Gates says ISI playing double game, CIA backs ‘effective’ drone attacks

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

-- the continued effort at destabilizing Pakistan cannot contribute to the possibility of U.S. success in Afghanistan.

Exactly - taking the expressed US 'goals' in the region at face value, how exactly are US interests served with Pakistan turning into another Afghanistan?

 

[muse]

First the U.S supported Hikmatyar, then it tried to kill Hikmatyar, and now it is engaging in "talks" with Hikmatyar.

The talks were arranged by Hikmatyar's #2 who happens to live in America.

What kind of behaviour is this??

That's deceitful, duplicitous, utterly aberrant behavior, and not in the slightest "ordinary

".

No ****, Sherlock!

 

[S-2]

I disagree with Musharraf and contend that the Afghan insurgency holds no traction without sanctuary in Pakistan anymore than it did in 1980.

That would likely be the assessment of my government as well and forms the basis for matters such as PREDATOR.

Your earlier comments to the "old guard" were extremely well-put. Further those about the neo-taliban, as you called them. No doubt the existence of the "old guard" and the A.Q. relations has opened the way for the radicalization of your pashtu.

As I've pointed out and you, too, in those comments, the afghan taliban "old guard" has assiduously protected it's behavior in Pakistan for obvious reasons. So too your government WRT them. The quid pro quo is obvious.

Obey's comments are well-taken too. He is the chairman of the House Appropriations committee and money won't be flowing to you if he has it his way-contingent upon what he and others see in the coming year.

Gates has said the same- nine to twelve months and re-assess again. I'm confident that no further troops will be deployed to Afghanistan unless over Gates' politically dead body. So we'll see what re-assessment means.

 

[Owais]

Gates says ISI playing double game, CIA backs ‘effective’ drone attacks

if ISI would be playing double game, US/NATO fate in Afghanistan wont be different than Soviet Union.
from 2006, Pakistan is differentiating between anti-pakistan and pro-pakistan groups in tribal areas and have done many peace deals there but each time US made them failed by doing drone attacks killing hundreds of innocent peoples.

 

[S-2]

Hekmatyar-

"first supported"? Twenty-five years ago against the Russians? You mean along with the British, French, and others also now engaged in Afghanistan? O.k. So?

These talks-ongoing? Exploratory? I heard of them but hear no more. Rumor was exile to S.A. and abandon his troops, put down his arms, swear allegiance to the constitution and, after an appropriate time, return to enter the POLITICAL fray.

We'll, and the afghan gov't, reconcile with any militant who'll disarm and do such. We'll explore such with any fence-sitters who wish to guage their chances.

Are you doing the same with Haqqani, Hekmatyar, and Omar in Pakistan? Would you do the same with any of A.M.'s neo-taliban? I would and encourage you to.

That's not aiding and abetting for seven years of sanctuary and God-only-knows what else. Those are CONTACTS that anybody should respect.

DISARM and SWEAR ALLEGIANCE. Talk all day about that if you wish...Sherlock.

 

[muse]

We'll, and the afghan gov't, reconcile with any militant who'll disarm and do such. We'll explore such with any fence-sitters who wish to guage their chances.

more double speak - have the U.S. supported the Pakistan givt in their effort to do the same? clearly not.

When the Afghan govt decides it can reconcile with Haqqani, Omar and Hikmatyar, certainly it would be legitimate to ask Pakistan to do so as well.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I disagree with Musharraf and contend that the Afghan insurgency holds no traction without sanctuary in Pakistan anymore than it did in 1980.

That only holds true in the East. It may hold true in the South but given a lack of US/NATO resources there at the moment, it is likely that Southern Afghanistan itself is the sanctuary.

The drugs funding the movement and the weapons supplying both Pakistani Taliban and Afghan Taliban flow through Afghanistan, and there you have issues to deal with in terms of non-Taliban elements such as corruption in the GoA and the continued sway of warlords in certain areas.

Were the issue one of sanctuary in FATA alone, the violence would have been limited to the border regions.

The fact is that men have been used too sparingly in Afghanistan, and money too ineffectively - there is a chance to rectify that in the coming year and attempt positive change.

FATA sanctuaries will not play a major role in stifling that effort - poor application of men and allocation of resources for development and a continued ineffective and corrupt GoA that cannot win the confidence of its people will play a major role in failure.

Your earlier comments to the "old guard" were extremely well-put. Further those about the neo-taliban, as you called them. No doubt the existence of the "old guard" and the A.Q. relations has opened the way for the radicalization of your pashtu.

As I've pointed out and you, too, in those comments, the afghan taliban "old guard" has assiduously protected it's behavior in Pakistan for obvious reasons. So too your government WRT them. The quid pro quo is obvious.

The US has a chance to change things and prove Pakistan's (and your legislature's) concerns misplaced. I just don't see why Pakistan should essentially throw away all options in case of US failure in Afghanistan and take the chance of being left to deal with the mess on its own again.

Obey's comments are well-taken too. He is the chairman of the House Appropriations committee and money won't be flowing to you if he has it his way-contingent upon what he and others see in the coming year.

I am not as concerned over the implication of his comments on aid to Pakistan as I am about the implications for a sustained US commitment in Afghanistan if progress is not shown.

Aid will not matter in case of US failure in Afghanistan - retaining contacts to exert influence and stabilize Afghanistan will.

US aid is not offsetting the current costs, direct and indirect, from the WoT - the aid is useless considering the costs Pakistan will have to face in case of an Afghanistan in chaos.

 

[S-2]

From Christina Lamb, whom I deeply respect as a reporter for the London Times-

Karzai to Negotiate With Hekmatyar-Times of London

"The party is expected to be offered several ministries and provincial governorships in return for laying down its arms and agreeing not to disrupt the presidential elections due in August.

Hekmatyar will not be offered a post but will be asked to go into exile in Saudi Arabia for three years, after which his name would be removed from the US list."

"laying down its arms..."

Are you cool with that? It's what you've done with the neo-taliban repeatedly...and failed because of their duplicity. We'll see to what degree these men are the same and if they hold the same ambitions.

Omar is no candidate as he's declared that he'll not negotiate without the prior departure of American and ISAF, i.e. at the point of a gun. Nor shall he abide elections-ever.

We'll work his men to isolate him. We'll work Hekmatyar to isolate his men.

 

[S-2]

"more double speak - have the U.S. supported the Pakistan givt in their effort to do the same? clearly not."

Have we cut off aid? No. Have we tolerated numerous negotiations w/ Mehsud and others, to include your latest forays in SWAT? Yes.

In point of fact have you ever demanded adherance to your government and disarming? Yes. Did it work? No. Did it work partially? No.

Is there a difference? Maybe. One group represents afghan foreigners upon your soil whom are leaders from a different generation and might possess different and more narrowly focused ambitions of nat'l power in Afghanistan.

The other represents Pakistani youngsters on your soil whom are leaders of THIS generation and appear to be decidedly more radicalized-more akin to A.Q. than the old taliban as A.M. had indicated in an earlier post.

Have these two general groups gotten along? All indications are that Omar has his hands full accomodating Mehsud and attempting to reconcile him to becoming a "good taliban".

 

[shaikh_spair]

America itself means double role

why that american are reluctant to point out raw's role in fata and swat amazing whole onus is on ISI.

 

[S-2]

"That only holds true in the East. It may hold true in the South but given a lack of US/NATO resources there at the moment, it is likely that Southern Afghanistan itself is the sanctuary."

No. However it is very likely that it might as well be and constitutes an effective extension of such from Pakistan. The difference is our ability to do something about southern Afghanistan that is not possible with Pakistan. It falls to us and was recognized by BUSH, McKiernan, and, now, B.O. et al. Thus the troops.

"The drugs funding the movement and the weapons supplying both Pakistani Taliban and Afghan Taliban flow through Afghanistan, and there you have issues to deal with in terms of non-Taliban elements such as corruption in the GoA and the continued sway of warlords in certain areas."

I disagree. I believe that the drug money makes up about half of the taliban and others needs and a lot is contributed from private donors in the gulf and Saudi Arabia. Too, you've your own raging arms market and access to the largest private arms dealers in the world from the gulf states. They, in turn, have access to the afghan dope and the networks to distribute it should they want a piece of that action.

Much of my thoughts here will depend on the next report we see from UNODC about opium this year and the next traffiking report we see from INTERPOL but in no way do I think you've got an air-tight case that all our ills stem from within Afghanistan.

Corruption, yeah, and that includes the simplest kind like junkie ANP dudes selling their weapons. Sh!t happens but if they had nobody to sell them to and if those guys had no place to seek aid and succor then I believe that the problems faced by the afghan gov't and the U.N. mission would be far less virulent.

"Were the issue one of sanctuary in FATA alone, the violence would have been limited to the border regions."

I'm sorry but the vast majority of the violence is as far inland as the taliban are able to effectively push. In the east-not far. The south-farther. The north-not at all. The west-south of Herat in Farah and Nimroz (which is the south too). The interior-you tell me but it seems very modest in Hazara lands.

"FATA sanctuaries will not play a major role in stifling that effort"

Agreed. We've our own cross to bear (pardon the crusading reference) WRT to optimizing our efforts.

"I just don't see why Pakistan should essentially throw away all options in case of US failure in Afghanistan and take the chance of being left to deal with the mess on its own again."

Then you'll understand the essence of the "trust and faith" issue with the above comment when "all options" include the continuation of sanctuary for our enemies...and yours.

"US aid is not offsetting the current costs, direct and indirect, from the WoT"

Who said anything about you breaking even in defense of your country? We likely equalled your accumulated loss in capital in a blink of the eye on 9/11. It's hardly been a money-maker for us since. Still, how much of that cost is a consequence of your decisions since 9/11 that have exacerbated your condition instead of alleviating such?

If your "bad" taliban are a function of the radicalization of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan and more such that it's spilled over it's containment, is that our fault?

"I am not as concerned over the implication of his comments on aid to Pakistan as I am about the implications for a sustained US commitment in Afghanistan if progress is not shown."

I concur. You can influence that decision by your actions still.

"Aid will not matter in case of US failure in Afghanistan - retaining contacts to exert influence and stabilize Afghanistan will."

That is a perspective you may choose for preparation. Will those contacts serve you better, if so, than prior to 9/11? A.M., you must wonder, if not, what will happen to your region if we leave frustrated and are again attacked in the manner that we once were.

Heaven help all of you because I can't imagine we will. Instead there will be many navy puke pilots bearing messages that "Pakistan scuks" as a safe bet.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

S-2:

The point is that even with Omar, Haqqani and Hekmetyar not being turned over you can show measurable progress (not to be confused with a stable Afghanistan and a vanquished insurgency) - if you show measurable progress you satisfy your legislature (benchmarks), whose comments and skepticism is likely not going unnoticed in Islamabad - and if you satisfy your legislature and illustrate that a long term commitment in Afghanistan will sell at home in the US, you remove the concerns from our side.

I mean, you have to admit that until this year the war in Iraq had ensured that the impressions we had over a US commitment to Afghanistan were hardly positive. In a sense the 'measurement' of your dedication to stay the course in Afghanistan starts from this year.

Afghanistan continues to see abysmal progress not because of sanctuaries, but because the US 'took its eyes off the ball', to which Pakistan said, 'fine then, we'll look after our interests as we see fit'.

A US failure in Afghanistan is not a preferable option by any means, not even close, but in case of a US failure in Afghanistan, handling a chaotic Afghanistan with old contacts that may still wield power (think of the rehabilitation of Nawaz Sharif in the eyes of Pakistanis) is far more preferable to dealing with a chaotic nation with no influence over any of the players.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Corruption, yeah, and that includes the simplest kind like junkie ANP dudes selling their weapons.

Speaking of which ...

Arms from U.S. may be falling into Taliban hands​

Updated at: 0930 PST, Wednesday, May 20, 2009
NEW YORK: Insurgents in Afghanistan, fighting from some of the poorest and most remote regions on earth, have managed for years to maintain an intensive guerrilla war against materially superior American and Afghan forces.

Weapons from a police post linked to an attack on Americans. Most rifles were the kind issued by the United States.

Arms and ordnance collected from dead insurgents hint at one possible reason: Of 30 rifle magazines recently taken from insurgents’ corpses, at least 17 contained cartridges, or rounds, identical to ammunition the United States had provided to Afghan government forces, according to an examination of ammunition markings by The New York Times and interviews with American officers and arms dealers.

The presence of this ammunition among the dead in the Korangal Valley, an area of often fierce fighting near Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan, strongly suggests that munitions procured by the Pentagon have leaked from Afghan forces for use against American troops.

The scope of that diversion remains unknown, and the 30 magazines represented a single sampling of fewer than 1,000 cartridges. But military officials, arms analysts and dealers say it points to a worrisome possibility: With only spotty American and Afghan controls on the vast inventory of weapons and ammunition sent into Afghanistan during an eight-year conflict, poor discipline and outright corruption among Afghan forces may have helped insurgents stay supplied.

Arms from U.S. may be falling into Taliban hands: US paper

 

[S-2]

"Afghanistan continues to see abysmal progress not because of sanctuaries, but because the US 'took its eyes off the ball'"

And so, because we and our allies did so, the classic endemic conditions that plague Afghanistan- a weak central gov't., tribal warfare, crime, corruption, drugs- took their rightful place and asserted their power, correct?

If so, and you accept that these conditions as classically endemic, how do you reconcile your comment with the Soviet-Afghan experience? I've been told here that Pakistan "won" the cold war. How? Invasion of Afghanistan and direct combat with the Red Army?

You and I are very close to a "chicken or egg" proposition because I firmly recognize that the classically endemic conditions that are so resistant within Afghan society (and some others) have certainly made our work more difficult and contribute mightily to Obey and others' discomfort. It will be among the metrics we measure, I hope, and all indications are that Karzai took a brutal beating again by our Senate at a recent luncheon in D.C. held in his "honor" on many of these issues. Those conditions for which we and others are responsible are clearly on our mind-to include weapons- as I know you're aware of the GAO audits in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Without such, we wouldn't know the problem's extent short of "U.S. paper". Have to laugh as I'm certain from the article it's a NYT story that's been re-written by the Daily News.

OTOH, I submit that all these conditions existed in 1979, to include opium/heroin (which was industrialized by the mujahideen and others as, again, a means of finance-and has always been part and parcel to the taliban since their rise to power in 1996) and corruption. Without sanctuary and all that aid are you prepared to suggest that the afghan insurgency then was a war-winner anyway? The aid from that war isn't available to the insurgents now. Or, at least, some/most of it.

I'd like to think that the PRC is not contributing as it once did to these insurgents. Rather sure they aren't, correct? Saudi Arabia? I dunno. They might be involved as a gov't but because they've so many private donors advocating their wahabbist vision and the money/means to do so, they either have no need or have their own financial proxies through which to work. Same for the U.A.E. and Kuwait. Clearly, America isn't abetting Omar et al efforts as we once did during that war.

So the sources seem less but the sanctuary remains. And the effect? Seven and one-half years later the level of violence isn't remotely comparable to the Afghan-Soviet War. Why? The taliban aren't able to industrialize their efforts to steroid levels and we haven't matched the Red Army's size nor proclivity to violence.

A simmer comparatively. My prognosis? Let cool heads prevail (while allowing those like mine to simmer too) and trust in guys like Gates and others to provide the perspective and lucid analysis to unfcuk this situation.

I flyfish. Occasionally I'll spool my line or, worse (with two flies), create the mother of all knots. Pure tedium. My choices? Work through the knot patiently or cut my losses and start anew. If sufficiently frustrated (dusk, tired, hot), cut my losses and call it a day.

Fishing's been sh!tty lately in A-stan and there are knots galore. We're addressing what we can and we'll see how things unfold.

 

[muse]

Notice, more double speak, more obfuscation, Mrs. Clinton states that the U.S knows the Talib's supply line - and note that she does not say thatthe U.S will act in Afghanistan to stop the supply line.


US wronged Pakistan for 30 years, admits Hillary
By Anwar Iqbal
Wednesday, 20 May, 2009 | 03:21 AM PST |

WASHINGTON, May 19: The US secretary of state acknowledged on Tuesday that Washington had not been consistent in its dealings with Islamabad.

Talking to reporters at the Foreign Press Centre and the White House, Hillary Clinton said ‘it is fair to say that our policy towards Pakistan over the last 30 years has been incoherent. I don’t know any other word’.

About the military operation, Hillary Clinton said the United States was working with Pakistan to determine and disrupt the route for supplying weapons to the Taliban.

‘Yes, we know that the extremists are being supplied,’ she said when asked why the US was unable to determine and disrupt the Taliban supply route.

The secretary recalled that in the 1980s, the US partnered with Pakistan to help train the Mujahideen.

‘Their security service and the military were encouraged to go after the Soviets in Afghanistan’ and when they withdrew in 1989, ‘we said thank you very much’.

Mrs Clinton said while it was fair to apportion responsibility to Pakistan, but the US also shared the responsibility for what happened during and after the Afghan war.

‘What President Obama is doing is qualitatively different from anything done before. We support the elected government … it is a relationship very clear, honest to each other.’

The US, the secretary added, was assisting the new government in Islamabad to be ‘as successful as possible in delivering, we believe the future of Pakistan is extremely important for the US … the advance of extremism is a threat to our security’.

She underscored America’s ‘very strong’ support for the effort by the Pakistan army for defeating the terrorists.

Mrs Clinton said the Al Qaeda and their allies were intent upon harming not only US friends and allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan but also in the US homeland and to American citizens.

‘They have not given up on their desire to inflict damage, harm and murder on the USA … this is how we see helping our friends and allies … we have walked away in the past … now we are going to forge a partnership with the government and the people of Pakistan.’

‘We are working very closely with the intelligence service of Pakistan and others to determine where are the weapons coming from. We are working with Pakistan to disrupt the supply line.’

TALIBAN SUPPLY LINE
Mrs Clinton noted that the route used to supply the militants passed through a very difficult terrain and the Taliban were being aided by local residents who knew the trail very well. ‘So it is a challenge but we are addressing that.’

In reply to a question, the secretary said the US was neither engaged in any military operation in Pakistan nor did it have any role in the delivery of relief goods.

She said that while it was difficult to speculate why former president Pervez Musharraf did what he did while he was in power, ‘he ended his time in office when extremists had found sanctuary in Pakistan and were the strongest’.

Hillary Clinton said she believed the present government in Pakistan had recognised the serious threat posed by the Taliban.

‘I am very encouraged by the comments of the PM (Mr Gilani) and the former PM (Nawaz Sharif)’ made on this issue, she observed.

‘They have a recognition that it is no longer about a part of a country that seems quite different from Lahore or Islamabad.’

Mrs Clinton said the beating of a woman in Swat had an electric effect on Pakistanis inside and out of the country as all were shocked to see this public flogging.