What's new

Geopolitical game of the US: India’s Wikileaks riddle

EjazR

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
5,148
Reaction score
1
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/85671/indias-wikileaks-riddle.html
By M K Bhadrakumar
The United States never shared the Indians’ one-dimensional view of the Taliban as representing the forces of darkness.

The highly-combustible Indian imagination has caught fire over the Wikileaks disclosures regarding the curious methods of the Pakistani military in pretending to be the United States’ ally and immensely benefiting out the alliance while at the same time keeping its dalliance with the Taliban going.

But the intriguing part is what the US President Barack Obama said, namely, that Wikileaks hasn’t brought anything new to the table. Which means, Washington knew all along since 2004 how the smart Pakistani generals operate — especially the then chief of Pakistan’s ISI by the name Pervez Kayani — and worse still, kept defraying the latter’s ‘expense account.’

Something obviously doesn’t gel, does it? The Indian strategic community has rushed to judgement that all this happened because the US is in desperate hurry to ‘scoot,’ as a former chief of the Research Analysis Wing told me. But then, that is appalling naivety. Wikileaks disclosures pertain to the period of the second term of the George W Bush presidency when Washington was so snooty about the war that it was utterly convinced it was winning.

No one was talking about an exit strategy at that point in time that Wikileaks disclosures pertain to. The fact of the matter is that the US and the Pakistani generals have been locked into a deathly dance from Day 1 of the American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Few will recollect that the first time the US conceded Pakistan’s special interests in Afghanistan was after a visit by the then US secretary of state Colin Powell to Islamabad in mid-October 2001.

Maybe the Indian establishment which conferred the Indira Gandhi Peace Prize on Afghan president Hamid Karzai was innocent — and maybe it still is in a blissful state of innocence — but the US administration and ISI certainly weren’t — that but for the al-Qaeda strike on 9/11 Karzai was all set to be appointed as the Taliban government’s official representative in Washington.

In short, Washington’s decision to pitchfork Karzai into power as the head of the interim government in Kabul after the Taliban regime’s ouster itself was a calibrated move. So indeed was the appointment of Zalmay Khalilzad who used to be a fervent advocate of the Taliban in Washington in the late 1990s, as the US ambassador in Kabul during the formative period that witnessed the disarray of the Northern Alliance — and predictably, the revival of the Taliban.

To go back a little bit more, does anyone recollect today that for a split-moment even the then National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra expressed his sense of exasperation that Washington allowed Pakistani aircraft to evacuate under the very nose of the US Special Forces the Taliban contingents that were besieged by the Northern Alliance forces in the Kunduz region in northern Afghanistan in October 2001?

Combined effort

That is to say, the contrived nature of the ‘ouster’ of the Taliban regime in Kabul by the US in 2001 was never really in doubt. It is plain common sense that the so-called international community should have taken help from all quarters that were willing to help vanquish the al-Qaeda and its Taliban affiliates from Afghanistan. On the contrary, the US consistently turned down, ignored or has been ambivalent about the role regional countries like Russia, Iran and India were willing to play.

Bush was obsessive that Pakistan had to be the US’ privileged partner — ‘non-Nato ally’ — in this war. And, furthermore, let us not forget that it was Musharraf who arranged Karzai’s election victory in 2004 (upon Bush’s request), by delivering the votes of the 3-million strong Afghan refugee community living in Pakistan.

How do these various strands add up? One, the US is not quite the bumbling superpower at the mercy of the Pakistani generals, as the Indian strategic community estimates. Plainly put, this has been a symbiotic relationship. Two, the US never shared the Indians’ one-dimensional view of the Taliban as representing the forces of darkness. The US played a seminal role in the immaculate conception of the Taliban; its strategies were geopolitical and it visualised the Taliban as a potent instrument for bringing about ‘regime change’ in Central Asia (including Xinjiang).

Three, the US is not terrified of the Taliban. On the contrary, the Taliban leaders willingly accepted funding by US oil companies in the past and there is no reason why they — including the Haqqanis — shouldn’t do so again. Fourth, the core issue is that Taliban should be somehow ‘finessed’ to play its geopolictical role — something which Washington is convinced only the Pakistani generals can do.

Fifth, the Nato’s future is involved as well as the US’ trans-Atlantic leadership itself and the US knows that the rising China and the resurgent Russia will never allow the American military presence to be re-established in the strategic Central Asian region if the US forces pack up and leave Afghanistan for good.

A final question: Will the Taliban agree to a Status of Forces Agreement with Nato? Yes, it will — provided the US is willing to reciprocate by accommodating the Taliban’s and its mentor’s interests as well. Let us remember that the Taliban was always willing to dump al-Qaeda provided the US accorded diplomatic recognition to its regime in Kabul.
Therefore, what the Wikileaks reveal is quintessentially that the 3-way US-Pakistan-Taliban equation that has been maturing over time may well be progressing to its final stage.

(The writer is a former diplomat)
 
. . .
@guarav

yes just like the indians knew that WMD were in iraq!!! they are equally convinced about pakistan supporting taliban!
 
.
@guarav

yes just like the indians knew that WMD were in iraq!!! they are equally convinced about pakistan supporting taliban!
cant say pakistan supporting taliban but ISI is supporting taliban, when you say pakistan it involves the general public too , and the public never supported taliban
 
.
This is another way of MAKING THE CASE for exit from Afghanistan. Now Talibans are OUR PEOPLE in disguise, sort of CIA propaganda to get out of the Afghan mess. It will also give them a leverage in future for controlling the CIS, a check on Russia, China and to some extent Pakistan as well, through a FRIENDLY-TALIBAN REGIME in Kabul.

A grand strategic game is unfolding itself, slowly and surely, to our eyes, I am convinced.
 
. .
Taliban are Pakistan. Hard fact!

1. Check the definition of the word in a dictionary

2. Provide sources to back your claim

3. List the independance, and authenticity of your sources

Then come back to me... Till then it is classified as Fiction:
1.a. An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.
b. The act of inventing such a creation or pretense.

2. A lie.

3.a. A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact.
b. The category of literature comprising works of this kind, including novels and short stories.

4. Law Something untrue that is intentionally represented as true by the narrator.

Good Day! :wave:
 
.
1. Check the definition of the word in a dictionary

2. Provide sources to back your claim

3. List the independance, and authenticity of your sources
But tell me why ex ISI agent goes to meet taliban people as friendly guest. And this taliban killed one of them.

As far proof are concerned, we cant proof pakistani hand in 26/11 even after having Kasab with us.

When person is in denying mode, what we should waste time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
But tell me why ex ISI agent goes to meet taliban people as friendly guest. And this taliban killed one of them.

As far proof are concerned, we cant proof pakistani hand in 26/11 even after having Kasab with us.

When person is in denying mode, what we should waste time.

Ex ISI doesn't represent the Pakistan state.

I don't see how you can prove Pakistani involvement with Kasab.

More impotantly, with that last statement of yours, are you suggesting that since we won't accept it (obviously an assumption that you're making), you don't need to provide us proof? Didn't we accept Pakistani individuals' actions in Mumbai attacks?

Btw, consider learning the meaning of 'denial' before you use it next time.
 
Last edited:
.
Guys its a very good article.
Instead of going in another indo-pak war lets focus on Discussion.


On topic,

Yet again like the Headley case, US knew every thing yet lept mum..
 
.
Guys its a very good article.
Instead of going in another indo-pak war lets focus on Discussion.


On topic,

Yet again like the Headley case, US knew every thing yet lept mum..

And what do you expect US to have said; that " we admit we were blind, we spent billions of dollars and yet we cooked jack and that the
Pakistani General and ISI took us for a ride"

Do you think any US leader / official would go back to the tax payer and say that ?

It is in every one's best interest to keep things confused.

In my opinion the Afghan treaty and the exit strategy have already been penciled; and the preliminaries are now being done for a smooth execution.

The facts will never change, and the powerful on ground today will remain to be powerful.
 
.
The entire article is based on a false premise - that the 'intelligence reports' seen in Wikileaks are credible and reflect accurately the relationship between the ISI and the Taliban post 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan.

However, as numerous Western analysts themselves have pointed out, the majority of the 180+ intelligence reports are unverified, from NDS sources (which had a vested interest in falsely maligning Pakistan under Amrullah Saleh), and therefore cannot be seen as validating anything about the ISI-Taliban relationship.

If nothing else, as pointed out before, the flawed and fantastic nature of these intelligence reports brings into question the various 'reports' over the years in the Western media quoting 'intelligence sources' that claimed Pakistan/ISI was supporting the Taliban - if the 'wikileaks evidence' was the kind of 'intelligence' Western media 'sources' were basing their comments on, then almost all those reports were just as flawed and unsubstantiated as the 180+ wiki reports.

Once the flawed and unverified nature of the reports is pointed out, it is not hard to see why the US response has been lukewarm towards Pakistan all this time. If nothing else, the question here is why the US, knowing the flawed nature of these reports, did not outright and unambiguously point that out. Instead a wishy washsy, 'neither confirm nor deny' approach was taken, which reflects a degree of duplicity in the US position, ostensibly to pressure Pakistan.

To be fair, the GoP, still running against 'dictatorship and Musharraf' (in the hope that is distracts the masses from the PPP coalition's total and complete ineptitude in running the country) has also made similar comments in the hope of taking an easy way out of the situation, by implying that Musharraf was responsible for such actions, while the PPP led government is not. That approach by the PPP is also disingenuous, since the same objections apply here - one cannot accuse Musharraf of authorizing direct support for the Taliban based on the wikleaks reports since the reports are still unverified and flawed.

Another case of politicians in Pakistan undermining the country and national interests in the pursuit of quick political points and self-aggrandizement.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom