# Our Friend Pakistan



## big bad john (6 Sep 2006)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5320116.stm

Pakistan denies Bin Laden 'gaffe'  

Bin Laden is blamed for attacks across the world 
Pakistan's top army spokesman has insisted government forces will arrest al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden if they find him in the country. 
Maj-Gen Shaukat Sultan's comments came after a US network broadcast remarks by him saying Bin Laden would remain free if he was "a peaceful citizen". 

ABC News recorded the interview after Pakistan struck a deal with pro-Taleban militants on the Afghan border. 

Bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders are thought to be hiding in the area. 

"Pakistan is committed to its policy on war on terror, and Osama caught anywhere in Pakistan would be brought to justice," Gen Sultan told the Associated Press news agency on Wednesday. 

He rejected suggestions that the deal meant that Taleban and al-Qaeda leaders had in effect carved out a sanctuary inside Pakistan. 

  As long as one is staying like a peaceful citizen, one would not be taken into custody 

Military spokesman Shaukat Sultan in the ABC interview


Pakistan's deal with militants 
Who is Osama Bin Laden?  

Maj-Gen Sultan's interview with ABC was broadcast hours after the controversial deal was signed in the tribal region of North Waziristan. 

Under the accord, tribesmen promise to expel foreign militants and end cross-border attacks in return for a reduced military presence. 

Tribesmen have agreed that foreigners who do not leave will have to respect the peace agreement. 

But many observers doubt the accord can be enforced, pointing to similar deals in neighbouring South Waziristan which strengthened the hand of Taleban supporters. 

Transcript 

ABC News is carrying carried a transcript of part of the interview, in which Gen Sultan appears to contradict himself, on its website: 

Q. ABC News: If Bin Laden or [Ayman al-] Zawahri were there, they could stay? 

A. Gen Sultan: No-one of that kind can stay. If someone is there he will have to surrender, he will have to live like a good citizen, his whereabouts, exit travel would be known to the authorities. 

Q. ABC News: So, he wouldn't be taken into custody? He would stay there? 

A. Gen Sultan: No, as long as one is staying like a peaceful citizen, one would not be taken into custody. One has to stay like a peaceful citizen and not allowed to participate in any kind of terrorist activity. 

Maj-Gen Sultan's latest comments were followed up by a statement from the Pakistani embassy in Washington. 

It said he had been "grossly misquoted" and that Pakistan was as committed as ever to apprehending Bin Laden. 

"If he is in Pakistan, today or any time later, he will be taken into custody and brought to justice."


----------



## BEN 621 (7 Sep 2006)

Have a read of "Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, From The Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001" by Steve Cool. A long read, but very objective & informative.
It sheds a lot of light on Pakistan's interference in Afghanistan and their very real interests in seeing the Taliban succeed. It doesn't cover post 9-11 history, but one can see how Pakistan can still be playing both sides. It is dry at first, and very detailed & complicated, but once you get into it you can't stop reading.


----------



## couchcommander (7 Sep 2006)

A different, and scary take on this news:



> Pakistan's "truce with the Taliban is an abject surrender, and al-Qaeda has an untouchable base of operations in Western Pakistan which will only expand if not checked
> 
> NWFP-Waziristan.gifThe news of the Pakistani government signing a truce agreement with the Taliban in North Waziristan is far worse than being reported. We raised the alarm early morning on September 4, and newly uncovered information on the terms of the agreement indicate Pakistan has been roundly defeated by the Taliban in North Waziristan. The “truce” is in fact a surrender. According to an anonymous intelligence source, the terms of the truce includes:
> 
> ...



Reproduced here under the auspices of the fair dealings provision of the Canadian Copyright Act

http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/09/talibanistan_the_est.php


----------



## a_majoor (8 Sep 2006)

This news is reported over at Chaos Manor as well:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail430.html



> And indeed, Pakistan has given up control of "The Emirate of Waziristan" to the Taliban.
> 
> http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005864.htm
> 
> ...



