dabong1
<b>PDF VETERAN</b>
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,417
- Reaction score
- 1
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Ahmed Quraishi
Why don't our American friends send a drone across the Pakistan border to kill Baitullah Mehsud, a man seen by many here as an agent of the Indians and their anti-Pakistani friends in the Kabul regime?
Nor is Mr Mehsud the only terrorist operating against Pakistan receiving support from Afghan soil. Intelligence reports indicate that several terrorists who are spreading unrest in Balochistan enjoy safe havens in Afghanistan.
If someone thinks this is the stuff of conspiracy theories, he -- or she, in the case of US ambassador to Pakistan Ann Patterson -- needs to read the book Charlie Wilson's War. Or just talk to Oliver North of Latin American fame. There is nothing fictional about the art of creating and fomenting insurgencies against governments.
To understand the game, here is a simplified and imaginary example: In 2002, we used to know about most of the possible terrorists in Pakistan's tribal region, their backgrounds and connections. In 2008, there are more of them, all claiming to be Mujahideen, and we don't know who they are, what's their background, and whose war they are fighting. Discount from this hypothetical example the number of misguided Pakistanis who naively joined this anti-Pakistan terrorism thinking it is real jihad, and the picture is complete.
Pakistan's interim interior minister, Mr Hamid Nawaz, has finally dared to say publicly what a lot of people already know. If our American friends are not stabbing us in the back, due to our real or imaginary duplicity in the war on terror, the US is certainly turning a blind eye to strong anti-Pakistan activities in a US-controlled Afghanistan.
Now is the time the interior minister went beyond his recent statement to talk about another idea that is gaining currency in Islamabad: Start talking to Afghanistan's Taliban.
One fast emerging idea is to broker a peace deal for Afghanistan. This is something that Islamabad's other two allies, the United States and the Karzai administration, have failed to do in the past six years.
Whether Lt-Gen Mushtaq Baig's Feb 25 assassination was carried out by religious terrorists or was remote-controlled by a "foreign hand" disguised as an extremist, the ball ultimately rests with Afghanistan's Taliban.
The biggest loser in the current stalemate in Afghanistan is Pakistan and not the US or NATO. Almost all the major players in the region -- the US, Afghan warlords, Iran, Russia, India, the Karzai regime -- have made some gains in the situation that emerged after 9/11. Even the Taliban are now making gains inside Afghanistan.
According to officials watching this story, outside elements are working in collusion with disgruntled local extremists, many of them apparently misguided or deliberately indoctrinated to work against the Pakistan state. This is where the Afghan Taliban enter the picture. The Afghan Taliban have so far refrained from attacking US ally Pakistan despite Islamabad's "U-turn" after 9/11.
Many Afghan war veterans in Pakistan who maintain peaceful and discreet contacts with the Afghan Taliban have conveyed messages from the Afghan militia to Pakistani border officials on several occasions. The gist of all these messages has consistently been the same: "We are not supporting the Pakistani Taliban."
The sudden rise of the "Pakistani Taliban" initially puzzled the Afghan Taliban. It could be true that the Afghan Taliban initially saw this as a welcome development that would help the cause of resisting the invaders in Afghanistan and leverage the Musharraf administration's pro-US policies. But the Afghan Taliban grew suspicious when the self-styled Pakistani Taliban, awash with money and weapons, turned their guns on Pakistan. In January, Mullah Omar withdrew recognition from Baitulah Mehsud.
To stop Afghanistan from turning into a permanent base for anti-Pakistan destabilisation activities, Pakistani officials will have to think out of the box. This will not be possible without the help of the Afghan Taliban.
The best idea to emerge is for Islamabad to declare neutrality in the war in Afghanistan. According to this idea, Pakistan could talk to both the Taliban and the Karzai administration while maintaining equal distance from both. Islamabad already has a working relationship with Kabul but will need to restore the lost relationship with the Taliban. If the Pakistani broker can establish its credentials as a neutral party, there can be hope for brokering peace between Kabul and its local enemies.
The only downside to this idea is the reaction of the United States. And we have seen the first sign of it in the reaction of the US embassy in Islamabad to the statement of our interior minister. Ambassador Patterson dismissed the minister's statement as simply "untrue." She needs to explain why the US Department of State continues to refuse to designate the so-called Balochistan Liberation Army a terrorist organisation, the way London did.
One more question to Ms Patterson: Will the US forces help us seal the border from the Afghan side if the Pakistanis decide to launch a major military operation to wipe out the anti-Pakistan terrorists from the border region? Will her government help us by giving us access to drones, satellites and night-vision equipment?
With the newly elected federal parliament preparing to take over in the next few days, hopes are growing that Pakistan's Afghan policy will finally be freed from US blunders in Afghanistan.
The writer is a talk-show host.
Email: aq@ahmedquraishi.com
Ahmed Quraishi
Why don't our American friends send a drone across the Pakistan border to kill Baitullah Mehsud, a man seen by many here as an agent of the Indians and their anti-Pakistani friends in the Kabul regime?
Nor is Mr Mehsud the only terrorist operating against Pakistan receiving support from Afghan soil. Intelligence reports indicate that several terrorists who are spreading unrest in Balochistan enjoy safe havens in Afghanistan.
If someone thinks this is the stuff of conspiracy theories, he -- or she, in the case of US ambassador to Pakistan Ann Patterson -- needs to read the book Charlie Wilson's War. Or just talk to Oliver North of Latin American fame. There is nothing fictional about the art of creating and fomenting insurgencies against governments.
To understand the game, here is a simplified and imaginary example: In 2002, we used to know about most of the possible terrorists in Pakistan's tribal region, their backgrounds and connections. In 2008, there are more of them, all claiming to be Mujahideen, and we don't know who they are, what's their background, and whose war they are fighting. Discount from this hypothetical example the number of misguided Pakistanis who naively joined this anti-Pakistan terrorism thinking it is real jihad, and the picture is complete.
Pakistan's interim interior minister, Mr Hamid Nawaz, has finally dared to say publicly what a lot of people already know. If our American friends are not stabbing us in the back, due to our real or imaginary duplicity in the war on terror, the US is certainly turning a blind eye to strong anti-Pakistan activities in a US-controlled Afghanistan.
Now is the time the interior minister went beyond his recent statement to talk about another idea that is gaining currency in Islamabad: Start talking to Afghanistan's Taliban.
One fast emerging idea is to broker a peace deal for Afghanistan. This is something that Islamabad's other two allies, the United States and the Karzai administration, have failed to do in the past six years.
Whether Lt-Gen Mushtaq Baig's Feb 25 assassination was carried out by religious terrorists or was remote-controlled by a "foreign hand" disguised as an extremist, the ball ultimately rests with Afghanistan's Taliban.
The biggest loser in the current stalemate in Afghanistan is Pakistan and not the US or NATO. Almost all the major players in the region -- the US, Afghan warlords, Iran, Russia, India, the Karzai regime -- have made some gains in the situation that emerged after 9/11. Even the Taliban are now making gains inside Afghanistan.
According to officials watching this story, outside elements are working in collusion with disgruntled local extremists, many of them apparently misguided or deliberately indoctrinated to work against the Pakistan state. This is where the Afghan Taliban enter the picture. The Afghan Taliban have so far refrained from attacking US ally Pakistan despite Islamabad's "U-turn" after 9/11.
Many Afghan war veterans in Pakistan who maintain peaceful and discreet contacts with the Afghan Taliban have conveyed messages from the Afghan militia to Pakistani border officials on several occasions. The gist of all these messages has consistently been the same: "We are not supporting the Pakistani Taliban."
The sudden rise of the "Pakistani Taliban" initially puzzled the Afghan Taliban. It could be true that the Afghan Taliban initially saw this as a welcome development that would help the cause of resisting the invaders in Afghanistan and leverage the Musharraf administration's pro-US policies. But the Afghan Taliban grew suspicious when the self-styled Pakistani Taliban, awash with money and weapons, turned their guns on Pakistan. In January, Mullah Omar withdrew recognition from Baitulah Mehsud.
To stop Afghanistan from turning into a permanent base for anti-Pakistan destabilisation activities, Pakistani officials will have to think out of the box. This will not be possible without the help of the Afghan Taliban.
The best idea to emerge is for Islamabad to declare neutrality in the war in Afghanistan. According to this idea, Pakistan could talk to both the Taliban and the Karzai administration while maintaining equal distance from both. Islamabad already has a working relationship with Kabul but will need to restore the lost relationship with the Taliban. If the Pakistani broker can establish its credentials as a neutral party, there can be hope for brokering peace between Kabul and its local enemies.
The only downside to this idea is the reaction of the United States. And we have seen the first sign of it in the reaction of the US embassy in Islamabad to the statement of our interior minister. Ambassador Patterson dismissed the minister's statement as simply "untrue." She needs to explain why the US Department of State continues to refuse to designate the so-called Balochistan Liberation Army a terrorist organisation, the way London did.
One more question to Ms Patterson: Will the US forces help us seal the border from the Afghan side if the Pakistanis decide to launch a major military operation to wipe out the anti-Pakistan terrorists from the border region? Will her government help us by giving us access to drones, satellites and night-vision equipment?
With the newly elected federal parliament preparing to take over in the next few days, hopes are growing that Pakistan's Afghan policy will finally be freed from US blunders in Afghanistan.
The writer is a talk-show host.
Email: aq@ahmedquraishi.com
Why he should?. Pakistan is already taking action against these terrorists sponsored by outsiders.
