worth reading in detail. this is the first time an american entity has acknowledged the full depth of the relationship between the ISI and the taliban. in truth, the taliban *is* the ISI, as i, for instance, have been shouting from the rooftops for years.
the fact that the kennedy school of government, which is close to democratic administrations, is now saying this publicly, has to be seen then as a strategic move by the obama govt. i am unsure as to what it actually means. is obama having second thoughts about pulling out of afghanistan? is this why the NYT (also close to the government) just ballyhooed the story about the mineral wealth of afghanistan? this story has been known for quite some time, why did the NYT choose to scream about it now?
my belief is that obama is being forced to stay on in afghanistan. his dream of declaring victory, bringing the troops home in 2011, and basking in the halo effect to win the 2012 presidential elections is now seriously in jeopardy. especially as the BP gulf oil crisis has dented his 'messiah' halo -- he has been shown to be about as incompetent as the congress government in regard to bhopal.
4 comments:
Rajeev,
The last few lines of Page 2 .." to address... conflict with India" is sure sign of where this paper is headed.
The theme through out the paper is - the double game of ISI, which I believe is obvious to even part time followers of this issue (the author' effort to state the obvious seems a waste of time, IMHO). Taliban is only the latest red herring of the ISI, which has successfully manipulated the US and its every other ally.
As long as the foolish belief of "good Taliban- bad Taliban" is deliberately used by Pacifist policy makers to further their interests in the region, ISI will leverage its power to arm twist every one.
But, this article coming in association with LSE, was, well surprising to me, to say the least.
i agree, smriti. good observations. here's what i have written in my to-be-published article on afghanistan in this context:
=== quote ===
The ISI, says the report, “orchestrates, supports and strongly influences” them. It “provides huge support in training, funding, munitions and supplies”, which is “official ISI policy”, not the work of some rogue elements. Furthermore, it is not just the ISI, it claims that Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari promised to release jailed Taliban leaders if they kept quiet about it. This amounts to “collusion with the Taliban by an enemy state [Pakistan]”, the bracket in the original. Interesting that an American is calling Pakistan an enemy state, not the trademarked “major ally in the war on terror”.
Unfortunately, the author, Matt Waldman, has the standard simplistic solution to all this: the way to end the ISI’s cooperation with the Taliban “is to address the fundamental causes of Pakistan’s insecurity, especially its latent and enduring conflict with India”. Of course, if only India were to give Kashmir to Pakistan, the ISI would stop arming the Taliban, and Americans can go home. Simple! QED.
The answer, therefore, is for India to give more: which might explain the Indian PM’s offer to ‘walk the extra mile’ and the latest euphemism, ‘creative solutions’ to the Kashmir problem. India must give up territory so that Americans can exit Afghanistan, in return for… exactly what? Eternal love and fellowship? Just like India sacrificed Tibet and got eternal love and friendship?
Thank you , Rajeev, for the excerpt.You are spot on with your analysis, as always.
Will be looking forward to reading the article in full. Could you please, kindly put the link to the article?
Many thanks again.
Smriti
Agreed - your comments are right on the mark. One thing I do have to add is that I feel that the US is trying to shape public sentiment against pakistan. I mean, the pro-India lobbying machine could never have made this much progress. Anytime you search for news on pakistan, it's all about terror and mayhem and intolerance. All true items, but one gets the sense that the US is setting the pakis up for a major ass-whooping. Bottom line is that the US knows pakistan is playing a double game and in order for the US to come out of the Af-Pak game looking successful, someone has to pay very dearly. That someone is pakistan. Too bad for them!
Post a Comment