The AFPAK Channel
Inside the war for central asia Twitter Facebook RSS
Daily Brief Latest from the Blog Latest from FP

Taliban strategy comes full circle

By Imtiaz Gul, September 22, 2010 Share

Late last week, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, General David Petraeus, and American AfPak special envoy Richard Holbrook descended on Islamabad to jointly think a way out of the Afghan imbroglio.

Officials touted their meetings with Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, ISI officials and civilian Pakistani leaders as routine brainstorming sessions. Yet Afghanistan's surge in violence and its extremely low turnout in the Afghan parliamentary election two days later on Saturday, betray the bitter truth: the region is in crisis. Afghans are fear-stricken, the American top brass is frustrated by its failure in showcasing any tangible success back home, Karzai is resentful of Washington's high-handed approach and Pakistan itself is struggling with the consequences of an over-bearing counter-insurgency campaign, complicated by recent devastating floods. Not only do the stakeholders feel they're getting nowhere -- they feel like they're moving deeper into chaos.

This frustration essentially stems from an approach that from the first day centered more on money and military muscle than on long-term strategies.

Indeed, only two days before the big heads gathered in Islamabad, the National Security Archive (NSA) in Washington released several previously secret U.S. government documents which shed considerable light on the strategic missteps of the current war.

Contents of some of the memos suggest that despite joining hands in the anti-terror war in Afghanistan, there was little love lost between Washington and Islamabad in the aftermath of 9/11 - and that their differences centered on the question of how to best counter the Taliban

"We will not flinch from a military victory... but a strike will produce thousands of frustrated young Muslim men, it will be an incubator of anger that will explode two or three years from now," former ISI chief Gen. Mahmud Ahmed had told U.S. ambassador to Islamabad Wendy Chamberlin on September 23, 2001, according to a 12-page document titled "Islamabad 5337."

General Mahmud expressed these reservations after Chamberlin had "bluntly" ruled out a dialogue with the Taliban. The United States responded by pressuring Pakistan to sideline Mahmud (President Musharraf forced him to retire not long thereafter.)

Nine years since the U.S. and its allies unleashed war, the approach to Taliban has now come full circle. Where United States officials were once snubbing Pakistani requests for patience and dialogue, they are now seeking to "flip" Taliban militants.

The consequences of this long delay for Pakistan have been nightmarish. Particularly since 2007, thousands of angry young Muslims, inspired by al Qaeda's pan-Islamist revolutionary and anti-American appeals and trained in the remote tribal regions, have swelled the ranks of Pakistan's domestic radical outfits such as the TTP and Lashkare Jhangvi. Hundreds have blown themselves up in suicide bombings across Pakistan, killing thousands of innocent women and children as well as security personnel -- all in the name of Jihad against the "infidels occupying Afghanistan."

In another memo by NSA, Ronald E. Neumann, former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, had warned Washington in 2005 that "if the (al Qaeda ) sanctuary in Pakistan were not addressed it would lead to the re-emergence of the same strategic threat to the United States that prompted our (Operation Enduring Freedom] intervention in 2001."

"The 2005 Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan was a direct product of the four years that the Taliban has had to reorganize and think about their approach in a sanctuary beyond the reach of either government," Neumann wrote.

The sanctuary Neumann alluded to in his dispatches to Washington was obviously the Waziri border lands where Osama bin Laden and his cohorts settled down after their defeat by the U.S.-led coalition. The memos clearly explain how a porous and mountainous region spread over 27,200 square kilometers turned into a sanctuary for al-Qaeda and its Afghan affiliates. Initially "the tribes in [FATA regions] were overawed by U.S. firepower" after 9/11, which provided the Pakistan army a window of opportunity to march in, but the areas quickly became "no-go areas" where the Taliban could reorganize and plan their resurgence in Afghanistan, the NSA papers quote Neumann as saying.

And, as the events suggest, FATA did turn into a haven for al Qaeda, where it found local and foreign allies and facilitators to launch attacks on the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Not only that; FATA also became the birthplace for the Tehreeke Taliban Pakistan (TTP), a vicious al-Qaeda auxiliary that rose in the mountains of the Waziristan region, where Faisal Shehzad, the man behind the May One botched Times Square bombing attempt , received his terrorist training.

For FATA and its residents, it has been both a painful as well as a frightening ordeal; the Operation Enduring Freedom and the hunt for al Qaeda plucked these ultra-conservative and practically lawless regions from obscurity and brought them into the international limelight. Not only because of bin Laden but also because the Waziristan region became the breeding ground for future terrorists, something many in Pakistan including Gen. Mahmud Ahmed and Masood Sharif Khattak, former head of the Intelligence Bureau had warned about in September 2001.

The latest round of general elections in Afghanistan, accompanied by widespread violence and intimidation, doesn't inspire much hope for the future. The dire straits require all stake-holders to take a broader view of the situation, one embedded in ground truths, rather than driven by selfish concerns and considerations.

Imtiaz Gul heads the Centre for Research and Security Studies, Islamabad and is the author of The Most Dangerous Place.

 

MARTY MARTEL

5:57 PM ET

September 22, 2010

Pakistani Army created Taliban to begin with

Let us NOT forget that nobody forced it but Pakistani Army and ISI created what ex-CIA official Bruce Reidel called 'this jihadist Frankenstein monster' on their own with full financing provided by Pakistan’s democratic governments during 1990s.

Sandy Berger, Clinton’s national security advisor told 9/11 Commission in 2004 that Pakistani Army was the ‘midwife’ of Taliban. UN report on Bhutto killing published in April, 2010 confirmed this fact when it stated that ‘Pakistani Army organized Taliban movement and installed Taliban government in Afghanistan in 1996.’

But US government and news media intentionally continue to ignore Taliban’s Pakistani connections in fueling and sustaining Afghan insurgency as reported by Matt Waldman in ‘The sun in the sky‘ on 6/13/10, corroborated by WikiLeaks leaks on 7/25/10 and then further corroborated by Chris Alexander, Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005 and Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Afghanistan from 2005 until 2009 in his article on 7/30/10 titled ‘The huge scale of Pakistan‘s complicity‘.

All American officers in southern Afghanistan know that they can not prevail in the ongoing military operations, unless Taliban strongholds across the Durand Line in North Waziristan and Baluchistan are neutralized. Adm Mullen and Gen Patraeus evidently do not want to acknowledge that hard options have to be considered if their soldiers are not to die at the hands of radicals, armed and trained across the Durand Line. This is where rubber meets the road for the famous General.

As Matt Waldman reported, “support for the Afghan Taliban is ‘official Pakistani ISI policy’ and is backed at the highest levels of Pakistan’s civilian administration. Pakistan appears to be playing a double game of astonishing magnitude. There is thus a strong case that the ISI orchestrates, sustains and shapes the overall insurgent campaign in Afghanistan.”

The ISI is said to compensate families of suicide bombers to the tune of 200,000 Pakistani rupees, claims the report. Thus US aid to bankrupt Pakistan finances the death of US/NATO soldiers in Afghanistan. So in a way, US is financing the death of its own troops in Afghanistan.

Pakistani government issued its usual denials just as it had denied umpteen times the existence of Mullah Mohammed Omar’s ‘Quetta Shura Taliban (QST)’ in the provincial capital Quetta of Baluchistan. But General Stanley McChrystal called QST as the biggest threat to US Afghan mission in his report to President Obama in August, 2009.

Pakistan has denied presence of Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil umpteen times and just recently Adm Mike Mullen repeated in Islamabad that Osama is hiding in a very secure place in Pakistan.

The most breath-taking part of this sordid saga is that US is NOT holding Pakistan responsible for sheltering, protecting and supporting Haqqani’s HQN network and Mullah Omar’s QST network all these years while those networks have been causing daily deaths of US/NATO soldiers ever since 2002 even though Pakistan was SUPPOSED to have joined US fight against same Taliban back in 2001!

With US mollycoddling such a duplicitous ally, its Afghan mission is headed for failure with Pakistan reestablishing its writ by reinstalling Taliban rule.

 

RAMIR

4:51 PM ET

September 23, 2010

Get your facts right !

The mujahideen (origins of Taliban) were significantly financed and armed (and are alleged to have been trained) by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the administrations of Carter and Reagan, and also by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan under Zia-ul-Haq, Iran, the People's Republic of China and several Western European countries. Pakistan's secret service, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), was used as an intermediary for most of these activities to disguise the sources of support for the resistance. One of the CIA's longest and most expensive covert operations was the supplying of billions of dollars in arms to the Afghan mujahideen militants.

Just like US supplied mustard gas, anthrax and other chemical weapons to Iraq, the US cannot deny its role in the cock-up of Afghanistan.

 

AEHSAN

2:43 AM ET

September 23, 2010

Or maybe its easy to blame Pakistan for US incompetence

Afetr the US too was involved in setting up the Muj..and they ultimately botched up the Afg invasion and diverted resources to Iraq (a completely useless venture - whcih too was botched). In addition they supported a Pak dictator against democratic forces, even though he was a key architect of the 'two-faced' Pak objectives and by the way still harbor and protect him. Net net - easy to blam Pak as a spolier; harder to admit US/Western incompetence.

 

VODKA

3:32 AM ET

September 23, 2010

YOU HEAR WHAT YOU WANT TO

If you have power you would only like to hear what you want to..............should have listened to Gen Mehmud. And oh............what ever happened in the mountains of Tora Bora??

 

ARYABHAT

4:29 AM ET

September 23, 2010

Pakiban

There is no Taliban but Pakiban and ISI is its Mother and Father.

 

RAMIR

4:57 PM ET

September 23, 2010

If you cannot contribute a

If you cannot contribute a convincing point of view or even a half decent opinion, then keep your rubbish to yourself.

 

VIDYUT

5:58 PM ET

September 24, 2010

Utter stupidity of the US

Actually, Pakistan has behaved consistently all through. Pakistan's loyalties, interests and methods have been consistent from before 9/11 to date. Indian's watched with a collective dropped jaw as Pakistan, which we were all fully expecting to be in trouble with the US became a strategic ally. Indian misgivings were dismissed as part of the Indo-Pak rhetoric.

It is utter stupidity on the part of the US to trust someone as an ally when their whole entry into the war has been as the better option to being bombed back to the stone age. Pakistan has carefully played US on this issue, delivering just enough to protect itself and upgrade its army and corrupt economy.

If they are fighting the Taliban today, it has nothing to do with the US and everything to do with the fact that the TTP has started bombing them. The Army has hijacked the country's economy, used funding to support covert wars in Afganistan and India.

Simple logic tells us that if militancy exists to such a degree, it needs tremendous infrastructure for training, arming, feeding, transporting, compensating, salaries, intelligence, promoting..... it is impossible that the Taliban are so ultra efficient that none of this is known or accessible to Pakistan to cut in. And if Pakistan truly is an ally and is unable to find these things, then perhaps the country should be ruled by someone more intelligent. In either case, its either a treacherous friend or stupid friend - not useful.

The stupidity is in the US continuing to pour money and weapons into Pakistan to assist, rebuild, influence, compensate and fifty other ways of the same thing - pay Pakistan to keep it working how it should. This is in spite of continuing support of covert resistances in Afganistan and India in spite of committments to dismantle terrorist infrastructures,

In the process, it has ruthlessly turned the country around and yesterday's heroes are todays villains, but heroes still, undercover. When has Pakistan given its word and lived up to it, that the US continues to expect loyalty and good intent?

The simple fact is that Pakistan is constitutionally incapable of honor and ethics.

 

VIDYUT

6:25 PM ET

September 24, 2010

US did great damage to Pakistan

Essentially, by forcing Pakistan to be an ally, the US made a large chunk of its population illegitimate. Connections between the ISI and the terrorist organizations went covert, citizens were expected to disown the heroes that projected their national interests in the region. The National fabric itself was torn.

Funding and compensations can't fix people. Attitudes remained unchanged. US is still enemy number one (after India, but that's a whole different story). The Taliban didn't drop in from the sky. They LIVE there. They have families, memories, connections..... kill one, and more get created in outrage.

The US didn't gain much either. It got bogged down in a war expending blood and money to shed more blood. India didn't gain much, with Pakistani Army getting fancy weapons (some of which are used against India). Afganistan is crumbling, because the same powers are sometimes their saviours and sometimes their killers. Having a coherent response is becoming more and more difficult.

Though possibly India did gain in the sense that with US in the region, Pakistan didn't try another war openly. That too did harm, with the Indian government already given to lethargic military attitudes becoming even more complacent, even as the covert war got increasingly and subtly more and more damaging.

In other words, the US started writing the script for the region without bothering about which role came naturally to whom. The biggest loser in this deal is truly Pakistan, with its loyalties fragmented, credibility in tatters as it joined the enemy in killing its own people and is losing the war. The common man's life became increasingly violent. The political leadership is near destroyed (not that there was much of one to begin with), because the leaders most likely to bring success to the country are not the ones likely to bring joy and congruity for the people, so no matter who is in power, it will not work. Today, Pakistan is a failed state and much as I'd like to say it deserved it, it didn't.

It would have been faster, more honest and cleansing to have outright attacked Pakistan in the beginning rather than demolish it subtly and totally by forcing it into something it simply wasn't geared for. At least the rebuilding would be honest and consistent with the reality of the nation.

America, in its desire to take the war to the enemy has done more damage than what it avenged. As an old woman I know put it, the greatest favour US did to India was that it didn't make it either an enemy or ally, since they all seem to suffer similar fates.