Pakistan - Taliban Hub

Originally posted by Afghanan Originally posted by maqsad Ok so this makes it more likely that NATO was called in to Afghanistan with the knowledge of ISI then. Or because ISI was failing to supress pakhtun nationalism well enough.    To the 1st part of your question, YES.  There was obviously going to be a power vacuum after the Taliban were removed from Kabul.  That is why they brought many respected expatriot elements into the country in hopes of counter-balancing the warlords and their ISI, or Iranian elements.

That wasnt really a question and the first part I don't think you understood either. I said that because the ISI failed to function as a puppetmaster of the Taliban, NATO was forced to bring troops in to remove the taliban and install UNOCAL puppet karzai and others like him. Dunno about Irani influence in 2001. Was there any? I was under the impression the Taliban were giving them a very hard time and had conquered 90% of Afghanistan.

Originally posted by Afghanan After the war, Ismael Khan, a Pashtun-Tajik warlord in Herat created a bubbled fiefdom in which he grew closer to Iran and would not share all the transit trade money coming from across the border.    At first ISI had to be quelled, and once that happenned, Iranian influence had to be removed.

Whats the timeline of events here in relation to the 2001 invasion?

Originally posted by Afghanan First, agents from Karzais government (or CIA) had Ismael Khan's son killed, then they hired a Pashtun warlord to threaten Herat, and had him withdraw in the last minute after Ismael Khan was forced out of power.

You mean KHAD? Or who? Weren't all of Karzais hits done by the US marines and CIA?

Originally posted by Afghanan Then lately, India has gotten closer to Kabul via renovating a few hospitals and high schools, providing buses, and engaging in various engineering projects.   Pakistan complained that it is losing out on deals to India.

Pakistan complained? Where did you hear this do you have any links? Why would pakistan complain of anything other than negative Indian influence such as financing and support of terrorists. I don't get it.

Originally posted by Afghanan Then activites in Kashmir started heating up, and Pakistan has made accusations that India is influencing Baluchis in Afghanistan to cause trouble in Baluchistan.

Yeah that makes sense.

Originally posted by Afghanan Ever since, the ISI has been active again in fueling the Taliban resistance again.  At first the Afghan government was silent about it, not wanting to spark outrage, but when it became deadly obvious they did not hesitate to point fingers across the border.

Active in fueling which taliban? How about some names of leaders here, what their goals are and ideologies and who their targets are.

Originally posted by Afghanan The spokesperson to the Taliban, Abdul Haq Haqiqi  acknowledged ex ISI chief Hamid Gul as being part of a conspiracy against Karzai's government and that Mullah Omar was in Quetta.  When foriegn news agencies flocked there, they acknowledged the fact that Quetta is a pretty much police zone where foreigners are monitored and Taliban can walk freely.

When was this? And why would this aleged spokesperson suddenly turn on his ISI masters?

Originally posted by Afghanan Cheney threatening to cut off aid to Pakistan is a threat Pakistan needs to acknowledge.  Because since Mushy changed colors and supported President Bush, the Pakistani economy has benefited.

I dunno if the 1 billion a year american chump change helped the pakistani economy. Even the expatriate army of paki laborors, servants, toilet cleaners etc send back 3 billion plus a year in foreign currency. Also after 911 a huge influx of capital from the paki diaspora boosted the paki economy. Scrooge Bush and his chump change had very little to do with that. And I don't know of any sort of special economic aid that came pakistan's way after 911 either. Much of Cheney's aid goes to purchase overpriced cruddy F16s and other junk which pakistan would be better off manufacturing indigenously no matter what the cost in domestic resources. How much aid was Cheney threatening to cut off? Less than a billion a year? You don't make sense...there had to be some other threat Cheney made or something else the pakis could offer.

Originally posted by Afghanan As for Pakhtun nationalism, this can be resolved diplomatically if both countries are stable and an honest concensus be drawn as to how to secure Pakhtun rights on both sides.  If Pakhtuns feel their rights are not trampelled on both sides of the border, the idea of Pakhtun nationalism can dissappear.

No I doubt it. Pakhtuns want to dominate both West pakistan and all of Afghanistan. Thats what the more hard core amongst them feel is their "right" so I doubt concensus could be reached. Look at how Karzai talks about the durand line for one..thats a hostile act in of itself. Pretty much a declaration of war.

Originally posted by Afghanan IMO, Pakistan needs to stop supporting the Taliban and militants in Kashmir, make peace with India and get on with their life towards progress and stability.

Lol ok, then IMO Afghanistan needs to stop supporting the taliban and militants in NWFP and Balochistan and drop the durand line issues and get on with life...yeah fat chance.

Originally posted by Afghanan Afghanistan's minorities (especially the Uzbeks and Hazaras) will never allow Afghan government to pursue Pashtunistan issue, that much can be gauranteed.

And Pakhtuns will never drop the issue. That much can also be guaranteed, no?

Both maqsad and Afghanan have many things to say with mostly quality posts. On the other hand you both have been in a slugfest lately have dug deep to win your arguements. 

Maqsad,

Originally posted by maqsad The article on the weapons trade in North Afganistan was relevant though....that turn yours upside down,

Originally posted by maqsad Originally posted by Afghanan I want you to answer, my point of this thread is to spark an honest debate on Pakistani meddling in Afghanistn affairs The debate is sparked. We are debating. Originally posted by Afghanan (not about warlords, not about innocent Afghan girls being raped - both of which you've never shown to have interest in before BTW).   Sorry but the warlord article is highly relevent since I showed that there is a  significant number of people in afghanistan, both NA and Taliban/pakhtuns who are arming themselves to the teeth evidently without ISI involvement and apparently even against the wishes of ISI. Originally posted by Afghanan Do you believe Fundamentalist parties in Pakistan and elements within the Pakistani government are indirectly or directly supporting the Taliban? Maybe the Taliban is indirectly supporting elements within the pakistani govt and fundementalist parties. After all it is millions of Afghans who have infiltrated into pakistan over a border they do not recognise and are infesting all aspects of the previously more liberal and tolerant and irreligious pakistan. I showed in one of my articles how the Taliban within Afghanistan have enough money to buy up all grey market weaponry in northern afghanistan---does that look like they need ISI to arm them? Originally posted by Afghanan  How can you think that an armed movement with SAMs, and the capability of flying to Arab countries without Visas does not have a "STATE" supporter? I dunno what you are talking about regarding travel to arab countries. See my post above regarding the SAMs. How on earth is the ISI responsible for RUSSIAN MANUFACTURED SAMS reaching the hands of the taliban? Originally posted by Afghanan If you do, do you think this is a good policy to interfere, how will this help Pakistan in the long run?   Everybody is interfering in Afghanistan including US forces who have no business being there in the first place, they refused to trade for Osama who the white house claimed was the reason for interest in afghanistan in the first place. Its likely Osama has been dead or missing for years judging by the forged video with some pathetic bloated body double claiming responsibilty for 911.  The US/UK axis is likely interfering in Afghanistan for its own neocolonial agenda most likely--what exactly it is I do not know. Pakistan is likely interfering in Afghanistan because that is its back door and for all you know the US/UK and NATO are cooperating covertly with Pakistan in ways you cannot even imagine. Your simplistic spammy onesided articles that you find don't really illuminate anything new.

Originally posted by Afghanan I want you to answer, my point of this thread is to spark an honest debate on Pakistani meddling in Afghanistn affairs

The debate is sparked. We are debating.

Originally posted by Afghanan (not about warlords, not about innocent Afghan girls being raped - both of which you've never shown to have interest in before BTW).

Sorry but the warlord article is highly relevent since I showed that there is a  significant number of people in afghanistan, both NA and Taliban/pakhtuns who are arming themselves to the teeth evidently without ISI involvement and apparently even against the wishes of ISI.

Originally posted by Afghanan Do you believe Fundamentalist parties in Pakistan and elements within the Pakistani government are indirectly or directly supporting the Taliban?

Maybe the Taliban is indirectly supporting elements within the pakistani govt and fundementalist parties. After all it is millions of Afghans who have infiltrated into pakistan over a border they do not recognise and are infesting all aspects of the previously more liberal and tolerant and irreligious pakistan. I showed in one of my articles how the Taliban within Afghanistan have enough money to buy up all grey market weaponry in northern afghanistan---does that look like they need ISI to arm them?

Originally posted by Afghanan  How can you think that an armed movement with SAMs, and the capability of flying to Arab countries without Visas does not have a "STATE" supporter?

I dunno what you are talking about regarding travel to arab countries. See my post above regarding the SAMs. How on earth is the ISI responsible for RUSSIAN MANUFACTURED SAMS reaching the hands of the taliban?

Originally posted by Afghanan If you do, do you think this is a good policy to interfere, how will this help Pakistan in the long run?

Everybody is interfering in Afghanistan including US forces who have no business being there in the first place, they refused to trade for Osama who the white house claimed was the reason for interest in afghanistan in the first place. Its likely Osama has been dead or missing for years judging by the forged video with some pathetic bloated body double claiming responsibilty for 911.  The US/UK axis is likely interfering in Afghanistan for its own neocolonial agenda most likely--what exactly it is I do not know. Pakistan is likely interfering in Afghanistan because that is its back door and for all you know the US/UK and NATO are cooperating covertly with Pakistan in ways you cannot even imagine.

Your simplistic spammy onesided articles that you find don't really illuminate anything new.

Pakistan leader says militants will be forced out

March 1, 2007

ISLAMABAD (AFP) - President Pervez Musharraf said Pakistan will force foreign Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants to leave the troubled tribal belt bordering Afghanistan, state media reported Thursday.

General Musharraf -- told by US Vice President Dick Cheney on a surprise visit earlier this week to crack down on insurgents -- also urged Pakistanis to help by informing the authorities about extremist suspects.

"People have come there from outside. They are living in our mountains and spreading terrorism not just in Pakistan but in the entire world," the official Associated Press of Pakistan quoted Musharraf as saying late Wednesday.

"These people are putting Pakistan in danger. These people should leave and go, otherwise we will have to deal with them and we are dealing with them," he told a large public meeting in southern Sindh province.

The impact of terrorism was being felt throughout Pakistan and it was the public's duty to help, Musharraf said. "Identify and point out those who have such tendencies and inform the law enforcement agencies," he said.

Musharraf, who has escaped three assassination attempts blamed on Islamic militants opposed to his fight against extremism, also said that the country's development was being harmed by fundamentalism.

"We have to check such tendencies, otherwise the country will not be able to move on to the path of progress and development," he added.

Cheney on Monday said Washington was concerned that Al-Qaeda was regrouping in Pakistan's northwestern tribal zone and that Taliban rebels based there were preparing for a spring offensive against foreign troops in Afghanistan.

The US vice president's brief trip to Islamabad came amid reports that US aid could be cut if Pakistan did not take more action to hunt down Islamic militants.

The next day Cheney was forced to take shelter when a Taliban suicide bomber blew himself up at the gate of the main US base in Afghanistan. Cheney was unhurt but Afghan officials said 20 people were killed.

Pakistan says it has killed up to 1,000 militants and lost 700 soldiers in military action in the tribal areas since 2003, but it has since signed peace deals with militants in North and South Waziristan districts.

US and Afghan officials say attacks across the border have soared as a result of the pact.

Edited by Afghanan - 01-Mar-2007 at 12:35

I want you to answer, my point of this thread is to spark an honest debate on Pakistani meddling in Afghanistn affairs (not about warlords, not about innocent Afghan girls being raped - both of which you've never shown to have interest in before BTW).

Edited by Afghanan - 01-Mar-2007 at 12:33

Pakistan makes a deal with the Taliban

By Syed Saleem Shahzad
Asia Times Online / March 1, 2007

KARACHI - The Pakistani establishment has made a deal with the Taliban through a leading Taliban commander that will extend Islamabad's influence into southwestern Afghanistan and significantly strengthen the resistance in its push to capture Kabul.

One-legged Mullah Dadullah will be Pakistan's strongman in a corridor running from the Afghan provinces of Zabul, Urzgan, Kandahar and Helmand across the border into Pakistan's

Balochistan province, according to both Taliban and al-Qaeda contacts Asia Times Online spoke to. Using Pakistani territory and with Islamabad's support, the Taliban will be able safely to move men, weapons and supplies into southwestern Afghanistan.

The deal with Mullah Dadullah will serve Pakistan's interests in re- establishing a strong foothold in Afghanistan (the government in Kabul leans much more toward India), and it has resulted in a cooling of the Taliban's relations with al-Qaeda.

Despite their most successful spring offensive last year since being ousted in 2001, the Taliban realize they need the assistance of a state actor if they are to achieve "total victory". Al-Qaeda will have nothing to do with the Islamabad government, though, so the Taliban had to go it alone.

The move also comes as the US is putting growing pressure on Pakistan to do more about the Taliban and al-Qaeda ahead of a much-anticipated spring offensive in Afghanistan. US Vice President Dick Cheney paid an unexpected visit to Pakistan on Monday to meet with President General Pervez Musharraf.

The White House refused to say what message Cheney gave Musharraf, but it did not deny reports that it included a tough warning that US aid to Pakistan could be in jeopardy.

A parting of the ways

The Taliban saw that after five years working with al-Qaeda, the resistance appeared to have reached a stage where it could not go much further.

Certainly it has grown in strength, and last year's spring offensive was a classic example of guerrilla warfare with the help of indigenous support. The application of improvised explosive devices and techniques of urban warfare, which the Taliban learned from the Iraqi resistance, did make a difference and inflicted major casualties against coalition troops.

However, the Taliban were unable to achieve important goals, such as the fall of Kandahar and laying siege to Kabul from the southern Musayab Valley on the one side to the Tagab Valley on the northern side.

Taliban commanders planning this year's spring uprising acknowledged that as an independent organization or militia, they could not fight a sustained battle against state resources. They believed they could mobilize the masses, but this would likely bring a rain of death from the skies and the massacre of Taliban sympathizers. Their answer was to find their own state resources, and inevitably they looked toward their former patron, Pakistan.

Al-Qaeda does not fit into any plans involving Pakistan, but mutual respect between the al-Qaeda leadership and the Taliban still exists. All the same, there is tension over their ideological differences, and al-Qaeda sources believe it is just a matter of time before the sides part physically as well.

Pakistan only too happy to help

Ever since signing on for the US-led "war on terror" after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, Pakistan has been coerced by Washington to distance itself from the Taliban. The Taliban were, after all, enemy No 1 for harboring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda's training camps.

So when the opportunity arose, Islamabad was quick to tap up Mullah Dadullah. This was the perfect way in which Pakistan could revive its contacts in the Taliban and give the spring uprising some real muscle, so the argument went among the strategic planners in Rawalpindi - in fact, so much muscle that forces led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would be forced into a position to talk peace - and who better than Pakistan to step in as peacemaker and bail out its Western allies?

The next logical step would be the establishment of a pro-Islamabad government in Kabul - delivering a kick in the strategic teeth of India at the same time. After all, Pakistan invested a lot in Afghanistan after the Soviet occupation in the 1980s yet it received little in return. Whether it was former Afghan premier Gulbuddin Hekmatyar or Taliban leader Mullah Omar, they refused to be totally Pakistan's men.

A man for all seasons

Mullah Dadullah, 41, comes from southwestern Afghanistan, so he is "original Taliban", and has a record of being a natural leader in times of crisis.

Mullah Dadullah made a name for himself during the Soviet occupation, during which he lost a leg. And with victories against the Northern Alliance after the Taliban took over Kabul in 1996, he pushed the alliance into the tail end of Afghanistan. This made him Pakistan's darling from Day 1.

He was Mullah Omar's emissary in the two Waziristan tribal areas before the spring offensive of last year. Here he brokered a major deal between the Pakistani armed forces and the Pakistani Taliban. Pakistan had lost more than 800 soldiers in operations against the Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaeda and it needed a face-saving way to extricate itself from the mess.

Mullah Dadullah's peace deal provided this, and the army made an "honorable" withdrawal from the volatile semi-independent region. Whenever the ceasefire was violated, Mullah Dadullah would settle things down.

The 2006 spring offensive was veteran mujahideen fighter Jalaluddin Haqqani's show. Nevertheless, the main areas of success were not Haqqani's traditional areas of influence, such as southeastern Afghanistan's Khost, Paktia and Paktika. The Taliban secured major victories in their heartland of the southwest, Helmand, Zabul, Urzgan and Kandahar. And their leader was Mullah Dadullah, whose men seized control of more than 12 districts - and held on to them.

Pakistani strategic circles are convinced that as a proven military commander, Mullah Dadullah will be able to work wonders this spring and finally give the Taliban the edge over the Kabul administration and its NATO allies.

This, ultimately, is Pakistan's objective - to revive its role in Kabul - and Islamabad is optimistic that Dadullah's considerable diplomatic skills will enable him to negotiate a power-sharing formula for pro-Pakistan Afghan warlords.

Even if Mullah Omar disagrees about any major compromise, Islamabad believes that Dadullah would by then have made such a name for himself in the battle against NATO that Omar would have little option but to accept whatever terms were agreed on.

A new string in the Taliban bow

A notable addition to what can only be described as a limited Taliban arsenal this year is surface-to-air missiles, notably the SAM-7, which was the first generation of Soviet man-portable SAMs.

The Taliban acquired these missiles in 2005, but they had little idea about how to use them effectively. Arab al-Qaeda members conducted extensive training programs and brought the Taliban up to speed. Nevertheless, the SAM-7s, while useful against helicopters, were no use against the fighter and bomber aircraft that were doing so much damage.

What the Taliban desperately needed were sensors for their missiles. These detect aircraft emissions designed to misdirect the missiles.

And it so happened that Pakistan had such devices, having acquired them from the Americans, though indirectly. The Pakistanis retrieved them from unexploded cruise missiles fired into Afghanistan in 1998, targeting bin Laden. They copied and adapted them to fit other missiles, including the SAMs.

Now that the Taliban and Pakistan have a deal, these missiles will be made available to the Taliban. Much like the Stingers that changed the dynamics of the Afghan resistance against the Soviets, the SAMs could help turn things Mullah Dadullah's, the Taliban's and Pakistan's way.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief.