Bomb at Indian embassy kills 41 in Afghanistan
A huge carbombing outside the Indian Embassy in Kabul kills at least 41 and wounds 140.
I think a very important bit in this article is the Afghani government's reaction which clearly seems to point this bombing directly to Pakistan's ISI.
The India/Pakistan/Afghanistan relationship is very long and complicated, but, the pertinent recent bit is the decades old Pakistani strategic item, "strategic depth," the principle of which was that Pakistan would dominate Afghanistan and its politics through the ISI and Pashtun tribalism/Islamism to prevent India from gaining an ally and second front in the case of a Pakistan/India war.
In the overthrow of Pakistan, the US elevated the Northern Alliance, which has historically had closer ties to India to overthrow that Pakistani linked Pashtun government.
A very short, partial history by Juan Cole:
For decades, Afghanistan has been a pawn in the greater India/Pakistan power balance. So, what does it say about that balance when the Indian embassy is dramatically bombed and Afghan officials directly blame the Pakistanis?
How do the Pakistani military and intelligence services react as the Karzai government repeatedly, hostilely criticizes them while being quietly neutral towards India? Does that make them more likely or less likely to help and support the Karzai government? Does that make them more likely or less likely to tamp down the violence coming from the tribal regions? Does that make them more likely or less likely to support US intentions in Afghanistan?
And, in turn, how do the Indians react if they believe that the ISI's ties to the Taleban link it in to this attack?
I may be overblowing the significance of this one attack, but it seems to capture alot of the larger forces tearing at the region.
I think a very important bit in this article is the Afghani government's reaction which clearly seems to point this bombing directly to Pakistan's ISI.
"The Interior Ministry believes this attack was carried out in coordination and consultation with an active intelligence service in the region," the Afghan Interior Ministry said.
The India/Pakistan/Afghanistan relationship is very long and complicated, but, the pertinent recent bit is the decades old Pakistani strategic item, "strategic depth," the principle of which was that Pakistan would dominate Afghanistan and its politics through the ISI and Pashtun tribalism/Islamism to prevent India from gaining an ally and second front in the case of a Pakistan/India war.
In the overthrow of Pakistan, the US elevated the Northern Alliance, which has historically had closer ties to India to overthrow that Pakistani linked Pashtun government.
A very short, partial history by Juan Cole:
Pakistan had long considered Afghanistan its sphere of influence (which the military called its 'strategic depth' against India). Pakistan exercised its regional hegemony through the Taliban in the 1990s. The Northern Alliance gradually allied with India, Russia and Iran. The Taliban were mostly Pushtun, while the Northern Alliance was Tajik (Persian-speaking), Hazarah (ditto but Shiite) and Uzbek. So from a Pakistani and Pushtun Taliban point of view, when the US put the Northern Alliance in charge of Kabul in late 2001, it more or less turned Afghanistan into an Indian sphere of influence. Pakistan is unhappy about this change, which helps explain why its military may be backing some Pushtun Taliban again.
For decades, Afghanistan has been a pawn in the greater India/Pakistan power balance. So, what does it say about that balance when the Indian embassy is dramatically bombed and Afghan officials directly blame the Pakistanis?
How do the Pakistani military and intelligence services react as the Karzai government repeatedly, hostilely criticizes them while being quietly neutral towards India? Does that make them more likely or less likely to help and support the Karzai government? Does that make them more likely or less likely to tamp down the violence coming from the tribal regions? Does that make them more likely or less likely to support US intentions in Afghanistan?
And, in turn, how do the Indians react if they believe that the ISI's ties to the Taleban link it in to this attack?
I may be overblowing the significance of this one attack, but it seems to capture alot of the larger forces tearing at the region.
posted by mikevotes at
7:07 AM
4 Comments:
interesting analysis. kind of escapes the whole "us vs. them" understanding that most are capable of.
don't expect a lot of coverage.
By
Praguetwin, at 12:53 PM
Well, it's very complicated with the Pakistanis actually playing both sides. There's not much hard evidence in the public, but all of the players seem to accept these relationships as the state of affairs.
The more I look at the Afghanistan/Pakistan issue, the more discouraged I get.
I really don't see how it resolves except if the Pakistanis really let go of the Pashtun tribalists, and I'm not sure I see a grand deal where that happens.
By
mikevotes, at 3:18 PM
The ISI (Pakistani intelligence) has no interest in Afghan stability, and in fact have a strong interest in maintaining instability to neutralise Indian influence in the region. There is nothing that Karzai could do or say to change that equation, so there is little point to diplomatic discretion.
This has been the case since before the U.S. invasion, but Bush figured he could "influence" Musharraf to deal with the ISI. Surprise, he couldn't. It's not just this one attack.
India has influence in the (mostly stable) northern part of Afghanistan. Pakistan only has influence in the south, so their only "card" to play is to stir up the Pashtuns. Eventually this strategy will backfire by subverting Pakistan itself, but the ISI's only real allegiance is to itself, so this eventuality does not deter them.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 6:55 PM
Yeah, definitely not just this attack, but this is probably the clearest illustration of the three (or more) sided problem that's there.
As for subverting Pakistan, yes, but.... It would be primarily subverting the urban, moderate influence and government, but as you point out, the ISI would likely come through that. (stronger?)
By
mikevotes, at 7:08 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home