Monday, December 12, 2011 - 7:03 PM

Relations between the United States and Pakistan continue tospiral downwards following the cross-border incident that resulted in the deathof 24 Pakistani troops along the border with Afghanistan last month. In fact, overthe past several months, Pakistan has, according to some accounts, engaged in aseries of actions that ought to worry U.S. decision makers. Far from shiftingits policy on providing support and sanctuary for externally focused militantgroups, Pakistani officials have potentially sought to strengthen their tieswith militants and have reportedly started negotiations with a key militantcommander Wali ur-Rehman,a Waziristan-based commander on the U.S. State Department's list of foreignterrorists, and MaulviFaqir Mohammad, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban in Bajaur Agency. Apeace deal with Rehman and other Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) would be atroublesome development, and was noted with some concern by White Housespokesperson Caitlin Hayden over the weekend, although TTPspokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan and Pakistan'spolitical leadership have both issued denials.
In November, reporting indicated that militants havedeclared a nation-wide ceasefirewith the Pakistani government while both sides talked, though again, the TTPand government both deniedthese claims. In past peace deals, the Pakistani government has allowedmilitant commanders to control Taliban "mini-states" in exchange forshifting their jihad across the border into Afghanistan. For Pakistan's seniorleadership, turning anti-state or "bad Taliban" into Afghanistan-focused or"good Taliban" would be a major achievement. For U.S. and coalition forces fightingto stabilize Afghanistan and rid the region of al-Qaeda and its affiliates, itcould be a nightmare.
It is widely believed that influential elements within Pakistan'ssecurity apparatus have unsuccessfully tried to convince the TTPto shift their focus to the fight in Afghanistan -- but their fortunes may be changing.These reported peace talks were a product of the All Parties Conference hostedby Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gailani earlier this fall, which wasconvened to address Pakistan's national security situation following recentU.S. allegations of direct, state-sponsored support for Afghan-focusedterrorist groups, such as the Haqqani network. The conference produced adeclaration seeking peace with militants throughout the tribal areas, evenreferring to militants as "ourown people" -- the same people that are largely responsible for over 200suicide attacks, killing at least 3,600 people since the beginningof 2008. Privately, the declaration reflects the military's long-heldbelief that even anti-state militants, such as the TTP, can be turned into proxies,a key component in the military's policy of state-sponsored exportation ofterror in neighboring territories, such as Afghanistan.
The TTP is a loose confederation of militant organizations primarilyfocused on targeting the Pakistani state, with the shared goal of overthrowingthe government and imposing sharialaw. Anti-state activities in Pakistan's Federally-Administered Tribal Areasregion have a long history, and as early as 2004, some militant groups begandescribing themselves as "PakistaniTaliban." In late 2007, several anti-state militant commanders formallyorganized themselves as the TTP under the leadership of South Waziristan-basedBaitullah Mehsud, launching a series of attacks and suicide bombings throughoutthe country. Rather than a single, unified entity, the TTP is a movementcomposed of independent commanders and their allied fighters. Consequently,factions within the TTP sometimes compete for resources and differ in theirprioritization of jihad against the Pakistani state or combating U.S. andcoalition forces in Afghanistan. In the ongoing peace talks, TTP militants aredemanding the cessation of Pakistani military operations against the TTP, therelease of jailed militants and compensation for civilian hardships duringmilitary operations in exchangefor their pledge to cease attacks against the Pakistani state.
The most troubling figure in the reported talks between thePakistani government and the TTP is Wali ur-Rehman -- who is much morecommitted to the ongoingfight against U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan than the fight againstthe Pakistani state. After the death of his cousin and former TTP leaderBaitullah Mehsud by a CIA drone strike in August 2009, Rehman remarked that the TTP and hisfighters in particular werecommitted to helping the fight in Afghanistan and consider U.S. President BarackObama their "No. 1 enemy." Rehman is a Mehsudtribesman leading the TTP in South Waziristan, a role he assumed afterBaitullah was killed. Unlike numerous other TTP commanders in Pakistan's tribalregions, such as current TTP head Hakimullah Mehsud, Rehman is said to have wanted to end the TTP's warwith the Pakistani government, saying it has destroyed the Mehsud tribe in South Waziristan. At onepoint, Rehman was reportedly in secret negotiations with elements ofthe Pakistani government in Peshawar or Khyber. Rehman is reported to be afavorite of the reclusive Afghan Taliban chiefMullahMohammad Omar. For years, both Omar and thesenior leadership of the Afghanistan-focused Haqqaninetwork have urged the TTP to abandon their waragainst the Pakistani state and instead throw their weight behind the AfghanTaliban.
Even more troubling than Rehman's links tothe Afghan Taliban is his relationship with al-Qaeda and his support for theirinternational agenda. In a September 2010 interview, Rehman explained how his TTPis in complete agreement with the ideology and agenda of al-Qaeda, claimingthat the TTP would expand their war effort during the nextdecade, presumably in close partnership with al-Qaeda. The following month, theUnited Nations placed Rehman on aninternational sanctions list, for "participating in the financing, planning,facilitating, preparing, or perpetrating activities of Al-Qaida. According tothe State Department, who has issued a five million dollar reward forinformation leading to Rehman's capture, Rehman is directly linked to the suicide bombing thatkilled seven CIA employees at Forward Operating Base Chapman in Khost,Afghanistan in December 2009, and Faisal Shahzad's failed bombing of TimesSquare by on May 1, 2010. None of this has discouraged Rehman from his agendaor support for al-Qaeda. After the death of Osama bin Laden on May 1, 2011,Rehman threatened the West, saying, "soon youwill see attacks against America and NATO countries, and our first prioritiesin Europe will be France and Britain."
Should talks move forward, any eventual peace deal and thesubsequent reorientation of TTP fighters towards the fight against U.S. andcoalition forces in Afghanistan could prove problematic. The TTP has manytrained, hardened fighters which the Afghan Taliban would certainly welcome asforce multipliers -- making the campaign to weaken them all the more difficult,especially as U.S. and coalition forces seek to draw down and transition thefight to the Afghans. Perhaps even more troubling than a growing partnershipbetween Afghanistan and Pakistan Taliban would be a newly established sanctuaryfor al-Qaeda and affiliated movements under the protection of Waliur Rehman inSouth Waziristan and other TTP commanders throughout Pakistan's tribal areas. Ifthe Pakistani government continues to pursue peace with international al-Qaedaaffiliated jihadists such as Rehman, it could potentially negate or evenreverse much of the progress the United States has made against al-Qaeda overthe past several years in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Greater sanctuary andthe ability to communicate and transit the tribal areas under the protection oflocal enablers will allow the continued spread of al-Qaeda and its affiliatedmovements that will be difficult to contain.
Jeffrey Dressler is a senior analyst at the Institute forthe Study of War, where he studies security dynamics in Afghanistan andPakistan.
A Majeed/AFP/Getty Images
EXPLORE:AFPAK, AFPAK POSTER 8, AFGHANISTAN, AFPAK CHANNEL, AL QAEDA, PAKISTAN, SECURITY, TALIBAN, TERRORISM, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
Whoop de doo!!!
Pakistan is cozying up to terrorists and using them as proxies to attack its neighbors. Yawn!!!
This has been happening since the dawn of Pakistan in 1947, when they sent Pashtoons into Kashmir - forcing the hand of the king to accede to India - something that they've been bitter about for 60 some years since.
This is what they did in 1965 when they infiltrated terrorists into Kashmir and it has been something they've been doing every single day from the time of Bhutto - WELL BEFORE the Russians came into Afghanistan.
They've been doing this in Kashmir in India for a generation as well.
So I'm sorry, you were saying this is news!!!
It will be news when we get off our "nice guys" role playing fetish and get down to business and show them that there are consequences for their actions.
"Uniformed Taliban starts talks with non-uniformed Taliban" as Pak Army is nothing but Taliban itself - WITH Uniform.
If in doubt, ask Iran, Tajikistan, India, or .....even China sometimes (when there is Pak Army exported trouble in Kashgar!
The article didn't mention the Pak Army even though everyone knows they are behind the taliban and Al Qaeda. What kind of ally sends fighters to kill you?
The Pak Army thinks they have a tiger by the tail but they are going to be eaten alive. America is like those big wheels of justice....takes too long but eventually we will kill the bad guys. Carl Vinson is coming back for some more...who's the next fish bait? Mullah Omar...Zawaharry...or could it be Kayani???
Pak establishment is trying to sway TTP to shift their focus from fighting in Pakistan to Afghanistan. Devoid of concrete evidence, it is just another assumption. video to iMovie
Given the accreditations of the author, I am very dissatisfied from his writing. Maybe I expected a lot more shrewdness of him. I find the article profoundly unsound and jaundiced.
Similar to ISAF troops, Pak Army has been involved in fighting battles after battles, for the past several years, against the Taliban and their associates. They have lost more soldiers than all the coalition losses combined. It’s astounding to see how we advocate for the US efforts to broker peace between the Afghan Taliban (and the Haqqani group) and the Afghan government. If I am not wrong, the Afghan Taliban has been offered to renounce arms, in return for joining the government. On the other hand, we scowl upon similar efforts by the Pak government and military.
The author mentioned the resolution of APC conference. Had he the acumen to understand Pak’s approach, he would have discovered that PM Gilani referred to the Pakistani Taliban “as our own people” because they are, after all, PAKISTANIS! Even a simple search in Wikipedia would ratify that. The Paki government contemplates to force the militants, or miscreants, to surrender arms to the state and live in harmony, and let others live in peace too. His statement has been deliberately molded to have an altered and ostensibly false meaning.
If the author finds it horrendous to believe the Pak government could even negotiate peace talks with a group of people responsible for killing “at least 3,600 people”, I wonder what he has to say about our and Afghan governments’ efforts to negotiate peace with an outfit responsible for killing 2,742 coalition troops, 10,500 Afghan troops and approximately 25,000 civilians?
Moreover, the author would have done justice by underlining the other finer points from the APC resolution. Among many others, I applaud the following:
- Pakistan’s desire “to establish and maintain friendly and cordial relations with all countries of the world.”
- Their intention to “further enhance our brotherly bilateral relations with Afghanistan at three levels on priority basis: government to government, institution to institution and people to people.”
- Their resolve to curb corruption and enhancing self-reliance.
- Their “endeavor to promote stability and peace at the regional and global planes.”
I would like to ascertain the source of “widely believed” notion that Pak establishment is trying to sway TTP to shift their focus from fighting in Pakistan to Afghanistan. Devoid of concrete evidence, it is just another assumption. Yet one which could damage what little chaotic rapport we have with Pak and could possibly upsurge the public pressure on an already-strained relationship we have with Pakistan.
If the US forces truly have indication of Pak’s purpose to make peace with the TTP themselves and to influence them to perform their activities across the border, Pak military should be confronted with the evidence and be required to NOT only to make peace for themselves but for the Afghan forces too!
>>>If the author finds it horrendous to believe the Pak government could even negotiate peace talks with ... (Pak Taliban) ... I wonder what he has to say about our and Afghan governments’ efforts to negotiate peace ... (with Af Taliban)
It's actually right there in the article, and that's why the two situations are not comparable. The Pak govt is not negotiating for TTP to lay down arms and join politics or merge back into the general population. It's instead negotiating for TTP to fight the US in Af rather than fight the Pak gov.
So, note in the original article :
In past peace deals, the Pakistani government has allowed militant commanders to control Taliban "mini-states" in exchange for shifting their jihad across the border into Afghanistan. .... It is widely believed that influential elements within Pakistan's security apparatus have unsuccessfully tried to convince the TTP to shift their focus to the fight in Afghanistan -- but their fortunes may be changing.
Whereas the US is trying to negotiate a compromise govt in Af. by potentially including Af Taliban., but not looking to encourage the Af Taliban to wage guerrilla war against Pak.
Exactly, that's what we keep hearing from some "unnamed sources". But quite frankly, I don't believe that for lack of evidence.
(8)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE