Leaked NATO report claims to expose direct links between ISI, Taliban

[Abu Zolfiqar]

from: Pakistan's security state: Reading the Taliban | The Economist

Pakistan's security state
Reading the Taliban
Feb 1st 2012, 16:21 by M.S.

A senior al-Qaeda commander in Kunar province (in the wild north-east of the country) says: “Pakistan knows everything. They control everything. I can't [expletive] on a tree in Kunar without them watching. The Taliban are not Islam. The Taliban are Islamabad.

fascinating revelation there! So it shows that this al qaeda operative -who can't take a shyte on a tree in fear for his life from evil ISI seems to show quite some disdain for the ISI and the taleban.....this was about uprooting al qaeda right?


i'd be tempted to say that he's implying that al qaeda is Islam. Al qaeda are in Washington. Al qaeda and sympathisers being spread by Washington in Libya, Syria and elsewhere. NATO went into Iraq and then I heard about this group ''al qaeda in Iraq'' which I never had heard of before.

The report also states: “Senior Taliban representatives, such as Nasiruddin Haqqani, maintain residences in the immediate vicinity of ISI headquarters in Islamabad, Pakistan.”

for quite some time we had intelligence that Bramdagh Bugti was maintaining a comfortable safe-house in the immediate vicinity of diplomatic and other official quarters in a heavily fortified Kabul

gobbledy-goo....gobbledy gook

Nasiruddin, a son of the Haqqani clan’s leader, Jalaluddin, and its most prominent fund-raiser, was arrested by Pakistani agents in December 2010 as a sop to American pressure to take action against Taliban leaders in Quetta. If Nasiruddin is indeed free and living in the same neighbourhood as the ISI, suspicions that his detention was a sham will be confirmed.

to get a taste of the duplicity, remember that we arrested a high-ranking taleb official --Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar. After the arrest, the Americans and their lapdog in Kabul (Karzai) were the ones who became furious; claiming that we were hindering the peace process!

Colonel Jimmie Cummings, a spokesman for ISAF (the NATO-led international coalition in Afghanistan), said: “This document aggregates the comments of Taliban detainees in a captive environment without considering the validity of or motivation behind their reflections.

i love the timings of these ''un-authorized leaks''

it's cute



the main tid-bits i found most revealing:

“Afghan civilians frequently prefer Taliban governance over GIRoA [Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan], usually as a result of government corruption, ethnic bias and lack of connection with local religious and tribal leaders.” Particularly in Pashtu-speaking areas in the south

so basically, Afghans are fed up with the corrupt and non-representative Northern Alliance regime ---which cant even extend its influence outside of Kabul. I'm sure that there were many in Islamabad and Pindi who were trying to impart this inevitable reality to the goras/NATO well over a decade ago. But anyways, they had to learn the hard way it seems and had to impose war on an already impoverished country which has never taken kindly to invaders.

the insurgency remains resilient and confident and is likely to remain that way for as long as Pakistan believes it is in its interest to lend material and moral support.

in the earlier paragraph, the report mentions that many civilians prefer Taliban governance over that of Karzai and his cronies........but of course they have to uni-dimensionally focus just on what Pakistanis want over what AFGHANS THEMSELVES seem to be wanting.

all Pakistan wants is a stable and non-hostile Afghanistan as a neighbour......we arent the ones building military bases and cantonments in Afghanistan; however, there are locations in Afghanistan that are being used by elements in Afghanistan (local , but mostly foreign-run) that have been instrumental in facilitating anti-Pakistan activity.



well if according to this report, senior al qaeda guys are scared of taking a massive shyte in a tree in Kunar province because of the evil ISI --- well then I will sleep with the assumption that all the other enemies of Pakistan ought to be scared if they dare use Afghanistan as a proxy ground against Pakistan.



i'll say it without shame.....we know Afghanistan --every nook and every cranny of that God-forsaken country better than Afghans themselves know it. And given certain ground realities and given some difficult geography and some bitter history, I'm damned proud of that fact..

