What is over the horizon?
From a new analysis on Pakistan, from a Reuters summary:
Quote:
Pakistani society is likely to become more Islamist and increasingly anti-American in the coming years, complicating U.S. efforts to win its support against militant groups, a report released on Tuesday said.
The report, which looks at Pakistan over a one-to-three year time horizon, rules out the possibility of a Taliban takeover or of it becoming the world's first nuclear-armed failed state.
"Rather than an Islamist takeover, you should look at a subtle power shift from a secular pro-Western society to an Islamist anti-American one," said Jonathan Paris, who produced the report for the Legatum Institute, a London-based think tank.
Paris forecasts that Pakistan is most likely to "muddle through," with its army continuing to play a powerful role behind the scenes in setting foreign and security policy.
The actual report summary says:
Quote:
Pakistan today faces five main challenges:
1. Threat of fragmentation and the loss of state control over various territories that undermine the integrity, sovereignty and solidarity of the country;
2. Security and terrorism throughout the country;
3. Economy;
4. Governance issues including corruption; and
5. Rebuilding the Pakistan Brand.
The Pakistani state has shown itself to be both the source and recipient of instability, but it has also been remarkably resilient. This Report analyses the prospects for Pakistan over a one to three year time horizon. It looks at economic, political, security, and bilateral issues. There are three possible scenarios for Pakistan over this relatively short time horizon; Pakistan probably will avoid becoming a “failed state” and is unlikely to find a “pathway to success” but, as Pakistan confronts a myriad of vexing challenges, the most likely scenario is that it will “muddle through”.
Link to report (as yet un-read):http://www.legatum.com/newsdisplay.aspx?id=2926
Readers draw their own conclusions
Omarali,
I am fully aware that ISI has a "hand" in Pakistani new management, but 'The Times of London' too? Unlikely and SWC readers will make their own conclusions aided by both our contributions.
I am aware that India aided the Northern Alliance before 9/11, a relationship that I suspect may linger on. What is interesting is an official Indian role within the ANSF, in this story with ANP training.
As for the 'Christine Palmer' the Pakistani Daily Mail, they did announce this:
Quote:
The management of The Daily Mail would hereby like to apprise its valued readers that Christina Palmer is a pen name of a very senior Non-Indian journalist. The Daily Mail not like to reveal the real name or actual nationality of Ms. Palmer due to security and immigration threats that she can may face on the hands of Indian Intelligence agencies and other official organizations.
A quick search found some of 'her' reports are strange, so the cautionary note is correct.
Can Pakistan "leverage" some of the Taliban?
Kings College ICSR has an intriguing comment by Stephen Tankel on:http://icsr.info/blog/Lets-Make-a-Deal#comments
Quote:
Pakistan offered to mediate with Taliban factions who use its territory and have long served as its allies..(later in the article)...if the U.S. does pull back from an Afghanistan where Pakistan has greater influence without rolling up al-Qaeda elements in the tribal areas then it is going to be much more difficult to keep the pressure on..
He comments on a NYT piece I'd missed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/wo...er=rss&emc=rss
cross posting from FreeRadicals
Something is going on and obviously we (the general public) have not been told exactly what is going on, so everyone is speculating. My own thoughts are:
1. The US wants to get out of Afghanistan reasonably quicky, but not without establishing a government that can hold the country, that is not dominated by any one regional power, and that will not openly host terrorists in its midst. Pakistan is offering to help arrange an honorable exit and (at least some people in) the US is/are interested.
2. This has set off a definite frenzy of self-congratulatory back slapping amongst the "paknationalist" crowd about how the ISI was right all along, the Americans are going to leave and we hold the cards, aka Taliban and Haqqani sahib and whatnot.
3. The Pakistani army is prone to delusions (maybe all armies are, but in many states their brilliance is restrained by civilians with other priorities) and it will be no surprise if many of them put out propaganda in the morning and then rejoice in the evening when they see the "good news" on their TV sets.
4. But the hard reality is that there is no going back to the good old days of "strategic depth" in Afghanistan. No way, no how. It doesnt matter if some distant American can even be tricked into giving the whole jihadi apparatus back to the ISI to play with....it STILL wont work.
I suspect that the people at the top know this, but everyone else (the officers you are meeting who are one hundred percent sure the taliban will win) has no idea what a contradictory set of positions they are trying to reconcile. On the one hand, the army (and the civilian political establishment) are in no position to become jihadi outcasts from what Chomsky calls "Int com" (the "international community"). In their more deluded moments (very common after 8 pm in any army mess in Pakistan) I have had officers tell me that China and Saudi Arabia will pay our way no matter what because we will keep India in check (China pays for that) and Saudi Arabia pays for needling Iran and sharing the bomb.
Thats total dangerous delusion. First of all, even China (where some PLA types, "strategic thinkers" no doubt, may have such illusions) is not in a position to bankroll Pakistan (and doesnt necessarily want to use them as their pet attack dog against India) and neither is Saudi Arabia. Secondly, the country is on the verge of social and economic chaos as it is, no amount of Chinese or Saudi help will put humpty together again if Uncle Sam is not in a good mood. So, the good old days of arming and training a jihadi army (and then losing track of who you trained) are not coming back and the state has to find a way to coexist more normally with everyone around them. And that means no more hardcore taliban or jihadis. But if they cannot bring back the hardcore jihadis and taliban, then what can they offer? "reconcilable taliban" have less loyalty to Pakistan than Karzai does. Its all an illusion. I dont see them getting anything beyond what was always on offer, a chance to work WITH intcom on THEIR side and against the jihadis. I think the high command knows this by now and that is exactly what they will end up doing. In the end, they will be fighting their dearest Mullah Nazir and Haqqani and Gul Bahadur as well as the current "bad taliban". The army may wish to play both sides, but the jihadis will not oblige.
The problem is that a lot of them (Pakistani army officers) have no "vocabulary" for such an existence (as an anti-jihadi army). The ideological background is all jihadi all the time. Monumental feats of hypocrisy and "compartmentalization" are needed to prevent A from mixing with B and blowing up. THAT is going to to be their problem for the foreseeable future, not how to manipulate a "friendly" regime in Kabul.
5. No one is getting out anytime soon. Underneath all the calculations and manouvering, there is a real clash. Between the irreconcilable jihadis and an international community which cannot afford to live with them running countries, and certainly not with them running nuclear armed countries. It doesnt even matter if the US leaves Afghanistan before the war is settled. There will still be a war. The diference is in how it ends...with existing countries or new arrangements? The first is much much more likely, the second is the worst case scenario and involves very vicious fighting for a long time. Either way, no one is going back to the late nineties. One way or the other (one way being less painful than the other), Pakistan is going to be allied with the US, fighting against irreconcilable jihadis and benefiting from "normal" relations with Afghanistan IF Pakistan can keep the peace on OUR side of the border. Neither India, nor Pakistan will own Afghanistan, and either would be foolish to try.
Who knows, maybe this "competition" is another way the evil imperialists make fools of both countries and get them to buy more weapons and "do more" to help out the elders of Zion? Just kidding. Just kidding.
or at least, that's what it seems to my amateur view....
"US helped ISI create extremists: Petraeus"
An unusual headline until one reads on and recalls history. Hat tip to Watandost for highlighting this Charlie Rose interview in a Pakistani newspaper:http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=27658
Quote:
I wouldn’t allow you to put words in my mouth,” General David Petraeus, Commander of the US Central Command told Charlie Rose of the PBS in an interview when he asked: “So the bottom line is you are satisfied with the Pakistani effort and the Pakistani cooperation and the Pakistani effort to wipe out the Taliban in Pakistan?
Washington vs Waziristan: the far enemy
A thoughtful opinion article by Professor Paul Rogers, who IMHO has an ability to look at the difficult issues and succinctly write.
Opening paragraph:
Quote:
The new pattern of United States military attacks in the AfPak borderlands is fuelling ever-greater hostility on the ground. The arrest of a presumed Taliban militant in New York is one of its symptoms. The long war is recharging itself.
Ends with:
Quote:
The consequence may not always be incidents such as the Times Square bomb. But the conditions that sparked this attack will have a steadily accumulating effect. This will confirm the unwinnable nature of the war, but also do something deeper: reinforce even further the fundamental difference in outlook and understanding between Washington and Waziristan.
Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-ro...an-far-enemy-0
Not an easy ending.
The US & others working with Pakistan (a joined up thread)
ISI "Directly" Funding Taliban?
Entry Excerpt:
Pakistan’s ISI Military Intelligence Accused of Directly Funding Taleban - Jeremy Page, The Times.
Pakistan’s military intelligence agency directly funds and trains the Afghan Taleban and is officially represented on its leadership council, according to a report by a British academic. The study, published by the London School of Economics, also alleges that Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani President, met Taleban leaders imprisoned in Pakistan and promised them early release and future support.
Pakistan dismissed the report by Matt Waldman, a Harvard fellow who interviewed current and former members of the Taleban, as “baseless” and “naive”. A spokesman for the Pakistani Army said that the state’s commitment to opposing the Taleban was demonstrated by the number of soldiers killed fighting on the Afghan border. Western officials and analysts have often accused elements within Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency of supporting the Afghan Taleban, even as its army combats the Pakistani Taleban on the northwestern frontier.
However, Mr Waldman’s report goes further, arguing that support for the Afghan Taleban is “official 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,” the report says. “There is thus a strong case that the ISI orchestrates, sustains and shapes the overall insurgent campaign,” it said. “Without a change in Pakistani behaviour it will be difficult if not impossible for international forces and the Afghan Government to make progress against the insurgency.” ...
More at The Times.
Link to report: http://www.crisisstates.com/download/dp/DP%2018.pdf
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.