US & NATO Behind Rabbani Assassination?

[jha]

I hope you did not think any one was a saint there. The NATO is there for its own goals. Pakistan for its own. The government is too busy holding on to the seat. Taliban wants its own power, for purposes known to all of us.

Only thing is, the US has money to spend, and Pakistan has men. Pity, India has none.

And Afghanistan, well, that's just a piece of barren land, people don't exist there.

Sad but true..

 

[Ahmad]

To me, it looks deep division among the Taliban with regards to Rabbani and MAYBE in holding peace talks, see this peice from the Guardian: The Taliban have refused to accept or deny responsibility for the assassination in Kabul of former Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani, which has plunged the country into a deep political crisis. On the first of three days of national mourning following the killing on Tuesday of Hamid Karzai's chief peace negotiator, the Taliban's spokesmen published a statement on their website refusing to discuss the incident and contesting an earlier report by the Reuters news agency that said the Taliban accepted responsibility. "Our position on this issue is that we can't talk about it and all the media reports that claim responsibility are groundless," it said. "Right now we don't want to talk." Their reticence to comment on the killing – by a man posing as a senior Taliban envoy with explosives hidden in his turban – is in stark contrast to the aftermath of other spectacular attacks in the capital: the Taliban's PR department often feeds details to the media while their operations are still ongoing. Diplomats say it raises the possibility that Mullah Omar and other high-ranking Taliban leaders may not have approved, or even have been aware of, an operation conducted by a splinter or affiliated group linked to Pakistan's powerful military intelligence agency, the ISI, which has long-standing ties to militant groups. A western expert on the Taliban, who did not want to be identified, said senior figures within the movement had tried to bypass the ISI and hold direct talks with Karzai's government and the US, and Pakistan had responded with ruthless efforts to reassert control of any negotiations. He said spectacular attacks in Kabul in recent months were probably designed to derail any independent Taliban contacts with the government, while the killing of Rabbani could have been aimed at putting all talks on hold for several months. "It is not that they want to close the door on one set of negotiations [with Rabbani] but on all kinds of negotiations," he said. "They would rather have no talks than some talks that they can't control." Diplomats are bracing themselves for the possibility that blame will be pinned on the Haqqani network, a militant group that nominally follows Omar but is believed to be heavily influenced by the ISI. If the recent rhetoric of US ambassadors in the region is anything to go by, it is already in a state of apoplectic anger over Pakistan's role in supporting Haqqani, which has been blamed for several major attacks, including last week's 20-hour assault on the US embassy in Kabul. That fury would grow if Haqqani was implicated in the hugely destabilising killing of Rabbani. "There is no doubt that there is a very serious conspiracy by those opposed to peace talks," said Ahmed Rashid, an influential Pakistani commentator who strongly supports a political settlement in Afghanistan. "They are trying to sabotage them before they take off." There was no love lost between Rabbani and the Taliban, a movement he fought against. And the Taliban have a stated policy of trying to kill members of the high peace council, the body that Rabbani chaired. But some analysts think killing him would be a step too far, even for the Taliban. Wahid Mujda a political analyst who held a mid-level position within the old Taliban regime, said its Quetta Shura would be reluctant to claim credit for killing a figure who commanded respect among a large group of Afghans, not least among his fellow Tajiks.

 

[President Camacho]

Ahmad, I did think of that as well, when I first heard of the assassination, that the Haqqani/Pakistani Army might have done it to send a message that they won't want any kind of negotiation or peace deal unless they are included to claim their stake.

But my reservation is with regard to Mullah Omar's Taliban. The suspicion pointing toward Pakistan may not go nicely with the Taliban. And that Taliban is the main key to Pakistan's influence in Afghanistan. Why would Pakistan get into an act that would alienate itself from its most powerful arm inside Afghanistan?

Also, the Taliban wouldn't be too reserved to go for talks with regard to a share in Afghanistan's politics, so it (the peace deal) could be easily considered an opportunity by Pakistan to get Taliban some power at least, and may be do what not after the ISAF leaves.

However, the Taliban, with Helmand and most of South-East still in control, if came to share power, might have easily turned into a tough, hostile negotiator for the US. The killing of Rabbani actually gives the US a strong excuse to stay in Afghanistan till it can make sure its adversaries in the area (Taliban/Pakistan/Haqqani) become too weak and insignificant to be considered for negotiation, unless - the US does want Taliban on the table, albeit without any influence from Pakistan.

 

[somebozo]

This is the usual tribal power game Afghans have been playing for centuries however with American media hype, Pakistan has been made the new scape goat.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Posts moved to a new thread with relevant title.

 

[somebozo]

Talibans have all the time and skill to sent offical memos of responsibility and conduct interviews with Reuters, CNN, BBC speaks volume about who is filling their coffers.

Taliban = infidel agents.

 

[Ahmad]

If not the Taliban, then who killed Rabbani?

i think the taliban have chosen not to talk about it, this silence itself upto now potentiallly point the finger on them.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

i think the taliban have chosen not to talk about it, this silence itself upto now potentiallly point the finger on them.

But the Taliban, or Pakistan, have little motive to kill Rabbani - he was negotiating potential political reconciliation with them, negotiating for a seat at the political table for them - what sense does it make for the Taliban to kill him?

It is however possible that the some more 'extreme' elements within the Taliban, and/or possibly Al Qaeda, who would be against political reconciliation and political stability in Afghanistan, were responsible for this.

And in terms of motive, elements in the West that are in favor of continued war and a 'military victory', rather than a negotiated end and political reconciliation, could also be responsible, as the two articles suggest.

 

[Ahmad]

But the Taliban, or Pakistan, have little motive to kill Rabbani - he was negotiating potential political reconciliation with them, negotiating for a seat at the political table for them - what sense does it make for the Taliban to kill him?

It is however possible that the some more 'extreme' elements within the Taliban, and/or possibly Al Qaeda, who would be against political reconciliation and political stability in Afghanistan, were responsible for this.

And in terms of motive, elements in the West that are in favor of continued war and a 'military victory', rather than a negotiated end and political reconciliation, could also be responsible, as the two articles suggest.

As i mentioned in my earlier post, it could be a sign of division among the taliban with regards to Rabbani and Peace. Otherwise Rabbani was someone who had great influence on many Afghans with different affiliations, and even that was something difficult for the taliban to clamin responsibility, secondly, his death can potentially triger ethnic and sectarian unrest which will really really badly affect afghanistan.

 

[President Camacho]

AM,

Two points for consideration -

a) Rabbani, a non-Pashtun Tajik power holder, had himself alleged that those who attacked the Intercontinental Hotel in July this year, were in constant touch (on phone) with those based in Miranshah. With that we can easily understand what respect Haqqanis would have for Rabbani.

b) Then we have this continuous soothsaying of Pakistani Admins/Think Tanks that Afghanistan is a trap way worse for the US than it was for the USSR. Because of such sentiments of Pakistani rulers, and Pakistan's frustrations over the US's acts in the region, I take it that Pakistan itself won't miss a chance to trap the US in Afghanistan.

What better than to get rid of the only man who had the capability to bring all parties to the table?

If the US wants its heavy presence in Afghanistan indefinitely, may be Rabbani's death could serve its purpose.

But if the US does want to leave by the deadline, which it overtly states (that they want to leave by 2014 to minimize its detrimental economic effects), then Rabbani's killing has severely undermined their plans - very much against the desires of the US. That would suggest that NATO/US would rather have wanted Rabbani to be the key negotiator, and even may be a strong power-holder in the post NATO Afghanistan.

Against what I stated yesterday, I now believe we should still wait for more info and developments to come out to see who played this bold move of killing Rabbani. It has completely changed the probabilities of the endgame scenario, and it seems every player will have to quickly devise fresh strategies.

But one part is certain, if the US stays longer in this mess, its success will always be inversely proportional to the influence Pakistan desires to attain.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM,

Two points for consideration -

a) Rabbani, a non-Pashtun Tajik power holder, had himself alleged that those who attacked the Intercontinental Hotel in July this year, were in constant touch (on phone) with those based in Miranshah. With that we can easily understand what respect Haqqanis would have for Rabbani.

Neither the Haqqanis not the Taliban of Mullah Omar have said anything about 'refraining from attacks', so I don't see why Rabbani pointing the finger at the Haqqanis would upset them to the point of the Haqqanis assassinating him.

b) Then we have this continuous soothsaying of Pakistani Admins/Think Tanks that Afghanistan is a trap way worse for the US than it was for the USSR. Because of such sentiments of Pakistani rulers, and Pakistan's frustrations over the US's acts in the region, I take it that Pakistan itself won't miss a chance to trap the US in Afghanistan.

What does Pakistan gain from 'trapping the US in Afghanistan'? That many Pakistanis believe the US is out of its league in trying to accomplish what it initially set out to do does not automatically imply that Pakistan would therefore like to see the US continue to flail about in Afghanistan and wreak yet more violence and instability that directly impacts Pakistan.

What better than to get rid of the only man who had the capability to bring all parties to the table?

And again, how exactly does that serve Pakistan, which was first to call for a negotiated end to the conflict?

If the US wants its heavy presence in Afghanistan indefinitely, may be Rabbani's death could serve its purpose.

Correct, if the article is to be believed, and Rabbani opposed any long term agreement to house US forces in Afghanistan, then his assassination both removes a critic of the stated US desire to have a long term presence in Afghanistan, as well as giving them an excuse to remain there - a long term US presence in Afghanistan is something Pakistan opposes.

But if the US does want to leave by the deadline, which it overtly states (that they want to leave by 2014 to minimize its detrimental economic effects), then Rabbani's killing has severely undermined their plans - very much against the desires of the US. That would suggest that NATO/US would rather have wanted Rabbani to be the key negotiator, and even may be a strong power-holder in the post NATO Afghanistan.

The US wants to reduce its military strength in Afghanistan, but its negotiations over a SOFA with Afghanistan to obtain some sort of long term basing rights would indicate that it does want to maintain a presence in Afghanistan, which would allow it the flexibility to intervene militarily in the region. Rabbani's assassination then helps this particular US goal.

Against what I stated yesterday, I now believe we should still wait for more info and developments to come out to see who played this bold move of killing Rabbani. It has completely changed the probabilities of the endgame scenario, and it seems every player will have to quickly devise fresh strategies.

Agreed.

But one part is certain, if the US stays longer in this mess, its success will always be inversely proportional to the influence Pakistan desires to attain.

The US is responsible for the current situation being the way it is - Pakistan could have been take on board as a "Real Ally', and its concerns and advice taken into account in the formation of a post-Taliban regime, but instead was treated as a client State, as in the past, while its adversaries were shown overwhelming favor in terms of strategic agreements and access to technology.

 

[VCheng]

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

The US is responsible for the current situation being the way it is - Pakistan could have been take on board as a "Real Ally', and its concerns and advice taken into account in the formation of a post-Taliban regime, but instead was treated as a client State, as in the past, while its adversaries were shown overwhelming favor in terms of strategic agreements and access to technology.

So where do Pakistan and USA go from here, given this history, and the present situation?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So where do Pakistan and USA go from here, given this history, and the present situation?

The US needs to 'back off and back down' - the responsibility lies at her door, and the ball in her court.

 

[VCheng]

The US needs to 'back off and back down' - the responsibility lies at her door, and the ball in her court.

What does Pakistan need to do, if anything, to help USA "back off and back down"?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What does Pakistan need to do, if anything, to help USA "back off and back down"?

Pakistan will do what it has said it will do all along - try and assist in arriving at a negotiated end to the conflict and work to prevent groups with terrorist agendas against Western/US interests from finding support and sanctuary in the region.