ISI Linked to Indian Embassy Bombing;
McCain client Musharraf Likely Implicated
How much of the $10 billion in aid Bush and Cheney gave to Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf after September 11 ended up being used to kill US, NATO and Afghan troops in Afghanistan?
NYT reports that US intelligence intercepted communications between elements of the Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan's military intelligence division, indicating that they gave support to the Haqqani group of Pushtun guerrillas in bombing the Indian embassy in Kabul. 
Haqqani
There have long been suspicions that the Pakistani military was using Pushtun guerrillas to project power into Afghanistan, even as they fought them inside Pakistan itself. The NYT was told by US government officials that this intercept was the first smoking gun proving that active-duty ISI officers were complicit with violence in Afghanistan (and therefore with attacks on US and NATO troops.)
The Pakistani military has tight command and control. ISI's collaboration with the neo-Taliban and other guerrilla groups could not occur without the knowledge and acquiescence of Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, who was chief of staff until last fall. That is, Cheney, Bush and McCain have backed to the hilt a military dictator who has continued the old 1980s and 1990s policy of supporting Pushtun guerrillas as a way of a) dominating Afghanistan and b) training other guerrillas to hit Kashmir.
Here is what McCain said about Musharraf last winter:
' "I continue to believe Musharraf has done a pretty good job, done a lot of the things that we wanted him to do . . . I would remind some of my fellow Americans that Benazir Bhutto and [former prime minister Nawaz] Sharif presided over failed states, there was corruption, there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf took charge...I would like to give Musharraf some credit for taking the measures that we asked him to do." '
 |  |
Musharraf's 'successful state' involved dismissing the Supreme Court, provoking massive and repeated demonstrations, violating the constitution, interfering with free and fair elections, and presiding over a virtual national meltdown on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto late last December. McCain appears to value nothing beyond sheer military might-- even if it has shady contacts to al-Qaeda!
When the newly elected civilian government of Pakistan tried to put the ISI under the civilian Ministry of the Interior last weekend, it was quickly reversed by the generals. The US government (and the candidates) should be supporting the elected civilian government in its efforts to get control of the ISI.
This news is not about Pakistan, since most Pakistanis dislike al-Qaeda and the Taliban. It is not about the elected Pakistani government. It is not even about the Pakistani military, which has fought hard battles against the Pakistani Taliban and suffered hundreds of casualties in so doing. It is about corruption in the Pakistani officer corps and the penetration of pro- al-Qaeda elements in the ISI.
Pakistani PM Yousef Raza Gilani is in denial about the ISI/ Taliban links, or perhaps he doesn't want to provoke an immediate crisis with the Pakistani military, which has been known to make coups. His Pakistan People's Party has been reluctant to see Musharraf impeached, since de facto party leader Asaf Ali Zardari (Benazir's widower) has behaved corruptly in the past and could be at risk for some of the same charges levelled at Musharraf.
You think you're angry? Talk to someone from Delhi about all this right about now.
posted by Juan Cole @ 8/01/2008 01:22:00 AM
Click to join Infoco
15 Comments:
Unfortunately, this information (if it is at all true) may be used to justify Pakistan as another Islamic axis-of-evil country, backing Al Qaeda/Taliban/Emmanuel Goldstein, and maybe harming Americans who invaded a country that was only acting as host to a man the Americans themselves nurtured.
Doesn't all this get a bit over-complicated, Juan ?
Please set out a half-page memo to those two idiots, Obama and McCain, of one-liners about why everybody else but Afghans should tuck their tails between their legs, and get out, pronto!
Leaving their wallets behind, of course.
With artillery duels on the Kashmir frontier, a wobbly but nuclear Pakistan is engaged in low grade wars on 3 fronts. Maybe four if you count the clandestine bombing of embassies in, Karachi and Kabul, and larger assaults on Indian gov't targets.
Today Pres. Bush announced the beginning of an Iraq troop draw down this year Actually a reduced replacement schedule, since men still will be serving 15 month tours after he is back in Crawford next January. 'Progress in Iraq' means that forces scheduled for Iraq late this year will continue the expansion of US forces on the Afghanistan-Pakistan frontier.
So the great game goes another lethal round, with the appearance of Democratic congressional and candidate Obama's support.
When you drop a House on the wicked witch, it really is a good idea to certify the bully is truly and sincerely dead.
'Unfortunately, this information (if it is at all true) may be used to justify Pakistan as another Islamic axis-of-evil country, backing Al Qaeda/Taliban/Emmanuel Goldstein,'
It is not at all necessary that the information will be misused.
Note that this is information that is actually *contrary* to the policies that the Bush administration & the McCain- wannabe administration is following. Only the power-centers they're backing have been indicted in supporting terrorism.
Certainly it should not be suppressed just because of a *remote extrapolated* possibility far from the stuff that's actually been said. The people who did the whole "axis of evil" thing are actually being corrected about their "friends" in another country.
I was wondering if one could view the situation of corruption in the Pakistani officer corps and the penetration of pro- al-Qaeda elements in the ISI as being something like the manner in which the United States military has a cadre of influential Christian evangelicals pushing their sectarian agendas.
The absence of negative consequences or at times active, positive reinforcement leads to the growth of such actions. Once put beyond oversight and punishment by things like Rule of Law, people aggregate and grow from individual actions to wholesale infestation. While not exactly the same, but in both instances deeply held religious convictions found itself entwined with nationalism and as the opportunities presented themselves people exercised their power in a manner they saw fit. In Pakistan/Afghanistan one gets terror bombings and the destabilization of foreign states, but in the United States the efforts lead to Rods from God projects or our own work in reshaping the internals of other nations.
Maybe it is an oversimplification on my part, but the the scenario described in Pakistan/Afghanistan does not seem all that far removed Uber Alles attitude other nations like the United States exhibit frequently. Not that such actions are excused or condoned, but that these actions have a repeating pattern. It would be nice if greater efforts were put into removing the initial conditions, and less time was spent dealing with the after effects.
More unquestionable evidence that we need to bomb Iran.
As an admirer of yours, I must comment on your new photo...It still does not due you justice..:)
Well, I think you have pulled an interesting story here Juan.
ISI is indeed a powerful organization because of the strategic importance of Pakistan's existence on the map of the world.
It has also been extensively used by the former military dictator Mr. Zia-Ul-Haq for a long time to help breed a generation of freedom fighters, who now are a threat to the national security of Pakistan.
It is just that the recent decision to reverse ISI being run by a civilian government has got bells ringing everywhere. Which I do agree, is a very unprofessional thing to do. But as far as Musharraf being involved, and the Senator McCain quote goes, the argument is not valid enough as this is against President Musharraf's ideology of 'Enlightened Moderation'. Also if this was true, I am sure Washington would have said a word or two to Mr. Gilani on his recent visit to U.S.
www.NATO => official news : International Security Assistance Force
Wiki => ISAF - International Security Assistance Force : “was initially charged with securing metro Kabul from the Taliban, al Qaeda and factional warlords, so as to allow for the establishment of the ‘Afghan Transitional Administration’ headed by Hamid Karzai. In October of 2003, the U.N. Security Council authorized the expansion of the ISAF mission throughout Afghanistan, and ISAF subsequently expanded its mission in four main stages over the whole of the country. Since 2006, the ISAF has been involved in more intensive combat operations in southern Afghanistan ~ a tendency which continued in 2007-present. Attacks on the ISAF in other parts of Afghanistan are also mounting...”
beyond ‘IRAQ’, there is “THE WAR, apparent” . . .
Wiki => OEF - Operation Enduring Freedom : “is the official name used by the U.S. Government for "its contribution" [!] to the ‘War’ in Afghanistan, together with three smaller military actions, under the umbrella of the American [concept of a conflict that they call the] ‘Global War on Terrorism’ (GWOT).”
“Operation Enduring Freedom actually comprises several subordinate operations:
[1] Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan (OEF-A)
[2] Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines (OEF-P) (formerly Operation Freedom Eagle)
[3] Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa (OEF-HOA)
[4] Operation Enduring Freedom - Trans Sahara (OEF-TS)
[5] Operation Enduring Freedom - Kyrgyzstan (completed in 2004)
[6] Operation Enduring Freedom - Pankisi Gorge (completed in 2004)
The term "OEF" typically refers to ‘the war’ in Afghanistan. Other operations, such as the Georgia Train and Equip Program, are only loosely or nominally connected to OEF, such as through government funding vehicles. All the operations, however, have a focus on "antiterrorism activities". For example, Operation Enduring Freedom - Kyrgyzstan was baisically an operation to clear out al-Qaeda forces in Kyrgyzstan so that Operation Enduring Freedom Allies could use Kyrgyzstan as a base in central Asia.
It should be noted that Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan, which is a joint US and Afghan operation, is separate from the ISAF, which is an operation of NATO nations of which the USA is but one of many member participants.
The two operations run in parallel, and although it was intended that they merge, this has not yet happened.”
n'oubliez jamais: "We've always been ‘at war’ with EastAsia."
_
Dear Juan,
I am sorry to say, this analysis is pretty bad.
I notice that consistent with the US liberal conception of Afghanistan as the 'good war', the usual skepticism that any pronouncement from unnamed US officials should merit is frequently suspended. That some within the ranks of the ISI are sympathetic to the loose coalition of Pashtun nationalists, Islamists, traditionalists or merely disgruntled rural poor indiscriminately labeled the 'taliban' is hardly a secret; so is most of the population in the provinces bordering Pakistan. But to suggest that ISI is aiding 'taliban' as policy is one extrapolation too far. To assume that ISI would furnish the 'taliban' with weapons and targets at a time when the Pakistani army is making up most of its kills, you'll also have to assume that its director general is a bald guy witha monocle in a silver suit who schemes unimaginable evil while stroking a white cat. It is a false narrative long championed by US-Euro liberals, besides, of course, the usual suspects.
Let me also add that I find the commentary on matters relating to Afghanistan-Pakistan on the ICGA blog equally weak, and often misleading. The biggest problem for western analysts is sourcing. They invariably turn to people they can identify with culturally and intellectually. Which inevitably means urban liberals, often from Lahore, Islamabad, Karachi, who are culturally ignorant, linguistically challenged, and historically prejudiced. So when an 'expert' such as Rubin plugs for a book by Ahmed Rashid one could only shake their heads. (by comparison see Tariq Ali's perceptive comments in the London Review of Books on the same author) Here was my immediate response to that post:
Rashid, for those who don't know, is a second rate hack who has been propagandizing in favour of Bush's war-on-terror since its inception. He has generally received favourable audience in the West(including garnering a blurb from Tony Blair) because 1. he confirms their stereotypes of the Afghan/Pathan as an infantile savage who could only do harm if it weren't for the benevolent attention of the sort Bush dispenses 2. because his audience generally knows even less than he does.
I'd advise anyone reading this post to watch Rashid's pro-war on terror propaganda on (believe it or not) Democracy Now before they choose to waste their fast devaluing dollars on this crap. I have already addressed some of the nonsense Rashid spews here.
And for those who are serious about understanding the realities of the region, I would recommend the reports of Rahimullah Yusufzai in The News (Pakistan). He doesn't go and speak to three government officials and a general and pass it for area expertise. He knows the culture, speaks the language and reports from the ground. (You could also check an excellent interview David Barsamian did with him last december on Alternative Radio).
The problem with most Western commentators is that when they want to study a foreign region they seek out sources in their own image -- anglophone, liberal, pro-western. The whole cultural dynamic is lost. When you get a Punjabi liberal from Lahore or Islamabad dispensing 'expert opinion' on developments in the North-West or Baluchistan, you are not very likely to hear about the grievances that fuel their rage. Instead you hear catch-phrases -- 'extremist', 'fundamentalist', 'taliban' etc. Questions of identity, ethnicity or class are rarely broached in such analyses.
It is highly embarrsassing for the US to publicly accuse an 'ally'
of blowing up an embassy in a country which it is occupying.
So this painful report is almost certainly true and I would imagine that the US had to release it before it leaked out.
---------------------------------
And I think Americans can sympathize with pakistanis having
our own intelligence services linked with a number of quasi-terrorist/drug dealer/freedom fighter
groups paid for by unwitting/unwilling US taxpayers such as the Nicaraguan contras and the Miami Cubans. Often it becomes economical for the ISI/CIA etc. to hire barely controllable thugs under the rubric of plausible deniability to do some dirty work(authorized or not).
And there 'usefulness' extends into all kinds of operations; here
I'm thinking of the 'Watergate cubans' types who deployed to do 'jobs' even when it comes to messing with sacred national institutions.
So I don't see it as an 'axis of evil/Comintern' operation masterminded by Musharraf or some highlevel general
but a kind of corruption that is a danger to the Pakistani people.
If you lie down with dogs you wake up with fleas.
The solution is a housecleaning of ISI and strong medicine for the thugs. Everyone has to do these things.
Personally, I wonder if any so-called intelligence services anywhere are worth their always dirty laundry.
And the effect of not housecleaning is obvious. Benazir Bhutto was suicide bombed on 10/18/07 and assasinated on 12/27/07 by Baitallah Mehsud(he claimed it), a Pashtun Taliban-Al Qaeda and as a tribal leader a probable ISI asset much of the time.
The systematic aspects of this outrage were never seriously addressed and so the problem persists. I also suspect that the politicians even around Bhutto are not eager to root out corruption in the name of justice.
As with Reagan's cowboy CIA I would ask is ISI worth ANYTHING?
m.idrees, you sound like a KSA intelligence or ISI asset.
Do you support violent attacks against Afghanistan's elected government, and the Afghan army and police that serve it?
Do you support violent attacks against Pakistan's elected government?
I suspect the answer to all these questions is yes. Tariq Ali supports violent attacks againt all the above.
Re doubts whether ISI really is waging a proxy war against India and the Kabul regime:
Everyone is entitled and encouraged to ask "who is talking publicly about spywars, to who, and why? But read the NYT article before offering alternate theories. It's pretty well sourced and details top-shelf CIA Deputy and Presidential protests to Paki opposites.
Re statements that ISI is either worthless or out of control:
Don't sell ISI short, just because they are desperate. Assymetric warfare from Paki safe havens seems to be having a leveraged effect of the sort that wore out the Soviets, Iranians and Indiansin prior wars. Out of whose control, and under whose control is the double-edged nuclear question.
Whether it's double-dealing depends on what side the ISI enablers of Reagan's 'brave freedom fighters' started out on in the first place. Saudi spymaster-prince Turki al Faisal might be one to ask. Allah's own bomb needs Allah's own spy service.
The comments here are moderated, so I must say I am a surprised to read garbage of the following nature:
An-and writes:
m.idrees, you sound like a KSA intelligence or ISI asset.
Do you support violent attacks against Afghanistan's elected government, and the Afghan army and police that serve it?
Do you support violent attacks against Pakistan's elected government?
I suspect the answer to all these questions is yes. Tariq Ali supports violent attacks againt all the above.
Genius! And then Wounded something adds:
Allah's own bomb needs Allah's own spy service.
Since Allah's needs are so mundane, perhaps he also needs satellite phone, an executive jet, a stock broker, a spin doctor and, not least, a G4 security guard.
Re: Ahmed Rashid and M Idrees
I sincerely appreciate the divergence of views expressed on this site. I do find it excessive when M. Idrees calls Rashid a hack, and implies that he does not speak any language spoken in Pakistan. Both charges are false, Rashid is a Pakistani, and he is a lot more than just a writer (much less a hack). He was a participant in the UN deliberations that set up the loya jirga for Afghanistan. He also wrote the all time best seller ever published by Yale University Press ("The Taliban").
So my preference is to listen to sincere disagreements, hopefully they will be articulately expressed, but without the ad hominem attacks.
Anonymous:
Your post shows that you don't know a whole lot about Pakistan, but insist on having an opinion regardless. Yeah, Rashid is a Pakistani, from Punjab. Languages spoke: Punjabi, Urdu. The fighting is taking place in the North West. Languages spoke: Pashtu, Khowar, Saraiki, Hindko and a slew of dialects. Urdu is the langua franca, chosen precisely because it is no one's mother tongue. If you can show that he speaks Pashtu, or Farsi then you'd have a point.
Secondly, having a bestseller with blurbs from such Afghan scholars as Tony Blair or participating in a US imposed UN deliberation (recall that any group that expressed disapproval of US bombing campaign was disinvited) is hardly a measure of a journalists credibility. Indeed, the opposite.
Post a Comment
<< Home