Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

We have no control over ISI: Pakistan Defence Minister

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Bhaisahab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 04:27 AM
Original message
We have no control over ISI: Pakistan Defence Minister
Amid allegations that ISI and Military Intelligence (MI) kidnapped several people for interrogation, Pakistan's Defence Ministry has said it had no operational control over the two intelligence agencies and was unable to enforce court orders to provide information about those ‘abducted’ or ‘detained’ by them.

In a sworn affidavit filed before the Sindh High Court(SHC) yesterday, Defence Secretary General (retd) Tariq Waseem Ghazi said his ministry had no operational control over the ISI and MI and, therefore, it could not enforce the court's direction on both agencies in detention matters.

He was responding to the court's order over the detention of Munir Mengal, the head of Dubai-based TV channel 'Voice of Baloch'. Mengal was reportedly whisked away by intelligence personnel on his arrival in Karachi recently.

The Pakistan Army has also already informed the court that it too had no control over the two intelligence agencies, even though they were headed by top generals of the Army.

CONTINUED AT: http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=71367
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wakeme2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 04:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. George Bush is teaching the World well
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 04:43 AM
Response to Original message
2. This is very disturbing..
It means our ally is an ally "in name only". Pakistan's military was strongly influenced by radical Islam right from the beginning, IIRC. Am I right in remembering that Pakistan (or some quasi-official adjunct)is also a broker in loose nukes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. Not from the very beginning.
IIRC, it was heavily Islamicized in the '70s (or was it the '80s) under ul-Haq.

Pakistan has its own Wahhabi-like movement, very common, very influential, and very well established in society; they were very powerful before they were organized, but when they pulled together to form the MMA they become even worse. Musharraf's made suggestions to alter things, and invariably they manage to produce very large protests, set off bombs, promote sectarian violence (which occurs on both sides of the Sunni/Shi'ite divide), and make the reforms untenable. This doesn't even include the pressure exerted by Islamist institutions, such as the shari'a court that's been enshrined in the constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 07:14 AM
Response to Original message
3. This isn't a surprise
The ISI has always been an autonomous agency, doing what they think is best, not what the Pakistani government wants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. The ISI is also a racket
Edited on Fri Jul-21-06 07:41 AM by formercia
Whatever we supplied to the Afghan insurgents during the 80's, they recieved ther'cut' before it was shipped on. Almost all of our contacts with the insurgents went through ISI. The Taliban is a creature created by ISI and I suspect Al Q is also heavily influenced by them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 07:48 AM
Response to Original message
5. Oh that's a comfort!
:sarcasm:

Just what the world needs, Heezbolla with nukes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 08:09 AM
Response to Original message
6. Shocked, shocked, I tell you!
Let's see, we've known this ever since, oh, 2001 or so?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Oh, you mean back when the ISI head Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad ...
...directed that $100,000 be sent to Mohammed Atta, and the US told Pakistan to fire him as a result? Right around that time?

We probably should have had the FBI or someone follow up on that, don't ya think?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConservativeDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. We asked for Gen. Ahmad to be arrested. We're still waiting.
Please understand that the Taliban was largely an ISI construct, as are many of the anti-Indian terrorist groups. And they're not going to change, unless they get a lot more pressure than they're currently experiencing.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Might have been a good idea to make that a condition of the F-16 sales...
...ya think?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConservativeDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #17
29. We already have tons of conditions in place
...I'm not sure we can add many more.

Musharraf has done many things to help us reign in his own people, but understand - it isn't healthy for him to be seen as just an American lapdog. He's been dodging al-Qaeda bombs as it is. All it would take would be some old-school ISI officer, P.O.ed about him giving us Ahmad, to tell them his next convoy route, and that would be it.

Plus, I must point out that Gitmo hasn't been exactly a feather in our cap. There are plenty of people in the world who would rather let a known 9/11 plotter go than to send him to Cuba.

(Many of them in the D.U.)

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #14
33. since you're reality-based,
can you provide a link for the US request that Ahmad be arrested?

He was promptly retired and briefly held under a cushy Pakistani house arrest. But US authorities, to my knowledge, haven't even expressed interest in questioning him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConservativeDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Understand that the Pakistanis assert that he was framed...
by the Indian intelligence services.

And it was true that India's Services did do the legwork to uncover this, which is enough for the Pakistanis to call the entire thing a set-up. It is especially difficult to track because the actual wire of the money from Dubai to Atta's Florida bank account went through the so-called "hundi" system - a kind of underground banking/loan-sharking system prevalent in that area of the world.

So there is a slight possibility that the Pakistanis are even right in this matter.

Again, while there has been no public request to extradite him, there was an "arrest" of sorts made - which I am convinced was done at the behest of the U.S. The Pakistanis had no other reason to pursue one of their own top spies like that.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Efilroft Sul Donating Member (827 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 08:11 AM
Response to Original message
7. Lots of murky links between ISI, the Bushes, and al Qaeda
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html

I've said it all along: If America has real enemies in the Islamic world, they are surely Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Iran has leadership even wackier than we do, but the young people in that country (the post-Boomer generation) are much more liberal in mind and spirit. I look forward to that generation taking over.

Ultimately, the best things for America are the widespread development and use of alternative, renewable energy sources and European-style, high-speed rail systems between major cities. Both can lead to our disengagement from the Middle East and the taming of Big Oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hadrons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
9. something to point out to the "Syria can stop Hezbollah w a call" idiots
not that easy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
10. The foxes are living inside the hen house,
and they're having a party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
11. nevermind....
Nevermind that FBI informant Randy Glass, working an undercover sting, was told by Pakistani ISI operatives that the World Trade Center towers were coming down, and his repeated warnings, including the mention of planes used as weapons, were ignored by federal authorities.

Nevermind that ISI director Mahmood Ahmed ordered ISI/al Qaeda double agent Omar Saeed Sheikh to wire $100,000 to Mohammed Atta.

Nevermind that Ahmed was in Washington the week of September 11 meeting with senior US intelligence officials.

Nevermind that, after the revelation of the wire transfer, Ahmed retired quietly and was never sought for questioning by American authorities.

Nevermind that Ahmed's name was struck from White House transcripts on the one occassion the press asked about him.

Nevermind that best reports place bin Laden in Pakistani territory.

Nevermind that Omar, 9/11 paymaster and ISI operative, hatched the plot to kidnap Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

Nevermind that Pearl was murdered not because he was a Jew, nor because his killers "hated freedom," but because he was close to exposing the al Qaeda/ISI nexus.

Here's Bernard-Henry Levy's answer to his own question, in Who Killed Daniel Pearl?:

Isn't that, incidentally, what President Pervez Musharraf himself said when, the day after the murder, in an astounding, angry outburst, he exclaimed that Daniel Pearl had been "over intrusive" - too curious, sticking his nose in places he shouldn't have? Didn't Musharraf give it away when, in a comment cited in the Washington Post (among others) on 23 February 2002, he dared to declare, "Perhaps Daniel Pearl was over inquisitive; a mediaperson should be aware of the dangers of getting into dangerous areas; unfortunately, he got over-involved in intelligence games."

So the question then becomes: Why? What had Pearl discovered, or what was he in the process of discovering, that condemned him to death? What is the stolent secret that, for his captors, was out of the question for him to walk away with?

The relationship between al-Qaeda and the ISI, of course. The tight web of relations between the two organizations, the two worlds.


And nevermind that the relationship is triangulated with the CIA, serving as its proxy sponsor of Central Asian terrorists since the Carter administration, and all three are further linked by their stakes in Afghanistan's opium.

Nevermind all that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. Yes. Danny Pearl was approaching the web power relations
that keep Musharraf alive. For one thing. God only knows what else.

Danny Pearl.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnie624 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
12. The ISI seems to act independently
of the Pakistani govt and its effectiveness at covert operations seems to be because of this independence. My boss--a wealthy Pakistani man--swears the ISI is an extension of the CIA.


In recent years, there has been a controversy in Pakistan as to who really controls the ISI and when was its internal Political Division set up. Testifying before the Supreme Court on June 16,1997, in a petition filed by Air Marshal (retd) Asghar Khan, former chief of the Pakistan Air Force, challenging the legality of the ISI's Political Division accepting a donation of Rs.140 million from a bank for use against PPP candidates during elections, Gen. (retd) Mirza Aslam Beg, former Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), claimed that though the ISI was manned by serving army officers and was part of the MOD, it reported to the Prime Minister and not to the COAS and that its internal Political Division was actually set up by the late Z.A.Bhutto in 1975.

Many Pakistani analysts have challenged this and said that the ISI, though de jure under the Prime Minister, had always been controlled de facto by the COAS and that its internal Political Division had been in existence at least since the days of Ayub Khan, if not earlier.

The ISI is always headed by an Army officer of the rank of Lt.Gen., who is designated as the Director-General (DG). The present DG is Lt.Gen.Mahmood Ahmed. He is assisted by three Deputy Directors-General (DDGs), designated as DDG (Political), DDG-I (External) and DDG-II (Administration).


<http://www.saag.org/papers3/paper287.html#top>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
15. ...and the new batch of F-16's are going to...
...the ISI?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Copperred Donating Member (554 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
16. For these reasons and so many more.....

the progressive secularist Nationalist forces of the Balochies, Sindhies and Pashtuns should be supported by the United States to pull this country apart into the natural alignment it would have found had the British and American governments stopped supporting the headless military junta that Pakistan is.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
19. Oh, the hyperbole.
:D It just gets better everytime I check back into this thread. :popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Efilroft Sul Donating Member (827 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Elaborate, please. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Pakistan has long
been an ally of the United States. It lies in a dangerous neighborhood, next to a state which was invaded by the Soviet Union which, if it had been successful in absorbing Afghanistan, would have, when the time was right, just gone on absorbing more territory, including Pakistan.

So holding it to the same standards as one would hold Switzerland is ridiculous.

There are obviously a lot of problems in Pakistan, but wasn't it just six months ago that John Kerry returned from Pakistan talking about how the economy is advancing and people are opening businesses, etc.?

Seems to me all this talk about Pakistan being another point on the Axis of Evil is really dumb talk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Efilroft Sul Donating Member (827 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Yeah, with friends like Pakistan's ISI, who needs enemies?
Let me make sure I'm understanding you. The ISI Director (in Washington, D.C. during the week of 9/11, no less) orders an operative to wire $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the Bush administration does nothing about it, and you think the talk on this thread is "hyperbole"? I find the ISI's action -- and the Bush administration's inaction -- outrageous. The ISI's collusion with Mohammed Atta is an act of war against the American people, and that $100,000 wire transfer is blood money. I don't care how long Pakistan has been an ally of this nation; allies don't enable the killing of nearly 3,000 of our citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Yes, I think there's a lot of hyperbole on this thread.
And actually, on every thread here on DU about Pakistan, which is apparently part of the Axis of Evil, to hear some tell it.

And as with the other poster, can you please post some credible cites substantiating your claims about the ISI Director, etc.? Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Efilroft Sul Donating Member (827 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Here's a paper from the Centre for Research on Globalisation (Montreal)
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html

It's a well-researched 2001 paper by Michael Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa. While I don't know if there have been subsequent papers by Chossudovsky on this topic, the topic certainly would warrant a "five years after" revisiting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. Here's the Asia Times on the ISI's Mahmoud Ahmad
from April, 2004:

If the 9-11 Commission is really looking for a smoking gun, it should look no further than at Lieutenant-General Mahmoud Ahmad, the director of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) at the time.

In early October 2001, Indian intelligence learned that Mahmoud had ordered flamboyant Saeed Sheikh - the convicted mastermind of the kidnapping and killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl - to wire US$100,000 from Dubai to one of hijacker Mohamed Atta's two bank accounts in Florida.

A juicy direct connection was also established between Mahmoud and Republican Congressman Porter Gross and Democratic Senator Bob Graham. They were all in Washington together discussing Osama bin Laden over breakfast when the attacks of September 11, 2001, happened.

Mahmoud's involvement in September 11 might be dismissed as only Indian propaganda. But Indian intelligence swears by it, and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has confirmed the whole story: Indian intelligence even supplied Saeed's cellular-phone numbers. Nobody has bothered to check what really happened. The 9-11 Commission should pose very specific questions about it to FBI director Robert Mueller when he testifies this month.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD08Aa01.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. I read Bob Graham's book, but I don't remember
how the ISI came out at the end of the day - I'll pull it out and look and see, and post back here on Graham's take on the connection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnie624 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-22-06 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #27
36. More:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Baluchis have been brutally suppressed by Musharraf...
...using US weapons...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Do you have a credible cite for that?
I was not aware of that, though I would be interested in looking at what you have. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. here...
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1205411,00.html

...That's not going to be easy. The Baluch, a distinct ethnic group spread over Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan, are fiercely independent and have been a thorn in Islamabad's side for decades regardless of who is in power. Baluchistan is rich in gas and minerals, yet it is Pakistan's poorest province. The government says it wants to develop the territory to improve the lives of the Baluch and to secure the country's energy needs. But the Baluch say they have been marginalized and do not receive adequate royalties from the central authorities for the extraction of the province's natural resources. Islamabad says the feudal chiefs are pocketing the royalties for themselves...

...The conflict in Baluchistan has consequences beyond its desert wastes. Pakistan is one of Washington's bulwarks in the war on terror, and receives around $600 million a year in U.S. military aid. According to Baluch rebel sources in Quetta and military sources in Islamabad, U.S. helicopters supplied to Pakistan for hunting members of al-Qaeda have been redirected to Baluchistan's deserts to fight Bugti and his two comrades-in-arms. Three Cessna aircraft, outfitted with sophisticated surveillance equipment and given to Pakistan last year by the U.S. to help catch heroin smugglers, have also been drafted into service against the Baluch rebels. Quetta military base sources say that when U.S. antinarcotics agents examined the Cessnas' flight records last month, they found that only seven hours were spent chasing drug runners, while most of the flying time was logged over Bugti's craggy domain scanning for rebel camps.

The U.S. military partnership with Pakistan was designed principally to take the fight to al-Qaeda and those members of the Taliban who have fled across the Afghan border. But a Pakistani military official in Islamabad says the Bush Administration is "fully in the know" that U.S. weaponry is also being used against the Baluch insurgency....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Thanks.
But is that "brutal repression" or just simply fighting between regional warlords and the central government? As I understand it, the provinces have always been fiercely independent.

There's an irony here - freepers complain that a Pakistan with semi-sovereign provinces is a "failed state"; and here, the response to attempts to bring provinces under control is "brutal suppression". They can't win for trying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. It is brutal repression for sure...
read further...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/14/AR2006021401767.html

...Musharraf's "other war" against the Baluch, an ethnic minority of 4.5 million, has become increasingly bloody in recent weeks. According to U.S. intelligence sources, six Pakistani army brigades, plus paramilitary forces totaling some 25,000 men, are battling Baluch Liberation Army guerrillas in the Kohlu mountains and surrounding areas. The independent Pakistan Human Rights Commission has reported "indiscriminate bombing and strafing" by 20 U.S.-supplied Cobra helicopter gunships and four squadrons of fighter planes, including U.S.-supplied F-16 fighter jets, resulting in 215 civilian dead and hundreds more wounded, many of them women and children...

...The Baluch were forcibly incorporated into Pakistan when it was created in 1947 and have subsequently staged two short-lived rebellions, in 1958 and 1962, as well as a protracted struggle from 1973 to 1977 that involved some 80,000 Pakistani troops and 55,000 Baluch tribesmen...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bhaisahab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-23-06 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #22
37. pakistan's own media
has been at the govt's throats for the heavy repression launched by it in Baluchistan. I'm not going to give you links, but simply ask you to read www.dawn.com every day (esp the editorial, opinion, and letters to the editor section).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Copperred Donating Member (554 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-22-06 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
35. NY Times: The Taliban's Silent Partner: July 20, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 20, 2006
NY Times Op-Ed Contributor

The Taliban’s Silent Partner
By ROBERT D. KAPLAN

WHEN the American-led coalition invaded Afghanistan five years ago, pessimists warned that we would soon find ourselves in a similar situation to what Soviet forces faced in the 1980’s. They were wrong — but only about the timing. The military operation was lean and lethal, and routed the Taliban government in a few weeks. But now, just two years after Hamid Karzai was elected as the country’s first democratic leader, the coalition finds itself, like its Soviet predecessors, in control of major cities and towns, very weak in the villages, and besieged by a shadowy insurgency that uses Pakistan as its rear base.

Our backing of an enlightened government in Kabul should put us in a far stronger position than the Soviets in the fight to win back the hinterland. But it may not, and for a good reason: the involvement of our other ally in the region, Pakistan, in aiding the Taliban war machine is deeper than is commonly thought.

The United States and NATO will not prevail unless they can persuade Pakistan’s president, Pervez Musharraf, to help us more than he has. Unfortunately, based on what senior Afghans have explained in detail to American officials, Pakistan is now supporting the Taliban in a manner similar to the way it supported the Afghan mujahedeen against the Soviets two decades ago.

The Taliban has two leadership cells operating inside Pakistan, presumably with the guidance and logistical support of local authorities. Senior lieutenants to Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban’s supreme leader, are ensconced in Quetta, the capital of the Pakistani province of Baluchistan. From there they direct military operations in the south-central Afghan provinces of Helmand, Kandahar, Uruzgan and Zabul.

Meanwhile, one of the Taliban’s savviest military commanders, Jalaluddin Haqqani, and his sons operate out of Miramshah, the capital of the North Waziristan Province. From there, they run operations in Kabul and the eastern Afghan regions of Khost, Logar, Paktia and Paktika.

Mr. Haqqani, who was years ago an American ally in the anti-Soviet campaign, has also been long suspected of sheltering Osama bin Laden. He is a crusty warrior with a great deal of credibility in Afghanistan because 20 years ago, rather than sip tea with journalists like some other rebel leaders, he was laying siege to Soviet positions.

Meanwhile, in the Pakistani city of Peshawar and the Bajur region, one finds various headquarters of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whose Hezb-i-Islami Party is aligned with the Taliban. Mr. Hekmatyar, another former American ally, runs operations in the Afghan regions of Kapisa, Kunar, Laghman, Nangahar and Nuristan.

These various bases inside Pakistan have assured the Taliban’s survival in the years since a democratic government was established in Kabul. Having hung on, the Taliban has recently regained much of its strength — and may now be winning the war of the villages against President Karzai.

In Afghan politics, it is the rural heartland that has always been the pivotal terrain, the place from where the mujahedeen rebellion against a secularized, Marxist-influenced urban regime was ignited in 1978, almost two years before the Soviets actually invaded. Whereas Iraq is two-thirds urban, less than a quarter of Afghans live in cities.

In Afghan villages, God and tribe are more tangible than any elected parliament. And where democracy remains an abstraction, anyone who can provide security and other basic needs — by whatever means — commands respect. Since toppling the Taliban in late 2001, the coalition and Afghan leaders have concentrated too much effort on Afghan cities, many of whose inhabitants, connected as they are to the outside world, are apt to support democracy anyway. The war we are now fighting will be won or lost in the villages.

While government officials from Kabul show up in rural areas for regular visits, the Taliban are setting up permanent presences in them. They are also importing radical, Pakistan-trained clerics to preach against the Kabul authorities. While officials from the capital too often speak in platitudes, the Taliban make concrete offers to protect poppy fields from eradication.

The drug trade is a particular problem because the United States, given its domestic policies, must take a stand against it and the government in Kabul, needing to maintain an upright image with international donors, must follow suit. Thus, the Taliban is free to use our morality against both.

The Taliban even have shadow officials for small areas of Afghanistan, whose top officials live just over the border in Pakistan. Afghan villagers journey to Pakistan to seek justice for one grievance or another from these alternative figures.

The situation is tragically simple: the very people we need to kill or apprehend we can’t get at, because they are in effect protected by our so-called ally, Pakistan. All we can do is win tactical battles against foot soldiers inside Afghanistan, who are easily replaced.

It isn’t that President Musharraf is doing nothing. He has deployed troops along the border that have somewhat cut down on the activities of Mr. Haqqani. Moreover, many of his troops are busy quelling a separatist rebellion in the border province of Baluchistan.

But he feels himself atop a volcano of fundamentalism. He is among the last of the Westernized, British-style officers in the national army; after him come the men with the beards. The military and Pakistani society are filled with those who do not see the Taliban as a threat: it is an American problem, and one for an Afghan government toward which they feel ambivalence. So President Musharraf must walk a fine line. And he must be as devious with us as he is with any other faction.

Thus Pakistani strategy is to get the Taliban to the point where it can set up secure leadership bases in remote parts of Afghanistan and move across the border. Then Pakistan will claim that it is no longer its problem.

There are two opposing tipping points to watch out for. The first is the moment the Taliban leadership feels safe in bases inside Afghanistan and decides it can mobilize to infiltrate and eventually topple the cities. That is when Presidents Bush and Karzai lose. Mr. Karzai would need to form his own private militia, and perhaps cut a deal with Mullah Omar in order to survive.

The other tipping point is when the Taliban leaders inside Pakistan feel themselves under so much pressure from the local authorities that their energy is spent on survival rather than on running operations. That is when Messrs. Bush and Karzai win. Unfortunately, this seems less likely than the first tipping point.

We can’t reverse this drift without a stronger policy toward Pakistan. I say this with extreme trepidation. President Musharraf, for all his faults, may still be the worst person to rule his country except for any other who might replace him. And yet it is necessary to hold his feet to the fire to a greater extent than we have.

Things have reached the point that it was entirely justified for the American ambassador to Islamabad, Ryan Crocker, to say this month that the exiled former Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif should be allowed to return and run against Mr. Musharraf. As corrupt as those two leaders were, we need leverage.

IN the end, the battle for Afghanistan will be won in the villages, and the time-tested rules of counterinsurgency will apply. The two most vital goals in this case will be giving the local residents a stake in the outcome through subsidies and development projects; and providing security through the presence of coalition troops embedded with Afghan Army units. Periodic patrols don’t cut it. If you live and sleep beside people, they tend to trust you. You don’t win these kinds of wars operating out of big bases near the capital.

Finally, while democracy may be an abstraction in the Afghan countryside, it can be a powerful psychological tool if explained in the language of nuts-and-bolts enticements. With our help, President Karzai’s rural representatives must articulate a strategy of hope and development, and contrast it with the one of interminable conflict that is all that the Taliban can ultimately offer.

--------------------------------------------
Robert D. Kaplan is a national correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, and the author of “Soldiers of God: With Islamic Warriors in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-24-06 12:47 AM
Response to Original message
38. maybe one should ask why we forgave Pakistan's debt
Edited on Mon Jul-24-06 12:48 AM by newspeak
Come on boys and girls, WE ARE BROKE!!! Why did our government forgive Pakistan's debt? Pay back? Some kind of bribe? OR we're just generous people. I thought what happened to Daniel Pearl at the time was suspect. He found out something and it cost him his life!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-24-06 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. and while we're on Iran's case for its nukes (no proof)
we let AQ Khan (the master proliferator) in Pakistan go with a slap on the wrist.

Is Pakistan blackmailing the Bush regime? Does ISI know something that is going to be embarassing for the Bush cabal?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-24-06 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
40. And Pakistan wants to start a Plutonium processing plant?
WHEEEEEEE!!!!!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 08:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC