Defense Tech: Paks Rumbling with Afghan Rebels?


	Subscribe via RSS


	Archives by Date
		June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 See all Archives


	Archives by Category
		'Canes Afghan Update Ammo and Munitions Armor Around the Globe Av Week Extra Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere) Bizarro Blimps Blog Bidness Body Armor Blues Bomb Squad Brownshoes in Action Bubbleheads, etc. Cammo Green Catch the "Buzz" Chem-Bio Civilian Apps Cloak and Dagger Commandos Comms Contingency Ops Cops and Robbers Cyber-warfare Data Diving Defense Tech Poll Defense Tech Radio Dissent Tech Door Kickers Drones DT Administrivia Eat DT's Dust Extra! Extra! Eye on China Fast Movers FCS Watch Fire for Effect FOS Files Friday Funnies Gadgets and Gear Going Green Grand Ole Osprey Ground Vehicles Guns Homeland Security In the Weeds with Eric Info War Iraq Diary Jarhead Jazz JSF Watch Just War Theories Lasers and Ray Guns Less-lethal Logistics Los Alamos and Labs M4 Monopoly Medic! Mercs Missiles Money Money Money Most Wanted MRAP Edge Net-Centric Nukes Old Skool Our Shrinking Planet Planes, Copters, Blimps Podcast Politricks Polmar's Perspective Popular Mechanics Rapid Fire Raptor Watch Red Team Retro-Futuro Robots Roll Your Own Sabra Tech Ships and Subs Snipertech Soldier Systems Space Special Ops Star Wars Strategery Stray Trons Tactical Development Terror Tech The Deadlies The Defense Biz The Peoples' Site The Sunday Paper The Tanker Tango The View from Av Week Those Nutty Norks Training and Sims Trimble on the Case Video Lounge War Update Ward'z Wonderz You can run... See all Archives


	Newsletters


Edited by Christian Lowe \| Contact

Paks Rumbling with Afghan Rebels?

Here's a little tid bit on the cutting room floor from last week's interview with the Pentagon's policy chief, Eric Edelman.

The other day I got an email from a source of mine who claimed some of his buddies working in the private security industry in Pakistan and Afghanistan told him Pakistani intelligence officers have been found in "non life-supporting postures" after skirmishes or air strikes on insurgents in Afghanistan.

In other words, elements within Pakistan's ISI are directly aiding anti-coalition forces in Afghanistan -- sometimes engaging in combat operations with them.

I asked Edelman what the deal was...here's a brief transcript of how that conversation went:

Defense Tech: In Afghanistan, have you seen any evidence of Pakistani agencies' involvement in assisting the Taliban and other parties within Afghanistan against US troops and also within the [federally administered tribal areas]?

Edelman: I think that, you know, there's a long history here. The Pakistan government for a very long time has regarded Afghanistan as its 'strategic depth' and clearly there have been relationships that go back to the Mujahaddin era that have persisted. We've had some concerns about it, we've expressed those concerns. We had a meeting with the head of ISI, general Pasha ... my view is we ought to give him a chance to see how he can handle his new responsibilities and go from there.

Defense Tech: So is that a 'yes?'

Edelman: You'll have to make a judgment on whether that was a yes or not.

Defense Tech: So you have seen involvement...?

Edelman: As I said there have been persistent ties that have withstood over a long period of time and we've expressed concerns over those ties.

Sounds to me like a yes...What do you all think?

-- Christian

Comments

Thanks for the heads up, Chris'!!

btw.......interesting photo, hmmnn?

WINK!!!

Posted by: Jerry Gyreene at November 19, 2008 01:24 AM

>The only way to stabilize and achieve a lasting success in Afghanistan is to destroy ISI

Exactly how do you propose that the U.S. carry out this task? Cruise missiles on ISI headquarters? Logistical concerns alone dictate that the U.S. needs Pakistan on its side. To say nothing of concerns of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons falling under the control of the Taliban and other radical groups.

>They were the primary backers of the Taliban, with American support, for many many years.

Since when did the U.S. support the Taliban? Once the Soviets were kicked out of Afghanistan the U.S. indifference to Afghanistan was almost total. The Taliban are largely the creation of ISI.

Yes the Pakistan government has legitimate "interests". These don't include directly supporting the Taliban or even just turning a blind eye to the creation of sanctuaries within Pakistan that permit the Taliban to create chaos in Afghanistan. The U.S. needs to address the legitimate Pakistan security concerns by brokering a settlement between India and Pakistan over Kashmir and to take whatever steps are necessary to make the Pakistanis see that Afghanistan is not and will not become part of some encirclement of Pakistan by India.

That's the carrot - the stick is direct action against Al-Qaeda and their Pashtun supporters and protectors and the threat of the U.S. boosting the interests of India in the region at the expense of Pakistan if Pakistan fails to cooperate. Plus calling a halt to the billions of dollars the U.S. is spending to prop up Pakistan's government.

For the U.S. it is a balancing act: it cannot afford to undermine the Pakistani to the extent that Pakistan becomes a failed state. Not when it has nukes. Nor can it continue to permit sanctuaries in the NWF to continue unmolested.

Posted by: Aussie Armchair General at November 18, 2008 11:35 PM

Christian, it has been well known for ISI support for these terrorist elements. It was no surprise for me either. The ISI has also been engaging disinformation against the US government on deaths of terrorist officials within Pakistan. If you have any connection to DAWN, or someone who could hook you up, you may find much more about this.

Posted by: pedestrian at November 18, 2008 10:38 AM

We are too regimented in our thinking of how a system works. We need to be more cautious entering situations like this. We need to analyze the region, norms, and personalities of the local populace. Use history to get an understanding of how we reached this conclusion, so we can go in and effectively gather data and influence policy. We send our guys in to talk to the chief and with our book of standard practices and wonder why we can't get anywhere. All this buildup of IT, F22, JSF, and nothing about spending billions to develop and improve our HUMINT. Yes it's time intensive, expensive, and dangerous. It is also effective. I think those shadowy agencies all working for different goals need to put their heads together for a while til everything settles down, then they can go back to what they were doing for a few more years.

Posted by: Jmuthaf'nT at November 18, 2008 10:05 AM

The answer is 'YES' but not a clear cut one.

ISI has to play with both sides. The reason for most of us is not apparent but important enough for Pakistani government.
Pakistan is made up of many nationalities and last but not least Pashtuns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtun) living in mountainous tribal area along with Taliban and Al-Quaeda. Pashtuns are ethnic Afghans who essentially existed on their own for centuries in those areas and are not very friendly to foreign armies operating in their home country - Afghanistan. To add to this, Pakistani govt doesn't have much of a control of those areas. Now, if they decide to move in and lay down the law they will essentially might ignite local uprising (Pashtuns are 2nd largest ethnic group in Pakistan) which obviously is not their intention. Therefore, most of the time Pakistani government appears to 'sit on the fence' when it comes to curbing cross-border attacks into Afghanistan and ISI keeps playing both sides.
Coincidently enough, here is recent article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7734764.stm) on cross-border Nato attack into Pakistan and typical Pakistani response to it (I don't pass a judgment here).
So considering the situation, we might just have to get used to 'not so clear answers' and get on with sh**t shoving ourselves. Such is the nature of this game.

Posted by: Andre at November 18, 2008 09:17 AM

I've said this before that I believe that the reason the U.S. & NATO have not sent more troops into Afghanistan(with appropriate heavy armor) is because of the potential stranglehold that Pakistan,Iran,& the former Soviet Central Asian States have over Afghanistan. If all of these nations,backed by both Russia AND China,put their collective heads together,they could throw up a blockade to prevent U.S. & NATO troops from going in &/or out of Afghanistan. With Georgia,Turkey,& Azerbaijan also potentially joining up with these "blockade partners & India & the Ukraine remaining "neutral," there is absolutely no way to resupply Afghanistan by land,air,or sea. There will be no Afghan version of a "Berlin Airlift" in this scenario. We seriously need to cut our losses in Afghanistan & get out NOW.We should leave Afghanistan first before we leave Iraq.

Posted by: Roy Smith at November 18, 2008 08:39 AM

This helps to underline that military action is never goign to resolve the conflict.
Without political engagement it will never get any better -- and may get a lot worse. Pakistan is a large and populous nation which cannot simply be ignored, and they have their interests too.

Posted by: Wembley at November 18, 2008 08:36 AM

Posted by: kabura at November 17, 2008:
"ISI is responsible for 9/11 and the continued strife and instability in Afghanistan. This is clear as the sun!" ???

You do know, don't you, that if you stare at the Sun for too long, you go blind ?

I'd like to see the above backed up with more facts and less ranting.

As for "The only way to stabilize and achieve a lasting success in Afghanistan is to destroy ISI, which is nothing but al-Qaeda and Taliban" ?
Wow, I mean, let me quess, they offed Elvis, JFK and Marilyn Monroe as well?

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Denmark

Posted by: Thomas L. Nielsen at November 18, 2008 03:24 AM

"In other words, elements within Pakistan's ISI are directly aiding anti-coalition forces in Afghanistan -- sometimes engaging in combat operations with them." - clever, but maybe inept? Is it possible that Intelligence Officers, (and lets not underestimate the abilities of the ISI they are very good at what they do) were gathering Intelligence, maybe even..... wait fir it... Undercover. WOW didn't see that coming did ya? I wouldn't at all be surprised if there were MI6 and CIA people working amongst those groups as well.

I wouldn't blame the Pakistani Govt for turning a blind eye to actions of Taliban in border areas targeting US and NATO operations crossing their borders. Until recent times they managed to control extremists without the help of the US, no collusion in the War on Terror is just making them a target.

Ultimately the US is responsible for the mess in Afghanistan, it built the Taliban just like they built Saddam Hussein.

So other then this piece of limited propaganda is there anything interesting to report this week?

Posted by: Amazed at November 18, 2008 02:26 AM

Conflating the Taliban with Al Quaeda is a huge mistake. They arent the same thing at all. The Taliban are islamic nationalists first and foremost. Al-Quaeda were something altogether different, and who happened base themselves in Afghanistan for reasons of convenience, as well as access to a large community if veterans of the wars against the Soviets. "Al-Quaeda" means "the base", and originally referred to a database of Afghan war veterans held by a Saudi Charity.

Of course the Pakis have relationships with Afghans of all stripes - Taliban and others. They were the primary backers of the Taliban, with American support, for many many years. I imagine that they view the current situation as temporary, and that eventually the Taliban or its successors will rule Afghanistan again at some point in the future. It would be in their best interests to keep relationships will all parties that rule or may rule Afghanistan.

"persistent ties that have withstood over a long period of time" - cant imagine anyone letting go of those easily.

Posted by: drm at November 18, 2008 12:27 AM

That read like a yes.

Should anyone be surprised? No.

Posted by: Jim at November 17, 2008 07:50 PM

It is terrifying that Mr. Edelman doesn't express himself clearly on the issue of ISI involvement with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Edelman belongs to a Western category which has always been apologetic to the "Axis of Evil" of ISI+alQaeda+Taliban.

ISI is responsible for 9/11 and the continued strife and instability in Afghanistan. This is clear as the sun!

The most dangerous and terrifying aspect of Mr. Edelman, who is unfortunately the policy chief at the Pentagon, is that he is asking for "more time" for the ISI to prove us wrong. But Mr. Edelman should remember that he will be held responsible for his negligence of ISI.

"Time" is exactly what the terrorist and extremist ISI wishes for. Seven years, plus billions of dollar in cash, arms, political and diplomatic support to the Pakistani army, thousands of civilian deaths, military losses etc. seem not to be anough for Edelman and the likes, who should be dismissed for incompetence from the U.S. army and administration.

Remember: The only way to stabilize and achieve a lasting success in Afghanistan is to destroy ISI, which is nothing but al-Qaeda and Taliban. Otherwise prepare yourself for a defeat in Afghanistan.

Then Mr.

Posted by: kabura at November 17, 2008 06:15 PM

Not a suprise.....the relationship between the ISI and the Taliban goes way back.

Posted by: CR at November 17, 2008 04:55 PM

There's a persistent history of journalists trying to reduce complex problems to simplistic answers, like badgering people for a simple yes or a no to their favorite question of the day, instead of digging deeper. We've expressed our concerns about this behavior, and we're willing to give them time to learn from their experiences.

Posted by: Tim at November 17, 2008 04:15 PM

Paks Rumbling with Afghan Rebels?

Comments

Post a comment