Truth
This is one of those that is significant not because it's true, but because someone official finally said it out loud.
No surprise if you've been watching, but the public statement does represent a shift towards a more confrontational stance.
The US military says it has evidence elements within Pakistan's military intelligence, the ISI, continue to provide support for the Taleban.
Officials said that this support for militants had to end.
The chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff said the ISI had links with militants on both Pakistan's borders with Afghanistan and India.
No surprise if you've been watching, but the public statement does represent a shift towards a more confrontational stance.
posted by mikevotes at
6:48 AM
4 Comments:
This is encouraging news. The Bush Administration's only strategy was to lean on the Pakistani political leadership, who have little, if any, control over the ISI.
Of course, saying something and actually doing something are very different things. But it's encouraging that the current Administration at least sees where the real problem lies.
It seems counter-intuitive to propose that India is one of the major players in resolving the Afghan crisis, but it is true. The North-eastern part of Afghanistan is under the nominal influence of India, and this is what has the ISI scared. It is also an area of stability and relative security, which further has the ISI very worried.
The ISI sees India's hand in everything happening in the entire region (whether it is the actual case or not), and their reason for existence is not to protect Pakistan, but rather to foil India's ambitions. Thus, keeping Afghanistan destabilised thwarts India, though it threatens the foundations of Pakistani government. This does not concern the ISI, however.
In their effort to thwart India, the ISI has employed the aid of many, many "unsavoury" elements (drug operations, terrorists/militants, warlords, and the Taliban), and these associations have corrupted them from the inside. Instead of using these "unsavoury elements" to advance the ISI's interests, the interests of the "unsavoury elements" are now the primary driver.
In hindsight, the U.S. would have got more "bang for the buck" in Afghanistan by siding with India and isolating Pakistan. The majority of the money given to Musharraf to fight the Taliban instead went to weapons procurement to fight a future war with India. Meanwhile, India has done a very admirable job of stabilising part of Afghanistan without any aid from us at all.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 10:24 AM
I think that second paragraph is the question. The Obama folks are pointing the finger, but what are they going to do about it.
I'd also be curious for some explanation on your statements about the ISI's goal. Certainly, they are playing games with India, but how do you get to "their reason for existence is not to protect Pakistan?"
I certainly agree with the statement that they've done a whole lot of ugly things with ugly people, but I would argue with the idea that they don't care about their country.
(And two problems with siding with India in 2001. 1) The US had next to no assets or intelligence in the tribal regions/Islamists, whatever you want to call it, and partnering with Pakistan was the fastest way to that intel which linked to Al Qaeda.
2) In the past 40 years, Republican presidents have favored Pakistan and Democratic PResidents have favored India. I don't know why. It's just a fact.
By
mikevotes, at 1:08 PM
I agree with Todd about the ISI being mainly concerned with Indian influence in Afghanistan. It makes them very nervous. But I suspect most Pakistanis feel the same way.
By
Anonymous, at 1:42 PM
"I'd also be curious for some explanation on your statements about the ISI's goal. Certainly, they are playing games with India, but how do you get to "their reason for existence is not to protect Pakistan?""
Yeah, that's my take on it. There is no ISI mission statement that I can point to that says "we don't care about protecting Pakistan".
As far as the Pakistani military/intelligence services are concerned, the only external threat to Pakistan is India. Directly attacking India has proven fruitless, so screwing with India on the margins is all they realistically have.
When your only tool is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. Thus, "foiling India's ambitions" has become the same thing as "protecting Pakistan" in the minds of the Pakistani military/intelligence services.
So if you were to ask the ISI if they were "protecting Pakistan" by supporting terrorist groups that strike against Indian targets and interests, they would say "Yes, we are protecting Pakistan by taking those actions".
However, the CIA would have also said they were "protecting America" by supporting partisans in the Angolan civil war. Or by bombing Cambodia. Or by backing Pinochet. You catch my drift here, I'm sure.
As for your reasons against going with India with rather than Pakistan, I would point out that I said "in hindsight" it would have a better policy. Pakistan has been mostly ineffective in controlling the FATA, and in fact has never controlled it. It now appears that they probably never will control the FATA, either. So we got precious little by going that route, in hindsight.
Regarding 2), yes, it wasn't "in the cards", but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't have been the smarter move...in hindsight.
We backed a dictatorship and implicitly sided against the world's largest democracy. That's a fact.
Few in Bush's circle could see how a country without a common border with Afghanistan could be a "player". That was probably the beginning and end of any consideration of allying with India.
Anonymous wrote:
"But I suspect most Pakistanis feel the same way."
I agree with that statement completely. However, I never viewed our mission in Afghanistan as one of "pleasing the Pakistani people".
Pakistan took our side because it froze out India, and because they knew they would get billions in weapons for their (future) war against India. Neither of those motives coincide with our interests.
India would have taken our side because they wanted to see a stable Afghanistan, which would have thwarted the ISI. Both of those motives coincide with our interests.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 11:37 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home