He wasnt speaking on behalf of Pakistan, he was speaking as the former Afghan intelligence chief. And why should me saying anything as an Iranian surprise you? Rabbani was close to Iran and his government had been briefing Iran on Pakistani moves in Afghanistan before the Taliban had even seized Kabul. The position of the US, Britain and Afghanistan on Pakistan and the Taliban isnt much different from Iran's. The only difference is that Iran is not interested in supporting American ambitions in Afghanistan outside of stabilizing the Kabul government and preventing a Taliban take-over. Thats why Iran cooperated militarily with the US in Afghanistan until 2002, and that US-Iran engagement was ended by America, not Iran.
What surprised me is your funny unwillingness to accept that foreign Western media such as the BBC can't be biased, which I've yet to see you admit. You were in fact, in a way backing their credibility. Of course you being Iranian despise anything that resembles the Taliban, you even helped wage war against it's predecessor during the first civil war.
And don't get me wrong, I have no issues with Iran's actions regarding this war. Their response was logical and sanctioned. In fact, as a Pakistani, even though our natural allies in Afghanistan are enemies. We're both in for the long haul with Afghanistan and have to put up with the mess these powers leave. We will deal with the militants, refugees and drug trade, not them.
You call the Northern Alliance 'rag tag' even though the Rabbani government was part of this alliance. If the Northern Alliance was made up of so-called 'rag tags' then Najibullah's regime wouldnt have fallen to these same people in 92 and the Peshawar accord never signed.
Indeed I do. Let's not play this blissfully ignorant game, you know more than I expect from most members, so you know full well what kind of wretched war lords and criminals ruled the land before the Taliban. That's not saying that the Taliban were any good. But the Northern Alliance far from being this professional, sanctioned democratic. Rabbani's rule was a farce too, you remember what happened in summer 1992? All hell broke loose and infighting started, streets were being contested, it was lawless, chaotic and ultimately, yet again, the common man paid the price.
Rabbani then defied the same Peshawar accord later than year, wanting to stay in power, and excluding the wishes of many parties involved in the agreement itself. Afghanistan at the time let's just say it was....
'A little messed up?'
Please remember, these were the conditions that led to the rise of the Taliban in Kandahar student movement. This huge alliance again showed it's non ragtag professionalism when it massacred people throughout the 90's and again when the US backed it's excursion into Taliban territory following 9/11.
This is the point Saleh was making. The Afghan Taliban is Pakistan's proxy. So why do you call him a liar?
Because it's false. I ask you, who are the Afghan Taliban, can you give me ans answer? I said we have proxies, we have people, we back. It's only sane of us.
To then say we back the Taliban, some of whom are at war with us and have been in bed with those that harm us absurd, do we support the Afghan Taliban? No. Do we support certain elements in Afghanistan, friendly or neutral to Pakistan, yes, of course.
Now back to that question, ask yourself, exactly who the Afghan Taliban are, once you get answer, let me know, if you get the right answer, you won't need to ask me any further about whether we support the Afghan Taliban or not.
So what? Scheuer is saying here pretty much the same thing Bruce Riedel was saying. The only difference is in their reaction to perceived Pakistani 'interests' and how Pakistan goes about it. Scheuer isnt denying that the Afghan Taliban is, or has been, backed by Pakistan's intelligence services.
But you see, it's one thing to say, 'Pakistan is looking after it's own interests, and not willing to put it's neck on the line, fightin our wars, any further'. And saying 'Pakistan back stabbed us, double crossed us, and is ultimately to blame for the failure and revival of the Taliban'. Which the latter is false on more than a few levels:
Firstly, the war was destined to fail since day one, I've been saying this since day one. The way it was conducted, the things that were neglected and other aspects pushed, it was bound to fail like it did.
Secondly, Pakistan for a very long time, helped the US, aided the US wherever they asked for assistance and for a very very long time, we did things that were against our own interests, which pleased uncle Sam, this was why Bush ALWAYS backed Musharraf, this is why we were named a MNNA. But after a while, we could no longer do this, it was like Scheuer said 'killing our stability', this is when the US' tone changed. This happened around the time of Obama's rise to presidency, Hillary Clinton, Leon Penetta all said some pretty harsh and false things about Pakistan openly, which the Bush administration had not done.
