Karachi's violence and the war in Afghanistan

By Bilal Baloch, July 5, 2011 Share

President Barack Obama has made his decision, and by the end of this year 10,000 U.S. soldiers will leave Afghanistan. By September 2012, 23,000 more shall do the same. And to ensure that Afghanistan remains secure, some tens of thousands of additional Afghan security forces will be trained by the U.S., with diplomatic efforts will follow. But whether or not the American withdrawal and the likely ensuing deal with the Taliban ends the conflict, it is certain that the consequences will have a major impact on Pakistan.

After the last American exit from Afghanistan following the Soviet war in that country, Arab jihadists took the Afghan mujahideen under their umbrella, and set up shop in Pakistan, an outcome that, given the current climate of instability and militancy, could easily happen again. As the Brookings Institution scholar Dr. Vanda Felbab-Brown said about the current conflict, "an unstable Afghanistan will be like an ulcer bleeding into an already extremely unstable, extremely hollowed out-Pakistan and will encourage only the worst tendencies in Pakistan. This will severely compromise our strategic objectives." History shows that the type of substance this ulcer bleeds exacerbates pre-existing problems in parts of the country, something that is especially true in the bustling port city of Karachi.

In the aftermath of the Soviet war, a massive quantity of weapons found their way to Karachi. Among the countless recipients were two criminal leaders already enmeshed in a turf war, Rahman "Dacoit" and Ghaffar Zikri. Both laid claims to territory in the Liyari neighborhood, and their trade included drugs and looting, respectively. The influx of guns made them far more dangerous not only to each other, but also to the communities over which they claimed kingship. In addition to using the weapons in their own street war, the two men were able to sell the valuable metal to other gangs who were not a threat to their space. The additional power they gained through the acquisition and sale of weapons served to expand their spheres of influence. Political parties leapt to patronize men such as Rahman and Zikri, using them as a means to exploit new area and gain authority, undermine their opposition, and, above all, secure votes.

Though these turf wars existed during the 1990s, but were limited to certain parts of the city. Today, however, the fight for space in the booming city has increased alarmingly. In the main this has to do with illicit planning activity, including land grabs by mafias often acting on the instruction of political parties, and fueled by mass migration into the city.

Since 2007, thousands of people have entered Karachi, particularly arriving from Khyber-Pukhtunkhwa province and Afghanistan. Pashtuns from both sides of the Durand Line have now become indiscernible to the common man. Indeed, despite the presence of Pashtuns who have been peacefully living in, and contributing to, the economic and social fabric of Karachi for decades, some of the many thousands coming in from the northwest represent a new breed bent on sending money to the tribal areas, some of which goes to fund terrorist activity. This has certainly blemished the common perception of the community as a whole, and contributed to a decrease in security in parts of the city. Some areas controlled by the Pashtun community have been unofficially declared "no-go" areas, where the police fight tooth and nail to gain entry. In one example, a Pakistani officer told me recently that surveillance of a small group of houses in Pashtun-dominated Sohrab Ghot culminated in the killing of four security personnel. Parts of Sohrab Ghot are now said to be run by tribal laws brought in by new migrants, and de-facto rogue leaders.

In this complex and dangerous environment where the state dares not tread, the procurement of weapons in Karachi has become a matter of survival. As tensions between different factions, be they ethnic, political, religious, or otherwise, increase, this survival moves into the critical stage of its evolution. As such, it is not uncommon today to visit Liyari or Sohrab Ghot and see guns displayed in houses.

Another factor impacting the security situation in Karachi is the influx of Taliban fighters, something that is not new but has increased over the years. Karachi, the economic center of Pakistan, provides both legal and illegal ways to gain access to large streams of revenue, which can be transported back to the tribal areas with ease. Pashtuns have for decades been the majority stakeholders of Karachi's transport industries, and the Pashtun community presides over areas which are close to the city's entry and exit zones, linking Karachi to the rest of Pakistan's industrial zones and the port. If a stranger approaches a truck-driver to deliver money on his journey to the northwest, the latter will likely not question the destination of the money or such a seemingly trivial request. Therefore, as Pashtun dominated areas grow and slip out of state control, and Taliban continue to flow into the city, the state's inability to police the Taliban via the Pashtun community will become more difficult, while the  Taliban will still be able to funnel money away from Karachi and into their operations.

An increased flow of arms following the departure of U.S. forces in Afghanistan will most certainly bolster the insularity and insecurity of such communities, leaving elements within them fully equipped to plan and execute terror. Though it is unlikely this terror will manifest itself directly in Karachi (one doesn't burn the land that feeds, and the city suffers from its share of violence as it is) it can certainly strengthen the Taliban presence elsewhere in the country. Unfortunately, the opportunities such a safe haven affords provide the ideal setting for enemies of the state to expand their presence, be they terrorists or local gangs. Their growth continues to spread slowly across a burgeoning Karachi, and Pakistan as a whole, with a potential to strengthen and supply the very actors that threaten people both inside, and out, of the country.

Bilal Baloch is a graduate student at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He is currently conducting field research in Karachi.

ASIF HASSAN/AFP/Getty Images

 

MARTY MARTEL

3:40 AM ET

July 6, 2011

Pakistan lies to U. S., so says Gen. Jack Keane

Pakistan projects sympathetic image as a victim of terror, even as it is, in fact, the creator of terrorism. Pakistan continues to shelter, nurture, support and protect innumerable terrorist outfits on its soil. So Pakistan has invited jihadist violence upon itself.

Nobody forced Pakistani government to facilitate relocation of Osama bin Laden from Sudan to Afghanistan in 1996. Pakistan’s democratic government of Pakistan chose to do so of its own free will.

Nobody forced Pakistani Army and Intelligence to create what ex-CIA official Bruce Reidel called ‘this jihadist Frankenstein’ monster in 1990s. Pakistani Army and Intelligence chose to do so with the full financing provided by Pakistan’s democratic governments at the time.

Following are verbatim quotes from what Gen (rtd) Jack Keane said at a discussion on Afghanistan organized by the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based think-tank on June 30, 2011:

1. "The truth is, the ISI aids and abets the sanctuaries in Pakistan that the Afghan (Taliban) operate out of. They provide training for them, they provide resources for them and they provide intelligence for them. From those sanctuaries, every single day Afghan fighters come into Afghanistan and kill and maim us".

2. "There's a direct relationship of ISI's complicity and the deaths of American soldiers and the catastrophic wounding of those soldiers. The chief of staff of the Pakistani military is complicit. He used to be the director of ISI. He put the guy in there who is in charge now and he has full knowledge of what I'm just describing".

3. "This partnership has got to be based on that harsh reality. There are two ammonium nitrate factories in Pakistan. 80 per cent of the explosive devices that are used to kill our soldiers, kill Afghan security forces and kill Afghan people come from Pakistan."

4. "All of what I just said to you, when we confront them with this, they lie to us.

With Pakistani Army headed by General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, who once headed ISI, repeatedly lying to the United States, America‘s Afghan mission was doomed from the very beginning.

U. S. has deliberately deluded itself Taliban’s Pakistani connections in fueling and sustaining Afghan insurgency as reported by Matt Waldman in ‘The sun in the sky‘ on 6/13/2010, corroborated by WikiLeaks leaks on 7/25/2010 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 7/30/2010 titled ‘The huge scale of Pakistan‘s complicity‘.

Duplicitous Pakistan has U. S. under the barrel of a gun - US can NOT use its aid leverage to force Pakistan to stop supporting terrorist groups who kill US/NATO troops in Afghanistan day in and day out because US needs Pakistan’s help in ferrying supplies to those very US/NATO troops.

American soldiers are dying in Afghanistan because of their own government’s misguided policies. For deliberately ignoring Taliban’s Pakistani connections, US deserves to be duped by Pakistan.

 

J RUBE

3:24 PM ET

July 6, 2011

Deal with the Taliban and other inaccuracies and generalizations

"But whether or not the American withdrawal and the likely ensuing deal with the Taliban ends the conflict..."

What makes you so sure of an impending deal with the Taliban. I can point to more reasons why a deal is unlikely than reasons that a deal is likely. I will spare you listing them here as you probably already know them.

"Arab jihadists took the Afghan mujahideen under their umbrella, and set up shop in Pakistan, an outcome that, given the current climate of instability and militancy, could easily happen again."

I find this specific outcome difficult to believe. Its also historically not entirely accurate. First, the dynamics and separation between jihadis and mujahideen were not so clear as you make them out to be. In fact, both then and now, how does one distinguish between the two? How would one take the other under their wing if they are both the same people? This is a gross generalization, not really fit for print.

"An increased flow of arms following the departure of U.S. forces in Afghanistan."

I think there are plenty of arms to go around now and the departure of the US forces in Afghanistan will not have much of an impact of the volume of weapons. To then conclude that increased availability of weapons will increase insularity and instability is a non sequiter.