The US & others working with Pakistan

[George L. Singleton]

Some bits and pieces of references as background for a few observations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammu_K...t_(Yasin_Malik)

http://www.khyberwatch.com/forums/sh...gle+Parliament

http://www.asinstitute.org/

(I referred in a Jan. 31, 2008 posting to University of Lahore. CORRECTION: I should have referred to University of Punjab in Lahore, Pakistan. George Singleton.)

Here are some opinions which I invite comment, criticism on from my fellow SWJ thinkers and writers.

- Russia has agreed to have it's territory used vs. Pakistan for land movement of military supplies for NATO in Afghanistan.

- I believe that the sudden collapse of the Russian oil and gas money based national economy created to me a literally overnight opportunity for NATO shipments as this is a new revenue source to a financially upset and distressed Russian national and provincial economy(s).

- The hoped for benefit as we attempt a new form of surge inside Afghanistan is now based, for the time being, on a less threatened by Taliban and al Qaida land route vs. Pakistan where the Khyber Pass has been a narrow bottleneck attacked more regularly in recent months with pretty much impunity by the Taliban terrorists.

- Pakistan's government and military can now suck air and contemplate cooperating more fully in what was supposed to be a common war on terrorism, as Pakistan, too is faced with a heavily upset national and provincial economy(s) and in great need of the revenue from movement of NATO supplies on land through Pakistan.

- The newly opened Port of Gwadar, in Pakistan, on the Arabian Sea, built by the Chinese for Pakistan, needs the cargo revenue of continued movement of NATO supplies through Gwadar, by road up to the Khyber pass and thence into Afghanistan.

- Confused with the terrorist war with the Taliban and al Qaida is one camp of peaceful proponents of an independent Kashmir, composed of both Pakistan and Indian occupied parts of Kashmir. One of the above posts provides background on a heavily overlooked [my opinion] profile of Yasin Malik, who is Chairman of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front.

- One of Yasin Malik's chief fund raisers is Sagir Ahmed of Bedford, England. Sagir started e-mail correspondence with me at the end of 2001 when I started having artices and letters giving an American's point of view, one who lived and worked in then West Pakistan at the old US Embassy, Karachi, as the liaison officer for the US U-2 base [U-2s and comm intel] at Badabur, which is a suburb of Peshawar, Pakistan.

- As is true historically with Europe, the Indian Subcontinent is filled with different cultures, tribes, alliances which in many instances are violent, but in his instance the JKLF has moved past violence to a peaceful process to seek political change in Kashmir.

- Side note: There is a third small piece of Kashmir held by China since their invasion of Tibet in 1960 (date ?). I don't attempt to address it, nor does Yasin Malik clearly try to address it, either, but you guys and gals may want to add it to the discussion I am seeking here.

- A final thought: Yasin Malik did a speaking tour of campuses and other groups here in the US circa 2006. I noted at the time that Howard University in DC was a major point of his visitation and lectures. I tried hard, without success, to get the then Chancellor of Vanderbilt University to invite Yasin Malik to speak with or without a panel at Vanderbilt in Nashville. Lack of a more open academic platform to such peaceful revolutionaries here in the US bothers me, but understand, I don't pretend to know everything about anything. I just think we could have and can in future do better.

Hoping for discussions of any tangental or synthesis nature now from you all.

[S-2]

The problem is Pakistan and our self-deceit.

This war, and the taliban, have no traction in the absence of external sancturary provided by the GoP. In the absence of such, all things ARE possible and we hardly can imagine what the possible positive permutations might have arisen.

It's not to be so long as we aid our enemy in making war upon ourselves. There is, evidently, little recognition by Pakistan of the infectious influence the "good" taliban and their associates- A.Q. Haqqani & Son, and Hekmatyar have had upon the likes of locals like Nazir, Bahadur, and (most notably) Mehsud.

Equally, in their obsessive quest to deny Afghanistan to India and thus dodge the "envelopement" bullet, the GoP fails to see the final manifestation of a re-empowered taliban gov't and its friends.

That, of course, will be the cooperation between "good" and "bad" taliban to seize Pakistan. And they shall.

We've deliberately steered politely around this harsh reality about our ostensible "ally"- rationalizing our need for access to trans-ship goods/equipment. We've justified this by believing that no alternative exists and that we must "engage" them to gently sway their perspectives our way.

We've failed and now aid an enemy opposed to the U.N. mandate and prepared to use proxy armies to achieve it's ends.

Everything else trickles from that leaky faucet...

[George L. Singleton]

S-2, the Paks are for over two years or more now using primarily air, artillery, and limited special forces instead of large numbers of troops on the ground where it counts.

The Pak-Afghan border is huge and rugged as the devil, I have been primarily in the Khyber Pass area myself.

As the Taliban are by blood Pakthuns they rely, successfully, on the Pakhtun unwritten code or constitution to seek sustainment and cover from being found out.

My sopa box again here: Huge Voice of America radio and TV broadcasts to demean and show how unIslamic the Taliban, and AQ, actually are...then there is some hope to stopper parts of the rugged border, provided the tribesmen there seek Pak military long term, not in and out, military support for permanent security.

Lack of trust in the GoP is a huge problem, but doing their duty, long term, could at least start to restore future trust in the GoP.

My two cents.

[S-2]

"...doing their duty, long term, could at least start to restore future trust in the GoP."

George,

"...doing their duty, long term,..." would win the damned war, IMHO. Again, this insurgency has no traction in the absence of sanctuaries. If mutual trust is the by-product of that action I'm all for it.

I don't see it though. Pakistan's army is wired for India. Sustaining their modest success in Buner and SWAT will challenge their stamina in ways they've heretofore not needed to face- policing their own.

Already the slain bodies are showing up in the streets of Mingora and its effect on the military (i.e. down at the squad/section level) shall be morally corrosive.

Further, every troop west is one less troop in the east. I'm convinced this grates on their leadership and each reinforcement sent west is done so with the most grudging acknowledgement.

There's a long P.R. investment in fighting the Indian bogey-man. That stuff pays the bills and then some. They'd like to keep it that way in my view.

No profit in fighting themselves from the army's POV.

To "do their duty", nearly all of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan and most of eastern Baluchistan await their army. That includes the "good" taliban were they to carry through fully.

There's easily a decade's work there. Maybe they realize it. Maybe not. I don't know. I only wonder if I'll see them start in my lifetime.

I'm 53...

[Jedburgh]

NBR, 13 Nov 09 Pakistani Partnerships with the United States: An Assessment

This essay assesses the relationships between the U.S. and different elements within Pakistan's political and military leadership in the context of ongoing regional counterterrorism and counterinsurgency efforts....

[omarali50]

I posted this comment on "land of 10,000 wars": http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/200...of-10000-wars/ and was wondering where I would post such a query on this discussion board?

"I am curious to know if most people here agree with boatspace? What "accomodation" would allow the US to leave?

In my personal opinion (based on zero inside information), the real issue is not Afghanistan, its Pakistan. Lets imagine that the US leaves Afghanistan in disarray, right down to the iconic helicopter takeoff from the Kabul embassy roof (maybe with Karzai hanging on to the rope ladder); even in that scenario, the real loss is loss of face. There is no oil in Afghanistan and no easy way to have a functional modern country in the foreseeable future. Taliban ruled Afghanistan would become a haven for the world's adventure seeking jihadis, but the taliban would not have peace. The Northern alliance has been revitalized and will continue to get Indian and Iranian (and probably Russian and American) support and will hold the North. The rest will be one big mess, Somalia X 10, occasionally bombed and cruise-missiled as the need arises. How many international terrorist plots have been launched from Somalia? probably zero. Without Pakistan, the jihadis have nothing except endless brutal war in the world's poorest country.

The real prize is Pakistan.

My question to you is this: do you think the US has finally flipped the Pakistani army or can the Pakistani army go back to training and arming jihadis?

If they dont go back to being jihad central, isnt the job in that region pretty much done? (And I will admit I am trying to start a conversation and learn, these are not necessarily my final views). The Pakistani army could be fighting the jihadis for decades, but as long as they hold the major cities and control the ports and airports, how is that any worse than what is happening now?

It will probably be very bad for the Afghans if the US leaves soon, but is it really that bad for the US?

[davidbfpo]

Omerali

My question to you is this: do you think the US has finally flipped the Pakistani army or can the Pakistani army go back to training and arming jihadis?

No, my opinion is that the Pakistani Army has not been flipped by the USA, who have tried repeatedly to achieve a change in policy and implementation. There are other threads that indicate a number of internal factors led to the Pakistani Army to fight the internal Taliban i.e. Swat Valley and less dramatically in the FATA. Take a peek at these recent threads: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=5023 and http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=7222

For a variety of reasons parts of the Army and ISI may still pursue supporting militant factions. Hopefully this desire and perceived national interests at stake will change.

Remember Pakistan has had hundred of soldiers, let alone civilians killed by militants and Jihadis - before 2009.

davidbfpo

[George L. Singleton]

Having served long ago in Pakistan (then West Pakistan) with side trips to the old US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, mixing in events since 911 I do not favor walking away from Afghanistan when a new plan and policy for there takes one to two years to complete forming and testing.

Premature and very questionable judgement to even suggest such, implying a pro-Taliban and al Qaida bias on the part of the writer of this question in my mind.

[omarali50]

I am the farthest thing from an alqaeda or taliban sympathizer, so lets not jump to conclusions here!
I will say that from several years experience on other email groups, I do expect massive misunderstanding in the first few exchanges. We all use heuristics that are generally useful but may be totally wrong in particular cases. Patience is the only real solution since no single email can present all the assumptions that underlie a particular position. Things will get clearer with time.
In any case, as I said upfront, the main purpose was to start a discussion and try to get a clearer sense of what people think the US is doing in afghanistan and what may or may not be its essential interests in that region. If the conversation continues, we will get there.....

[Rex Brynen]

Premature and very questionable judgement to even suggest such, implying a pro-Taliban and al Qaida bias on the part of the writer of this question in my mind.

Far from being a biased question, its actually a very good one, identifying the policy alternative that rarely gets properly aired (even, I might add, in Ex's excellent week-long AfPak blogfest at Abu Muqawama): can the threat of a resurgent Taliban and al-Qa'ida be contained in other ways than thousands of US and NATO boots on the ground?

Omarali50 identifies one way this might be done: pulling back, supporting local proxies, and throwing some occasional drones/cruise missiles/airpower/SF/covert operations into the fray of what would likely become a full-scale civil war. It is a horrible thing to condemn the Afghan people to, and might generate massive refugee flows anew (that alone possibly destabilizing for Pakistan). However, it is a strategy which kind-of-works in Somalia: the place is a tragic, bloody, and sad morass, but it hasn't proven to be a place from which AQ has been able to build a particularly productive or effective sanctuary in recent years (despite past efforts to do so)

I don't favour the approach myself. It is odd, however, that it receives so little airing in polite company (although I imagine things are a little different in less polite company, or even at "The Company").

Interestingly, the specter of this sort of Plan B is one way to nudge the Pakistanis into more robust action against the Taliban, since they certainly don't want to see Washington to switch to Somalia-like containment on their doorstep.

[omarali50]

I was just sent this article (
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...6/917tltdv.asp) and I think it gets the background right and correctly points out that the biggest reason for staying and winning in Afghanistan is Pakistan. Such a victory would force a complete overhaul of "national security thinking" in Pakistan, while US defeat in Afghanistan would confirm to the generals that their assessment was correct and having beaten their second superpower, they can go back to plan A (you would be surprised at the speed with which the supposed "revenge to the tenth generation" business evaporates and corps commanders are again hugging taliban commanders on TV).
Some of the other suggestions are weak tea. They are also (in my opinion) misdirected. The US (or any superpower) with interests in the region is not going to win hearts and minds by doing good deeds and paying journalists to highlight them. They should still DO good deeds, but the expectation that you can spend X dollars on some hospitals and "everyone" will love you in return is not correct. They will love you in return IF their perceived national interest is aligned with yours OR if they have NO "strategic issues" to do with you. Thus, its easy for, say, Cuba to buy goodwill. Its operating on neutral ground and 8 doctors and a mobile hospital earned it tons of goodwill in 2005. But India cannot earn similar goodwill with 800 doctors. ..and so on.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...6/917tltdv.asp

[MikeF]

I'd like to know what everyone thinks about Sec Clinton's remarks in Pakistan. Personally, I think it is a good thing. She is being direct about the (or lack of) responsibility and accountability of the Pakistanis to secure areas of their nation-state and hunt down al Qaeda.

Highlights include:

“I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are, and couldn’t get to them if they really wanted to,” she said to a group of Pakistani journalists on her second day here. “Maybe that’s the case; maybe they’re not gettable. I don’t know.”

“Slowly, but insidiously, you were losing territory,” Mrs. Clinton said. “If you want to see your territory shrink, that’s your choice. But I don’t think that’s the right choice.”

“I am more than willing to hear every complaint about the United States.” But she said the relationship had to be a “two-way street.”

Best

Mike

[slapout9]

Pretty good article Mike thanks for posting. She did the best she could I suspect, she had a lot guts to keep to her schedule no matter what was happening and I like guts.

[davidbfpo]

Mike F refers to Mrs Clinton's remarks

She is being direct about the (or lack of) responsibility and accountability of the Pakistanis to secure areas of their nation-state and hunt down al Qaeda.

First big mistake is the wording; it should have read: She is being direct about the lack of Pakistani military and state responsibility and accountability to all Pakistani. To secure areas of their nation-state and hunt down our common enemies (al Qaeda, Pakistani Taleban and 'foriegn militants).

Was this really the advice of the State Dept. to make such remarks in Pakistan? Given the common public view that the USA is the enemy, her remarks are rude, even critics of the Pakistani state and military will be bewildered - and silent.

Then add: We share a common enemy and that is why we offer our help. Not for hi-tech weapons, simple things for the police and others in the fight.Our help is for non-military change too.

davidbfpo

[MikeF]

David,

I disagree. When I receive my monthly bills in the mail, I don't consider that it is rude for the bank to demand in such an informal tone that I pay the required amount.

We've given billions to Pakistan (avg $50 Billion/yr I think) since 9/11. They squandered most of it on building a conventional army to defend against Pakistan. This is not an equal partnership. Regardless of how xenophobic or anti-American some of the Paks may be, they still absorb our money. That's not an equal partnership.

v/r

Mike

[tequila]

$50 billion a year? Not that much ... more like $11 billion total from 9/11 to 2008, I think.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...d_numbers.html

The vast majority of it is to the military. Most Pakistanis, of course, never see any American aid.

The Kerry-Lugar bill, which sought to rebalance some of this, caused the Pakistani military to throw a massive bitch fit, supposedly because this impinged on Pakistani national sovereignty.

It's emotionally satisfying for me to hear Sec. Clinton give the Pakistanis a little bit of honesty given the military's duplicity, but I'm a bit afraid that this will only feed the Pakistani political sphere's basic anti-Americanism.

[davidbfpo]

The Indian role in the region and in Afghanistan has appeared before on SWC, with para-military troops being deployed to guard road construction (in 2007): http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=3166 and the feuding IIRC between Indian and Pakistani intelligence agencies.

Clearly Pakistani national strategy is predicated on the No.1 threat being India and another thread looks at the changing US policy towards Pakistan
:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=2313

These new items deserve their own thread which I found today, via a Kashmiri website:

a) Britain and US consider asking India to train Afghan National Police, in The Times:

Now, however, India appears to want to play a more active role in Afghanistan largely because it fears that Pakistan will engineer a Taleban takeover when foreign troops leave.

Link:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6992984.ece

b)India’s Military Intelligence Chief conducts covert visit to Afghanistan

—General Loomba held furtive, yet detailed meetings with Afghan, US and NATO officials
—Delhi plans Afghan military takeover after US/ ISAF pullout
—Indian Military spy master’s stealth Afghan trip conducted ahead of top US defence officials’ India visit
—Holbrook kept Pakistanis busy in futile talks as per Pentagon, Langley plan
—Indian MI boss visited covert Indian troopers’ positions in Afghanistan, met Indian Army instructors of ANA
—Indian government, army resort to cohesive hostile approach towards Pakistan after Loomba’s Afghan trip
—Analysts smell some secret US development in Afghanistan through Indian army

From a Pakistani newspaper :http://dailymailnews.com/0110/18/Fro...FrontPage1.htm

Not sure what is going on here, 'The Great Game' is appropriate. Just before a London conference on Afghanistan too (as per SWJ press review).

Pressure on Pakistan to "stay aboard" the "train"? High risk in my view.

[omarali50]

david,

I am surprised at how you seem to have been taken in by this website. Whatever India and the US are or are not planning, "the daily mail" is the last place you should look for information! All this tells you is what the bright young psyops people in ISI want to say. You can then spend a few hours trying to figure out why some ISI colonel thought this is a good line to take. But relying on this "news item" to figure out what is really happening would be a disastrous error.
Again, I am not saying A is not conspiring with B. How would I know what is goin on. But I can most definitely tell you that this website and the whole stable of "paknationalists", "pakalert", PKKH etc is one big joke. The newspapers turn out to be fictitious. The foreign sounding reporters are non-existent in real life. And the funniest thing is their fondness for giving female names to their "reporters"....you can insert your favorite psychoanalytical bull#### at this point, wondering why the
"paknationalists" are so fond of female pseudonyms...

[davidbfpo]

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:

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.

[davidbfpo]

Kings College ICSR has an intriguing comment by Stephen Tankel on:http://icsr.info/blog/Lets-Make-a-Deal#comments

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