What's new

India Supporting Taliban-US Intel Official

"What would you say about the argument that the current diversification of targets to encompass both TTP and ACF is a result of regime change in the US?

We call ours an inauguration. You can set your watch to it short of assassination.

I don't believe we held a policy of protecting Mehsud. It's my belief that he's a difficult man to find in your nation. One of the most difficult, in fact. You're government has been looking for him for some time and he hasn't been found so...

As to additional intel collection resources, I suppose that there should be some tangible improvements over time, though my suspicion is that Iraq will retain some 30,000 or so troops well into the next decade. I believe a good portion of that may be military intelligence (army and air force primarily) depending upon the evolving state of affairs with Iran.

Who's ACF?

ACF- Anti-Coalition Forces.

Its not so much Mehsud himself, but attacks on TTP infrastructure training camps etc.

Again, I think it is credible that given the involvement in Iraq and limited resources to deploy, US priorities were to focus on the more immediate threat to their mission in Afghanistan, which would have been the Nazir, Haqqani etc. networks.

That does not imply US complicity in the alleged Indian involvement in Afghanistan, but might indicate that the US ignored it since it was focused on other issues.
 
.
"Stick to the topic."

Take it up with Omar1984, not me. Ask. Don't order. You'll receive nothing from me otherwise.

"Yes,you were gone after creating the Mullah Mujahideen,which then transformed into the Taliban using the same ideology "you" pumped into the area."

Oh yeah, that's us. Do you know that the C.I.A. keeps it's own madrassa in Langley? We kidnap muslim scholars and they're renditioned into suburban Arlington and forced to root for the Washington Redskins on T.V. every fall. They've since trained a super-secret group from the early eighties called "the LASHKAR". It was all Robert Gates' fault when he was over at the C.I.A.

Sorta frightening.

So are you. Now run along like a good lil' boy, if you don't mind? See...I asked. It always helps.:angry:
 
. .
I don't believe large sections of the Indian leadership believe that. Analysis from former defence and government officials is full of arguments that a broken or destabilized Pakistan serves India's interests.

Indira Gandhi after all pursued this very policy in 1971 - that was not so long ago, and not everyone form her generation, or those influenced by her generation and policies, have died out.

A.M.
I will admit that in the last 12 months, I sense that Kashmir Valley has seen perceptible reduction in insurgent activity and some of that may be due to new GoP leadership and PA/ISI reassessing their priorities due to FATA/NWFP events. This seems to have facilitated peaceful elections and allowed development activities like new train line and a new international airport to be completed. So pressure seems to have lessened quite a bit, and I daresay from GoI perspective, events on Pak western front has given it breathing space...

Having said that, direct Indian involvement by collaborating with the Taliban is far-fetched. The implication seems to be that India is attempting to bring about dismemberment of Pakistan, either via the "Greater Afghanistan" model or by an independent "Pashtunistan" model. It's obvious to an educated observer that both these endgames are highly unlikely. Afghanistan is not stable in its current state, let alone in an expanded version. An independent Pashtunistan is even more unlikely as the Pashtuns lack a separate national identity.

With GoI intent on wooing foreign (read Western) powers for investment, permanent UNSC seat, free trade agreements, support for Kashmir, etc. it seems short-sighted to get itself embroiled in highly risky (mis)adventures like supporting/funding Taliban with the sole purpose of ensuring continued instability in Pakistan, and without a clear endgame. It fares better creating goodwill in Afghanistan by creating roads, building power-stations, donating army trucks, etc. and helping GoA counter the Taliban.
 
.
Hi Agno,

I am listening to the Charlie Rose show today at 12:00 pm pacific time on tv KQED---the ex CIA station chief to pakistan was on the show---he talked about india's involvement in afghanistan regarding taliban then another reporter from new york times tried to take the converstaion away from that topic but Charlie brought it back---basically the guy stated that the govt needs to take action.
 
.
"That does not imply US complicity in the alleged Indian involvement in Afghanistan, but might indicate that the US ignored it since it was focused on other issues."

I'll be blunt. I think we've given short shrift to Baluchistan. You likely have a really legit claim there. Even you though, personally, admitted it's a minor affair at this point relative to FATAland/NWFP. What changes that, of course, is when the BLA/Jundallah link up (or not) with an increasingly active taliban resistance in Baluchistan. We've seen hints of it already and little reason to not believe the land between Kandahar and Quetta isn't immensely valuable to them.

The Indians have seemed somewhat brazen about the BLA and Jundallah. Either way, here's a question for you- how does India provide for their overt or covert assistance into Afghanistan? Does it all travel through Karachi? Is any brought through the Iranian port? Both? Something altogether different? If so, I'd think that the Iranians would have concerns as Jundallah is certainly a threat to them. BLA too, no?

I've an open offer/challenge here for photos of a Indian-sponsored terror camp inside Afghanistan and am still waiting. I'd speculate in Nimroz if anywhere. That's the middle of nowhere with very little NATO/ISAF coverage.
 
.
Please be as indifferent to it as you wish.

'Denial' after all is not limited to Pakistanis. Until this statement by the US intelligence official is retracted or discredited
Oh I will be; and so will the rest of the world, unless more credible information is acquired of course.

How does one retract a statement when he/she isn't identified in the first place? Besides another unnamed expert has contradicted the first assertion... why not wait for his retraction before the former theory can even be considered again?

I see no reason to not believe it, just as you and others have argued in favor of Pakistani complicity on the basis of similar 'anonymous sources'.
The quality and quantity of resources and literature published by governments, world renowned think tanks, policy groups, defence institutions etc. establishing Pakistan's relationship with various terrorism organizations is far, far superior to what you have presented. They aren't even comparable by any objective standards. And it is on the basis of that information bank that arguments against Pakistan (by that I mean connecting Pakistan to terrorism) are constructed by heads of states, diplomats, policy makers and military experts. Keyboard warriors merely have to copy paste the established and vetted arguments.
AgNoStIc MuSliM said:
US pursuit of India for a strategic partnership is not a 'conspiracy', neither is the fact that Indian support for the TTP does not have a direct fallout for US operations in Afghanistan since the TTP is primarily active in Pakistan.
US's strategic partnership does not include overlooking the possibility of India aiding Taliban's operations at the expense of our own troops and the entire war effort for the sake of orchestrating a concerted move to discredit Pakistan or what have you... that is a boneheaded conspiracy theory. Nor is there any evidence suggesting that the Indian, Israeli or American intelligence agencies hold any sway with radical Islamist groups whose sole aim is to destroy the very "nexus" they constantly keep ranting about (much like a lot of the people here) in the first place. And this popular notion that all jihadi groups who attack fellow Muslims in Pakistan = supported by India/Israel/US/Uranus etc. is also another absurd conspiracy theory. Lastly, it is glaringly obvious to everybody that these groups are highly mercurial, extremely amorphous and categorically unreliable when it comes to target specificity. So to think that the US would be fine if India were to support one group of the Taliban under the assumption that they will only attack Pakistan is ludicrous.
 
.
Along with what S-2 has commented (taliban camps funded by Indians), I would also prepose that to the taliban the idelogy of there existence become irrelavent, if doing business with India. And the ideology of money takes the forefront of the issue. Would that be so?

Clearly, does anyone really here understand the taliban manifesto? If they did it would make it impossible to India to fund taliban and make them at there will for there bidding.
 
Last edited:
.
"Again, I think it is credible that given the involvement in Iraq and limited resources to deploy, US priorities were to focus on the more immediate threat to their mission in Afghanistan, which would have been the Nazir, Haqqani etc. networks."

Haqqani and Hekmatyar have long been on our radar so allocation of assets towards them is a given by the time Rehman, Nazir, and Mehsud, et al (the "good", the "bad", well...they're all damnedably ugly) emerged in 2005/06. Still, I can't speak to how, specifically, these resources are allocated or even what may be available as tools/assets nor the red lines to "attack" instead of "observe".

"That does not imply US complicity in the alleged Indian involvement in Afghanistan, but might indicate that the US ignored it since it was focused on other issues."

Maybe. We've one unattributed comment by an unidentified intelligence officer to date. I think we're aware of the Baluchi connection though I don't think we believe it's being executed to any great degree from within Afghanistan. My suspicion is that PREDATOR flies more than Pakistani skies. If so, I further suspect it's up a lot over Helmand and further west. Training camps might be hard to hide out there.

We may or may not be flying PREDATOR over Iran. I sorta doubt it though we might fly parallel to the border for a look-see. Altitude would give you a good look into Iran.

The ground-breaking news still would be that the Indian gov't is supporting the taliban against both Pakistani and U.N. forces. I don't see it. Too little to gain and too much to lose.

It would sh!tcan our relationship with India. We'd have no choice. Every opponent of the nuke deal would HOUND this issue. I'm not saying it isn't possible but I am saying it would be a boneheaded play of the first order.

GoI seems smarter than that to me.
 
.
"Stick to the topic."
Take it up with Omar1984, not me. Ask. Don't order. You'll receive nothing from me otherwise.

"Yes,you were gone after creating the Mullah Mujahideen,which then transformed into the Taliban using the same ideology "you" pumped into the area."

Oh yeah, that's us. Do you know that the C.I.A. keeps it's own madrassa in Langley? We kidnap muslim scholars and they're renditioned into suburban Arlington and forced to root for the Washington Redskins on T.V. every fall. They've since trained a super-secret group from the early eighties called "the LASHKAR". It was all Robert Gates' fault when he was over at the C.I.A.

Sorta frightening.

So are you. Now run along like a good lil' boy, if you don't mind? See...I asked. It always helps.:angry:

I'd wager two days worth of the crack you take before you post on here that the majority of people would say the madrassas were Saudi funded and the Mujahideen was created through US instigated nurturing within those madrassas where they learnt how to fire all those US origin weapons.

It is for another topic.

As I feel you won't be able to stick to the thread, I'll just not respond the anymore half comatozed responses on this thread about this.
 
.
In the light of these admissions, this article seems much more true..

"Pakistani investigators have made a major breakthrough and uncovered several leads that link terrorists and criminals inside Pakistan to the Indian intelligence and the secret service of Hamid Karzai. An Indian explosives expert is leading groups of terrorists inside Pakistan. The recruited suicide bombers have been brainwashed to believe they are on a religious duty. Others are plain criminals. The new information confirms the suspicions that the so-called ‘Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan’ is heavily infiltrated by foreign spy agencies in Afghanistan and has little to do with the Afghan Taliban.

Three arrested members of a militant gang especially deputed by the so-called ‘Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan’ have disclosed that RAW has been funding suicide bomb attacks in Pakistan and that the Indian agency has funneled PKR 680 million through its contacts in the NDS, the Afghan secret agency"

RAW and Afghan Agency Funding Pakistan Terrorism | Pakistan Daily
 
.
"I'd wager two days worth of the crack you take before you post on here that the majority of people would say the madrassas were Saudi funded and the Mujahideen was created through US instigated nurturing within those madrassas where they learnt how to fire all those US origin weapons. It is for another topic."

And it's YOU that accuse others of hi-jacking threads?

Wrong anyway, Mr. Think-Tank:disagree:. Your comment presumes no mujahideen without Saudi, Pakistani, and American aid. The aid came later. First came the mujahideen.

Children in kindergarten know this. You should too. So should those here who'd otherwise unwittingly believe your words and lose the bet.

Improve your discourse to be worthy of this conferred status. I'm still looking for my first evidence. Sadly, the abilities I'd associate with that status seem deeply lacking from here, but that's just my observation.
 
. .
S-2:

The Western Military-Industrial-Political complex has way too much invested in India for me to not see a rationale behind the muted criticism of India. Just between the immediate military and nuclear power requirements we are looking at hundreds of billions of dollars in potential contracts, the majority of which will go to the West. Add in the hundreds of billions already invested in the economy, and the hundreds of billions in the future, and the motive for stifling criticism is pretty clear.

The geo-political ramifications of implicating India publicly are pretty bad as well. India is moving away form Russia, no small part due to Russian behavior, and India is ripe for the picking for the West. Implicating India publicly in the support of terrorism in Pakistan, Taliban and Baluch, is not going to win India to the West's side.

I have pointed out to you before as well, US double standards in not declaring the Baluch groups terrorist organizations, despite the fact that they have publicly accepted murdering non-combatants. Even if we just agree on Indian support for the Baluch groups, the fact is that the US has shoved it under the carpet, and the reasons for not designating these groups terrorist organizations takes on a more sinister implication in the context of Indian involvement.

Now back to the Indian support for the Pakistani Taliban, as alleged by this CIA official - I don't believe the Indians are operating 'training camps'. To do so under the nose of the US and NATO would be foolish, nor do I believe have Pakistani officials argued that the Indians are runnign training camps. What the Indians have done (as RR's article alludes to) is funnel money, weapons and expertise in the form of trainers to the Taliban.

Its smaller scale stuff, but deadly nonetheless, and easier to get away with. And the focus of the Pakistani Taliban in Pakistan means that there is little direct impact on US/NATO efforts from that assistance.

Note also this article from back in 2008 pointing out Pakistani complaints against perceived double standards in stopping Indian support for terrorism in Pakistan.
US told not to back terrorism against Pakistan

Tuesday, August 05, 2008

By Kamran Khan

KARACHI: Pakistan has complained to the United States military leadership and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that Washington’s policy towards terrorism in Pakistan was inconsistent with America’s declared commitment to the war against terror.

Impeccable official sources have said that strong evidence and circumstantial evidence of American acquiescence to terrorism inside Pakistan was outlined by President Pervez Musharraf, Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani and Director General Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) Lt. Gen. Nadeem Taj in their separate meetings with US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen and CIA Deputy Director Stephen R Kappes on July 12 in Rawalpindi.

The visit by the senior US military official along with the CIA deputy director — carrying what were seen as India-influenced intelligence inputs — hardened the resolve of Pakistanís security establishment to keep supreme Pakistan’s national security interest even if it meant straining ties with the US and Nato.

A senior official with direct knowledge of these meetings said that Pakistan’s military leadership and the president asked the American visitors “not to distinguish between a terrorist for the United States and Afghanistan and a terrorist for Pakistan”.

For reasons best known to Langley, the CIA headquarters, as well as the Pentagon, Pakistani officials say the Americans were not interested in disrupting the Kabul-based fountainhead of terrorism in Balochistan nor do they want to allocate the marvellous predator resource to neutralise the kingpin of suicide bombings against the Pakistani military establishment now hiding near the Pak-Afghan border.

In the strongest evidence-based confrontation with the American security establishment since the two countries established their post-9/11 strategic alliance, Pakistani officials proved Brahamdagh Bugti’s presence in Afghan intelligence safe houses in Kabul, his photographed visits to New Delhi and his orders for terrorism in Balochistan.

The top US military commander and the CIA official were also asked why the CIA-run predator and the US military did not swing into action when they were provided the exact location of Baitullah Mehsud, Pakistan’s enemy number one and the mastermind of almost every suicide operation against the Pakistan Army and the ISI since June 2006.

One such precise piece of information was made available to the CIA on May 24 when Baitullah Mehsud drove to a remote South Waziristan mountain post in his Toyota Land Cruiser to address the press and returned back to his safe abode. The United States military has the capacity to direct a missile to a precise location at very short notice as it has done close to 20 times in the last few years to hit al-Qaeda targets inside Pakistan.

