Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Afghanistan

Heat on Pakistan over Taliban chief

2007-01-19

A TOP Taliban official's claim that the movement's leader, Mullah Omar, is living in Pakistan under the protection of the ISI spy agency has threatened a new crisis in relations between Kabul and Islamabad. Mullah Omar heads the most wanted list for US and NATO-led coalition forces battling the Islamic fundamentalist insurgents in Afghanistan. Previous intelligence reports suggesting Mullah Omar was running the Taliban's military campaign from Quetta, capital of Pakistan's Balochistan province, with the full knowledge of the ISI, have not been substantiated.

Officials in Kabul have released a video of Taliban spokesman Mohammad Hanif under interrogation following his capture on Monday night. In the video, he declares that Mullah Omar "is under the protection of the ISI in Quetta". The claim was denied by Islamabad yesterday. Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Khan Sherpao said the claim was "totally baseless".

"We have no information on the whereabouts of Mullah Omar. He is not living in Pakistan," he said.

In the video, Hanif, 26, says regular suicide bombings in Afghanistan are "carried out by Taliban, financed and equipped by the ISI of Pakistan". According to Afghanistan's intelligence agency, the National Directorate of Security, Hanif, whose real name is Abul Haq Haqiq, was arrested near Jalalabad, close to the Khyber Pass, and is being held in the city. His capture is a coup for Afghan security forces, and is tipped to significantly improve intelligence on Taliban activities.

As one of the Taliban's emerging leaders, Hanif was regarded as principal spokesman, regularly contacting news agencies using a satellite phone from secret locations, which he always insisted were in Afghanistan. Afghan President Hamid Karzai is expected to use Hanif's testimony to heighten international pressure on Pakistan. Adding to the controversy surrounding Hanif were reports that the house in which he was arrested contained packets of the deadly bacteria anthrax.

Posted by:Fred

#34 For those interested in the WOT wrt Pakistan, there is a new e book "Pakistan Failed State" (released as a free download by the author who is apparently an Indian doctor).

It makes very interesting reading

download link 1
download link 2

Posted by: john 2007-01-19 20:55

#33 When are the US/UK going to face up to the fact that Perv is funding/running the Tailban????

I have it on very good authority, that President Bush looked into Pervy's eyes and saw his soul. Oh...wait, that was Putin. Never mind.

Posted by: Chuck Darwin 2007-01-19 20:45

#32 Well, Iran is a perfect example of letting emotions override national security : Jimmy F**king Carter threw away the Shah and gave Iran to the Ayatollahs. All because Jimmy Boy wanted to make nice with the third world and promote a "softer, kinder American foreign policy". And considering the fact that the ISI did created the Taliban, and has supported until today, can anyone honestly say that the Ayatollahs would not take over Pakistan if we dump Perv?
Name ONE Pakistani alternative to Perv that has any political power and is NOT owned by the ISI or the fundies. Without an alternative to Perv, any movement to dispose of him is insane, especially with the ISI sitting in the background just waiting. Or is the creation of a Sunni Iran substitute palatable to those opposed to Perv?
Also given the regularity of Taliban kamikazees, do we really want to bet on the good nature of ISI and the maintenance of the Paki nuke arsenal? I would rather not see a "independent Muslim terrorist group" get a hold of Paki nuke; especially considering that the US is at the top of the To Be Nuked for Allah list.

Posted by: Shieldwolf 2007-01-19 20:44

#31 do we risk losing him and getting an Ayatollah Khomeini in control of Pakistan and its nukes

The very first Pak prime minister Liqiat Ali Khan used this very same argument in 1947 against Nehru. If he went, the mullahs would take over. Nothing of the sort occurred. All Pak leaders have used this threat to blackmail India and the West.

Posted by: john 2007-01-19 20:27

#30 From the court statement of Gandhi's assassin Nathuram Godse, 37, the bachelor editor of two Marathi language newspapers in Poona, who went to the gallows with a copy of the Bhagvad Gita and shouting 'vande mataram'

Volume II Criminal Appeals Nos 66 to 72 of 1949, Punjab high court:

'The background to the event of 30th January 1948 was exclusively political. The fact that Gandhiji used to recite during prayers verses from the Gita, the Quran and the Bible never provoked any ill-will in me towards him. In this vast area live people of various faiths and I hold that these creeds should have full and equal freedom for following their beliefs.

'In my writings and speeches I have always advocated that religious and communal considerations should be entirely eschewed in public affairs of the country... I have throughout stood for a secular State with joint electorates.

'I am prepared to concede that Gandhiji did undergo sufferings for the sake of the nation I shall bow in respect to the service done by Gandhiji to the country and to Gandhiji himself for the said service, and before I fired the shots I actually wished him and bowed to him in reverence

'Since the year 1920, after the demise of Lokmanya Tilak, Gandhiji's influence in the Congress became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal and were reinforced by the slogans of truth and non-violence. To imagine that the bulk of mankind is or can ever become capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life is a mere dream. It was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj that first checked and eventually destroyed Muslim tyranny in India. It was absolutely correct tactic for Shivaji to kill Afzal Khan as the latter would otherwise have surely killed him. In condemning Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit.

'During more than thirty years of the undisputed leadership of the Mahatma there were more desecration of temples, more forcible and fraudulent conversions, more outrages on women and finally the loss of one third of the country.

'Gandhiji was, paradoxically, a violent pacifist He had often acted contrary to his professed principles and if it was for appeasing the Muslim, he hardly had any scruple in doing so.

'By the Act of 1919 separate electorates were enlarged and communal representation was continued not only in the legislative and local bodies but extended even within the Cabinet Government patronage to Muslims in the name of Minority protection penetrated throughout the body politic of the Indian State and the Mahatma's slogans were no match against this wholesale corruption of the Muslim mind. The position began to deteriorate and by 1926 it became patent to all that Government had won all along the line but Gandhiji... went on conceding one undemocratic demand after another to the Muslim League in the vain hope of enlisting its support in the national struggle.

'The communal principle became deeply embedded in the Reforms of 1935. Mr Jinnah took the fullest advantage of every situation. During the war, 1939-44, Mr Jinnah promised to support the war as soon as the Muslims' rights were conceded; in April 1940, within six months of the War, Mr Jinnah came out with the demand for Pakistan on the basis of the two-nation theory.

'The 'Quit India' campaign of 1942 had completely failed. Britishers had triumphed and the Congress policy can be quite correctly described as 'Peace at any price' The Congress compromised with the British who placed it in office and in return the Congress surrendered to the violence of Jinnah, carved out a third of India to him an explicitly racial and theological State, and destroyed two million human beings in the process.

'Gandhiji is being referred to as the Father of the Nation -- an epithet of high reverence. But if so, he has failed in his paternal duty Had Gandhiji really maintained his opposition to the creation of Pakistan, the Muslim League could have had no strength to claim it and the Britishers also could not have created it in spite of all their utmost efforts The reason was the people of this country were vehement in their opposition to Pakistan. But Gandhiji played false with the people. He has proved to be the Father of Pakistan.

'after handing over crores of Hindus to Pakistan, Gandhiji and his followers have been advising them not to leave Pakistan but continue to stay on. Every day that dawned brought forth news about thousands of Hindus being massacred Gandhiji did not even by a single word protest and censure the Pakistani Government

'About Kashmir, Gandhiji again and again declared that Sheikh Abdullah should be entrusted the charge of the State and that the Maharaja of Kashmir should retire to Benares for no particular reason than that the Muslims formed the bulk of the Kashmiri population. This stands out in contrast with his attitude on Hyderabad where although the bulk of the population is Hindu, Gandhiji never called upon the Nizam to retire to Mecca.

'About this very time he resorted to his fast unto death. Every condition given by him for giving up that fast is in favour of Muslims and against the Hindus. One of the seven conditions was to the effect that all the mosques in Delhi which were occupied by the refugees should be vacated and be made over to the Muslims. Gandhiji got this condition accepted by the Government Those were the days of bitter or extreme cold and on the day Gandhiji broke his fast, it was also raining. Families after families of refugees who had come to Delhi for shelter were driven out and while doing so no provision was made for their shelter and stay.

'The decision to withhold the payment of Rs 55 crores to Pakistan was taken by our government which claims to be the people's government. But this decision of the people's Government was reversed to suit the tune of Gandhiji's fast.

'All his fasts were to coerce Hindus.

'Honourable Pandit Nehruji has himself taken a leading part in the acquiescing to the establishment of Pakistan, a theocratic State. But he should have realised that it will never bring prosperity to the Indian Union with a State founded on fantastically blind religious faith and basis.'

Posted by: john 2007-01-19 20:24

#29 Also, if the Indian leadership had not been so damn socialist and chickensh*t, they could have crushed the Pakis on more than one occasion. Never forget that the Indians under Nehru almost literally disbanded the Indian Army, which is why a sizable chunk of India now lies WITHIN China's borders - the Chinese invaded and took it.

Posted by: Shieldwolf 2007-01-19 20:19

#28 Mahatma Gandhi was killed by a hindu extremist.

The ISI (Military Inter-Services-Intelligence) consists of serving military officers who regularly rotate back to their units. It is a tool of the Pak army (which predates the state).

Posted by: john 2007-01-19 20:17

#27 The problem with Pakistan is that it has ALWAYS been a controlled jihadi state : look at the Army's freaking motto, for God's sake. And the only rationale for Pakistan was that it was to be the Muslim state for all Muslims that lived in India, rather than having the sub-continent engage in a 20-30 civil war with the attendant atrocities. Remember, the Muslims were responsible for Gandi's assassination.
There has always been a split in the Paki elites between what are effectively Attaturkist seculars and the true believer fundies. Unfortunately, a lot of the better scientists that Pakistan has came over to Pakistan during or immediately after the Partition from India. Many of them had been involved with the Muslim terrorist organization in India, which India expelled as much as possible during the Partition.
Now that was 5 decades ago, so many of the original scientists that came over are dead. But, guess who were the leading researchers and professors in Paki universities in the 1950s-90s?
Yes, the fundies. Since Khan and the rest of his ilk permitted Pakistan to develop its own nukes, they were given a lot of leeway on most things, including politics.
Also, the ISI was setup along the lines of the SS or KGB : full-blown counterbalance to the military, the bureaucracy, and most of the state. And it has operated as a state within a state for the better part of Pakistan's existence.
Now, we can work with Perv somewhat, so do we risk losing him and getting an Ayatollah Khomeini in control of Pakistan and its nukes; or do we accept that the situation is a matter of bad or worse, and we can live with a low level bad?

Posted by: Shieldwolf 2007-01-19 20:08

#26 Perv has no control over ISI and hasnt for a LONG time ,

First of all, Perv is the head of the Pak army. He remains leader because he is backed by the army brass and Pak elite.

The ISI is a military intelligence agency. It is fully under the control of the Pak army.

The head of the ISI is a Lt Gen appointed by the Pak army Chief.
80 percent of the ISI consists of officers on deputation from the Army, Navy and Air Force.
They serve their stint in the ISI and return to their units. This rotation of staff ensures the ISI follows the dictates of the Pak military brass.

Posted by: john 2007-01-19 19:58

#25 India would join in any plan to dismember Pakistan and divide the territory. They would contribute a lot more than ten divisions.

Also they would be far more adept at pacifying Pakistan. They have the advantage of being from the same ethnic, historical and cultural stock. They were once one country. Paks are a subset of Indian muslims and there are enough of those to ensure pacification. The Pak elite shares many traits with their counterparts across the border. and would be readily coopted.
The Deobandis in India would welcome the return of Pak to the fold.
And Indian military governors in charge of occupied zones would be ruthless with troublemakers.

Posted by: john 2007-01-19 19:51

#24 Unfortunately, I don't see Britain properly supporting the troops they currently have, let alone significantly increasing manpower and bringing logistics for the increased numbers up to the necessary level. Wasn't it recently announced that their Airborne guys aren't going to get anymore jump time because the funding is lacking? The Labourites lined up to take over after Prime Minister Blair steps down are classic anti-military, anti-US, anti-war idiots and, while I'm not up on the details of British politics, my impression is that the Tories aren't much more interested in fighting what they see as Bush's War on Terror.

Posted by: trailing wife 2007-01-19 19:19

#23 Im thinking OP is considering nuking 'em prior to insertion of troops.

Posted by: Shipman 2007-01-19 16:23

#22 pardon above should read "hold it with ten divisions"

Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-01-19 15:40

#21 lets see, something like 4 divisions havent been enough to hold Iraq, a country of 25 million, where 20% (the kurds) really like us, and 60% (the Shiites) havent been consistently fighting us. And in Pakistan, a country of what, 100 million people,and a society so profoundly f**ked up it makes Iraq look sane, and you think we could hold it with 100 million? And no, Japan and UK and Aussie wont be interested, unless Paki has FIRST gone completly, openly loony. And India will be reluctant. Theyve already got like 150 million muslims, and internal tensions, and those are the guys who CHOSE to stay in India. In Pakistan theyre hated, and they would have to occupy it long after we leave. And if you kill millions of Pakis to do this, not only will you lose your allies, and India, but you will have lost Egypt, Jordan Saudi, Indon, etc.

Recipe for total unmitigated disaster.

BTW, I agree we need more troops, and that a crisis in Pakistan is one of the contingenceis that could need them. But I wouldnt go there till its absolutely necessary.

Try to win the chess game first.

Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-01-19 15:39

#20 I've said it before, but it bears repeating. The only solution to the pakistan problem is to eliminate pakistan. Divide the nation between Afghanistan and India along the Indus river. Kill anyone who objects. Destroy Perv's nukes before e can use them or give them away. We need a bigger army in order to do that - about eight divisions larger than it is now. Bush essentially wasted six years where he could have been building up an army to handle the Middle East, and he punted. I doubt he'll ever rank as low as Clinton or peanut, but he has certainly wasted a lot of opportunity to do what's necessary, and his "legacy" will reflect that.

The United States needs at least 20 Army divisions and five Marine divisions, plus the equipment and logistics to support them. We also need to "encourage" our allies (Britain, Canada, Australia, and Japan) to essentially double the size of their militaries to meet the long-term demands of this global war. While it would be NICE if the rest of the free world would understand it's "either us or them" in this battle, and increase the size of THEIR militaries, I don't see it happening - at least not until there's a major strike (thousands dead, tens of thousands injured) in Europe.

We need at least ten divisions to destroy Pakistan - either US, US/Coalition, US/Coalition/India, or whatever. It'll take six months and cost us 10,000 dead (maybe as many as three MILLION dead Pakistanis). It'll take five years to dismantle the muzzie terrorist infrastructure (the madrassahs) once we've conquered the area. In the end, there will be no Pakistan to stir up trouble, things will quieten down in Afghanistan and Kashmir, and the problems in Bangladesh will diminish and may even fade away. False passports will be harder to come by, and the Saudis will have to write off millions (if not billions) in poor "investments". The Iranians will be flanked by a democratic, militarily strong Afghanistan on the east, and the problems between Pakistan and India will fade to annual memorial services. It will only happen, however, if we finally get to the point where we're willing to go Mogul on the Pakis, and tell the world (and the anti-war, anti-American left) to go fornicate with itself. I don't see a US politician with the strength, courage, conviction, or support to do what needs to be done, however.

Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-01-19 14:32

#19 Actually we didnt always do all the guns. The ISI was deeply involved in that to, and CIA-ISI relationship was quite complex.

Given the level of contacts, Id be surprised if Langley didnt have substantial assets inside the ISI though.

Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-01-19 13:44

#18 "So Perv is essentially impotent and any US action to eliminate One-eye or Binny would result in his ousting - excuse me thunking aloud, it's Friday. "

If someone is able to "perform" once every few weeks are they impotent? :)

Fact is the truth seems to be somewhere in between. Perv has SOME control over the ISI, but not that much. And he has more control over the army. Its a chess game between him and Hamid Gul (among other players) He CAN prevent AQ from operating openly. He CAN go after AQ types in Karachi, etc. He CANT touch the paki types who support the Taliban. He walks a tightrope between us and Gul. If he does too little for us, we can hurt him. If he does too much for us, Gul can get enough support to overthrow him. He uses the threat of Gul to hold us off, and the threat of us to hold Gul off. But hes doing more for us now than Gul would.

Not a simple situation.

Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-01-19 13:41

#17 I think it all comes down to the West fears what would replace him ala Syria/Saudi!!!

Certainly every single one of Pakistan's rulers have held that threat over the heads of the West, Ebbolump Glomotle9608, even as they encouraged/organized/sponsored the activities and people that led the mess they have today.

Posted by: trailing wife 2007-01-19 11:29

#16 Very true Frank G - very unspecific of me and I stand corrected - the Saudis did the religion and we did the guns. Have suspicion we built a series of fortifications in the NWFP?? - from Steve Coll's Ghost Wars IIRC.

Posted by: Howard UK 2007-01-19 10:59

#15 another irony, that the West helped establish the network of Madrassas in the NWFP

source for that? IIUC we armed and coordinated fighters, but the Paks and the Saudis did the Madrassahs

Posted by: Frank G 2007-01-19 10:33

#14 Combine EG & JW and you get a good hint at an explanation.

If Perv has controls for the nukes we can't afford to lose him to the mullahs. That alternative is too gruesome to contemplate.

Posted by: AlanC 2007-01-19 10:07

#13 I think it all comes down to the West fears what would replace him ala Syria/Saudi!!!

Better the devil you know.......

Posted by: Ebbolump Glomotle9608 2007-01-19 09:35

#12 McNails
I remember reading somewhere that Perv uses the Islamic terrorist as part of his Foreign policy/regional power

Posted by: Ebbolump Glomotle9608 2007-01-19 09:16

#11 We all worry about Iran getting the 'bomb', but it seems to me Pakistan is the odds-on favorite to provide the first nuke-to-terrorist transfer.

Posted by: Jump Wheatch9614 2007-01-19 08:49

#10 Thanks for the insight MacNails - another irony, that the West helped establish the network of Madrassas in the NWFP, should surely provide an advantage in understanding the structure/ways of the ISI...

Posted by: Howard UK 2007-01-19 07:49

#9 On top of that theres enough sub sections in the ISI to make any diplomat/politician dizzy . Each of these are pretty much independent of each other

Sounds like what Saddam did to his security forces, so they spent more time watching each other than thinking about removing him.

Posted by: Rob Crawford 2007-01-19 07:44

#8 The irony for me is that the ISI was created by a British officer post ww2 ..

On top of that theres enough sub sections in the ISI to make any diplomat/politician dizzy . Each of these are pretty much independent of each other

Perv has tried to do his bit i suppose , what with dismantling the kashmir and afgan sections , but alas he just took them from the ISI and put them in military positions ..possibly strengthening their position further .

The mind boggles at the mess over there , if it wasnt for the spead of nuclear fallout ..... problems could have been solved long ago :p

On a side note , Russian operations back in early 80's did involve a number of ventures deep inside Pakistans border to try and kill off 'mujahidin' , but as the ISI trained approx 80,000 to fight , you can see the enormity of the problem back then , let alone now

Posted by: MacNails 2007-01-19 07:00

#7 essentially yeh , but hey if Perv goes , thats a major foothold we lose to the ISI and its allies , see the problem ?

Hes playing the double game as thats the only way on earth he'd survive . He needs us as much as we need his impotence ..

Posted by: MacNails 2007-01-19 06:38

#6 MacNails

Thanks for the info but i am dubious that Perv has no control over the ISI

Personally i think he is playing a double game with the West as he needs the militants re Kashmir and afghanistan.

Posted by: Ebbolump Glomotle9608 2007-01-19 06:35

#5 So Perv is essentially impotent and any US action to eliminate One-eye or Binny would result in his ousting - excuse me thunking aloud, it's Friday.

Posted by: Howard UK 2007-01-19 06:29

#4 Perv has no control over ISI and hasnt for a LONG time , its acting independently from him , but in co-partnership with many in his corrupt government , whilst at the same time fanning the flames of extremism radianting from NW P-land , with the intent to export it (creating a kind of buffer zone and renegade military wing independent of Islamabad , reinforcements if you like ).. Kinda like a politico-social hammer and anvil . I am sure he can do more , but chooses not to , for whatever reason . I would kinda of expect a coup of sorts in a year or two .. Once they (ISI) feel they have the correct hand to play

Anyway this is all speculation , but my general gut feeling , and all these close ties to 'ol one eye' and such leads to this .. The enemy of my enemy is my friend blah blah

Posted by: MacNails 2007-01-19 06:14

#3 EG - the extent to which the Bush gummint supports Perv mystifies the shit out of me too - more n likely sumtin to do with being careful about biting off and chewing things. I know other profoundly more intelligent RBers have explained it to me before. Probly waiting for Pakland to implode of its own volition.

Posted by: Howard UK 2007-01-19 05:41

#2 When are the US/UK going to face up to the fact that Perv is funding/running the Tailban????

when Perv's lips fall off they'll form a Demarche committee.

Posted by: RD 2007-01-19 05:12

#1 When are the US/UK going to face up to the fact that Perv is funding/running the Tailban????

Posted by: Ebbolump Glomotle9608 2007-01-19 05:06

00:00