Pakistan: Now or Never?
Perspectives on Pakistan
Bajaur bombing highlights conflicting U.S.-Pakistan interests
Last week’s suicide bombing in Pakistan’s Bajaur region, which killed at least 40 people, had a grim predictability to it. The Pakistan Army cleared Pakistani Taliban militants out of their main strongholds in Bajaur, which borders Afghanistan’s Kunar province, after 20 months of intense fighting which ended earlier this year. But as discussed in this post in October the insurgents’ ability to flee to Kunar — where the U.S. military presence has been thinned out — combined with a failure to provide Bajaur with good governance, suggested the security situation in the region was likely to be deteriorating. The bombing appeared to confirm those fears.
The implications go far beyond Bajaur. The Pakistan Army has resisted U.S. pressure to launch a military offensive against militant strongholds in North Waziristan until it has secured gains made elsewhere. Pakistani daily The Express Tribune quoted army spokesman Major General Athar Abbas as reiterating that point after the Bajaur bombing and after fighting in the neighbouring Mohmand region. Until areas “cleared” by the military were consolidated, “it is impossible to rush into another campaign,” it quoted him as saying.
The Taliban in Bajaur also had historically close ties with militants who overran the Swat valley and caused worldwide alarm by pushing further into Pakistan’s heartland before they were ousted by the Pakistan Army in 2009. Any further evidence of the Taliban regaining ground in Bajaur would therefore be a cause for concern that military gains in Swat — itself reeling from this summer’s devastating floods — could also be reversed.
In some aspects — though not all — Pakistan’s problems in tackling militants are a mirror image of those faced by the United States on the other side of the border. Soldiers can drive militants out of their strongholds, but they can’t stop them melting into the local population or fleeing across the border. And they can’t hold and build on those military gains without civilian back-up to provide people with governance.
When I visited Bajaur on an army-organised trip in April, the military commander in the main town of Khar — target of last week’s suicide bombing — made two points. First he said the Americans had to “do more” on their side of the border to stop militants fleeing into Afghanistan. Second he drew a graph showing how security gains made from military operations do not even remain static without governance, but actually dwindle over time – probably rather similar to graphs drawn by U.S. commanders on the other side of the border.
You might think the answer would be to coordinate approaches in both Pakistan and Afghanistan — a much talked about idea that somehow never quite managed to get off the drawing boards in Washington and into the field. If anything military coordination appears to be getting worse.
The United States, keen to concentrate its forces in areas where they can make a difference, and to protect population centres, has been pulling troops back from remote outposts in Kunar and elsewhere. Within the context of Afghanistan, that may make sense. But from Pakistan’s point of view, it leaves its military exposed. Meanwhile, Pakistan has resisted pressure to launch an operation in North Waziristan, both because it needs to consolidate gains elsewhere, and because it fears a backlash of suicide bombings on its towns and cities. Within the context of Pakistan that may also make sense. But from the U.S. point of view, it leaves its own military exposed.
Pakistan:the unintended consequences of U.S. pressure
U.S. pressure on Pakistan has always led to deep resentment within the Pakistan Army, which has taken heavy casualties of its own fighting Pakistani Taliban militants on its side of the border with Afghanistan. But there are signs that this resentment is now spiralling in dangerously unpredictable ways.
The Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) spy agency has denied it was responsible for revealing the name of a senior Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) official in Pakistan, forcing him to flee the country after threats to his life. But the suspicion lingers that the ISI, which falls under the control of the Pakistan Army, is flexing its muscles in response to U.S. pressure.
In an article for Time magazine, former CIA officer Robert Baer said that even if you accepted the ISI denial, “what can’t be dismissed is a lawsuit filed by a Pakistani tribesman in which he accuses the CIA of murdering his brother and his son in a drone attack. According to press reports, none of which have been confirmed by the CIA, it was the appearance of the station chief’s name in a filing in this suit, along with unspecified threats, that caused him to be pulled. Regardless, the suit itself could be an ominous sign that the Pakistanis may be coming to the end of their rope in the ‘war on terror’.”
His assumption was that the ISI, which until now is believed to have given tacit support to the U.S. drone strikes, had supported the case by the Pakistani tribesman.
Even more alarming are Pakistani press reports suggesting that fake WikiLeaks cables planted in the Pakistan media were deliberately designed by Pakistani intelligence to whip up public opinion against U.S. pressure to “do more”. (h/t Five Rupees).
“The fake story is not an isolated incident,” Azhar Abbas, the managing director of GEO News, wrote. “Political and security observers believe a concerted effort is once again being made to encourage and promote a typical extremist mindset. Some analysts-cum-anchors have re-emerged from quasi-oblivion. Many journalists and analysts are briefed and encouraged to take an aggressively anti-West, especially anti-US, stance. Experts, who ‘preach’ extremism in disguise, are encouraged to participate in talk shows.”
Maintaining the support of the Pakistani people has been essential in Pakistan’s own battle against the Pakistani Taliban - a widely circulated video of a girl being flogged in the Swat valley rallied public opinion behind the army when it launched a military operation there last year to drive out militants from the region. The authenticity of that video is a subject of much debate in Pakistan. But be that as it may, if public opinion were to turn decisively against military operations, no amount of American pressure would be able to convince the Pakistan Army to launch a new ground assault to assert control of areas now held by militants, including North Waziristan.
@Rex: I realize that I was somewhat harsh on you, my apologies!
Guest contribution:Reconstruction, the silver lining of Pakistan’s flood disaster
(The following is a guest contribution. Reuters is not responsible for the content and the views expressed are the author’s alone. The writer is Pakistan’s High Commissioner to the UK)
By Wajid Shamsul Hasan
Is the flood over in Pakistan? No. Most certainly not! Notwithstanding the massive relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction operations, the devastation from the worst natural disaster in recent times continues to claim lives in scores due to the outbreak of epidemics, lack of health facilities, and shortage of food, shelter and clothing.
How horrendous life has been after the deluge is unfortunately fading away from the focus of the media as Pakistan continues to cope with a natural calamity described by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon as a slow tsunami, six times bigger than any other catastrophe in the last fifty years. The flood which swept through northern tip of Pakistan to Sindh affected a land mass the size of England and uprooted more than 20 million people.
Reconstruction work is on full swing – thanks to domestic and international agencies. As a resilient nation Pakistanis are doing their best to get back on their feet. No doubt there are gigantic challenges ahead but these floods have opened new opportunities to everyone whether within Pakistan or abroad.
Although an assessment is still being made of infrastructure losses, there are estimates that nearly 2,433 miles of roads and 3,508 miles of railway lines, 45 bridges, nearly 10,000 schools and 1.7 million houses have been destroyed and are now waiting to be rebuilt. That certainly offers enormous scope for investment as well as an opportunity to gain the goodwill of the people. Pakistan’s hour of adversity can also play a positive role in rebuilding its economy and help it to fight terrorism more effectively. The construction of 1.7 million houses alone offers a big business opportunity.
The Government of Pakistan’s Flood Relief And Early Recovery Plan 2010 launched in collaboration with the United Nations to extend the relief phase to achieve a sustainable, meaningful and productive recovery of the flood affected areas is a way forward. The National Disaster Management Authority has so far approved 397 projects in the fields of agriculture, community restoration, coordination and support, education and food security with an estimate of $1.9 billion. For the approval and execution of projects the government has put in place effective monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.
China’s South Asia tour: win-win meets zero sum
Just over a year ago, President Barack Obama suggested during a visit to Beijing that China and the United States could cooperate on bringing stability to Afghanistan and Pakistan. As I wrote at the time, China — Islamabad’s most loyal partner — was an obvious country to turn to for help in working out how to deal with Pakistan. Its economy would be the first to gain from greater regional stability which opened up trade routes and improved its access to energy supplies. And it also shared some of Washington’s concerns about Islamist militancy, particularly if this were to spread unrest in its Muslim Xinjiang region.
The big question was whether the suggestion would fall foul of the zero sum game thinking which has bedevilled relations between India, Pakistan and China for nearly 50 years. India was defeated by China in a border war in 1962 and since then has regarded it as its main military threat. Pakistan has built close ties with China to offset what it sees as its own main military threat from its much larger neighbour India. China in turn has been able to use its relationship with Pakistan to clip India’s wings and curb any ambitions it has at regional hegemony.
So where does Obama’s suggestion stand now that Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao has just completed a visit to both India and Pakistan? The answer to that probably depends on how far economics and how far politics determine the behaviour of India and Pakistan in the coming years. China itself is seen as putting its economic interests first, or in the words of the People’s Daily, a search for “win-win results consistently dominate China’s diplomacy”.
In India, Wen offered expanded trade and greater cooperation between two countries which increasingly have reason to align their positions in negotiations within the G-20 economies. That is positive for those whose world view is seen through the lens of economic development –among them Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. In an editorial in The Hindu, Siddharth Varadarajan argues that India needs to stop focusing so much on China as a strategic threat and take advantage of the gains it can reap from Chinese economic growth. And while expanding trade left India with a $16 billion trade deficit with China in 2007-2008, you can argue that India could still be a long-term beneficiary if rising Chinese wages open up space for cheaper Indian manufacturing.
However, at the same time the two countries apparently failed to make any progress on the political and strategic issues which divide them, among them their disputed border and Chinese support for Pakistan. That is a worry for those who focus primarily on the strategic, rather than the economic, environment in South Asia — particularly given that both Beijing and Delhi have become much scratchier about their political disputes in the last few years.
“During the first visit of a major Chinese leader to India in more than four years, some easing of political tensions should have been accomplished. Instead the two sides decided to kick all contentious issues down the road and expand bilateral trade by two-thirds over the next five years. However, increased trade is no panacea for the sharpening geopolitical rivalry,” Brahma Chellaney wrote in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.
In short, there is no real consensus on what to make of Wen’s visit as India grapples with growing Chinese power and tries to decide whether to hitch a ride on the coat tails of China’s economic growth or stand up to it.
India is trying to be nice to avert the pressure created by China on the border by emphasizing on expanding trade commerce and cooperation. It is obvious because the past experience of 1962 war with china on record in battle field does not speak well for India.
And now it will be a catastrophic for India to stand in front of China in battle dress, though lot of war moral boosting movies were produced by India targeting Pakistan to boost up the moral of Indian Population but unfortunately no movie was produced targeting China.
India is in grave tension with China’s unpredictable activities as the veteran Economist PM of the country seems to be sweating inside out more so after the President of China’s US visit wherein HU Jintoa very sweetly brought home his view point to both US government and India about Tibet and Twain.
To any person with intelligence will understand that no amount of trade, commerce, and cooperation would facilitate China to withdraw from its commitment about Tibet and Twain issues may what it comes to accomplish the mission.
India would now realize the agony of enforcing untold miseries on the poor Kashmir people for decades as the Israeli government is doing to the Palestinians. China has yet not imposed its might on India but the impact has already been felt.
So India should realize what would it be if the full weight of China is imposed than what would the Indian’s condition would be particularly where would be the Political party that boasted of Indian might of Hindus and committed genocide. May be they have already forgotten about it but people have not..
The Indian hegemony in the region is indescribable reports the political activists. It is reliably gathered that first India installs a puppet government and then Siphons all economical, commercial, Industrial produces leaving the neighboring country financially crippled. That is what it did to skim and now the same project as is reported ventilates is in practice in another neighboring country having a secret defense pact so that the political opponents cannot protest out of fear of Indian army entering the country with some ominous plea.
Time has come for India to Change its attitude and activities with its neighbors and let the countries run their affairs by themselves and not interfere with ulterior motives to grab land, kill human like birds. In addition, show red eyes to the neighboring government and make them agree to comply with whatever it wants them to do.
In recent reports, it is revealed that Indian intelligence had been working in collusion with Karzia and Iranian government to undermine the war of terror and fighting against the Taliban’s with ulterior motives against Pakistan.
Before, closing the comment it is imperative to mention that in case India hackles with Tibet Issue then India is sure to go on a high jump which none will come to help stop it. Trade, no trade cooperation, or no cooperation of any nature, China would like to do things in peaceful manner and that is to submit to its legitimate demands.
I would refrain from commenting about India Pakistan relationship as after the high jump it will depend on India how it wants the relationship to be. I suppose with certainty that Pakistan will have the courtesy to wait for it and would not hurry to make any change on its own.
From Thuggees to fake WikiLeaks
The fall-out from the fake WikiLeaks cables in Pakistan continues to be far more interesting than the real WikiLeaks cables. To recap, several Pakistani newspapers retracted stories last week which quoted WikiLeaks cables ostensibly accusing India of stirring up trouble in Baluchistan and Waziristan, cited U.S. diplomats as ridiculing the Indian Army, and compared Kashmir to Bosnia in the 1990s. Since the anti-India narrative presented in the stories chimed with the views of Pakistani intelligence agencies, the alleged cables were then dismissed as fakes and most likely an intelligence plant.
However, just to complicate matters, some of the information in the “fake cables” is also in the “real cables”. For example, the real cables do contain allegations of Indian support for Baluch separatists, largely sourced to British intelligence, according to The Guardian. The British newspaper, which had advance access to the cables, also cited them as evidence that India practiced systematic torture in Kashmir.
So if the anti-India stories really were an intelligence plant, why did “the agencies” in Pakistan not use actual cables to bolster their allegations, rather than fake cables which could be easily discredited?
In a column in The Express Tribune headlined “Can’t they just be spies?”, journalist Aamer Khan blamed it on an inability to manage the media. Recalling a news agency he said was set up by Pakistani intelligence to spread the word about the Kashmir revolt, he said that eventually, ”the spooks running the operation went haywire and lost all perspective on what they had set out to achieve. As more and more newspapers started accepting its copy, the agency started reporting a dramatic increase in the number of Indian casualties at the hands of our fearless jihadis.”
The daily death toll rose at such a furious pace that several years later one Western analyst said if that agency were to be believed, jihadis must have killed all the Indian Army posted in the Kashmir Valley twice over by then. He concluded that the fake WikiLeaks story suggested nothing had changed in the last 20 years.
This implied inefficiency is intriguing. The Western media narrative ascribes a great deal of power to the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency in its influence over the Afghan war, based on its alleged support for the Taliban. But bear in mind that an organisation sometimes believed capable of ending the Afghan war did not - if it was indeed responsible – manage to plant durably a WikiLeaks story even when it had real cables to back up its case.
Nadeem Paracha at Dawn, however, argued it did not matter that some newspapers retracted the story since enough papers and television channels carried it for it to be believed. He ascribed the fake WikiLeaks cables to an over-enthusiastic pro-military media eager to deflect attention from real cables which highlighted the role played by the Pakistan Army in the country’s politics as well as other awkward revelations about Pakistan’s ally Saudi Arabia.
@777
I think you are a comedian! I do not see anything from the lens of a religion.
You must be joking accusing me of supporting Burqa? You have even got a shadow called Mortal1 who is thinking loud with you. I do not believe we have anything further to exchange on wikileak!
Rex Minor
After Holbrooke, chances of political settlement in Afghanistan fall
Reading through some of the many thousands of words written about Richard Holbrooke, for me two stories stood out in their ability to capture what will be lost with his death:
The first was in Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s obituary in the Washington Post:
“While beleaguered members of Mr. Holbrooke’s traveling party sought sleep on transcontinental flights, he usually would stay up late reading. On one trip to Pakistan, he padded to the forward of the cabin in his stocking feet to point out to a reporter a passage in Margaret Bourke-White’s memoirs of the time of India-Pakistan partition and independence. Bourke-White quoted Pakistani leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah telling her that Pakistan would have no problems with the Americans, because ‘they will always need us more than we need them.’ Mr. Holbrooke laughed, saying, ‘Nothing ever changes.’”
The second was in this 2009 profile by George Packer in The New Yorker.
Talking about Washington’s approach to Pakistan, Holbrooke said, “The relationship with Pakistan is so fraught with a history of disappointment on both sides… We can’t align our interests exactly, because they live in a different space, and their history is defined by their relationship with India. . . . The one thing I believe we can do with Pakistan is to try to reach a strategically symmetrical view on the danger posed by Al Qaeda and its allies. That’s the proximate strategic goal.”
Put together, those comments cover a huge sweep of history and geography which explain why the war in Afghanistan is proving to be so intractable. While the military, and much of the media, focus on Afghanistan – since that is where western troops are deployed - Pakistan is fighting its own battle with India born out of the bloody partition of the subcontinent in 1947.
Holbrooke was one of the few U.S. officials to have the intellectual range to fully grasp how far the problems of the Afghan war stretched back into history and out into the wider region, from Kabul to Kashmir, from Islamabad to Delhi, from 2010 to 1947. And though he was not allowed to include Kashmir in his mandate because of Indian objections, he nonetheless travelled frequently to India to seek ways of easing tensions with Pakistan. Without such an easing in tensions, Pakistan was never going to turn fully against the Afghan Taliban, believing it might need them to counter Indian influence in Afghanistan.
Cave Mullah: “The talk about Indians torture in Kashmir is a diversion.”
No it is about Richard Holbrooke. Take a break from whatever it is that you are smoking.
Academics, experts appeal to Obama to back Taliban talks
A group of academics, journalists and NGO workers have published an open letter to President Barack Obama appealing to him to support direct negotiations with the Taliban leadership.
The letter argues that the situation on the ground on Afghanistan is much worse than a year ago. “With Pakistan’s active support for the Taliban, it is not realistic to bet on a military solution,” it says.
“Like it or not, the Taliban are a long-term part of the Afghan political landscape, and we need to try and negotiate with them in order to reach a diplomatic settlement. The Taliban’s leadership has indicated its willingness to negotiate, and it is in our interests to talk to them. In fact, the Taliban are primarily concerned about the future of Afghanistan and not – contrary to what some may think — a broader global Islamic jihad. Their links with Al-Qaeda – which is not, in any case, in Afghanistan any more — are weak. We need to at least try to seriously explore the possibility of a political settlement in which the Taliban are part of the Afghan political system.”
“The current contacts between the Karzai government and the Taliban are not enough. The United States must take the initiative to start negotiations with the insurgents and frame the discussion in such a way that American security interests are taken into account. In addition, from the point of view of Afghanistan’s most vulnerable populations – women and ethnic minorities, for instance – as well as with respect to the limited but real gains made since 2001, it is better to negotiate now rather than later, since the Taliban will likely be stronger next year.”
“This is why we ask you to sanction and support a direct dialogue and negotiation with the Afghan Taliban leadership residing in Pakistan. A ceasefire and the return of the insurgency leadership in Afghanistan could be part of a de-escalation process leading to a coalition government. ”
The United States, which is due to release a review of strategy in Afghanistan next week, has so far shown little inclination to engage in serious negotiations with the Taliban leadership, although it has accepted that ultimately there will have to a political solution to a war that cannot be won militarily. There is also little sign it is about to change its stance of ramping up military operations — Defense Secretary Robert Gates just returned from a trip to Afghanistan where he said the U.S. strategy was working.
The letter, however, is still worth reading and particular scrolling through the list of names of those who signed up to it. If nothing else, it serves as a useful marker from regional experts that they believe the Taliban are willing to negotiate.
@Myra
Now you have the comments from some experts from India on this blog. How come they were not included in the groups of academics and experts? Any idea how you can transfer some of the radicals views on to the neighbouring Indai blog. It is getting rather crowded with non experts and non academics.
Rex Minor
Pakistani papers retract WikiLeaks story on India
Leading Pakistani newspapers have retracted stories that appear to have partly depended on fake WikiLeaks cables to support long-standing Pakistani allegations against India, particularly in causing instability inside Pakistan. The stories also quoted U.S. diplomats as ridculing India and its army.
The News ran a story saying its report was inaccurate and had been picked up from a local news agency. The report had originated, it said, in websites “known for their close connections with certain intelligence agencies”.
The Express Tribune said that it “deeply regrets publishing this story without due verification and apologises profusely for any inconvenience caused to our valued readers.”
Britain’s Guardian newspaper, which had advance access to the cables, said that, “an extensive search of the WikiLeaks database by the Guardian by date, name and keyword failed to locate any of the incendiary allegations. It suggests this is the first case of WikiLeaks being exploited for propaganda purposes.”
As discussed in yesterday’s post, Pakistan being what it is, suspicion has fallen on its intelligence agencies for planting the story. If so, it was a fairly spectacular own goal, as it distracted attention from actual WikiLeak cables. These brought into the public domain for the first time a view by British intelligence that India was supporting separatists in Pakistan’s Baluchistan province – a long-standing complaint made by Islamabad and denied by New Delhi. According to the Guardian, “the real cables do contain allegations of Indian support for Baloch separatists, largely sourced to British intelligence assessments.”
Meanwhile, just to give a flavour of where the WikiLeaks debate is going in Pakistan itself, here is journalist Ahmed Quraishi - who says in this piece that allegations he is a mouthpiece of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency are “a conspiracy theory with no basis”.
Accusing the Guardian and New York Times of selectively publishing cables which served Western interests, he writes, “Just like the Guardian and NYT, the Pakistani media retains the right to manipulate and highlight WikiLeaks documents that serve our interest. This could involve some exaggeration in some parts of the media.”
Matrixx,
Everything else you said is fine with me, except,
“According to you all Pakistanis are mentally sick, then you are in big trouble.
Is it not right of a country to determine who is friend or enemy?”
We have been in big trouble for a long time. This is not new. I did not know countries suddenly choose to become enemies. That is very childish. Countries always strive to be friendly or stay away from each other. Enmity can be created and sustained by false propaganda, misperception, apprehension, paranoia and sheer contempt. In the case of Pakistan, all these have been used by those in power to sustain unnecessary enmity towards India. Even the recent Pakileaks have been driven with that motive – whatever can help widen the gap between India and Pakistan and can build more mistrust has been tried by vested groups holding on to indirect power. That is unfortunate.
India has not chosen to be an enemy of Pakistan or China. We’d like to co-exist. At least that has been the case for the past two decades. If we simply co-existed, we could focus more on progress. Everything else will take care of itself. In fact that is what India has done internally – co-exist and work on progress, A lot of differences have begun to disappear.
On WikiLeaks, India, Pakistan and a partisan media
Reading through some of the WikiLeaks cables, I have been struck by how easy it might be to take the fragmentary and often outdated information contained in them and make a case to support either side of the India-Pakistan divide. Now it turns out someone did, but without even the support of the underlying cables, according to this version of Pakistani media reports by the Pakistan blog Cafe Pyala of alleged Indian skulduggery, including in Baluchistan.
As Cafe Pyala notes, Pakistan’s The News and various other papers cited the alleged cables as proof of alleged Indian involvement in creating trouble in Baluchistan and Waziristan. These allegations were included amongst others that anyone who follows the subject closely hears being bandied about between India and Pakistan. (Reporting on those allegations is much harder, for reasons I will discuss below.)
But according to Cafe Pyala these cables may not even exist, but are rather the work of intelligence agencies telling the media what is to be found in them. ”Small wonder The News and Jang give the source of the report as ‘Agencies’,” it says. “Question: How stupid do the ‘Agencies’ really think Pakistanis are?”
This is terribly confusing, as it is hard enough to make sense of the WikiLeaks cables on India and Pakistan, without having to filter out what intelligence agencies/media say about what may or may not be in that huge database of leaked U.S. embassy reports.
As it is, we have to keep in mind the idea that the cables are only as accurate (we assume) as the ambassadors who penned them were able to make them, given that they themselves were dependent on sources who might, or might not, have been telling the truth. They are not gospel (and odd that in Pakistan which tends to distrust everything the Americans say, they are being treated as such.)
