Pakistani Intelligence Still Helping Afghan Insurgency
Great report in The New York Times by Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt about Pakistani intelligence’s continued support of insurgent groups in Afghanistan:
The support consists of money, military supplies and strategic planning guidance to Taliban commanders who are gearing up to confront the international force in Afghanistan that will soon include some 17,000 American reinforcements. [...] In a sign of just how resigned Western officials are to the ties, the British government has sent several dispatches to Islamabad in recent months asking that the ISI use its strategy meetings with the Taliban to persuade its commanders to scale back violence in Afghanistan before the August presidential election there, according to one official. [...]
But the Pakistanis offered a more nuanced portrait. They said the contacts were less threatening than the American officials depicted and were part of a strategy to maintain influence in Afghanistan for the day when American forces would withdraw and leave what they fear could be a power vacuum to be filled by India, Pakistan’s archenemy. A senior Pakistani military officer said, “In intelligence, you have to be in contact with your enemy or you are running blind.” [...]
Little is publicly known about the ISI’s S Wing, which officials say directs intelligence operations outside of Pakistan. American officials said that the S Wing provided direct support to three major groups carrying out attacks in Afghanistan: the Taliban based in Quetta, Pakistan, commanded by Mullah Muhammad Omar; the militant network run by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar; and a different group run by the guerrilla leader Jalaluddin Haqqani.
I think the failure to address the point about India is probably the key failure of our posture in the region. However much the war in Afghanistan may be termed a “necessary war,” the United States has the option of leaving the region. Pakistan does not. It will always be between Afghanistan and India. A responsible Pakistani official’s first concern is bound to be with India. Consequently, the main objective of Pakistani policy in Afghanistan will always be to secure Pakistan’s interests vis-a-vis India. And the Pakistanis have been consistently convinces—for years—that a stable Afghan government headed by anti-Taliban elements is not consistent with those interests. Unless Richard Holbrooke can conjure up some way to change that larger regional calculus, it’s difficult to see how we can achieve an ambitious set of goals in Afghanistan
28 Responses to “Pakistani Intelligence Still Helping Afghan Insurgency”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 26th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
and the evidence that India is just looking for a way to (somehow, miraculously) cross over Pakistan so they can get their greedy little hands on Afghanistan’s many… um, I mean their plentiful .. yyyeahhh . goats? poppies?
the evidence there is what now? Pakistan is in a hard position because they find themselves between India and Afghanistan.
that sounds like something a Pakistani would tell an American in hopes that it would just shut them up. what the f#ck interest does India have in seizing territory or resources from Afghanistan? call me skeptical.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I find it Kind of hard to imagine India exerting control, or even substantial influence, over Afghanistan. If we’d had so much trouble, how much more luck would India have? How would Indian influence in Afghanistan actually work?
It sounds to me like Pakistan’s making up a strategic excuse for engaging with the Taliban that doesnt’ appear directly hostile to the United States. I would imagine The real reason they’re working with them is some combination of 1) fear that the Taliban will threaten the authority of Pakistan’s central government, and, 2) sympathy for the Taliban’s interest in combatting American presence in the region. Of course the Pakistani intelligence officials are going to offer a “more nuanced” portrait. Nuance, in this case, is just obfuscation. At the end of the day, the strategic interests of Pakistan may be more in line with Taliban strength in Afghanistan than with an American backed Afghan regime.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I’m simply not sure I follow. A stable, non-Taliban gov’t in Kabul is naturally sympathetic/open to influence by India how? Is it because they will naturally tend to buy things from India? Because India will have diplomatic relations with this putative gov’t?
I don’t understand. Why is a stable Afghani government going to be advantageous to Indian hegemony? Doesn’t a strong Taliban threaten a stable Pakistan even more than it does a stable India?
This doesn’t pass the smell test.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Why is a stable Afghani government going to be advantageous to Indian hegemony? Doesn’t a strong Taliban threaten a stable Pakistan even more than it does a stable India?
Strong Taliban means strong ISI.
To the Indians, this sure as hell threatens a stable India.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Think of it in terms of spheres of influence. Pakistan doesn’t have much of a sphere of influence; but it’s got Afghanistan.
Any country is going to be worried about losing its influence over a country on its border, and that a hostile country might gain influence there.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
It isn’t, necessarily, but a weak, unstable government beset by an insurgency can’t do a whole lot to threaten Pakistan, regardless of its orientation. A strong, stable central government, on the other hand, could really be a problem if it ends up allied with India.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
“Onceler” and “Blake”, in their comments above, are correct. The Pakistani intelligence service is not to be trusted. It’s a paramilitary fief within a quasi-democratic state that has tolerated radical Islamist extremists (who trained militants, who in turned blew up people in British buses and subway trains) and is now tolerating the presence of al Qaeda. One also wonders how its much-vaunted capabilities were insufficient to prevent the Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan to engage in global proliferation of nuclear weapons-making knowledge, and whether it had any concern about the new Pakistani government’s decision recently to release Khan from house arrest. The U.S. cannot use force to intervene in Pakistan except against Al Qaeda, but that doesn’t mean that the Pakistani intelligence services’ representations should be taken at face value or that the U.S. shouldn’t attempt to stymie its efforts to aid the Taliban. No U.S. president can afford politically or morally to refrain from doing whatever it takes, within reasonable bounds, to disrupt Al Qaeda in Pakistan and to prevent the reconstitution of Taliban support for a terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
An Indian-Afghani strategic alignment?! This argument sounds totally specious. I suspect that the Pakistanis would be more upset by an Iranian-Afghani alignment, since there is sizable Shiite minority in Afghanistan that Iran could influence — and Shiite’s and Sunnis get along almost as well as the Indians and the Pakistanis do.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
It is time for the mighty Obama to end this folly and formally apologize to the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, pay reparations and come home.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/
March 26th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Consequently, the main objective of Pakistani policy in Afghanistan will always be to secure Pakistan’s interests vis-a-vis India. And the Pakistanis have been consistently convinces—for years—that a stable Afghan government headed by anti-Taliban elements is not consistent with those interests.
And why exactly should we indulge them? Pakistan cannot control its own fricking territory. Its role in Afghanistan has been nothing but destabilizing. Pakistan funds, trains, and supports jihadis the world over. But we need to first address its insecurity complex with India? This post makes no sense.
Much as I hate agreeing with Hector, he is right about Pakistan politics. It is either some dictator or anarchy. Either way there are no good options with Pakistan.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
There has, historically, been some strategic alignment by India and Afghanistan against Pakistan. India has issues with Pakistan regarding Kashmir and other hangovers of Partition, and many in Afghanistan (and many Pashtuns in Pakistan) have issues with the Durand Line – the Afghan-Pak border. The Pakistani govt’s relations with its Pashtun minority has historically been very mixed – on one hand, they’re overrepresented in the bureaucracy and army, but on the other, much of the Pasthun leadership, be it secular, leftist or Islamist, has desired greater autonomy or independence or association with Afghanistan.
Long story short, there has been some historic alignment between India and Afghanistan in a mutual effort to weaken Pakistan. But the “threat” is relatively small, and this does read as the ISI attempting to foment trouble.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
I’ve tried, but I can’t think of any better reason for indulgence than nuclear weapons. If my kids had nuclear weapons, I’d let them stay up late and have candy for breakfast.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
I’ve tried, but I can’t think of any better reason for indulgence than nuclear weapons.
Well maybe you shouldn’t have tried. Now why don’t you go worry what you kids are up to.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
it’s difficult to see how we can achieve an ambitious set of goals in Afghanistan
An “ambitious” set of goals? What goals can the US reasonably achieve in Afghanistan, period? You’ve been asked this many, many times, and you’ve never once given an answer. What is America doing in Afghanistan? Why don’t we just leave?
March 26th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
This seems like a good Black Ops opportunity. How hard would it be to spread rumors and false evidence among the Taliban that their ISI friends are really US double agents? Doesn’t seem like the hardest thing in the world to me, not that it’s my line of work.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Yglesias writes of “Pakistan’s interests vis-a-vis India”. And what exactly are those interests, aside from causing trouble? The two countries don’t do a whole lot of trade, aside from some nominal truck shipments at the Wagah border in Punjab. There’s very little movement of peoples. Hard to believe (though I’m open to be convinced otherwise) that India wants to invade Afghanistan or Pakistan. So what would Pakistani officials have to worry about?
March 26th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Your commentators are a bunch of ignoramuses. Have they never heard of the Durand Line? Pakhtoonistan? These are old issues that have basically defined Pakistan-Afghanistan relations since 1947. Kabul was the last country to (grudgingly) recognise Pakistan (after some Arab states’ arm twisting) and establish diplomatic relations with it. The reason for Afghan belligerance is writ large in history. Kabul does not recognise the Durand Line, the frontier between the two countries because it was a British colonial era imposition that divided large and powerful Pakhtoon tribal entities that now straddle the border and which frustrated Kabul’s old yearning for access to the warm waters of the Arabian Sea. Not able to wipe out the Durand Line because Pakistan inherited it, Kabul embarked on what Pakistanis still regard as an open attack on its territorial integrity –the Pakhtoonistan stunt, the notion that the new entity will unite the tribes divided by partition eventually leading to its federation with the other ethnic minorities that make up old Afghanistan. The “Greater Afghanistan” map issued by successive old Kabul regimes put its southern boundary right by the Arabian Sea. Claims to more than half of Pakistan were also based on the pre-Mogul conquestsof Mahmud Ghaznavi, the 11th century Afghan ruler who invaded India 17 times, Of course Kabul was never alone in its demands on Pakistani territory. It had the consistent backing (not merely diplomatic) of successive Indian governments until the Taliban came to power and for the first time removed Pakhtoonistan from the Afghan agenda. That is why, for all the terror they have unleashed, Pakistanis retain a soft spot for the Talibs who are after all their own creation. History cannot be rte-written. You can no more undo the Durand Line (an Afghan dream) than you can undo partition, the Indian dream. Willy nilly Pakistan will stumble on,lurching out of one hole only to fall into the next one. Most of them are of Pakistan’s own making. It might help if others in the region and beyond stop digging more of them.
March 26th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
One of the interesting questions in the most recent ABC News poll of Afghans looked at the favorability ratings of different countries. The results, from best to worst:
India: 74% favorable, 21% unfavorable
Iran: 57% favorable, 40% unfavorable
United States: 47% favorable, 52% unfavorable
Pakistan: 8% favorable, 91% unfavorable
The Taliban: 7% favorable, 91% unfavorable
http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1083a1Afghanistan2009.pdf
March 26th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Buy Propecia…
http://www.folkd.com/user/buypropeciaonline Buy Propecia…
March 26th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
A lot of idiots here. The Pakistani doctrine of “strategic depth” requires a client-state in Afghanistan, or an anti-Indian government. Any kind of good
Hamid Karzai went to school in India, and India is paying for several key construction project in Afghansitan, including a road connecting Iran and Afghanistan (to reduct that country’s reliance on India’s traditional enemy).
Add that to the disputed border on the Durand line, and Pakistan’s desire for an unstable, or puppet, Afghan government becomes clear.
March 26th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Can’t you guys figure anything out?
The ISI is a subsidiary of AIG, but they were screwed out of their bonuses. Now they’re pissed.
The ISI has worked very hard to get where it now is – and they have contracts!
The technical complexities of unwinding the South Asian position demand high levels of expertise, which only they have. ( Besides which, you would be amazed about the connections they have with Goldman Sachs. )
It is obvious that none of you are anywhere near as smart as Larry Summers, that you are a bunch of populist hayseeds, and the only reason we let you vote is that voting doesn’t make any difference anyway.
Geesh!!!
March 26th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Yes, those babbling about how India has no interests in Afghanistan simply haven’t been following the news.
Try reading Asia Times on a daily basis, folks. You might learn something about what’s going on in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, China and Indonesia.
I used to send Matt articles from Asia Times on Afghanistan and Pakistan, but the moron thinks they’re “spam” which is why he’s totally ignorant about Afghanistan and still thinks the US can do “something” there.
March 26th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Yes, those babbling about how India has no interests in Afghanistan simply haven’t been following the news.
India can’t even count Bangladesh as an ally and it frickin’ helped create Bangladesh. The notion that Pakistan is really concerned that Afghanistan would end up being an Indian puppet is hilarious.
March 27th, 2009 at 3:57 am
If you’d follow the news, you’d know that is most definitely NOT how Pakistan sees it.
Your own opinion is based on what? What the hell does Bangladesh have to do with Pakistan?
March 27th, 2009 at 10:31 am
If you’d follow the news, you’d know that is most definitely NOT how Pakistan sees it.
Well “those babbling about how India has no interests in Afghanistan” are making a statement about India, not about how Pakistan SEES India.
If all you got from the news is how Pakistan sees things, jeez, everybody on this comment thread is aware of that. Its like saying “all those babbling that Saddam has no nukes haven’t been following the news lately ’cause that’s certainly not how the Bush admin sees things”.
March 27th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
The notion that Pakistan is fit for nothing but a strong-man Dictator is childish and unrealistic thinking.
Very true that Democracy has been tried again and again in Pakistan, and has been swept away by military coups. But at the same time, Dictatorship has been tried again and again in Pakistan, but has been swept away by civil or democratic movements.
Interestingly, both Dictatorships and Democratic regimes in Pakistan have followed the same broad nationalistic course – accommodate islamists, belligerence to India, pursuit and support of nuclear weapons, and adventurism in Afghanistan.
I think that part of Pakistan’s problem is a diversity of interests and constituencies which undermine both dictatorships and democracies.
March 27th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
DJ, get a clue. Pakistan has very explicit concerns about India’a cooperation with Afghanistan. IF you’d read the news as I suggest, you’d know India IS indeed making moves to increase its influence in Afghanistan.
It has nothing to do with “who said what”, it has to do with who is DOING what.