If Pakistan is suggesting that Waziristan is now an independent nation (as details of the surrender of territory and authority would seem to suggest), then under international Law, the United States, NATO or indeed Afghanistan can declare war on Waziristan and deal with the problem that way. A tight containment policy over a period of years should do some good (NATO can invade and place piquets inside Wairistan at crossing points into Pakistan to protect their "friend and allied partner" from further depridations by the AQ, Taliban and foreign fighters).


----------



## couchcommander (8 Sep 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> A tight containment policy over a period of years should do some good (NATO can invade and place piquets inside Wairistan at crossing points into Pakistan to protect their "friend and allied partner" from further depridations by the AQ, Taliban and foreign fighters).



Indeed, unfortunately NATO and the US don't have the troops to adequately control Afghanistan itself, much less expand their mission. Michael Yon made an excellent point of this in one of his dispatches this summer - the countryside is effectively out of our control despite our best efforts. 

It's too bad the focus of the US effort has been fettered away on a secondary threat, meanwhile leaving the primary and original objective unaccomplished. 

In the end, this is a very appropriate time for some "tough love" diplomacy from the US towards Pakistan, and possible a repeat of the "you're either with us, or against us" speech back from November, 2001.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Sep 2006)

The reason we can operate at all in Afghanistan is that we arent seen as occupiers as we might with a Russian style presence. If we did have 100,000 troops in country with the population opposing us our casualties would look more like Iraq. Our mission is not to occupy Afghanistan. We are there to assist the government as it stands up a national army and police. We also provide civil action programs through the PRT's. Finally we are after AQ and taliban that seek to destablize the government. Alot of progress is being made despite the taliban effort aimed at disrupting coalition efforts. In the process they are losing the hearts and minds campaign. The taliban are looking more and more desperate as they see their objectives denied.


----------



## couchcommander (8 Sep 2006)

Indeed, I can't agree more T6. 

What you are saying about the benefits of a small footprint are absolutely true, we keep out of the average Afghan's way, support their ability to control their own destiny, while having as much as a positive influence in the way of Afghan directed/western financed development as possible; that is the way to win this conflict, indeed.

However, I don't think you can deny that more troops would be useful in trying to control the border area with Pakistan, as well as having a larger presence in the south in the countryside where there is no effective government presence. 

It is of course better to leave interaction with the local population to the ANA and Afghan Police as much as possible (for not so positive things), but in support of these assets we need more FOB's, way more development, and far more effective control over the flow of men and material from Pakistan. 

.02 anywho


----------



## couchcommander (11 Sep 2006)

More of the same:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/11/musharrif-taliban.html


> *
> Musharraf lets Taliban attack Canadian troops: security expert*
> Last Updated Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:13:41 EDT
> CBC News
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (11 Sep 2006)

I wonder if their tune would change if NATO called on Indian Troops to come in and patrol the Afghan/Pakistan Borders?


----------



## Tolstoyevsky (13 Sep 2006)

you mean, our "friend" Pakistan...


----------



## -Marauder- (13 Sep 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> It's too bad the focus of the US effort has been fettered away on a secondary threat, meanwhile leaving the primary and original objective unaccomplished.


Well said.  Perhaps, had the US not invaded Iraq and diverted them from..well the enemy, things might be different.  Alas they did and here we are, with what is likely but impossible to prove as a tougher nut to crack.  Hopefully the resolve of our democracy won't crack first.

Cheers,

Mike


----------



## a_majoor (14 Sep 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> It's too bad the focus of the US effort has been fettered away on a secondary threat, meanwhile leaving the primary and original objective unaccomplished.



I see two problems with that analysis:

1: The assessments that were made AT THAT TIME by many western intelligence agencies suggested that there really was a clear and present danger outside of Afghanistan. There are lots of threads about that very subject, look them up since I don't intend to reopen that.

2: A functioning State is a far more formidable opponent than a failed state or a terrorist movement. (Consider who is the more dangerous opponent today, Hezbollah, or their Iranian paymasters?) The actions taken by the United States were a result of intelligence assessments and a desire to break out of an essentially flawed (or at least outdated) Realpolitik system which had guided US policy in SW Asia since the post WWII period.

Given that, we see the same problem which vexed commanders fighting insurgencies through the ages; fighting against an opposing state (or states) who attack via proxy, but who are considered off limits for various reasons, inability to develop reliable intelligence, and difficulty engaging the local population to come to your side.

It would seem that Pakistan is, or should be considered the center of gravity in Afghanistan, and various strategies need to be developed to develop intelligence, apply pressure to hostile elements inside Pakistan to end their support to the Taiban without causing the state to collapse (or limiting the damage and fallout of such a collapse), and reconstitute Pakistan or any successor state(s) in a fashion that minimizes any damage or danger to us.


----------



## couchcommander (14 Sep 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I see two problems with that analysis:
> 
> 1: The assessments that were made AT THAT TIME by many western intelligence agencies suggested that there really was a clear and present danger outside of Afghanistan. There are lots of threads about that very subject, look them up since I don't intend to reopen that.



lol, I think we've been going at this particular point for what? two years now? I'm temped to say lets just agree to disagree... but what fun would that be? 

In my opinion (which you are well versed in by now) the case for going into Iraq as the US presented it was weak, at best, and certainly nothing to justify the current mess. But yea, review old threads for this argument. 



> 2: A functioning State is a far more formidable opponent than a failed state or a terrorist movement.



I do believe it was a "non-state actor" that caused the US to invoke chapter 5. Conventionally, yes you are of course right, but you know as well as I that 4GW is all about unconventional, baby. 

IMHO it would have been prudent to deal with the threat that had just demonstrated an ability to kill thousands of civillians on your home soil, from tens of thousands of kilometres away, and had the capability to continue to do so, before moving onto another target that hadn't recently attacked, was *at worst* regionaly destablizing, and that furthermore had been mostly contained.

Regardless of all this, in the end the point is simply that the threat which caused the US to call on her NATO allies to help her is still existant, however the US has the majority of it's force directed at a target which, according to their own senate, had nothing to do with 9/11 or the original call for help. 

Thus I feel that it is indeed too bad that the US effort has been fettered away on a secondary threat, meanwhile leaving the primary and original objective unaccomplished. 

I would like to add that no, that does not mean the current situation in Afghanistan is the US's fault, or anything of the such. Rather that it seems as though things could be going smoother if the situation had been handled differently.  Yes, hindsight 20/20, but that doesn't mean foresight needs to be 20/400.


----------



## -Marauder- (14 Sep 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> 2: A functioning State is a far more formidable opponent than a failed state or a terrorist movement. (Consider who is the more dangerous opponent today, Hezbollah, or their Iranian paymasters?) The actions taken by the United States were a result of intelligence assessments and a desire to break out of an essentially flawed (or at least outdated) Realpolitik system which had guided US policy in SW Asia since the post WWII period.



Actually a goodly amount of academics of the realist school(s) (as well as many of academic of other international relations/economic/development paradigms) argued against the invasion of Iraq.  While I am in no way a proponent, nor defender of this school of thought, the decisions that led to the invasion of Iraq may have been couched in terms that bear the hallmarks of realism but when you dig a little deeper it moves away from the traditional realist advice/policies for the region and when dealing with states/leaders like Iraq/Saddam.  I believe this was an administration initiative that seized upon the momentum and appetite for war/vengeance post 9-11.

I also believe your assessment of what is more dangerous (failed or functioning state) to be a dated analysis.  Unless the functional state has access to nuclear weapons they pose far less of a threat than a failed state, particularly one that shelters sophisticated and accomplished hostile non-state actors (of the criminal and terrorist variety).  Thus I believe Hezbollah is a far more dangerous opponent today than is Iran for the following reasons:

1 - Given the state-oriented nature of the international stage particularly concerning relations and politics, it is almost impossible to bring about sanctions against a non-state actor unless they are foolishly endorsed by the government of that state (failed or not, like the Taliban regime and its support of Al-Queada which led to the 'statizing' of the threat and the eventual invasion of that country).