Pakistani official have long been intrigued by the presence of highly encrypted communications gear with Baitullah Mehsud. This communication gear enables him to collect real-time information on Pakistani troop movement from an unidentified foreign source without being intercepted by Pakistani intelligence.

Admiral Mullen and the CIA official were in Pakistan on an unannounced visit on July 12 to show what the US media claimed was evidence of the ISI’s ties to†Taliban commander Maulana Sirajuddin Haqqani and the alleged involvement of Pakistani agents in the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul.

Pakistani military leaders rubbished the American information and evidence on the Kabul bombing but provided some rationale for keeping a window open with Haqqani, just as the British government had decided to open talks with some Taliban leaders in southern Afghanistan last year.

Before opening new channels of communication with the Taliban in Helmand province in March this year, the British and Nato forces were talking to leading Taliban leaders through†Michael Semple, the acting head of the European Union mission to Afghanistan, and Mervyn Patterson, a senior UN official, before their unprecedented expulsion from Afghanistan by the Karzai government†in January this year.

The American visitors were also told that the government of Pakistan had to seek the help of Taliban commanders such as Sirajuddin Haqqani for the release of its kidnapped ambassador Tariquddin Aziz, after the US-backed Karzai administration failed to secure Aziz’s release from his captors in Afghanistan.

Admiral Mullen and Kappes were both provided information about the activities of the Indian consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad and were asked how the CIA does not know that both Indian consulates are manned by Indian Intelligence who plot against Pakistan round the clock.

“ We wanted to know when our American friends would get interested in tracking down the terrorists responsible for hundreds of suicide bombings in Pakistan and those playing havoc with our natural resources in Balochistan while sitting in Kabul and Delhi,”, an official described the Pakistani mood during the July 12 meetings.

Throughout their meetings, the Americans were told that Pakistan would like to continue as an active partner in the war against terror and at no cost would it allow its land to be used by our people to plot terror against Afghanistan or India . However, Pakistan would naturally want the United States, India and Afghanistan to refrain from supporting Pakistani terrorists.

Pakistani officials have said that the current “trust deficit” between the Pakistani and US security establishment is not serious enough to lead to a collapse , but the element of suspicion is very high, more so because of† the CIA’s decision to publicise the confidential exchange of information with Pakistan and to use its leverage with the new government to try to arm-twist the Army and the ISI.

The Pakistani security establishment, officials said, want a fresh round of strategic dialogue with their counterparts in the US, essentially to prioritise the objectives and terrorist targets in the war against terror, keeping in mind the serious national security interests of the allies.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/arc_default.asp
 
.
Pasting Former CIA Station chief (Pakistan) Milt Bearden's comments, regarding India, from Charlie Rose's show. Its mostly a question, that the other guests avoided, but concerns about making India's actions more transparent have been articulated in the Rubin/Rashid analysis, as well as by Bruce Reidel in an interview I believe. Now we have this assertion by the 'anonymous CIA official', who seems to have been contacted again by the FA to answer the questions raised by the "South Asia expert'.

Multiple contacts to explain his position, and a very comprehensive articulation of the issues as this oficial sees them, criticizing both India and Pakistan. I see no reason to doubt his/her credibility. I do see plenty of reasons why the US would not want to confront India over this. Put together all the above pieces (the Pakistani reports and the US ones), and the accusation made by this official fits in very well.

Milt Bearden:

"But you know, I'd like to throw out something for our group here is,
India. What is India up into -- up to in Afghanistan? What are its goals?
And do we understand the effect on Pakistan, the government of Pakistan,
the army of Pakistan, of the Indians doing anything in Afghanistan? I
think it's a huge issue. I think Holbrooke will have to look at it and
understand it. And Karzai is considered by most Pakistanis as a man of
India."
 
.
Back
Top Bottom