 

[Irfan Baloch]

you cant claim the failure of Nato as the excuse for support of the taliban when the choice was made before Nato failed.

why did you decide that we are looking for an excuse to support Taliban? we dont even consider this news worthy of a comment.

what Pakistan did say from the start was not to alienate the Pashton Population. but NOOOOOOO
NATO / Americans couldn’t get down from their high horse if there was any slightest of a chance that was lost due to northern Alliance being an ally.
What made Northern alliance a worthy ally? Well they were against Taliban and that’s that. There were the distinction from Taliban ended. Before the emergence of Taliban, it was the elements of Northern alliance that spilled each other blood after the withdrawal of the soviets. Made up of ex Soviet generals, drug lords and Khad spies.
There was a hope that the new invaders will learn from history but NO, firstly they dismissed the Pashtons and threw them in the laps of Taliban and then they put the worse set of people in the Afghan setup ..
Pakistan really didn’t need to do anything at all, killing innocent civilians and collecting body parts as trophies, urinating on corpses and making drug lords and aid thieves province governors and ministers made sure that this policy was bound to fail.
First NATO blamed Iran for supporting Taliban although both are mortal enemies and when the story didn’t sell the “haqqani network” name was coined and made a veritable hand of ISI.
All is not lost though, if the sense prevails then the efforts must be made to have an all-inclusive post American Afghan setup so that no major group feels alienated and sidelined. And most of all, the Afghans should be given the chance to decide it for themselves whatever it is.
Pakistan knows it well, Americans should realize it too that they cant decide the fate of Afghanistan. We don’t have any special love for taliban, but be sure that we will use our influence where we can to ensure that we don’t have a hostile Afghanistan that can be used as a training ground and safe heaven to launch attacks against Pakistan. Throughout history, there has been a symmetry between the surge in Balochistan insurgency whenever there was a hostile Afghanistan regime.

Here is a leak for you


Americans are trying to get an American friendly regeime that doesn’t include the taliban after they leave.
Pakistanis are trying to get an Afghan regime that is not hostile to Pakistan with or without taliban.

I request the mainstream media to quote me and present it as a leak in the next documentary agaist Pakistan

 

[gambit]

Given the choice between Afghan Government and Taliban, it is obvious Pakistan will choose them. If in 13 years the US would have put in place an Afghanistan that was prosperous, stable and friendly to Pakistan we would have chosen different.

This is an absurd argument. In these years, Pakistan have proven to be at best half hearted in trying to control the Taliban and al-Qaeda operations on Pakistani soil. The presence of Osama bin Laden living among Pakistan's military leaders completely obliterate any Pakistan's claim to be a neutral party in this conflict. For speculation's sake, what do you think would happen in Afghanistan if Pakistan proved to be competent in enforcing sovereignty? You cannot dismiss the truth that denial of areas of autonomy to an enemy is vital in prosecuting a war.

 

[gambit]

well one thing about the taleban --- they can't be bought..... if you're forced to list their admirable traits, at least that would be one of them....quite stubborn too. We begged them to relinquish the foreign fighters and deport them from Afghanistan. The Saudis did the same. Painful hours were spent with them to convince them to do so.

of course western media never points that out.....


in the beginning this wasnt even about taleban....it was about al qaeda, but media --which is supposed to inform people -instead misleads them. In that sense, the US admins one after the other have always had the luxury of having the corporate media toe the administration's official lines.

Stop complaining about the Western media. They did not partition Pakistan to give Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters refuge when things got too hot for them in Afghanistan. What good is begging the Taliban to expel undesirables out of Afghanistan when next door Pakistan will do just fine?

 

[Irfan Baloch]

This is an absurd argument. In these years, Pakistan have proven to be at best half hearted in trying to control the Taliban and al-Qaeda operations on Pakistani soil. The presence of Osama bin Laden living among Pakistan's military leaders completely obliterate any Pakistan's claim to be a neutral party in this conflict. For speculation's sake, what do you think would happen in Afghanistan if Pakistan proved to be competent in enforcing sovereignty? You cannot dismiss the truth that denial of areas of autonomy to an enemy is vital in prosecuting a war.

come again?

half hearted?
yea we havent been trigger happy like the occupation forces if thats what you are implying.

and we never claimed to be a neutral party and never will be. and by the way there is yet another OBL thread open and running please feel free to post there too reference Panetta's 60 minutes interview with a compelling evidence of helicopters flying over the compound.

currently Pakistan is facilitating in arranging the peace dialog between the rival parties in Afghanistan. but if proving to be difficult to digest the fact that Taliban managed to claim the sole representation of the Pashton majority then you got only American attitude to blame.

Pakistan always supported the dialog from start it was never a secret. Sadly it took Americans 10 years, few hundred soldiers, billions of dollars and tens of thousands of Afghan and Pakistan lives to come to the peace talks.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

What good is begging the Taliban to expel undesirables out of Afghanistan when next door Pakistan will do just fine?

I will tell you what is good.

ensuring that all escape routes were covered when Tora Bora was attacked.

going even further back. lauching an attack on Osama when he was sighted during Clinton's time would have helped a lot but the good president was busy in more "pressing" engagements.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

what Pakistan did say from the start was not to alienate the Pashton Population. but NOOOOOOO
NATO / Americans couldn’t get down from their high horse if there was any slightest of a chance that was lost due to northern Alliance being an ally.

..........

There was a hope that the new invaders will learn from history but NO, firstly they dismissed the Pashtons and threw them in the laps of Taliban and then they put the worse set of people in the Afghan setup ..

the Americans made the same tragic mistake that they made in Iraq.....they alienated an entire section of society.

In Iraq, they alienated the baathists and pro-baathists --some of which could have been reconciled. You had senior think tanks and retired intelligence guys ripping hairs from their roots, saying that the US must not alienate all the baathists. But what did America do? Labelled them terrorists/enemy/etc. and some of them fell into the lap of this never-before heard group ''al qaeda in Iraq'' (and its affiliates like Ansar ul Sunnah).

ironically, they helped Iran......certainly not themselves and certainly not the entire Iraqi society (whom they later claimed they had ''liberate'')


talebs collapsed like a sack of potatoes in 2001....Now the tides have turned again. We know why. The writing is on the wall. The US under-estimated the power, value and utility of SOFT-power and instead focused on making its military corporations ****** rich at their own national expense (i think we are accused of the same, from time to time)

What made Northern alliance a worthy ally? Well they were against Taliban and that’s that. There were the distinction from Taliban ended. Before the emergence of Taliban, it was the elements of Northern alliance that spilled each other blood after the withdrawal of the soviets. Made up of ex Soviet generals, drug lords and Khad spies.

the NA and the talebs are 2 sides of the same coin, as far as human rights and adherence to Geneva Conventions (or lack thereof) are concerned!!!

but past is past.....now's the time to look to future. NATOs, the Americans, the brits frenchies and all those foreign boots have nothing to add to Afghanistan's future. They will soon be thing of the past. We already knew this in 2001.

First NATO blamed Iran for supporting Taliban although both are mortal enemies and when the story didn’t sell the “haqqani network” name was coined and made a veritable hand of ISI.

i believe they are again bringing Iran into the picture......to some extent it actually is true --Iranian made mines/IEDs have been provided. Small arms as well. Not on a large scale though. Afghanistan is awash will all kinds of weapons --regardless of alleged support for groups with vested interests within its borders. These illusionary people think that when the soviets fell and the mujahideen were victorious - that all those weapons just vanished into thin air.

All is not lost though, if the sense prevails then the efforts must be made to have an all-inclusive post American Afghan setup so that no major group feels alienated and sidelined. And most of all, the Afghans should be given the chance to decide it for themselves whatever it is.

Pakistan knows it well, Americans should realize it too that they cant decide the fate of Afghanistan. We don’t have any special love for taliban, but be sure that we will use our influence where we can to ensure that we don’t have a hostile Afghanistan that can be used as a training ground and safe heaven to launch attacks against Pakistan. Throughout history, there has been a symmetry between the surge in Balochistan insurgency whenever there was a hostile Afghanistan regime.

I've said it time and time again.

Pakistan would welcome an Afghanistan that was actually sovereign and respected the Durand line as an international border. Unfortunately, some of these Afghan leaders have demonstrated time and again that they fail on both counts and, willingly or otherwise, do our enemy's bidding in harming Pakistan.

The exact same arguments that America is applying to Pakistan can be applied to Afghanistan vis-a-vis Pakistan. As long as they continue harboring anti-Pakistan elements, and until they make peace with the Durand line, Pakistan will do the needful to make sure Afghanistan doesn't cause trouble. It is more than our right.

Pakistan has the basis for an excellent peaceful relationship with Afghanistan, including large crossover of ethnic tribes, but it will not materialize as long as Afghanistan lets itself be used against Pakistan. Our security appartus wont allow it, regular Pakistanis wont allow or accept it either.

as a Pakistani and a Pashtun myself , I am disillusioned and bewildered totally by the fact that there are Afghans that have acted hostile against Pakistan when in fact Pakistan has done more for Afghanistan than any of the regional countries have (with Iran as a slight exception)

 

[VCheng]

...............................

i'll say it without shame.....we know Afghanistan --every nook and every cranny of that God-forsaken country better than Afghans themselves know it. And given certain ground realities and given some difficult geography and some bitter history, I'm damned proud of that fact..

.....................................

Here is a leak for you


Americans are trying to get an American friendly regeime that doesn’t include the taliban after they leave.
Pakistanis are trying to get an Afghan regime that is not hostile to Pakistan with or without taliban.

I request the mainstream media to quote me and present it as a leak in the next documentary agaist Pakistan

Guys: With all due respect for your views, please allow me to say that you are failing to see the proverbial forest because you are too busy counting leaves!

The goal of the leak is not to present anything new or earth-shattering. The goal is to ensure that everybody accepts the adversarial role being played by Pakistan as established fact by gradually linking unfolding events to ISI actions. This "bad sey badnaam buraa" strategy will then slowly constrict like a boa, slowly and inexorably, till the realization of what is happening will come too late.

I am not sure if I am getting my point across.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Stop complaining about the Western media. They did not partition Pakistan to give Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters refuge when things got too hot for them in Afghanistan

well hmmmm gee whiz, we share a long and very porous border with Afghanistan.....throughout history such movements of fighters has taken place. A lot of these fighters were fighters you helped to arm and train! Take some responsibility, for a change.

What good is begging the Taliban to expel undesirables out of Afghanistan when next door Pakistan will do just fine?

what good was invading Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place, pray tell.

You know what your problem is, Gambit?

deep down inside, you realize the FUTILITY of what your government is doing, and yet you try to talk and sound like them anyways.





nexxxxxxxxt.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

This is an absurd argument. In these years, Pakistan have proven to be at best half hearted in trying to control the Taliban and al-Qaeda operations on Pakistani soil.

it helps to at least be informed before making baseless half-truths like that...how many suspects were arrested and handed over to Americans after making positive ID on them.

according to your own Director National Security (James Clapper) ''Al Qaeda core's ability to perform has weakened significantly''

so on one hand you make a wild accusation like that, but at the same time this (exaggerated) organization which has no central leadership has been weakened significantly (i think your spooks are busy trying to cook something up against Iran)


you want to talk about trying to control taleban? They are an Afghan phenomenon and currently US/NATO are in Afghanistan. That's your own problem buddy, not ours. You want to talk about grievences now? Under your watchful eye, the indians were setting up ''consulates'' close to our borders. To us that posed a threat, but your side silently nodded and did not even a ''half hearted effort'' to pressure Afghan authorities to shut them down. The Karzai America supported and still supports (without the Americans he's nothing) had a brother who was openly involved in the narcotics industry in Afghanistan. Does this sound healthy to you?

The presence of Osama bin Laden living among Pakistan's military leaders completely obliterate any Pakistan's claim to be a neutral party in this conflict.

to date, US has failed to provide any evidence that OBL was receiving any state protection....even the hawkish Leon Panetta acknoweldged this reality. Without evidence, all you have is your beak.

For speculation's sake, what do you think would happen in Afghanistan if Pakistan proved to be competent in enforcing sovereignty? You cannot dismiss the truth that denial of areas of autonomy to an enemy is vital in prosecuting a war.

we are about as competent at enforcing our long and de-marcated border with Afghanistan as you are enforcing your border with Mexico. You have the luxury of liberal, never-ending funding (well as of late, not really). We do not.


for ''speculations sake'' what do you think would happen in Afghanistan if NATO heeded to Pakistan's advice and didnt attack Afghanistan.....instead they cooperated with the Afghan government and put incredible amount of pressure on them until they gave up the foreign fighters. I believe Mullah Omar had offered to summons OBL to a Shariah-type court and invited the Americans to observe it. Mullah Omar and OBL had a major falling out anyways, so it wasnt like he would be sitting by his feet defending the Yemeni-born Saudi. The Americans insisted on carpet bombing instead, and you are where you are today in Afghanistan because of your own missteps.


you give Pakistan way too much credit for your failures in Afghanistan.


that's all i can say.....

---------- Post added at 02:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:41 AM ----------

Guys: With all due respect for your views, please allow me to say that you are failing to see the proverbial forest because you are too busy counting leaves!

The goal of the leak is not to present anything new or earth-shattering. The goal is to ensure that everybody accepts the adversarial role being played by Pakistan as established fact by gradually linking unfolding events to ISI actions. This "bad sey badnaam buraa" strategy will then slowly constrict like a boa, slowly and inexorably, till the realization of what is happening will come too late.

I am not sure if I am getting my point across.

well if i were the editor of that report, i would have removed the part about


''“Afghan civilians frequently prefer Taliban governance over GIRoA [Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan], usually as a result of government corruption, ethnic bias and lack of connection with local religious and tribal leaders.” Particularly in Pashtu-speaking areas in the south''


that would have suited the agenda you are talking about much better....

 

[VCheng]

..........................................

well if i were the editor of that report, i would have removed the part about


''“Afghan civilians frequently prefer Taliban governance over GIRoA [Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan], usually as a result of government corruption, ethnic bias and lack of connection with local religious and tribal leaders.” Particularly in Pashtu-speaking areas in the south''


that would have suited the agenda you are talking about much better....

Why? That sentence is entirely credible too.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Why? That sentence is entirely credible too.

but credibility is clearly not the objective here is it? I dont think after Iraq debacle we need to discuss the credibilities or sensibilities of either developed or developing countries.


the objective is (as you put it)


''ensur[ing] that everybody accepts the adversarial role being played by Pakistan''........is it not?

 

[gambit]

come again?

half hearted?
yea we havent been trigger happy like the occupation forces if thats what you are implying.

Yes, half hearted. The US did not demand that Pakistan made some sort of 'invasion' into Afghanistan, or at least deep into the country. We asked that Pakistan deny the Taliban and al-Qaeda an avenue of escape and refuge, and if said denial require Pakistan to trespass into Afghanistan a few klicks, the world would understand and easily forgive.

- Is Pakistan responsible for the Afghanistan-Turkmenistan border? No.

- Is Pakistan responsible for the Afghanistan-Takijistan border? No.

- Is Pakistan responsible for the Afghanistan-Iran border? No.

- Is Pakistan responsible for the Afghanistan-Uzbekistan border? No.

- Is Pakistan responsible for the Afghanistan-Pakistan border? No.

No? How about a big 'Yes'?

Look at this from a military perspective, if you can, and avoid the convenient rhetorical insults. Admit the truth: Denial of territorial autonomy to the enemy is vital to the prosecution of a war.

The US knows it. Pakistan knows it. Even the Taliban savages know this basic truth.

So why are large areas of Pakistani sovereign soil is not so 'sovereign'?

and we never claimed to be a neutral party and never will be.

Why not be neutral? If anything, neutrality is the best position Pakistan can claim.

and by the way there is yet another OBL thread open and running please feel free to post there too reference Panetta's 60 minutes interview with a compelling evidence of helicopters flying over the compound.

Not interested.

currently Pakistan is facilitating in arranging the peace dialog between the rival parties in Afghanistan. but if proving to be difficult to digest the fact that Taliban managed to claim the sole representation of the Pashton majority then you got only American attitude to blame.

Pakistan is victim to the same problem that the US and just about everyone in the world is: That a country has no choice but to deal with the leadership presented at the moment.

If the Taliban managed, by hook or by crook, to claim representation for Afghanistan, we can say that Pakistan's incompetence and/or unwillingness to enforce territorial sovereignty crucial to the Taliban's success in claiming said status.

Pakistan always supported the dialog from start it was never a secret. Sadly it took Americans 10 years, few hundred soldiers, billions of dollars and tens of thousands of Afghan and Pakistan lives to come to the peace talks.

Neutral parties are often used by all sides to facilitate 'dialogs' and it is commendable. But when said neutral party cannot and/or WILL NOT enforce territorial sovereignty to support said claim of neutrality...

 

[VCheng]

but credibility is clearly not the objective here is it? I dont think after Iraq debacle we need to discuss the credibilities or sensibilities of either developed or developing countries.


the objective is (as you put it)


''ensur[ing] that everybody accepts the adversarial role being played by Pakistan''........is it not?

Au contraire my dear friend. It is much smarter to keep it mostly credible, and keep adding small amounts of what is needed. Please think about that for a moment, and then see how effective this strategy is in the case of creating the impression of Pakistan's adversarial role already.

Please note there was no Iraq "debacle"; the media blitz delivered what it needed to deliver at the correct time. The words may be different this time, but the delivery of results will still be just as effective and timely.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

the US/NATO boots are in Afghanistan and Iraq (stoking up tensions with Iran in the meanwhile) and here's this 2nd generation American guy talking about sovereignty

---------- Post added at 03:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:07 AM ----------

Au contraire my dear friend. It is much smarter to keep it mostly credible, and keep adding small amounts of what is needed. Please think about that for a moment.

from whose perspective?