2 - It is far more difficult to strike at these organizations without the permission of the host nation and if one does so, they face the risk of reinforcing that organization by creating a new generation of recruits and hatred and anti-<insert subject> propaganda (say like Hezbollah today, the only victors of the most recent campaign).

3 - By their very nature they are transient and therefor far more difficult to fix and ultimately destroy.  Where as a state (in the current world order) is more 'easily' identified and as a result the current mechanisms of world politics can be brought to bear.  

I have no doubts that any coalition could defeat the Iranian military in combat, topple the government and as a result set the conditions for groups like Hezbollah, AQ and others to move in an wreak havoc, a la Iraq.  To reduce the likelihood of this outcome any action needs to be thought out well beyond the military sphere to include, regional politics, religion, economics, history and other subjects before ever committing forces.



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> Given that, we see the same problem which vexed commanders fighting insurgencies through the ages; fighting against an opposing state (or states) who attack via proxy, but who are considered off limits for various reasons, inability to develop reliable intelligence, and difficulty engaging the local population to come to your side.
> 
> It would seem that Pakistan is, or should be considered the center of gravity in Afghanistan, and various strategies need to be developed to develop intelligence, apply pressure to hostile elements inside Pakistan to end their support to the Taliban without causing the state to collapse (or limiting the damage and fallout of such a collapse), and reconstitute Pakistan or any successor state(s) in a fashion that minimizes any damage or danger to us.



The trick would be to do this with the permission of Pakistan, without undermining the legitimacy of the government.  Which would be a remarkable feat of diplomatic (and military, humanitarian and econmic...) skill, for you could not pull it off without a truly combined approach.  Quite frankly Pakistan is ripe for an overt civil war and I fear that any overt Western intervention in their country would cause it to fester to the surface.

Cheers,

Mike


----------



## a_majoor (14 Sep 2006)

The point about an organized state being the most formidable opponent is based on logistics; Iran can supply money, equipment, communications and even manpower to their non state proxies like Hezbollah; the ISI can supply the same to the Taliban but the relationship is not two way. Remove Iran or the ISI from the equation and suddenly there is no new money to buy off politicians, no new weapons to replace the ones expended, no up to date intelligence outside of your own resources....The Hezbollah or Taliban would be reduced to feudal warlords with limited areas of control, which could be contained, blockaded or reduced without having to look over your shoulder to see what sort of adventure/distraction is being set up for you half way around the world.

In another thread I pointed out the Islamic "insurgency" is currently in an arc stretching from Somalia to Indonesia, but if the major state actors like Iran, Syria and Pakistan were to be removed form the equation, the problem becomes regional and can be dealt with through a series of regional initiatives. To use WWII as an analogy, we could have spent all our time and energy attacking Quisling Norway, Vichy France, Roumania and all the other countires which had fallen or converted to Fascism; or we could focus our attention on Nazi Germany.
In the end. although the Western alliance did carry out actions along the periphery, by focusing on the main powers, the smaller ones fell apart on their own.


----------



## Jason E (14 Sep 2006)

Hey, i've been reading a lot of the posts on here and have found it very interesting.

With respect to Pakistan I would just like to point out that the area of the country that the Government has been having trouble controlling was also never properly controlled by the British during there time in India.  I would also venture to suggest that Musharraf is doing as much as he can at the moment.  There are fundamentalist groups in Pakistan which already have enough of a problem with him as it is, this is shown by the numerous assassination attempts on him.  I won't deny that the ISI was instrumental in the rise of the Taliban, and that there are still elements in the Pakistani government and military who would like to see the Taliban back in power, however I do not believe Musharraf is one of them.  My take on the situation is from having lived in Pakistan for 10 years, as well as spending some time in Afghanistan.


----------



## -Marauder- (14 Sep 2006)

These groups have (and continue) proven to be remarkably resilient and flexible when their previous source is removed and rarely are successfuly relegated to be fuedal warlords.  There is no reason to believe that they would not do so again - unless our intelligence was so good that once the tap was turned off to a trickle we could strike with such ferocity and accuracy that they would lack the leadership, organization and most importantly the will to carry on.  Such intelligence and subsequent speed and action would be almost impossible to achieve.  Of course their relationship never needs to be two ways logistically, it is enough that they are proxies, but I'd wager that it is two ways in many other facets.  

We should not use WWII in any way as a reference to this war, not even figuratively.  We need to reexamine how we approach this at virtually every level and subject if we want to succeed.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Sep 2006)

Jason E said:
			
		

> Hey, i've been reading a lot of the posts on here and have found it very interesting.
> 
> With respect to Pakistan I would just like to point out that the area of the country that the Government has been having trouble controlling was also never properly controlled by the British during there time in India.  I would also venture to suggest that Musharraf is doing as much as he can at the moment.  There are fundamentalist groups in Pakistan which already have enough of a problem with him as it is, this is shown by the numerous assassination attempts on him.  I won't deny that the ISI was instrumental in the rise of the Taliban, and that there are still elements in the Pakistani government and military who would like to see the Taliban back in power, however I do not believe Musharraf is one of them.  My take on the situation is from having lived in Pakistan for 10 years, as well as spending some time in Afghanistan.



You will note that I am not suggesting the government of Pakistan is totally complicit with the Taliban the way Iran is with Hezbollah, but once we have a means of dealing with the hostile elements in Pakistani government/society then the problem of the Taliban is easier to come to grips with.

WWII is a good analogy, actually. The main players on the Axis side did not have a great deal in common, and it is quite possible that should the  Axis have won in the 1940's, they would have been at war a decade or so later. Similarly you could say that Ba'athist Syria, Theocratic Iran, "secular Pakistan" or to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi's are generally working together, or at least not at cross puroposes since they all recognize the Anglosphere, and especially the United States stands between them and their dreams of regional hegemony. Should the West be forced out of SW Asia, or loose the will to continue, then there will be more and bloodier wars as each State attempts to assert themselves. The Iran Iraq war lasted longer than WW I and consumed vast quantities of resources; one of the fallouts was the Iraqi Ba'athist government turned on it's benefactors in an attempt to seize regional dominance, with results that are well known today.


----------



## GAP (14 Sep 2006)

> Should the West be forced out of SW Asia, or loose the will to continue, then there will be more and bloodier wars as each State attempts to assert themselves



Maybe that's not such a bad idea....back off, let them fight it out over the next couple of decades, get on with life. Oil is the main focus in the ME, but with the recent finds down around Mexico way (offshore), Canada, etc. maybe the US can afford to back off and let the EU sweat it a little.


----------



## -Marauder- (14 Sep 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> WWII is a good analogy, actually. The main players on the Axis side did not have a great deal in common, and it is quite possible that should the  Axis have won in the 1940's, they would have been at war a decade or so later. Similarly you could say that Ba'athist Syria, Theocratic Iran, "secular Pakistan" or to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi's are generally working together, or at least not at cross puroposes since they all recognize the Anglosphere, and especially the United States stands between them and their dreams of regional hegemony. Should the West be forced out of SW Asia, or loose the will to continue, then there will be more and bloodier wars as each State attempts to assert themselves. The Iran Iraq war lasted longer than WW I and consumed vast quantities of resources; one of the fallouts was the Iraqi Ba'athist government turned on it's benefactors in an attempt to seize regional dominance, with results that are well known today.



This sounds like propaganda.  Show me evidence of a new axis of Islam. Who defines their 'hegemonic' dreams - western academic sources and 'intelligence'? Is hegemony such a bad thing?  Could it not bring stability to the region.  What good has western interference brought the region but more strife?  Do not ignore the fact that the West very much had their hand in the Iran Iraq war.  So then, is western interference even required?  Who/What empowers the 'Anglosphere' to act or police the world?  Are there not other ways to impose our will other than armed force - I think so, but even that must be done with great thought and care.   

We should take care of the representations we use lest we blind ourselves and stop questioning those things we consider as factual and the verbage that frames them.  

Cheers,

Mike


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Sep 2006)

A related guest-post at "Daimnation":

The threats from al Qaeda, firmly entrenched in NWFP, Pakistan
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/007534.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (14 Sep 2006)

Alcibiades said:
			
		

> This sounds like propaganda.  Show me evidence of a new axis of Islam. Who defines their 'hegemonic' dreams - western academic sources and 'intelligence'? Is hegemony such a bad thing?  Could it not bring stability to the region.  What good has western interference brought the region but more strife?  Do not ignore the fact that the West very much had their hand in the Iran Iraq war.  So then, is western interference even required?  Who/What empowers the 'Anglosphere' to act or police the world?  Are there not other ways to impose our will other than armed force - I think so, but even that must be done with great thought and care.



The Iranians in particular are not shy about proclaiming their desire to be regional hegemons, and Saddam Hussein was very vocal in his desire to become the leading (secular) power in the region. Syria might not openly proclaim their desires, but they have done a great job of colonizing Lebanon since the 1980's. Osama Bin Laden speaks of a new Caliphate (based on Wahhabi religious doctrine). Hegemony imposed by force, and particularly when mated to a violent, xenophobic and nhilist set of beliefs that define Radical Islam is not something any rational person would want to see anywhere.

As to who empowers us to police the world? *We do*. It is every person's right to defend themselves from attackers, and Radical Islam will not rest until either they have extinguished liberal democracy, free markets and free expression, or are themselves destroyed. Consider that this little dialogue would probably label one, the other or both of us "apostates" and sentenced to death under a Taliban like regime, and you can see why we must meet their force with countervailing force.

AS to how we impose our will; that isn't even the problem. Our system of beliefs and the material outcomes of acting on these systems is so seductive that dictators of any stripe will go to great lengths to isolate their populations from our culture and material goods lest the subject population start asking pointed questions as to how we can live like this and why they cannot do so? (Notice for example the Iranian government bans "western" style movies, music and clothing, and the "Islamic Courts" in Somalia mete out the death penalty for watching soccer games on TV, which is very similar to how former communist regimes acted in attempting to close off communications to and from the West).


----------



## -Marauder- (14 Sep 2006)

Don't think that I do not support action, though I would contain it to Afghanistan and maybe, if the conditions were right, Pakistan.  

But all the hype in the world about evil axis' and a dark Islamic hegemonies rising under the guidance of insurgent fundamentalists isn't worth a drop of my brother and sister soldiers blood without the proof to back it up.  I think we've seen enough of where speculation can get us.   What do you propose?  Smiting these countries?  Please.  It high time we explore different means of dealing with this threat.  For while I agree it is a threat, it is one that perhaps we may have brought upon ourselves.. (I mean historically and not literally).  Heck, I can't blame Iran for wanting nukes, though heaven forbid they get them.

As for hegemony, you are thinking mostly in terms of force (or if you prefer from a realist perspective).  Our western hegemony is far greater, runs much deeper and is more resilient than any one formed with coercion or even the threat of it (well, sort of, there are ramifications for not playing along).  Don't believe me?  Buy yourself a Coke in Afghanistan, or a Big Mac in Indonesia, or read The DaVinci Code in a whole host of languages.  If anything their ranting and threats would better defined as a counter-hegemony, and as you pointed out, one that is hollowly enforced with the threat of violence for non-compliance.

My emphasis is on taking a hard look at what is presented as factual (especially on the internet but equally in literature) and seeking any underlying motivation that may undermine MY action, should I base it on sources of one ilk only.  There certainly is a time for bayonets but there is also time for the estimate... so to speak.


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Sep 2006)

This from Strategypage.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20060915.aspx

Frontier Justice and Tribal Politics 

September 15, 2006: In Pakistan, the government pact with the tribes in Northern Waziristan (along the Afghan border) has some interesting intricacies. It pledges the government to leave the tribes alone, so long as the tribes prevent their people from undertaking attacks into Afghanistan or against the government. In addition, the tribes promise to stop "foreigners" from using Pakistani soil to undertake such attacks; in this context "foreigners" is a euphemism for the Taliban and al Qaeda. 

Now these tribes are already hostile to "foreigners," which pretty much means anyone who isn't blood kin. And while they're quite conservative, religiously, they aren't necessarily as conservative as either the Taliban or al Qaeda would like them to be. So the pact offers an incentive to them to clamp down on al Qaeda and Taliban activity. 

And it also includes provisions for the government to take action against "trouble makers" that the tribes can't handle themselves. The Pakistani government knows that simply backing off and giving al Qaeda a safe haven is suicidal. Al Qaeda has, since 2003, been making suicide attacks against Pakistani government officials, including president Musharraf.


----------



## big bad john (15 Sep 2006)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/15/wpak15.xml&site=5&page=0

US outraged as Pakistan frees Taliban fighters
By Isambard Wilkinson in Peshawar


(Filed: 15/09/2006)



Pakistan's credibility as a leading ally in the war on terrorism was called into question last night when it emerged that President Pervez Musharraf's government had authorised the release from jail of thousands of Taliban fighters caught fighting coalition forces in Afghanistan.

Five years after American-led coalition forces overthrew the Taliban during Operation Enduring Freedom, United States officials have been horrified to discover that thousands of foreign fighters detained by Pakistan after fleeing the battleground in Afghanistan have been quietly released and allowed to return to their home countries.

Pakistani lawyers acting for the militants claim they have freed 2,500 foreigners who were originally held on suspicion of having links to al-Qa'eda or the Taliban over the past four years.

advertisementThe mass release of the prisoners has provoked a stern rebuke to the Musharraf regime from the American government. "We have repeatedly warned Pakistan over arresting and then releasing suspects," said a US diplomat in Islamabad. "We are monitoring their response with great concern."

The Daily Telegraph tracked down and interviewed several former fighters who were part of a batch of eight foreign prisoners released last month. Burhan Ahmad, a 32-year-old Bangladeshi who has an American degree in engineering, admitted helping the Taliban against US-led forces in Afghanistan five years ago.

He was arrested by Pakistani security agents as he passed back over the frontier in 2003. Last month he was released from jail, where he spent three years without facing trial.

Like thousands of other Taliban and al-Qa'eda suspects who have been rounded up in Pakistan, Ahmad is now being fed and sheltered by an Islamic welfare group as he waits while a travel agency that specialises in repatriating jihadis prepares his identity papers and air ticket.

He was handed over to the al-Khidmat Foundation, a welfare organisation run by the hard-line Islamist party Jamaat-i-Islami, by a local court in Peshawar.

"I was arrested on the very same day that I arrived in Pakistan as I crossed from Khost to South Waziristan," said Ahmad who then spent 28 months in the custody of one of Pakistan's intelligence agencies before being transferred to a jail where he was imprisoned for three months. "The situation has become too difficult in Afghanistan and so I wanted to go home. I felt I had played my part."

In the hands of al-Khidmat Ahmad was more concerned with worldly goods than attaining a martyr's end in jihad. He produced a list of his personal items that he wanted back from the security agency: socks, a laptop, a thermal vest and some money.

His lawyer, Fida Gul, said: "He is no problem. He will go to Bangladesh. He is not a criminal and he has been cleared by the security forces. His arrest was illegal."

One of those who spoke to this newspaper was a young Tajik who entered Pakistan last year to study, he claimed, at a madrassa in Peshawar. He was shot in the side by Pakistani police as he tried to escape when the madrassa was raided.

A third former prisoner, a 37-year-old Algerian, had come to fight the Russian-backed government in Afghanistan in the early 1990s. He married a Pakistani woman and claimed to have settled down and worked in the honey business when he was arrested last year.

"I am going home to Algeria as I want to take advantage of an amnesty offered by the government," he said. "I know I will be arrested on arrival and interrogated as this happened to several of my Algerian brothers. But then I will be released as I have done nothing wrong."

On the question of whether released militants would return to jihad, Hazrat Aman, a field officer of the al-Khidmat Foundation, said: "If they react like that it is a natural phenomenon. Some of these people spent two to three years in jail. Some of them will live peacefully and others will join jihad again."

iwilkinson@telegraph.co.uk


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Sep 2006)

As did the guys we released from Gitmo. Another case for not taking prisoners.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Sep 2006)

Following up on BBJ's post, shared with the usual disclaimer....

*Nato backs down over Pakistan ultimatum *  
Ahmed Rashid, Telegraph (UK), 16 Sept 06
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/16/wafg116.xml

Key Nato countries have decided not to issue a diplomatic ultimatum to Pakistan which demanded that it ends its support for the Taliban and arrests leaders living in Pakistan.

Nato is placing all its hopes on a critical three-way meeting at the White House on Sept 27 when President Bush is due to meet Pakistani President Pervaiz Musharraf and Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

*Two months ago senior diplomats from four Nato countries (Britain, Canada, Australia and the Netherlands), whose troops are fighting an estimated 8,000 Taliban in southern Afghanistan, urged their governments collectively to issue a démarche to Pakistan's military regime.

They want it to arrest those Taliban commanders openly operating out of Quetta, capital of Baluchistan province, which adjoins Afghanistan.

However, after a fierce debate on the issue the démarche was cancelled, with Nato members divided on whether or not to pressurise Pakistan.*

Britain cited co-operation with Pakistani intelligence in uncovering the recent terrorist plot to attack planes departing London airports.

But a Western ambassador in Islamabad said there was a consensus among Nato, US and UK intelligence officers in Afghanistan that Quetta is "the command and control centre for Taliban planning, logistics, and recruitment in Afghanistan".

Pakistan denies that it is sponsoring the Taliban. But for the first time since 2001 President Musharraf admitted this week in Brussels that the Taliban are using Pakistani soil to carry out attacks in Afghanistan.

The recent intense fighting in southern Afghanistan is partly a Taliban attempt to carve out a safe haven where its leaders can reside during the winter months when fighting winds down.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Sep 2006)

This is one of the characters implicated in a British plot where 7 conspirators allegedly bought 600 kg of Ammonium Nitrate - same MO as our Canadian group.

The highlighted part is the bit that I found interesting.  The ISI is, IIRC, the Pakistani Secret Service that seems to be often associated with the Taliban.



> I won't answer your questions
> 
> By SIMON HUGHES
> September 19, 2006
> ...



http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006430396,00.html


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Sep 2006)

Under the heading of "Whose side are you on?"



> Pakistan puts off signing F-16 deal with US
> Press Trust of India
> September 26th, 2006, 12:47
> 
> ...



http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/Pakistan_puts_off_signing_F-16_deal_with_US_20060926.php


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Sep 2006)

Wonder when the war of words starts to escalate?
Reprinted under the Fair Dealings Act

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/09/30/india-pakistan.html
Pakistan behind train bombings: Indian police
Last Updated: Saturday, September 30, 2006 | 8:56 AM ET 
CBC News 
Pakistan's intelligence agency was behind the train blasts in Mumbai in July that killed more than 200 people, according to a police official in charge of the investigation.

The attacks were planned by the spy agency and carried out by a Pakistan-based group, Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, assisted by the banned group Students Islamic Movement of India, A.N. Roy, Mumbai's police commissioner, said on Saturday.
Tariq Azim, Pakistan's minister of state for information, denied
the claim, calling it "sad and unfortunate." India, he added, has given no evidence of Pakistani involvement in the attacks.

Seven bombs ripped through suburban trains in Mumbai, India's financial and entertainment capital, killing at least 207 people and wounding another 700.
"We have solved the July 11 bombings case," Roy told a news conference. "The whole attack was planned by Pakistan's ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence agency), and carried out by Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and their operatives in India."

Roy made his statements as police arrested four more suspects in connection with the bombings. He told a news conference 15 people are in custody, including 11 Pakistanis.
Lashkar-e-Tayyaba is one of the Islamic groups fighting since 1989 for Kashmir's independence from India.

With files from the Associated Press Related


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Sep 2006)

The ISI is either a rogue agency that Musharraf cannot control or he doesnt want to control. If thats the case then our response should be to ignore Pakistan's border and go after the taliban. No more safe havens for our enemy.


----------

