| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| The death of strategic depth? |
| 2011-07-09 |
| "The US has made preliminary contacts with Afghan Taliban guerrillas," Defence Secretary Robert Gates recently acknowledged. He went on to reveal the most accurate details of these negotiations. Germany and Qatar are at the forefront as mediators. "But we have a serious problem with that," said a senior Pakistani security official who had attended talks between the US and Afghanistan. Before this, Pakistani military generals had made several attempts to mediate between Hamid Karzai's government and Afghan insurgents, especially the Haqqani faction. "Any resolution that does not include Pakistan will not guarantee Pashtun interests and will therefore not be sustainable," the official said. Pakistan has historically ensured that it "micro-manages everything in Afghanistan", says Ahmed Raza Popalzai, a revered Afghan tribesman. Pakistan's obsession with the US-Taliban talks can be measured from the fact that it arrested Mullah Baradar - Mullah Omar's number two and an important member of the Quetta Shura - when he tried to go freelance and started talking with the Americans via the Saudis in Dubai. Baradar was caught from Karachi's Khuddamul Quran madrassa linked with Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam in early 2010 in a CIA-ISI raid, to the dislike of the Afghan president who was then talking to the Taliban. Pakistan is also accused of providing safe havens to the Quetta Shura and the Haqqani network to promote its interests in Afghanistan. What is the reason for this immense desire for a negotiated settlement with the Taliban? "India," according to Afghanistan's former intelligence chief Amrullah Saleh. Pakistan is concerned about Indian influence in Afghanistan and instead wants a strategic depth in Kabul against its eastern neighbour. "Pakistan has Mullah Omar hiding in Karachi and supports active insurgency inside Afghanistan," Saleh said. US President Barack's Obama's decision to withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan after the killing of Osama bin Laden raises a number of questions about the endgame in Afghanistan. "If the enemies of Afghanistan think they can wait it out until we leave, they have the wrong idea. We will stay as long as it takes to finish our job," said NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen. It is not clear who he referred to as the enemy of Afghanistan, but NATO and ISAF commanders often accuse Pakistan of orchestrating attacks on Afghanistan. "The irony is that if Pakistan Army and the ISI hadn't let the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan become a festering sore in Waziristan, these fighters would not now be transiting through Afghanistan to attack Pakistan," a former CIA operative said. "The Taliban had been trained by Pakistan to control Afghanistan so it would have a 'strategic depth' - a direction from which they would not be attacked," he said. "But now, Pakistan has enemies on both sides and it had paid to train and arm one of them." "I believe General Aslam Beg's nonsensical idea of strategic depth has long been buried and mourned," said Brig (r) Shaukat Qadir. "A peaceful, stable Afghanistan will not be antagonistic towards Pakistan. To ensure that, there should be a quick and total withdrawal of US troops and negotiations between Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Taliban. India should have minimal influence in Kabul." Although negotiations are likely to take the centre stage, Pakistan is becoming increasingly isolated. Both the US and the Afghan Taliban are sceptical of Pakistan's role in Afghanistan. At one time, after 9/11, Pakistan had tried to install the Haqqanis in Kabul as caretakers of Afghanistan, but they declined the offer, deciding to remain loyal to Mullah Omar. Islamabad still considers the faction its strategic assets and has tried to market the network to both the US and the Afghan government. But "the recent attack on Kabul's Intercontinental Hotel changed everything," according to a US military insider. "It will expose the Haqqani network's links with Al Qaeda and we would want to push Pakistan to carry out operations in the Kurram Agency and North Waziristan." NATO and ISAF causalities have risen from 191 in 2006 to 521 in 2009, 711 in 2010, and 284 so far in 2011. The Americans would not mind a quick exit and Pakistan will try hard for a good bargain in the endgame. But it seems like it will have to face problems of its own making. The Taliban have decided to bypass Pakistan and negotiate on their own. |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #2 The fight is about money. Up till now, the US would fund the Pakistanis, who in turn would drop some spare change on the Taliban. Now that the CIA is talking directly, it the Paks that are left with the empty wallet. |
| Posted by: Skunky Glin**** 2011-07-09 19:24 |
| #1 Pakistain has pretensions of being a big player, but found now that they can't even maintain their own sovereignty. I hope for a big karmic explosion, that takes out the ISI, Army assholes and Pols (and especially their loud-mouth lawyers) that have played this "great game" without control. They have been so obsessed with trying to take down India that they've become weak internally and need a civil war and financial collapse to start at ground zero, literally. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2011-07-09 17:54 |