So two points – one on Baluchistan, and the other on the media in India and Pakistan.
For background, Islamabad accuses India of using its presence in Afghanistan to destabilise Pakistan, particularly by funding and arming separatists in Baluchistan. India denies this, and says it is interested only in promoting development in Afghanistan. The Indian consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad particularly trouble Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, which sees them as bases for alleged nefarious activity by its rival, India’s Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) spy agency.
777xxx777: “Surprisingly people in Pakistan do not need wheat or rice but only false hatred propaganda to survive.”
I agree entirely. For some reason Pakistan’s leaders have tried to maintain unity of their country by creating virtual monsters out of India – Hindus are out to get Muslims, RAW is behind all turmoils, India poses existential threat to Pakistan, India is bullying etc. This mindset results in unnecessary apprehension and over reaction that make things worse. Lack of progress and continued slide towards radicalism and backwardness has made things even worse. Fear of India has been the uniting factor for Pakistan and its very survival. It is like being on an overdose of steroids. At some point it will destroy things from within. What can we do to change their perspectives? No matter what we tell them, they seem to keep going in the same circle of thought process.
Pakistan talks up al Qaeda/Taliban split
Pakistan is increasingly talking up the need for a political settlement in Afghanistan which would force al Qaeda to leave the region. And while there is little sign yet Washington is ready to hold serious negotiations with Afghan insurgents, analysts detect a new tone in Pakistani comments about driving Osama bin Laden’s organization out of its haven on the Pakistan border.
A senior security official said the Afghan stalemate could be lifted by setting a minimum agenda in which insurgents broke with al Qaeda. There were indications, he said, they could renounce the organisation and ask it to leave the region. Senior politician Maulana Fazal-ur-Rehman, a pro-Taliban member of the ruling coalition, also said a settlement “would squeeze the room for al Qaeda.” ”Al Qaeda will have to fall in line or leave the region,” he told Reuters in an interview late last month.
As discussed in the story, there is no evidence that the United States is ready yet for serious negotiations with Afghan insurgents – although over the course of this year it has become more open to the idea. Official sources outside Washington speak of widespread confusion over U.S. plans in Afghanistan, with the Pentagon in particular seen as pushing for ramped-up military operations and the State Department more open to exploring diplomatic solutions.
At the same time, some also speak of confusion over U.S. goals in Afghanistan. This is significant because the confusion fuels conspiracy theories among those who suspect the United States has other motives for being in Afghanistan than defeating al Qaeda — its original reason for sending troops there after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Those conspiracy theories undermine U.S. efforts to win hearts and minds and feed a jihadi world view that they are engaged in a “David and Goliath” struggle against U.S. imperialism. And that in turn undercuts any gains the U.S. military might make on the battlefield in Afghanistan, or any public support it might hope to garner through financial aid to Pakistan.
By talking up the idea of a split between the Taliban and al Qaeda, Pakistan also appears to be trying to nudge the debate back into the original reason for the Afghan war. A senior security official said Washington should set “end conditions” for Afghanistan. A break with al Qaeda would be a requirement on which there could be no compromise. But concessions would have to be made on other U.S. preconditions for talks, which include a requirement that insurgents renounce violence and promise to respect the Afghan constitution.
Exactly how a Taliban/AQ split would work is unclear; as are the questions of if, how, and where al Qaeda leaders would go if they were forced out of their safe haven on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Nor is it clear what would happen to other al-Qaeda linked militants in Pakistan if for example bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al Zawahiri were to move. India in particular would be anxious that any political settlement in Afghanistan which forced out al Qaeda would leave intact what it calls “the infrastructure of terrorism” in Pakistan.
@777
Let me agree with your comments and move on! Things are as they are, be happy.
Rex Minor
@777
i am not the kniow all, see my note to Mortal! God bless you, ask fewer questions and meditate to see solutions. We are all in the same boat and are affected by actions of others.
Let us be kind to those who are still living in 16th century for one or other reason. Try to remember the greek whio said war does not solve anything, but destroys more!
A good year to you!
Rex Minor