Kunduz Airlift - The Airlift Of Evil by Pakistan

[Mech]

To their merit. "Aiding terrorism" was not considered a war crime prior to 2001. Technically, Pakistan cannot be faulted for aiding terrorists back in '01.

The same reason why Bin-Laden's driver was granted bail.

 

[Bratva]

The Airlift of Evil

By Michael Moran
MSNBC
NEW YORK, Nov. 29, 2001 — The United States took the unprecedented step this week of demanding that foreign airlines provide information on passengers boarding planes for America. Yet in the past week, a half dozen or more Pakistani air force cargo planes landed in the Taliban-held city of Kunduz and evacuated to Pakistan hundreds of non-Afghan soldiers who fought alongside the Taliban and even al-Qaida against the United States. What’s wrong with this picture?
THE PENTAGON, whose satellites and drones are able to detect sleeping guerrillas in subterranean caverns, claims it knows nothing of these flights. When asked about the mysterious airlift at a recent Pentagon briefing, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, denied knowledge of such flights. Myers backpedaled a bit, saying that, given the severe geography of the country, it might be possible to duck in and out of mountain valleys and conduct such an airlift undetected.
But Rumsfeld intervened. With his talent for being blunt and ambiguous at the same time, he said: “I have received absolutely no information that would verify or validate statements about airplanes moving in or out. I doubt them.”
SEE NO EVIL
Western reporters actually in Kunduz in the days after it fell this week found much to dispel that doubt. Reports first appeared in the Indian press, quoting intelligence sources who cited unusual radar contacts and an airlift of Pakistani troops out of the city. Their presence among the “enemy” may shock some readers, but not those who have paid attention to Afghanistan. Pakistan had hundreds of military advisers in Afghanistan before Sept. 11 helping the Taliban fight the Northern Alliance. Hundreds more former soldiers actively joined Taliban regiments, and many Pakistani volunteers were among the non-Afghan legions of al-Qaida.
Last Saturday, The New York Times picked up the scent, quoting Northern Alliance soldiers in a Page 1 story describing a two-day airlift by Pakistani aircraft, complete with witnesses describing groups of armed men awaiting evacuation at the airfield, then still in Taliban hands.
Another report, this in the Times of London, quotes an alliance soldier angrily denouncing the flights, which he reasonably assumed were conducted with America’s blessing.
“We had decided to kill all of them, and we are not happy with America for letting the planes come,” said the soldier, Mahmud Shah.
IN DENIAL
The credibility gap between these reports from the field and the “no comments” from the U.S. administration are large enough to drive a Marine Expeditionary Unit through. Calls by MSNBC.com and NBC News to U.S. military and intelligence officials shed no light on the evacuation reports, though they clearly were a hot topic of conversation. “Oh, you mean ‘Operation Evil Airlift’?” one military source joked. “Look, I can’t confirm anything about those reports. As far as I know, they just aren’t happening.” Three other military and defense sources simply denied any knowledge.
Something is up. It certainly appears to any reasonable observer that aircraft of some kind or another were taking off and landing in Kunduz’s final hours in Taliban hands. Among the many questions that grow out of this reality:
Was the passenger manifest on these aircraft limited to Pakistani military and intelligence men, or did it include some of the more prominent zealots Pakistan contributed to the ranks of the Taliban and al-Qaida?
What kind of deal was struck between the United States and Pakistan to allow this?
What safeguards did the United States demand to ensure the evacuated Pakistanis did not include men who will come back to haunt us?
What was done with the civilian volunteers once they arrived home in Pakistan? Where they arrested? Debriefed? Taken to safe houses? Or a state banquet?
WHY NOT ADMIT IT
The answers remain elusive. If the passengers were simply Pakistani military and intelligence men, and not civilian extremists, what possible motive is there for concealing the truth about their evacuation? Pakistan may believe that no one has noticed the warmth of its intelligence ties to the Taliban and even al-Qaida, but surely the Pentagon isn’t operating under this illusion, is it? This news organization has quoted U.S. intelligence sources as far back as 1997 as saying that ties between Pakistan’s intelligence service and al-Qaida, and links to the Taliban — a movement nurtured by Pakistan — are undeniable.
Furthermore, the United States can easily explain why it would have allowed a military ruler under intense pressure at home to adopt an unpopular pro-American stance in this war to evacuate some elite intelligence and military forces from a chaotic battlefield. But only if, in fact, the planes were limited to evacuating those people.
The lack of a forthright answer to this question suggests otherwise, and that is a great shame. The history of American policy in Southwest Asia, from the shah of Iran to Saddam Hussein to Afghanistan and Pakistan, is marred by one example after another of short-term decisions that stored up enormous trouble for later. We failed for decades to find common ground with the world’s largest democracy, India. We failed to temper the shah’s domestic abuses in Iran in the name of anti-communism and wound up with the ayatollahs. We decided not to rile our Gulf War coalition allies by pushing onto to Baghdad and find ourselves a decade later wondering how to deal with Saddam Hussein. We pumped Afghanistan and Pakistan with billions of dollars worth of weapons and military know-how to fight the Soviet invasion, but then adopted the Pontius Pilate approach in victory, washing our hands of these struggling nations as soon as Moscow withdrew.
Now, are we careening down the same road with a nuclear-armed Pakistan? Are we allowing an army of anti-American zealots to live and fight another day for the sake of our convenient marriage with Pakistan’s current dictator? I wish I could quote Rumsfeld. I wish I could say “I doubt it.” I can’t.

Sandy on a troll mode. As it is evident from the article of shunt, these flights were for the evacuation of pakistani diplomatic military staff and pakistani civilians stuck up there. Next time better come up with solid proofs which state and established that these flights carried al qaieda and taliban leaders. Or else all these made up allegations will be looked upon as a mere jealousy of indian who couldn't stand a topic in aghan section and decided to open a topic on unsubstantiated rumours.

 

[illusion8]

This is very interesting;

When Konduz was about to fall; pakistan air lifts taliban, al queda and ISI operatives, and you term it to be the right thing to do.

This is the same taliban infamous for their heinous regime which destroyed the afghanistan; indulged in religious extremism; genocide of minorities like the hazaras tajiks and uzbeks. And you say airlifting them when they were on the verge of the defeat "it was the right thing to do".

@jungibaaz;

As far as the texas ranger, your respected ex-president/coas on record says, that fighting against taliban was in the interest of Pakistan. During the war and after it he was not overthrown, hence most of your country was onboard. So please dont try to go on the arm twisting by US rhetoric

When some groups are used as strategic assets the opposing groups become enemies. So as per them some are the good terrorists and some are bad terrorists - The goodness and badness depends on whether the group works for you or against you.

There is no moral code here which says any sort of terrorism is bad but rather it's either helped or opposed on what objectives the group follows.

 

[Rafael]

To their merit. "Aiding terrorism" was not considered a war crime prior to 2001. Technically, Pakistan cannot be faulted for aiding terrorists back in '01.

The same reason why Bin-Laden's driver was granted bail.

Lets dig a little deeper and you will see the entire CIA network aiding these terrorists

 

[Bratva]

To their merit. "Aiding terrorism" was not considered a war crime prior to 2001. Technically, Pakistan cannot be faulted for aiding terrorists back in '01.

The same reason why Bin-Laden's driver was granted bail.

So you didnt heard that when driver was granted bail, a chip was embeded in to him with the help of CIA.

For your first few line diatribes. Your help to tamils comes into mind.look before you leap

 

[Mech]

Lets dig a little deeper and you will see the entire CIA network aiding these terrorists

Let me the proverbial Pakistani for a moment.............

Proof ?

 

[Rafael]

Let me the proverbial Pakistani for a moment.............

Proof ?

Refer to Hillary's statement made not too long ago!

 

[notsuperstitious]

The Taliban were Pakistani proxies, fully aided by Pakistan. And the Taliban are Pakistani proxies to this day. North Waziristan has been given to Afghan Taliban because they are Pakistani assets. Lets not go by the pre conditioned response by pakistani posters here, they have been trained to deny.

There is enough proof available to connect the dots for anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty.

 

[MilSpec]

Sandy on a troll mode. As it is evident from the article of shunt, these flights were for the evacuation of pakistani diplomatic military staff and pakistani civilians stuck up there. Next time better come up with solid proofs which state and established that these flights carried al qaieda and taliban leaders. Or else all these made up allegations will be looked upon as a mere jealousy of indian who couldn't stand a topic in aghan section and decided to open a topic on unsubstantiated rumours.

Ok, as I pointed out earlier; the usual defense will be each and every source MSNBC, BBC, New yorker, LA times reported this on whim.

Hence next comes, attack the question, attack the source, attack the the existence of the event itself but not answer the reason to airlift Taliban, Al qaueda and ISI operatives from konduz. and Btw how many consulates did you have in konduz that you needed multiple flights over several nights to airlift all of them

Civilian liftoff just over konduz, just when it was a day away from falling ? do the math

I am not trolling here , I am asking a simple hard question, why did pakistanis conduct the air lift of evil? simple;

If you want to comment on tamils in srilanka or MB in bangladesh and India's role, please feel free to open a thread but instead of the usual smoke screen explain the event if you have any insight.

 

[Rafael]

The Taliban were Pakistani proxies, fully aided by Pakistan

Agreed but with the help of USA. Why do you guys hesitate to name the other party who was involved as much if not more?

And the Taliban are Pakistani proxies to this day. North Waziristan has been given to Afghan Taliban because they are Pakistani assets. Lets not go by the pre conditioned response by pakistani posters here, they have been trained to deny.

Yes and these Pakistani assets are killing Pakistani soldiers and civilians left and right, destroying our military assets and cities. How logical.

 

[Don Jaguar]

Lets dig a little deeper and you will see the entire CIA network aiding these terrorists

That's a well known fact US created taliban.

 

[Bratva]

The Taliban were Pakistani proxies, fully aided by Pakistan. And the Taliban are Pakistani proxies to this day. North Waziristan has been given to Afghan Taliban because they are Pakistani assets. Lets not go by the pre conditioned response by pakistani posters here, they have been trained to deny.

There is enough proof available to connect the dots for anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty.

so present the proof so we can all connect the dots here?.

1.North waziristan is the melting pot of TTP uzbek arab chinese europeans and afgan talibans. This shows ur knowledge of north waziristan current situation and proving how indians are trained to think there is noting beyond evil Pakistan and Afgan taliban.Mate it is better that you dont use internt just to log on to defence.pk, go out and do some heavy research wich open up your close mind.

To this day if taliban are Pakistan proxies than tell me, how come 70 percent afghanistan which is under afghan taliban control and still Taliban living and residing in north waziristan and launching attacks from there?

It's funny when indians like you talk about intellectual honesty and did totally opposite to what you preach.

 

[MilSpec]

Agreed but with the help of USA. Why do you guys hesitate to name the other party who was involved as much if not more?

Are we confusing haqqanis, hekmetyaar, fahim, dostum, Massoud fahim etc with Mullah Omar Inc

 

[notsuperstitious]

Agreed but with the help of USA. Why do you guys hesitate to name the other party who was involved as much if not more?



Yes and these Pakistani assets are killing Pakistani soldiers and civilians left and right, destroying our military assets and cities. How logical.

If USA controlled Taliban then they would have had Osama. US did not even recognise Taliban rule, Pakistan did.

Haqqanis are killing Pakistani soldiers? I don't think so, they have been saying openly to oppose TTP, which is Pakistani Taliban who are attacking Pakistan. Are you denying a section in Pakistan consider Haqqanis an asset in post ISAF Afghanistan?

 

[third eye]

The 1st step to solve a problem is to accept that it exists.

For most Pakistanis there never was a problem so obviously there was no airlift. The world meanwhile noted the air lift.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/01/28/020128fa_FACT

In Afghanistan last November, the Northern Alliance, supported by American Special Forces troops and emboldened by the highly accurate American bombing, forced thousands of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters to retreat inside the northern hill town of Kunduz. Trapped with them were Pakistani Army officers, intelligence advisers, and volunteers who were fighting alongside the Taliban. (Pakistan had been the Taliban’s staunchest military and economic supporter in its long-running war against the Northern Alliance.) Many of the fighters had fled earlier defeats at Mazar-i-Sharif, to the west; Taloqan, to the east; and Pul-i-Khumri, to the south. The road to Kabul, a potential point of retreat, was blocked and was targeted by American bombers. Kunduz offered safety from the bombs and a chance to negotiate painless surrender terms, as Afghan tribes often do.

Surrender negotiations began immediately, but the Bush Administration heatedly—and successfully—opposed them. On November 25th, the Northern Alliance took Kunduz, capturing some four thousand of the Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. The next day, President Bush said, “We’re smoking them out. They’re running, and now we’re going to bring them to justice.”

Even before the siege ended, however, a puzzling series of reports appeared in the Times and in other publications, quoting Northern Alliance officials who claimed that Pakistani airplanes had flown into Kunduz to evacuate the Pakistanis there. American and Pakistani officials refused to confirm the reports. On November 16th, when journalists asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld about the reports of rescue aircraft, he was dismissive. “Well, if we see them, we shoot them down,” he said. Five days later, Rumsfeld declared, “Any idea that those people should be let loose on any basis at all to leave that country and to go bring terror to other countries and destabilize other countries is unacceptable.” At a Pentagon news conference on Monday, November 26th, the day after Kunduz fell, General Richard B. Myers, of the Air Force, who is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked about the reports. The General did not directly answer the question but stated, “The runway there is not usable. I mean, there are segments of it that are usable. They’re too short for your standard transport aircraft. So we’re not sure where the reports are coming from.”

Pakistani officials also debunked the rescue reports, and continued to insist, as they had throughout the Afghanistan war, that no Pakistani military personnel were in the country. Anwar Mehmood, the government spokesman, told newsmen at the time that reports of a Pakistani airlift were “total rubbish. Hogwash.”

In interviews, however, American intelligence officials and high-ranking military officers said that Pakistanis were indeed flown to safety, in a series of nighttime airlifts that were approved by the Bush Administration. The Americans also said that what was supposed to be a limited evacuation apparently slipped out of control, and, as an unintended consequence, an unknown number of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters managed to join in the exodus. “Dirt got through the screen,” a senior intelligence official told me. Last week, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld did not respond to a request for comment.

Pakistan’s leader, General Pervez Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup, had risked his standing with the religious fundamentalists—and perhaps his life—by endorsing the American attack on Afghanistan and the American support of the Northern Alliance. At the time of Kunduz, his decision looked like an especially dangerous one. The initial American aim in Afghanistan had been not to eliminate the Taliban’s presence there entirely but to undermine the regime and Al Qaeda while leaving intact so-called moderate Taliban elements that would play a role in a new postwar government. This would insure that Pakistan would not end up with a regime on its border dominated by the Northern Alliance. By mid-November, it was clear that the Northern Alliance would quickly sweep through Afghanistan. There were fears that once the Northern Alliance took Kunduz, there would be wholesale killings of the defeated fighters, especially the foreigners.

Musharraf won American support for the airlift by warning that the humiliation of losing hundreds—and perhaps thousands—of Pakistani Army men and intelligence operatives would jeopardize his political survival. “Clearly, there is a great willingness to help Musharraf,” an American intelligence official told me. A C.I.A. analyst said that it was his understanding that the decision to permit the airlift was made by the White House and was indeed driven by a desire to protect the Pakistani leader. The airlift “made sense at the time,” the C.I.A. analyst said. “Many of the people they spirited away were the Taliban leadership”—who Pakistan hoped could play a role in a postwar Afghan government. According to this person, “Musharraf wanted to have these people to put another card on the table” in future political negotiations. “We were supposed to have access to them,” he said, but “it didn’t happen,” and the rescued Taliban remain unavailable to American intelligence.

According to a former high-level American defense official, the airlift was approved because of representations by the Pakistanis that “there were guys— intelligence agents and underground guys—who needed to get out.”

Once under way, a senior American defense adviser said, the airlift became chaotic. “Everyone brought their friends with them,” he said, referring to the Afghans with whom the Pakistanis had worked, and whom they had trained or had used to run intelligence operations. “You’re not going to leave them behind to get their throats cut.” Recalling the last-minute American evacuation at the end of the Vietnam War, in 1975, the adviser added, “When we came out of Saigon, we brought our boys with us.” He meant South Vietnamese nationals. “ ‘How many does that helicopter hold? Ten? We’re bringing fourteen.’ ”