What's new

Where Pakistan's Generals and the ISI Draw Their Lines

Moriarty

BANNED

New Recruit

Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
Friends,
I would like to bring your attention to an interesting article on the war on terror by Graham Usher, a journalist based in Islamabad, published on counterpunch.org
I would also encourage members to visit the website and read other articles too. I am sure you all will agree with the views expressed by respected journalists/authors like Uri Avnery, Tariq Ali, Jonathan Cook, Paul Craig Roberts, Ralph Nader, Omar Barghouti to name a few.
Its one of my 'most visited' websites and one of the important sources from which I form my opinions.

Graham Usher: Where Pakistan's Generals and the ISI Draw Their Lines
on counterpunch.org/usher01022009.html

ps: since I cannot post url links yet, please excuse me for posting the entire article and hogging space.

On December 7 security forces in Pakistan Kashmir (PK) closed a camp linked with Lashkar-e-Taiba (LT), the Pakistan militant group India says was behind the killings in Mumbai. The government then banned its civilian “front” Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JD), following its designation as a “terrorist group” by the United Nations: 100 offices were sealed and 50 leaders arrested.

Among those detained were LT commanders Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi and Zarrar Shah and LT founder and JD “emir” Hafiz Saeed. India says the first two orchestrated the Mumbai carnage. It says Saeed gave the gunmen a “motivational” speech in a LT camp in PK before they set out for Mumbai.

The United States welcomed the moves, as did the European Union. India kept silent. Understandably.

Before his arrest Saeed denied all charges as “Indian propaganda”, vowing to take his case to the Pakistan High court. But he called for neither protests nor violence. “We don’t want confrontation,” said a JD source. “We understand the government needs good relations with India”.

Sure enough, the sweep against LT and JD has so far met barely a bump. The signs are it will be no more serious than its 2002 preamble. Then LT and other Pakistan militant groups were banned and 2,000 arrested on Indian charges that they had attacked the Indian parliament. Most were released within the year. Pakistan’s powerful military establishment – which determines policy on “banned” groups rather than the civilian government – may think this time too the squall will pass.

It probably won’t. Since Mumbai, India and the US have choreographed a policy of coercive diplomacy against Islamabad. America is the good cop, saying there is “no evidence” linking the Pakistan state to Mumbai. Delhi is the bad: “there is not a modicum of doubt about the complicity of elements of Pakistan, including the ISI” (Pakistan’s Inter Service Intelligence agency), says an Indian official.

But both are cops and determined to break whatever links remain between the ISI and groups like LT. The fall out from Mumbai will depend on how the army responds.

Proxy Wars in Kashmir

LT was set up in 1989 to fight Pakistan’s “deniable” proxy wars in Afghanistan and Indian Kashmir (IK), the Himalayan territory claimed by both states since partition and cause of two of their three wars. LT’s goal is the establishment of a “pure Islamic state” throughout South Asia, including India. The ISI’s goal was to use proxies to “bleed” India into submission in IK.

In the 1990s, the liaison was overt. LT recruited fighters throughout Pakistan, but particularly the southern Punjab (whence most the Mumbai gunmen allegedly derive). In 1999 they fought with Pakistan soldiers in Kargil in IK: the last time the two armies tried to force a resolution of the conflict.

But change came with the attack on the Indian parliament - apparently. Guided by the US, Pakistan and India moved from near war to a ceasefire to, in 2004, a peace process. What began as a ban, appeared to become policy.

The ISI demobilized 12,000 fighters in PK. Six divisions of the army were moved from the eastern border with India to the western border with Afghanistan, where Pakistan was battling an indigenous insurgency by the Pakistan Taliban. Infiltration into IK fell.

But “war by proxy” wasn’t abandoned altogether, particularly for pro-Pakistan groups like LT. Their camps were moved inland or, on frontiers like PK, camouflaged as JD “centers”: their guerillas did sterling work as rescuers during the 2005 Kashmir earthquake. When presented with this as evidence that the “jihadis” had not been de- mobbed but “re-jobbed” a Pakistani General was unapologetic. “We won’t disband them. If we did, Kashmir would go cold and India will bury it forever”.

Kashmir has warmed since. This year has seen increased militant penetration across the Line of Control separating Pakistan from Indian Kashmir, triggering skirmishes. In southern Punjab LT-JD “recruiters” have reappeared, proselytizing for jihad. At a funeral in Bahawalpur in the summer a JD preacher eulogized “60 martyrs” from that area alone, most killed in Kashmir.

