 year long Pashtoon genocide has left only Iranian puppets, exposing their hate against Iran's enemies as they are doing in Syria.
 
.
The Iranian Generals are protecting Iranian interests. So that crazies do not run around inside Iran killing Iranians as they are doing in Pakistan. This is the critical difference, that you will never be able to understand.
You meant it is another case of lost "valor"? :lol:

Look around. Things that these people did, have caused so much suffering and loss to so many people not the least of whom are Pakistanis themselves.

Haha, piss off. Iranians seem to be trying to pretend that in the past 30 years while the whole Islamic world's been going durka, they were promoting some moderate brand of Islam over the Islamic world, while hanging homosexuals and having fanatical wannabe-Arab clerics ranting about the West. You think you didn't play a role in this whole mess? That Saudi Arabia was just punching at a seemingly invisible enemy? Where the Saudis and Pakistani generals have been, there have been Iranian generals. There were Shia brigades in Afghanistan and were close to getting into Pakistan but were purged, and there was a mess. I admit that. It was messy and it was bloody, but in the end, it prevented an Iraq-tier crisis going on with Shias and Sunnis running around. Don't try to wash your hands clean. There is as much as blood on the hands of Iran as there is on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
 
.
Durrani is a shady character and I am not surprised if he made such statements. He is not spilling any beans for there is nothing new in what he said. All this has been said by him and many other pseudo-intellectuals before.

The ISI: AN EXCEPTIONAL SECRET SERVICE
by Lt. General Asad Durrani

When Smashing Lists, a relatively unknown website, declared Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, the ISI, the best of its kind, it gladdened my heart but also had me worried.

Soon after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, I met an old colleague, a Special Forces officer recently inducted in the ISI. He whispered in my ears: "we have decided to support the Afghan resistance". Understandably. With the "archenemy" India in the East and now not a very friendly Soviet Union on our Western borders, Pakistan had fallen between "nutcrackers".

We therefore had to take our chances to rollback the occupation; but did we have any against a 'superpower', and the only one in the region at that? Soon after the Soviet withdrawal, as the Director General of Military Intelligence, I was assigned to a team constituted to review Pakistan's Afghan Policy. That, followed by a stint in the ISI, provided the answer.

The Afghan tradition of resisting foreign invaders was indeed the sine qua non for this gamble to succeed. American support took two years in coming but when it arrived, US support was one of the decisive factors. The ISI's role -- essentially logistical in that it channelled all aid and helped organise the resistance- turned out to be pivotal. In the process, from a small time player that undertook to punch above its weight, rubbing shoulders with the best in the game, the Americans, catapulted the Agency into the big league. Unsurprisingly, the ISI became a matter of great concern not only for its foes.

Cooperation amongst secret services, even within the country, is not the norm. It took a 9/11 for the US to create a halfway-coordinating mechanism. Between the CIA and the ISI, however, communication and coordination worked out well as long as the Soviets were in Afghanistan. The shared objective -- defeat of the occupation forces -- was one reason; respect for each other's turf, the more important other.

The CIA hardly ever questioned how its Pakistani counterpart dispensed with the resources provided for the Jihad or for that matter how it was conducted. And the ISI never asked if the American providers were over invoicing the ordnance or undermining the Saudi contribution. It did not mean that they trusted each other.

Differences, however, surfaced as soon as the Soviets withdrew. To start with, some of the key ISI operatives were vilified, allegedly for having favored the more radical of the Afghan groups. The charge that the Agency was infested with rogue elements is thus an old one. Twice these vilification campaigns led, under American pressure, to major purges of ISI's rank and file. If these episodes ever led to changes in policy is another matter. In the early 1990s, we in the ISI understood this shift in American attitude as a big-brother's desire to establish hegemony, but more crucially -- now that the Soviet Union after its withdrawal from Afghanistan had ceased to exist -- to cut this upstart service to size.

The CIA was clearly at odds with our declared objective to help the Mujahedeen lead the new dispensation in Kabul, especially if individuals like Hikmatyar were to play an important part in it. And the US was indeed unhappy with Pakistan's efforts to seek Iran's cooperation after the Islamic Republic had made peace with Iraq. But what seemed to have caused the most anguish amongst our American friends were the prospects of an increasingly confident ISI, vain enough to throw spanners in the work of the sole surviving superpower.

These apprehensions were not entirely ill-founded as the Iraq-Kuwait crisis of 1990-91 was soon to show.

Sometimes in 1992, General Brent Scowcroft, former national security advisor to US Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush, reportedly conceded that the ISI's assessment of Saddam's forces was closer to the mark than their own, which highly exaggerated Saddam's capacity. Now, if anyone else in the business too was to broadcast its account every time the CIA "sexed-up" a threat to suit American objectives (next time on Iraq's WMD holding for example), some pre-emption was obviously in order.

Soon thereafter the ISI was cleansed of the old guard, most of them ostensibly for their infatuation with the "Jihadists" in Afghanistan and Kashmir. These purges must have served a few careers but when it came to taking decisions and making policies, the new guard had no choice but to put its shoulder behind the Taliban bandwagon. The Militia was now, like it or not, the only group with a chance to reunify the war torn country; the inviolable and in principle the only condition for Pakistan's support for the "endgame", with no ideological or geo-political caveats.

Initially the Americans and the Saudis too had wooed Mullah Omar, though for a different reason: their interest in a pipeline that was to pass through territories under the Taliban control. If Pakistan should have ceased all support when this militant regime rejected its advice -- on accommodating the Northern Alliance or sparing the Bamyan Statues, for example -- remains a moot point.

After all, post 9/11 the Taliban did agree to our request to extradite Osama bin Laden, albeit to a third country. That was rejected by the US for reasons not for me to second-guess.

The ISI was thereafter subjected to another purge in the hope that the refurbished setup would put its heart and soul behind the new decree: 'chase anyone resisting the American military operations in Afghanistan all the way to hell'. That came to millions on both sides of the Pak-Afghan borders; likely to be around long after the US troops had gone home, with some of them turning their guns inwards as one must have noticed. Under the circumstances, neither the ISI nor other organs of the state had any will to operate against groups primarily primed to fight "foreign occupation". If they also had the right to do so, or how this intrusion was otherwise to be defined, can be discussed ad-infinitum. Pakistan in the meantime has to fight a number of running battles.

So, this time around as well, it is not any "rogue elements" in the ISI but the complexity of the crisis that necessitates selective use of force; essentially against the "rogue groups", some of them undoubtedly planted or supported by forces inimical to our past and present policies. (Thanks to the Wikileaks, we now know a bit more about the "counter-terrorism pursuit teams".)

If our political and military leadership also had the gumption to support the war against the NATO forces -- in the belief that some of the present turmoil in the area would not recede as long as the world's most powerful alliance was still around -- does not seem very likely. If, however, a few rebels in the ISI had in fact undertaken this mission, they may be punching above their weight, once again.

Indeed, the ISI suffers from many ailments, most of them a corollary of its being predominantly a military organisation and of the Army's exceptional role in Pakistani politics. But that is of no great relevance to this piece which is basically about the Agency's role in the so-called "war on terror"; a euphemism for the war raging in the AfPak Region.

Epilogue: I do not know what all the ISI knew about Bin Laden's whereabouts before he was reportedly killed, or when the Pakistani leadership was informed about the US operation on that fateful night. But the fact that we denied all knowledge or cooperation -- even though the military and the police cordons were in place at the time of the raid, our helicopters were hovering over the area, and the Army Chief was in his command post at midnight -- explains the Country's dilemma.

If its leadership was to choose between inability to defend national borders and complicity with the US to hunt down one person who defied the mightiest of the worldly powers, it would rather concede incompetence.

Pakistan's ISI From the Inside - The Atlantic

Counter-affidavit: Durrani concedes ISI role in poll rigging – The Express Tribune

Disengaging the Military from Politics in Pakistan - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
 
Last edited:
.
Just read an explosive news on Pakdef forum by member Aslan S.: Internal Security Discussion 2015 - Military & Strategic Forum - PakDef.org : Pakistan Military Consortium

Former Pakistani ISI Chief (and self appointed spokesperson) General Asad Durrani spills the beans at HeadToHead with Mehdi Hasan at Oxford Union, not televised out yet, confirming worst nightmares of many in the audience at record studios. Some quotes:

"Pakistan is an abnormal country that believes in [Muslim] Ummah... and has helped [militant Islamic] movements in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Central Asian Muslim Republics and Middle Eastern Arab countries"

"Pakistan has and will continue to support Taliban, who should be applauded for defeating World's sole super power" - "the blow back such as Peshawar School massacre is an inevitable and acceptable 'collateral damage' in a long war" -

"Terrorist groups are useful up to a point after which they can be eliminated" -

"Osama bin Laden was probably in ISI's custody and handed over to US for a quid-pro-quot, If this is indeed the case, then ISI did a good job" - "Pakistanis admire and support Bin Laden and Taliban" -

"After 9/11 US did not pay Pakistan [Military] enough and were only provided minimal services in return"

"There is no morality in state craft, there are no red lines or rules in the strategic games between Intelligence agencies and no amount of loses (collateral damage) makes it too high a price to pay"

"ISI cannot be answerable to the kind of Civilian governments we have in Pakistan, Military rule has proved better than Civilian rule in terms of economic growth and good governance - I attempted to destabilize Benazir Government as ISI Chief in early 90s on the order of the then President"

The Interview will be televised at Al-Jazeera Channel in April 2015.

Link to complete discussion : Internal Security Discussion 2015 - Military & Strategic Forum - PakDef.org : Pakistan Military Consortium
@Horus kindly look into this thread and take notice,
 
. .
ex-ISI chief General Assad Durrani gives an image of ISI/military that is robust - and it makes viewers think that only military is capable of handling Pakistan and civilians are all useless. I won't be surprised if this PR campaign is to bolster military and ISI reputation overseas (and through that in the country) as only actors who should be taken seriously."

One thing is interesting is the part of OBL capture used as a barter deal with Americans for a way out with some sort of achievement.
 
.
Pakistanis should outright deny this truth and keep themselves behind walls of denial .so that the army and isi keep on milking you and pull the whole country down..only to satisfy their egos and pockets..economically weak and chaotic neighbour is a welcome sign for us .
 
. . .
.


DONOT POST GRAPHIC/BLOODY/DEAD pictures or videos. Will result in an immediate ban.

Write your reply...

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom