PAKISTAN

A Bid for Control Backfires

By Zahid Hussain, Michael Hirsh and Mark Hosenball | NEWSWEEK

Published Aug 2, 2008

From the magazine issue dated Aug 11, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Posted By: sb0614 @ 08/08/2008 1:59:19 PM

Comment: Pakistan lacks even a rudimentary democratic infrastructure due to decades of military rule. ISI was created by the military to covertly support infiltration into Kashmir by fundamentalist jihadists without actually going to war with India. The same ISI recieved funds to arm the mujahadeen to expel the Soviets and then to create the Taleban. ISI did not have to answer to the Pakistani citizens (they would die first) or any other democratic institution because there was none!

It is almost impossible now to put this genie back in the bottle.
Posted By: HillBillyBill @ 08/07/2008 9:14:04 AM

Comment: Pakistan is accustomed to rule by military leaders. At the urging of the current U.S. administration using carrot and stick diplomacy, the military leader allowed himself to become a civilian leader, but now that he faces impeachment it is clear that the military leader retains power over the newly created civilian leadership. Just how the current U.S. administration thought this strategy would help root out the Taliban and Al Quada now well established in Pakistan is not at all clear. This is the same administration that told the world that any country harboring terrorists would be treated the same as the terrorists by the U.S. But Pakistan is a nuclear power, so backing that threat is obviously not an option by this administration. The few forays by air over the border has resulted in sharp rebuke by the Pakistani powers that be. The former military leader that was thought to be friendly to the U.S. against the will of most of the Pakistani powers and general population, lost his power to demonstrate his active cooperation with the U.S. to route out the Taliban & Osama Bin Laden's followers inside the Pakistan border. The next U.S. administration now faces a very difficult problem in trying to deal with this problem.
Posted By: divinely speaking @ 08/05/2008 11:02:45 AM

Comment: Go back to the period of Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. CIA wanted the Soviets and the Mujaheedin to bleed each other to death, or near death. Enter the ego-maniac cowboy named Charlie Wilson who got his inspiration in a jaccuzzi with hired whores to help the Mujaheedin. He hated India for his very narrow thinking. The man was a go getter but myopic and impulsive. He and his strange bed-fellow renegade CIA agent did not appreciate the significance of CIA plan. He became the stooge of the then president Zia of Pakistan (a fundamentalists extremists who violated human rights of his own Pakistani citizens to help Afghans gain freedom). Zia, through Charlie Wilson, got funding from USA that benefited his friend in the military and the fundamentlists and extremists in the Mujaheedin. CIA knew that Mujaheedin hated USA as much as they hated the Soviets. Therefore, they wanted them to slowly bleed to death. Pakistan military brass made tons of money by embezzlements, corruption, stealing, etc. from the American aid. Once the Afghan crisis was over, they created Taleban to take control of the opium trade of Afghanistan. It ended with the NATO invasion of Afghanistan. Then came peace between India and Pakistan with Musharraf. He wanted Pakistan all in Pakistan to prosper rather than only the military brass. That meant diversification of control of economy. The loser was obviously the Pakistan ISI and military. Musharraf kept the military under control. Now that his powers are curtailed, the military brass is back in action trying to bully the civilian government with the help of ISI. My recommendation: flatten ISI and Pakisani military. Their significance will increase only if they have an enemy in name (India in this case). The Pakistani military is proven worthless for Pakistan itself. They are responsible for the dismemberment of Pakistan itself, besides losing two wars with India, and creating menacing organization Taliban and Al Qaida for strategic gains, which ended up attacking Pakistan itself, and now attacking India.
Posted By: divinely speaking @ 08/05/2008 11:02:16 AM

Comment: Go back to the period of Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. CIA wanted the Soviets and the Mujaheedin to bleed each other to death, or near death. Enter the ego-maniac cowboy named Charlie Wilson who got his inspiration in a jaccuzzi with hired whores to help the Mujaheedin. He hated India for his very narrow thinking. The man was a go getter but myopic and impulsive. He and his strange bed-fellow renegade CIA agent did not appreciate the significance of CIA plan. He became the stooge of the then president Zia of Pakistan (a fundamentalists extremists who violated human rights of his own Pakistani citizens to help Afghans gain freedom). Zia, through Charlie Wilson, got funding from USA that benefited his friend in the military and the fundamentlists and extremists in the Mujaheedin. CIA knew that Mujaheedin hated USA as much as they hated the Soviets. Therefore, they wanted them to slowly bleed to death. Pakistan military brass made tons of money by embezzlements, corruption, stealing, etc. from the American aid. Once the Afghan crisis was over, they created Taleban to take control of the opium trade of Afghanistan. It ended with the NATO invasion of Afghanistan. Then came peace between India and Pakistan with Musharraf. He wanted Pakistan all in Pakistan to prosper rather than only the military brass. That meant diversification of control of economy. The loser was obviously the Pakistan ISI and military. Musharraf kept the military under control. Now that his powers are curtailed, the military brass is back in action trying to bully the civilian government with the help of ISI. My recommendation: flatten ISI and Pakisani military. Their significance will increase only if they have an enemy in name (India in this case). The Pakistani military is proven worthless for Pakistan itself. They are responsible for the dismemberment of Pakistan itself, besides losing two wars with India, and creating menacing organization Taliban and Al Qaida for strategic gains, which ended up attacking Pakistan itself, and now attacking India.
Posted By: danar @ 08/04/2008 10:47:59 AM

Comment: If the US steps up its unilateral operations in the tribal areas it then risks radicalizing the Pakistanis to the point of an Islamic revolution. This outcome could divert the Pakistan government's focus away from their current Indian obsession and confrontation towards an alignment with the Arab and Persian fixation on Israel. Pakistan would then point most of their nuclear warheads in the opposite direction to where they are aimed now, and we would all have greater worries than how far along Iran is in its own weapons program. The American agenda is to maintain the Pakistan-India rivalry while trying to assert some sort of control over the Pakistan border with Afganistan, and at the same time try to contain the Iranian nuclear program. It's a delicate balance that just going in and bombing Taliban camps in Pakistan (or Iranian centrifuges outside of Tehran for that matter) could upset with disasterous consequences.
Posted By: danar @ 08/04/2008 10:45:11 AM

Comment: If the US steps up its unilateral operations in the tribal areas it then risks radicalizing the Pakistanis to the point of an Islamic revolution. This outcome could divert the Pakistan government's focus away from their current Indian obsession and confrontation towards an alignment with the Arab and Persian fixation on Israel. Pakistan would then point most of their nuclear warheads in the opposite direction to where they are aimed now, and we would all have greater worries than how far along Iran is in its own weapons program. The American agenda is to maintain the Pakistan-India rivalry while trying to assert some sort of control over the Pakistan border with Afganistan, and at the same time try to contain the Iranian nuclear program. It's a delicate balance that just going in and bombing Taliban camps in Pakistan (or Iranian centrifuges outside of Tehran for that matter) could upset with disasterous consequences.
- Posted By: emmarcee @ 08/06/2008 11:41:47
  
  Comment: crude, but you are right on the premises.
Posted By: Trooper101st @ 08/04/2008 8:36:37 AM

Comment: If you really want to hurt an insurgency, you take thier "safe havens" away. That will put them on the run, expose them. So, unless the US finds a new logistics base, we cannot use massive air-strikes, followed up by air-assaults to clean up wats left, and pursue them-with the intention of killing them. The T-ban was the ISI's baby, you think they are gonna turn thier backs on them? No way. How many T-ban meetings has former ISI chief Hamid Gul attended? More than we can count. Find another logistics route, or we will be playing this game for years. If so, we will lose A-stan. If we do not strike them in the tribal belt this can go on for years. Covert ops? Limited strikes by B-2's, B1-B's and ALCM's? We should have been doing that months ago. How did 30 camps less than 12 weeks ago turn into 100? We let it happen. P-stan cannot be trusted. They are 2 faced double dealing swine. I hope India crushes them one day-they would richly deserve it. Bombs Away!!!!
- Posted By: LIKEITIS @ 08/04/2008 19:26:04
  
  Comment: CORRECT! WE KNOW THE TRIBES THAT HAVE GONE EXTREMIST AND MUST BE WILLING TO ANNIALATE THEM BY CONVENTIONAL AIR STRIKE. THIS MUST BE DONE AT LEAST 8-10 TIMES WITHOUT REGUARD TO ANY B.S. ABOUT CIVILIAN DEATH TOLL.................IF TERROR IS VISITED UPON TERRORISTS IN THE WAY THE U.S.A. CAN DO TERROR..............MASSIVELY AND ALMOST SURREAL IN NATURE....................HELL ON EARTH (AS IN "WAR IS HELL"), WE CAN BRING SOME OF THIS TERROR SPREE TO A QUICK HALT. ...............IF WAR IS NOT HELL ON EARTH THERE IS LITTLE REASON TO GIVE UP...................................OTHERWISE, WE LOSE BY VIRTUE OF ENDLESS SMALL SKIRMISHES FIGHTING GUERILLA WARFARE AGAINST THE NATIVE POPULATIONS AND A NEVER ENDING POLICING ACTION!
Posted By: nawawimohamad @ 08/03/2008 4:03:40 AM

Comment: The attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul is more of an outcome of resentment against India's involvement in Afghanistan which seems to be supporting the US. However, the Taliban would not want to instigate India thus adding another front to its fight. India's involvement is mainly for economic reasons rather then supporting the US. In these context there is nothing much to be gained by Pakistan if its secret service was involved in the bombing, which would be a very stupid act. If the CIA was involved, it would make sure that the blame can be put squarely on some parties that will cover its involvement. Since there is nobody claiming responsibility, the only conclusion is that the bombing was carried out by the local business community who felt that they are being sidelined by the Afghan/US government in the present economic activities.
- Posted By: emmarcee @ 08/06/2008 11:44:51
  
  Comment: shut up, you Paki Pig. Of course India is there for buisiness and not to spread hate. Pakkiis should stop the India centrism and grow up.