So the point here was, we did indeed play our part on the right side of this war. But the moment we saw that this was damaging us, that the US was looking to negotiate with the taliban and leave us a mess, we backed off. As any sane people would do.
Lastly, the Afghan Taliban is not a physical thing, a singular entity with a given chain of command. Don't get me wrong, they are highly professional and very motivated, their lower command structure is impressive, they have co-ordination between faction leaders and officers. But to accuse us of undermining the government with the Taliban defies the second point and the point made about when I asked you to define who the Afghan Taliban are, and who they are to us.
What does any of this have to do with the US not taking Pakistan into confidence when it killed Bin Laden there? Or are you trying to dispute the American narrative that Pakistan wasnt consulted about the raid on Bin Laden's hide-out until after he was killed? You think that Pakistan knew before that Bin Laden was there and that the US was going to go into Pakistan and execute him? What are you trying to say exactly?
You tell me, you brought it up!!
You were making the point that Saleh cited that OBL's presence in Pakistan once it was proven is a point to distrust Pakistan. The point being made by me was that, that isn't the case. We played our part, and Amrullah Saleh, regarding Pakistan/ISI/Al Qaeda is lying through his teeth and has been doing since before 2010.
You dont know what ive been reading and watching over the years, so keep your comments to yourself. Lets stick to the initial question i asked you instead of you going off on a rant about nothing.
No I won't. I've come across too many people who don't have a balanced view because they are fed one side of the story. You said all that above and I've answered you. If you HAD done your reading, all this would be obvious to you. My point is not to poke holes in your credibility. It's merely stating that the BBC do have a bias and for you to back them when the bias is so BLATANT... there must be something I'm missing, surely?
Why do you think that Amrullah Saleh is a liar about Pakistan's relationship with the Taliban? None of the stuff you shared with me disproves Saleh's position and makes him a liar.
Thats all i was asking.
Well for one, Saleh has accused us of ties with Al Qaeda in the past and with the Taliban, the above rant about how much we've done against Al Qaeda disproves some of that.
Also, let me say. If Saleh is accusing of supporting the taliban and you are supporting us of accusing the taliban by backing Amrullah Saleh, then surely... The burden of proof lies upon you. You have to prove to me, we support the Taliban today, on the EXACT same order and magnitude that Saleh accuses us of.
Remember, he says we support all taliban and undermine the government. basic logic and knowledge of the war and our involvement in capturing Taliban leaders, waging war on the talibs and aiding Americans for so long defies this logic.
So no...
It is up to you to prove it to me, and no the other way round.
Nothing you've said has convinced me that he is a liar. Your whole argument is basically that Saleh is a so-called "rag tag" and a "goon" who's position on Pakistan you dont like, therefore, he must be biased and a liar. Thats basically what you're saying, without offering anything to show why is lying about Pakistan.
Again, refer to the above, this is not all I've said. His accusations defy both the American narrative and our own narrative, basic logic defies his accusations. It is not up to me to go through his long list of quotes where he has given NO evidence and for me to then be asked to debunk such argument and evidence when it isn't there.
Anecdotal accusation will be met with anecdotal rebuttal. Only difference is, mine is more in line with reality and logic and other people's respective. His is only in line with the Afghan government's narrative, and of course why wouldn't it be, he's from the same circles as them.
regards,
That part also surprised me, they bluntly accused pakistan, even a man like musharaf who was no way supporter of taliban. The helmand situation was described best , in my opinion, i learnt some new stuff. They were quite honest about their mistakes.
This documentary did surprise me also, they readily admitted to their mistakes. The British at least, but not the Americans. And they also admitted the flawed system in Afghanistan, which is why I was on one hand quite impressed. As for the blame game, it's no surprise that people blame each other. To the US+NATO, anyone that isn't a government sanctioned fighter is taliban. To Pakistan and Afghanistan, anyone who is a friend is a friend, anyone who isn't a friend is either taliban or neutral militant. As for Taliban themselves, anyone wielding a weapon, with a few merry supporters from whatever region and tribe, all they have to do is wan't to settle a score, swear allegiance and they can call themselves taliban too.
Still, I find the BBC's bias regarding Pakistan in this documentary and the war in general disappointing.
They interviewed the top British military and political officials who were overseeing the Helmand operation.
