Taliban-ISI Report Makes No Sense

I finally got around to reading the new report by Mr Matt Waldman from London School of Economics. I could barely get through it without groaning. This is the quality of work coming out of LSE? Very disappointing. It seems like Mr Waldman is perhaps out to make a name for himself by writing sensational reports. Too bad it is so far fetched it’s hardly believable. Which left me wondering, what was the point?

The author of the report, Mr Matt Waldman, is a long-time opponent of the war in Afghanistan and has written for years predicting that military operations will fail in Afghanistan. While it certainly makes sense that there needs to be more focus on the needs of people in Afghanistan – and in our own tribal areas – reading his latest report, one cannot help but wonder if Mr Waldman’s view has not been unduly coloured by his own beliefs.

Almost all of the quotes that Waldman uses are from anonymous sources. That’s not surprising, but what is surprising is what he chooses to believe and disbelieve. Take for example the quote about how Zardari supposedly told Taliban leaders that ‘you are our people, we are your friends.’ Waldman accepts such an unlikely scenario without question. But read on to where his same sources tell him that the Americans are secretly funding the Taliban and he suddenly gets a case of incredulity saying, “Although this is not credible…”

Actually, this is not the first time that Waldman is forced to question the validity of what he is told. After a lengthy paragraph containing quotes from his Taliban sources claiming that they don’t want to kill innocents or blow up schools, but are forced to by the ISI, Waldman follows with, “Whether these assertions are true is debatable…” You don’t say.

Reading through the report, I was struck by how easy it would be to swap out ‘CIA’ for ‘ISI’ and the report could easily have been written by Zaid Hamid or any other conspiracy theorist. The evidence throughout the report is weak, at best. And to accept the reports findings one has to believe that for all intents and purposes, there is no Taliban. It is only ISI who is at work.

Really, though, can it be any surprise that Taliban sources – especially under the cloak of anonymity – are telling this naive gentleman that they are the real victims! That it is secretly ISI who is behind everything? How convenient!

I do not doubt that there are some ISI and MI elements who are supporting some jihadis. This is not so hard to imagine, and there is plenty of reason to believe it is so. But that is not what Mr Waldman suggests. Rather he is saying that it is official policy from the state of Pakistan – President on down to the ISI man in FATA – who is funding, organizing, planning, and carrying out terrorist attacks.

In order to believe this, you have to believe that all the military soliders who are being killed by Taliban are really just being killed by themselves. You have to believe that attacks on ISI and GHQ by Taliban are really carried out by ISI and military itself. You have to believe that the government is allowing drone attacks to kill itself. This is so stupid I don’t know how anyone can believe it. You would have to believe that the entire war is being done with Pakistan on both sides. Stupid.

I’m not the only one to see this silliness for what it is. Huma Imtiaz had a similar reaction:

Even though hating President Zardari might be a national pastime in Pakistan for many, this statement seems far-fetched, even to the most committed of his foes.First, it is hard to believe that the uber-secretive ISI would share such information with members of the civilian government. Secondly, even if ISI officials did take Pakistan’s civilian government into confidence, why would they take a civilian president to assure the Taliban of the ISI’s support? If they had to reassure the high-ranking Talibs, a more reassuring face would have been that of the ISI chief’s, or even the Chief of Army Staff’s.

President Zardari’s media adviser has already denied the allegations. Athar Abbas, head of the army’s PR wing, has termed it “rubbish.”

Secondly, what is rather unbelievable is that a majority of the Taliban members who are interviewed in the Waldman report despise the ISI. You begin to feel, based on their allegations that had it not been for the ISI’s pressure, they would happily give up their arms. While we have indeed seen anti-Pakistan statements from the Afghan government and from the Afghan people in recent years, it would have benefited the author to have interviewed at least a few former or current ISI members, as the report seems a rather one-sided account. And while I don’t discount the expertise of Ahmed Rashid or the Washington Post, citing their articles to prove a point that is on flimsy grounds to begin with does not help the veracity of this report.

Mosharraf Zaidi says that Mr Matt Waldman should be sued for libel. I can’t say I disagree. The author is no mere student who is perhaps misguided. This is a long-time professional who should absolutely know better than to publish such sensational nonsense. A man of his stature must know that the obvious result would be controversy, and he should be held responsible for his actions.

There are some real lingering problems with jihadi sympathizers both in groups like ISI and retired from the same. How does it do any good to solving these problems for such a report as Mr Waldman’s to be published. The only possible reason to do such a thing would seem to be an attempt to make a bad name for Pakistan so that we become isolated and left at the mercy of Talibans so that his country doesn’t have to make any more sacrifices. This might be a suitable answer for Mr Waldman who enjoys his luxurious home in the West. But for those of us who have to live with this Taliban monster on a day-to-day basis, it’s not such a fine answer.

Drone attacks are inspiring terrorism in United States

NEWS WEEK

Failed Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad says he was driven by anger over dozens of unmanned drone attacks that he witnessed during his most recent five-month visit to his home in Pakistan. That seems a plausible enough motive, particularly since he joins a growing list of homegrown U.S. terror suspects who have cited the escalation of U.S. military operations on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in general, or in the drone attacks in particular. They include U.S. resident Najibullah Zazi, the Afghan immigrant who pleaded guilty in a plot to bomb the New York subway system; Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the U.S.-born army psychiatrist, charged with fatally shooting 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, last year; and the five American Muslims from Virginia, accused of plotting attacks against targets in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

So why isn’t the Obama administration listening? It has so far been unable, or unwilling, to acknowledge the link between the drone attacks and the rising incidence of homegrown terror. Instead, the administration has accused the Pakistani Taliban of directing and probably financing the Times Square plot, even though Shahzad has said he went to the Taliban for help, not the other way around. Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, dismissed the reports that Shahzad was motivated by the drone strikes and, instead, said that the suspect was “captured by the murderous rhetoric of Al Qaeda and TTP that looks at the United States as an enemy.”

The Obama team has its rationale for drone attacks. It stresses that the drone attacks have degraded the capabilities of the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda, without putting U.S. troops in harm’s way on Pakistani soil. What this calculus ignores is the damage drone attacks inflict on America’s reputation in the Muslim world and the “possibilities of blowback,” about which the CIA, which leads the drone war, has rightly warned.

The war on the AfPak border has replaced Iraq as the main source of homegrown radicalization. Qaeda’s effort to find and recruit terrorists has been replaced by a bottom-up flow of volunteers, a flow that is currently very weak, and extremely difficult to track. What these individuals had in common was that they were radicalized online, typically by coverage of the AfPak battles.

The most controversial element of those battles is the use of CIA Predator drones on targets in Pakistan. The CIA currently wages a 24/7 Predator campaign against the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda. In Pakistan, drone attacks are Obama’s weapon of choice. He has expanded the use of drones to include low-level targets, such as foot soldiers. According to an analysis of U.S. government sources, the CIA has killed around 12 times more low-level fighters than mid-to-high-level Qaeda and Taliban leaders since the drone attacks intensified in the summer of 2008.

In the first four months this year, the Predators fired nearly 60 missiles in Pakistan, about the same number as in Afghanistan, the recognized war theater. In Pakistan, the pace of drone strikes has increased to two or three a week, up roughly fourfold from the Bush years. Although drone strikes have killed more than a dozen Qaeda and Taliban leaders, they have incinerated hundreds of civilians, including women and children.

Predator strikes have inflamed anti-American rage among Afghans and Pakistanis, including first or second generation immigrants in the west, as well as elite members of the security services. The Pakistani Taliban and other militants are moving to exploit this anger, vowing to carry out suicide bombings in major U.S. cities. Drone attacks have become a rallying cry for Taliban militants, feeding the flow of volunteers into a small, loose network that is harder to trace even than shadowy Al Qaeda. Jeffrey Addicott, former legal adviser to Army Special Operations, says the strategy is “creating more enemies than we’re killing or capturing.” The Obama administration needs to at least acknowledge the dangers of military escalation and to welcome a real debate about the costs of the drone war. Because clearly, its fallout is reaching home.

Pakistan can play pivotal role for stability of Afghanistan; Gilani

ISLAMABAD, Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani has said that Pakistan can really play a pivotal role for the stability of Afghanistan as a stable Afghanistan is in its interest.In an interview with French daily ‘Le Figaro’ here, the Prime Minister said Pakistan wanted a stable and prosperous Afghanistan, adding, it has historical, cultural and geographical commonalities with Afghanistan.

To a question about Pakistan’s role in ending the Afghan conflict and talks with Taliban, the prime minister said that Pakistan is part of the solution of Afghan conflict as the leadership of both the countries wanted a home made solution to the issue.
“Afghan President Hamid Karzai did call on us and he had strategy for reconciliation and now we had to see his plan and of course with the US and we both can see his plan and vision and wanted a home made solution to the Afghan issue,” the prime minister said.
He said that Pakistan did not interfere in the internal matters of Afghanistan rather wanted to support them.
Pakistan did not interfere in President Karzai’s elections, he added.
About the arrest of Mula Baradar and other Taliban leaders, the prime minister said, there is no distinction between good and bad Taliban.
“The terrorists have no religion, they are enemies of the humanity and we are against them,” he said and added that Mula Baradar has been arrested and that is not the turning point and even before this we have targeted the high value targets and arrested a lot of high profile people.”
The Prime Minister disagreed with a question that Pakistan is not doing enough to crush terrorists. He said the successful military operations in Swat, Malakand, South Waziristan and FATA have a lot of success stories where the strong hideouts of terrorists were destroyed and they are now on run and hitting the settled areas.
He said the successful return of 2.5 million Internally Displaced Persons to their hometown in Swat and Malakand was appreciated by the world which is unprecedented in the world history.
About Pak-US objects in war against terror, the prime minister said, “We have common objectives and that is terrorism and extremism and we want to work together with the USA because our objectives are common.”
About drone attacks and transfer of technology, he said, Pakistan has conveyed its concern as it wanted to isolate Taliban from the local tribes and therefore “we have conveyed our concern as it is counter productive and the US is looking into it and now they get back to us what sort of solution can be worked out between the two countries.”
Gilani said that if the drone technology is used by Pakistan it would be more productive.
About nuclear programme and its security, the prime minister said Pakistan has a better image and the world has appreciated our nuclear programme and its security.
He said the US President Barack Obama in the recently held nuclear security conference gave a categorical statement about our nuclear safety.
About Pakistan-France relations, the prime minister said, “I did meet President Sarkozi in Washington and we have excellent relations with European Union countries.
He added that Pakistan wanted to further improve and strengthen its relations with France.
“Both the countries have good defence cooperation and Pakistan also wanted to build and strengthen its economic relations with France.”
About nuclear cooperation, Prime Minister Gilani said, “I attended the recently held nuclear safety summit in Washington. More than 49 heads of states participated in it.”
He said that at the moment Pakistan is passing through a more difficult time due to power shortage. There are riots in the country due to this issue and we really wanted peaceful nuclear facility to meet our domestic requirements, the prime minister said.
About any deal with the US for civil nuclear technology, the prime minister said, “Our discussion is still going on but at the moment we are just discussing it and there is nothing concrete.”
About any thing expected from France in nuclear sector, he said, in fact Pakistan wanted for the access to EU market.
To a question regarding challenges for the government after the 18th amendment, the Prime Minster said, the challenges are either way but it will really facilitate democracy. If institutions are strengthened it would strengthen the democracy and people.
He said the democratic forces have corrected the anomalies of dictatorial regimes which is a great achievement.
About priorities of government, he said, his priority was the same to stabilize the economy, as Pakistan has suffered a lot due to the war on terror and because of it we are hit badly on economic side.
He said the second thing is law and order, as we hit the militants in their areas they are attacking the settled areas and disturbing the law and order situation.
About the United Nations report on Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, the prime minister said the legal experts are examining the report and after discussion, a decision will be taken.
He said the UN report is more close to the announcemen after CEC’s meeting after the assassination of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto.
About Pakistan-India ties and dialogue process, the prime minister said, in fact before the Mumbai incident we were smoothly working on composite dialogue with India.
But after that incident the composite dialogue had been stalled, he said, adding, he had positive meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Sharm el Sheikh. We wanted to ensure India that perpetrators of the incident would be brought to justice, the prime minister said.
About the upcoming SAARC summit, he said, it is a useful forum for the regional countries and is good for regional stability.
About any meeting with Indian Prime Minister at the summit, he said, at the moment no meeting with Indian prime minister is scheduled but “let see when we visit Bhutan.”