The Pakistan Link to Mumbai;
Rashid: It was a Diversionary Tactic
The Times of India worries that fundamentalist violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan are spilling over into India:
'In Pakistan, deaths in bomb blasts and other fidayeen attacks and actions of security forces have increased almost 10 times in the last four years from 648 in 2005 to 6,310 in 2008, till November-end . . . According to the last report by the UN secretary-general, submitted in September this year, 1445 civilians had been killed in the first eight months of 2008. Of these about 800 were killed by the Taliban and the rest by Nato troops.
In 2007, the death toll was 1,633, while in 2006 it was 929. . . What has all this got to do with terrorist violence in India? For one, the players are virtually the same. The same fundamentalist groups that spread violence in Pakistan are supporting or themselves carrying out attacks in India. '
As the Times says as well, Ahmed Rashid correctly argues that the terrorist attack on Mumbai was a diversionary tactic, aimed and relieving the Pakistani military pressure on the Tehrik-i Taliban Pakistan in the tribal agencies and on the remnants of al-Qaeda. Neither India nor Pakistan should fall for this tactic.
Indian interrogations of the sole surviving Mumbai attacker, Ajmal Amir Qassab, revealed that Lashkar-e Tayiba operatives Yusuf Muzammil and Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi were directly involved in planning and guiding the attacks, and were in continual telephone contact with the perpetrators.
The Indians insist that they also have evidence that the Pakistani military was behind the attack. But it seems to me that what they have evidence of is that the Pakistani military at some points in the past has trained and equipped the Lashkar-e Tayiba terrorist organization for operations against Indian security men in Kashmir. I doubt that the Mumbai operation was coming from high in the Pakistani government.
The Indians say that ex-military men from the Pakistani army helped train the attackers. But the Pakistani government has been purging the radical fundamentalists from the army, so it seems to me that the ex-military doing training may be a sign that they were frustrated by being cashiered and wanted to sharpen the contradictions between India and Pakistan so as to pursue their own war in Kashmir.
Anand Gopal asks at Tomdispatch.com "Who are the Taliban?" in Afghanistan.
posted by Juan Cole @ 12/05/2008 12:39:00 AM
|
Facebook
8 Comments:
An article in yesterday's ToI claimed that the Indian Government (and the US ?) had evidence of ISI involvement in Mumbai attacks. It painted a picture of Pakistan being in control of military, rather than civilian authorities, which does seem plausible. It gives the example of the ISI chief who was announced to be going to India, but was then replaced by someone more junior. Another example is Pak FM Qureshi who seems to have been whisked out of India at the behest of the military.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India_has_proof_of_ISI_role_in_Mumbai_attacks_Sources/articleshow/3793773.cms
I agree that the Mumbai-Massacre wasn't a Pakistan government operation. It stems from the Bush sponsored treaty between Pakistan and Taliban that was signed near the 5th anniversary of 9-11. Bush indulges the $3.5 billion heroin trade among Pashtos, and that - with the Taliban's 15% cut - has allowed the sanctioned jihad terror authority to expand operations.
I believe that the purpose of the massacre was - far from tactical killing for itself - a strategic operation, designed to reveal the absolute impotence of seculars in face of Central Asian terrorism.
If the Bush-Karzai heroin trade is allowed to create a larger war chest - while the Orwellian War-War with NATO suicidists continues - the last vestiges of Secularism will collapse in Central Asia.
Remember: under sanctions on 9-11, Pakistan Seculars were dictating terms to the jihadists, as foreign reserves neared zero. Without succumbing to de-militarization, Pakistan would have been quartered among the major ethnic divisions. Instead, under sham Bush "freedom" jihadists took control of 2 provinces.
Despise Bush for this: he did more to murder Secularism than all the Islamist terrorists. Two years ago Egytpian Cabinet Ministers were photographed with their wives, each woman was wearing Islamic garb. In a similar photo taking during the Carter Presidency, ALL of the women were garbed. Bush did more to reverse freedom in the world than any tyrant in the past 40 years.
The US is doing a masterful job in ignighting and spreading fundamentalist violence throughtout the Middle East. Now added to their successful record is South Asia where the US is swiftly ignighting and spreading fundamentalist untold violence through India, Pakistan, and Afghanstan.
Gee, the US is batting 1000 in their foreign policy cataclysmic failures. Actually, a word has not yet been invented to describe the depth and scope of these foreign policy failure.
I don't think that the world will be a safe place as long as Pakistan is not held accountable for supporting, funding and training the Taliban, Al Qaeda and their offshoots to foment revolution, instability and terror across the globe.
If Mexico were training terrorists to attack the US, we would send the US military in a heartbeat to attack Mexican hideouts - with or without their consent. I feel for the people of India, as they are the victims of the Pakistani ISI-supported terrorists. Pakistan's ISI has more to do with terrorism on a global scale than Afghanistan or Iran and we can go on denying that fact, or we can do something to end their funding of global terror.
The US should cease to support the Pakistani government with any military and monetary aid unless it immediately starts acting like a responsible state and pursues the terrorists in their own borders and either captures or eliminates them. When it captures them - they should stand trial for their crimes in the nations they attacked as well.
I don't think Pakistan will cooperate, because they do actively support their home-grown terrorism. Their actions speak louder than their words. Every terrorist that attacks foreign soil seems to have a safe-haven in Pakistan - so why shouldn't the world react and put an end to their safe-havens and "lawless" tribal area?
The same is true of the Somali Pirates - end the safe-havens with military action and they won't be able or willing to act. Pursue the monetary sponsors and try them for their crimes in international courts of Justice.
Why is this simple effective answer ignored? Because Pakistan has nukes? That's all the more reason to take action - the nukes are definitely a danger - and it was a Pakistani who endangered the world selling nuclear technology to terrorists.
I do not believe that Pakistan is an ally - they are actively supporting the Taliban and others and giving them safe-havens from which to operate. It's just sad that the world has to be reminded of this with every new terror attack, and sadder still that the UN hasn't said that enough is enough and put an end to the Pakistani lawlessness.
In 1939, Polish lawlessness (didn't they take their bite out of Czechoslovakia in March?), Romanian lawlesness, and Italian lawlessness did exist. But the real problem was German lawlessness, notably the German invasion of Poland.
In the same way, talking today about Pakistani lawlessness or that of people who blow others up with suicide bombs is catching the kitten and letting the cat get away.
The real problem in the world is American imperial lawlessness. This is the power that has murdered many hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan and driven millions from their homes, which has filled these lands with depleted uranium dust in order to kill people forever, and whose aims are unlimited, insatiable.
You don't have to like people like the Taliban to recognize that they're satisfied if their invaders just go home and leave their countries alone. The invaders are clearly not satisfied unless they can devour the whole earth.
This is the lawless power that must be stopped, like Nazi Germany, because unlike the others involved, it is unwilling and unable to let other live. Unlike others, it can't be persuaded to stay out of other people's countries, defiling their skies with helicopters and Predator drones that blow up wedding parties. Until that power is removed from the necks of people who want the same freedom from invasion and torment that Americans expect for themselves, it's pretty ridiculous to worry about the far smaller and less dangerous misdeeds of others.
Peter Attwood says:
"You don't have to like people like the Taliban to recognize that they're satisfied if their invaders just go home and leave their countries alone."
Really Peter, because the last time I checked the Taliban record they were not going to be satisfied until the world converted to their form of Islam, where flying kites, dancing, watching tv, and a host of other things were banned for their satisfaction.
The Taliban hosted al-Qaida and if it were up to me we would have sent every prisoner to this chap named Dostam - he knows how to deal with these people.
"The Indians insist that they also have evidence that the Pakistani military was behind the attack. But it seems to me that what they have evidence of is that the Pakistani military at some points in the past has trained and equipped the Lashkar-e Tayiba terrorist organization for operations against Indian security men in Kashmir. I doubt that the Mumbai operation was coming from high in the Pakistani government."
The Pakistani military is no longer a part of the Pakistani government, so blaming it does not mean blaming higher-ups in the Pakistani government anyway. You're doubting a statement no-one made.
The evidence you quoted is perfectly consistent with Pakistani military involvement, since, obviously, if they trained/supported the LeT, they have inside influence in the LeT.
In sum, the line starting 'But' does not contradict what India said, and the line starting 'I doubt' doubts a claim that has not been made and doesn't follow from the evidence.
One of the lessons of the Mumbai attacks for the future, is to take alive as many of the attackers as possible, while simultaneously reducing the number of murders they commit.
Violence is often fueled with drugs of various kinds. In this case reports suggested that the attackers were enhanced by cocaine and other drugs, suggesting to me the parallel with the tote of rum before going over the top in the First World War, or the earlier example of the Assassins.
Somebody, now it is too late, tell G Bush and the neocons, you need all round strength, including intellectual strength, for peace.
Post a Comment
<< Home