The new line must have been driven by the ISI: it emerged during in the hiatus between the end of General Pervez Musharraf’s military regime and Pakistan’s new civilian government, elected in February 2008. But it doesn’t seem to have been a response to the mass demonstrations for independence that rocked IK this summer. These were caused by indigenous Muslim alienation to Indian rule rather than any “mischief” by Pakistan, cede Indian analysts.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan ...

The reason the ISI relaxed its hold on LT was probably Afghanistan.

For the last two years the army has been fighting Islamic militants on its Afghan border. More than 1000 soldiers have been killed. The insurgency’s epicenter is the Pashtun tribal areas that straddle the so-called Durrand Line: drawn by the British in the 19th century and accepted as Pakistan’s western border at the time of partition, no Afghan government has ever recognized it. Defeat in the tribal areas would mean the emergence of an “independent” Pashtun Islamic “state”, says a Pakistani officer.

Pakistan’s counterinsurgency is not uniform. In Bajaur tribal area punitive aerial bombardments are coupled with ground offensives to wrest back territory captured by the “enemy”. In North and South Waziristan ceasefires are cut with pro-Taliban tribesmen, often mediated by Afghan Taliban commanders Jalaluddin and Sirajuddin Haqqani. The army says it lacks the capacity to “deal with all the Taliban groups at once. If you go for all out confrontation, you lose whatever control you have”.

But there’s another reason for the difference. In Bajaur the army believes it’s fighting an anti-Pakistan insurgency led by the Pakistan Taliban and elements of al Qaeda but fueled by “agencies” from India and Afghanistan. In the Waziristans the tribes support the Afghan Taliban but are not anti-Pakistani per se. Unlike the militants in Bajaur they are not deemed hostile by the army. “They are our people,” says an officer.

India denies any hand in the tribal areas. “In Afghanistan we build roads”, says an Indian diplomat. That’s so. India, with Iran, is laying a road network that once complete will circumvent landlocked Afghanistan’s need to use Pakistan’s ports to the Gulf, outlets Islamabad deems vital to its economic future. India also helps train the Afghan army. Its aid to Afghanistan is $2.1 billion – quite a bit for a country that’s 99 percent Muslim and with which Delhi has no border.

And Delhi exerts undue influence over American policy in Afghanistan, says army officials. Two examples are cited. One is Washington’s endorsement of India’s claim that the ISI was “involved” in the July bombing of its embassy in Kabul, where 50 were killed. Since then, the CIA has refused to share intelligence with the ISI, including in the tribal areas. “It fears we will pass it on to the Afghan Taliban,” says an officer.

The other was President Bush’s order in July that US Special Forces in Afghanistan could enter Pakistani territory in pursuit of al Qaeda and Taliban “targets” without the approval of the Pakistani government. There has been one US ground assault and 22 aerial missile strikes since, overwhelmingly in the Waziristans. These, says the CIA, are “safe havens” for the Taliban and al Qaeda: the source of the greatest seepage of fighters into Afghanistan and where the “next 9/11” is probably being plotted. They’re also one of the few sites of peace between the army and the Taliban.

Washington says there is a “tacit” agreement about the strikes with Pakistan. The government denies this. The army says they are violations of Pakistani sovereignty and “counterproductive” to its attempts to move the tribes against the militants. It also sees Indian fingerprints all over them. “The Americans want India to be the regional power,” says a security source. Many of “these militants in the tribal areas are being financed by India and Afghanistan”.

To what end? Two scenarios are sketched by the military. The mildest is to create such ferment in the tribal areas that the CIA, NATO and Afghan army will enter them, wresting back Pashtun lands long claimed by Kabul. The worst is to dismember Pakistan as the world’s only Muslim nuclear state. “India thinks a fragmented Pakistan would reduce the threat level,” says another source.

“The more I talk to the (military) establishment, the more I’m convinced fear and hatred of India is growing,” says a Pakistani analyst, who refused to be attributed. “And now it’s India with America”.

Does this mean the ISI was involved in the Mumbai or Kabul attacks? Not necessarily: it simply underscores the recklessness of having proxies or covert alliances over which Islamabad actually has no control.

None but the most conspiratorial can believe Pakistan’s regional aims are furthered by the atrocities in Mumbai and Kabul. Yet they may square with the goals of those (like the Taliban and al Qaeda) that want “independence of activity” in the tribal areas or (like LT) a “clash of civilizations” between Hindu and Muslim in South Asia. These are the fissures in which all three groups thrive.

This is the reason Pakistan’s current suppression of LT-JD should be real rather than virtual. But “coercive diplomacy” won’t induce it. Nor is it much use for Washington or London to conspire with Pakistan’s hapless civilian government to wrest national security policy from the hands of the army and ISI. Afghanistan, India and nuclear weapons have been their policy preserve for 30 years. With the western border aflame and the eastern simmering they are not going to be given up now.

The only way the army will loosen its hold on these policies – and abandon proxies – is if its regional concerns are addressed. With Afghanistan this means recognition by its government and US that the Durrand Line is Pakistan’s legitimate border and that all counterinsurgency operations on the Pakistani side are the exclusive right of the army. With India it means resolution of Kashmir. The two are interlinked, says an analyst.

“The army’s recent experience with India is very bitter. After 2004 the army scaled down militant intrusions into Kashmir by 95 percent. And India’s response was not to talk about Kashmir and say the issue was solved. The army thinks it would be the same in Afghanistan if it abandoned the Afghan Taliban”.

Prior to Mumbai it wasn’t only analysts who made that connection. Last year US president-elect Barack Obama wrote: “if Pakistan can look towards the east with confidence, it will be less likely to believe its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban”. He later said peace between India and Pakistan could be the fulcrum for a greater regional engagement in America’s losing war in Afghanistan.

Of all Mumbai’s casualties the end of that link may be the deadliest.

I would like to know your views and comments about the views expressed in the article.

~ Moriarty
 
.
Really explosive!!!

One thing, though. Was there any attributed source for quotes besides the comments by Barack Obama and two words by Saeed at the beginning. Every other comment or quote in a large article is unattributed.

Please peruse yourself. Perhaps I missed somebody? Lots of quotes-no attribution adds up to journalism on the cheap by Mr. Usher for me. Speculative unsourced conjecture and possibly all the product of himself.
 
Last edited:
.
Really explosive!!!

One thing, though. Was there any attributed source for quotes besides the comments by Barack Obama and two words by Saeed at the beginning. Every other comment or quote in a large article is unattributed.

Please peruse yourself. Perhaps I missed somebody? Lots of quotes-no attribution adds up to journalism on the cheap by Mr. Usher for me. Speculative unsourced conjecture and possibly all the product of himself.

That exactly is the problem with journalism. They always attribute quotes to officials/officers "who refuse to be identified/attributed" I would take such claims with a pinch of salt. On the other hand the journalists position can also be understood where he/she would not like to disclose the identities of sources for many reasons. Who's to say what is correct or just imagination. As far as I understand, the whole article is an analysis from the author's point of view.

However what is important is how the author points out the catch-22 situation the Pakistani army finds itself in, based on his understanding of the situation over there.
 
.
Really explosive!!!

One thing, though. Was there any attributed source for quotes besides the comments by Barack Obama and two words by Saeed at the beginning. Every other comment or quote in a large article is unattributed.

Please peruse yourself. Perhaps I missed somebody? Lots of quotes-no attribution adds up to journalism on the cheap by Mr. Usher for me. Speculative unsourced conjecture and possibly all the product of himself.

All these Jehadi Mullas should be now banned ,they have not served pakistan but lead towards more problems in region.

If some body serious to do constructive work ,he should work silently untill got a considerable achievement but these jehadi mullahs always giving political statements to create confusion in mind of people and increasing gap between western powers and islam.

I think Obama will take different position on WOT as he has before election .
 
.
Its interesting to see how ones own creations come back to haunt them, for eg:

The CIA helped in the creation of OBL and the Mujaheddin to fight USSR - dropped them after the Soviets left Afghanistan and now the US has to fight them!
Indira Gandhi supported Bhindranwale to spite her opponents in Punjab's politics and then Operation Bluestar happened. Result: her assassination and Gen Vaidya's killing.
Rajiv Gandhi initially supported LTTE through Tamil politics, but then turned against them, sent in the IPKF which angered the Tamilians, and then he too was assassinated by the LTTE!
And now we are witnessing the fight against the Taliban!

When will we ever learn? Stupid politics for short term benefits.
 
.
Its interesting to see how ones own creations come back to haunt them, for eg:

The CIA helped in the creation of OBL and the Mujaheddin to fight USSR - dropped them after the Soviets left Afghanistan and now the US has to fight them!
Indira Gandhi supported Bhindranwale to spite her opponents in Punjab's politics and then Operation Bluestar happened. Result: her assassination and Gen Vaidya's killing.
Rajiv Gandhi initially supported LTTE through Tamil politics, but then turned against them, sent in the IPKF which angered the Tamilians, and then he too was assassinated by the LTTE!
And now we are witnessing the fight against the Taliban!

When will we ever learn? Stupid politics for short term benefits.

What happened with bhuto,mujeeb and indra was result of what they did in 1971 all died unnatural death.

but for talaban your understanding is not right ,these talaban were just kids when US supported OBL and Afghan Mujahdeen(Hikmat yar,masood dostum etc) .They are fighting for libration of their home land which is their right.They have not attacked any other country during their rule.

They gain polpularity in general public after russian defeat.
 
.
these talaban were just kids when US supported OBL and Afghan Mujahdeen(Hikmat yar,masood dostum etc) .They are fighting for libration of their home land which is their right.They have not attacked any other country during their rule.

I would have to disagree with you here.

1. Bhutto and Mujib were the casualties of the 71 war. While Indira Gandhi was the casualty of Operation Bluestar, which in turn was a result of her support for and subsequent disowning of Bhindranwale.
&
2. The Afghan Mujaheddin and the taliban are very different.

Afghani taliban, "the rank and file made up mostly of Afghan refugees who had studied at Islamic religious schools in Pakistan" - source Wikipedia article on taliban - did not exist as a fighting force till the mid 90s. IIRC the taliban started winning in Afghanistan since 1995 onwards - correct me if I am wrong. Later on when the Afghani taliban started winning large swaths of land there, Pakistani taleban started joining their ranks.

The taliban is made up mostly of Pashtuns who are native to lands bisected by the Durand line. Do you mean to say that Pashtun land east of the Durand line is also taliban homeland? If so, then is their fight against the Pakistani forces a fight for their freedom from Pakistan?

What I was saying was that Pakistan had a hand in the creation of taliban. Some of the mujaheddin commanders have shifted their allegiance to the taliban. The CIA was covertly responsible for their creation along with support of ISI. So the whole shebang - a total mess - is fighting its creators, so to speak.

~Moriarty
 
Last edited:
.
I would have to disagree with you here.

1. Bhutto and Mujib were the casualties of the 71 war. While Indira Gandhi was the casualty of Operation Bluestar, which in turn was a result of her support for and subsequent disowning of Bhindranwale.

All three Bhutto,Mujib and Indra played role of 1971 incident ,million of people died due to conflict ,operation blue star was her second action against humanity and she got dividend of her wrong political decisions.
&
2. The Afghan Mujaheddin and the taliban are very different.

Afghani taliban, "the rank and file made up mostly of Afghan refugees who had studied at Islamic religious schools in Pakistan" - source Wikipedia article on taliban - did not exist as a fighting force till the mid 90s. IIRC the taliban started winning in Afghanistan since 1995 onwards - correct me if I am wrong. Later on when the Afghani taliban started winning large swaths of land there, Pakistani taleban started joining their ranks.

The taliban is made up mostly of Pashtuns who are native to lands bisected by the Durand line. Do you mean to say that Pashtun land east of the Durand line is also taliban homeland? If so, then is their fight against the Pakistani forces a fight for their freedom from Pakistan?

What I was saying was that Pakistan had a hand in the creation of taliban. Some of the mujaheddin commanders have shifted their allegiance to the taliban. The CIA was covertly responsible for their creation along with support of ISI. So the whole shebang - a total mess - is fighting its creators, so to speak.

No doubt CIA and ISI helped afghan mujahdeen to defeat Russia but Afghan mujahdeen fought that war for their home land and to fullfill their islamic obligations .

There is no value of caste or breed in islam , presently many muslims are fighting with NATO are uzbik,chechan,pustoon,arabs etc

Talaban get polularity becuase initially most of madrasa student who joined and filled the vacum generated after Russian defeat in afghanistan,

I think after Russian defeat US and UN failed to helped them to establish a stronge government so that any activity of OBL could be eliminated.

Unfortunately ,family of nations ignored Afghanistan as result we are facing a serious problem of terrorism in whole south asia
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom