You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
India-Pakistan
Is Pakistan a Friend or Foe?
2003-09-22
Pakistani generals routinely deny that their army retains any sympathy for the Taliban. But here is a secret they managed to keep quiet for several months. In early summer U.S. soldiers scrambling after Taliban remnants along the craggy mountains of southeastern Afghanistan made a surprising discovery. Among the gang of suspected Taliban agents they nabbed were three men who, it emerged in interrogations, were Pakistani army officers.
Tap... Tap... This surprise meter's busted, dammit!
Authorities in Pakistan clapped the three in a military brig; an official from military intelligence called them "mavericks." But the news of their capture alongside enemy fighters underscored a persistent issue in Washington and Kabul: Whose side, exactly, is Pakistan on?
I wonder how senior these officers were, and what rank they held within the Taliban?
The longer the war on terrorism continues, the more questions the U.S. seems to have about Pakistan. Just how devoted is President Pervez Musharraf to fighting terrorism?
Not very, though he does talk a good game...
Is Pakistan undermining stability in neighboring Afghanistan?
You betcha. Pope->Catholic, bear->outdoor plumbing, Pakistan->undermining Afghanistan...
Is it flirting with the potential disaster of a new war on the subcontinent by harboring militants fighting India in the disputed region of Kashmir?
General Franco->dead...
What role does Islamabad play in the proliferation of nuclear weapons worldwide?
Playing "big technological brother" to other Muslim, especially Arab, states. It's the only prestige they can manage, since they often make Yemen look stable...
On so many issues of U.S. concern, Pakistan is a crucial nexus. Certainly Washington continues to appreciate Musharraf’s decision to side with the U.S. after 9/11. That meant breaking ties with the Taliban, which Pakistani authorities had nurtured; assisting the U.S. in changing the regime in Afghanistan and in running down remnants of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda as they fled their sanctuary there; and restraining Islamic extremists in Pakistan. Says a U.S. official of the Pakistanis: "We’re certainly better off with the level of partnership we have with them than if we had none."
I'm certainly happier now than I was directly after I whacked by thumbnail with a claw hammer, too...
But the faintness of that praise contains at least a hint of disappointment. No one expected Musharraf to reorient Pakistan toward moderation instantaneously. Even if his security chiefs saluted his new orders, rogue operations were inevitable. Plus, Musharraf has to balance Washington’s demands against the fact that many Pakistanis are sympathetic to the Taliban and al-Qaeda and particularly to the militants in Kashmir. For those reasons, the Bush Administration has settled on what a State Department official calls "the carrot approach with Pakistan."
"If you don't act like complete thugs, we'll give you money..."
Islamabad, meanwhile, is resisting U.S. demands that its forces be allowed to mount their own search parties inside the tribal territories. That scenario, explains a Pakistani military officer, could lead to an armed tribal uprising. "You get these hotshot CIA guys who come in on a six-month rotation, and they want to tear up everything—mosques, villages—to get bin Laden," a Western diplomat comments. "Well, the Pakistani army has to live with the fallout." And within the army, there seem to be strains of resistance to the U.S.-led effort against al-Qaeda and its allies. Pakistani military-intelligence sources say army investigators in early September arrested three officers, all "below the rank of lieutenant colonel," for suspected ties to al-Qaeda. Two of the officers were based in the tribal areas. All three, say the sources, were fingered by al-Qaeda’s top planner, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. They are in Pakistani military custody.
Under house arrest, perhaps?
Thought to be the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Mohammed was caught last March inside an army officers’ colony in Rawalpindi. Authorities say he was sheltered there by a serving army major. A senior military-intelligence official denies that al-Qaeda has any support in the military beyond this "tiny cell."
"Yeah, honey. It was just that one time!"
But according to Talat Masood, a retired lieutenant general and a writer on security issues, a strong anti-U.S. feeling pervades the army. After Musharraf’s government turned against the Taliban at Washington’s prodding and failed to condemn the civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan, says Masood, "there was a sense of betrayal inside the armed forces." Weeding out extremists in the military may not be easy. For years, the top brass drummed into midranking officers a sense of Islamic mission. A Prophet-length beard helped an officer’s promotion, as did praying five times a day. Now, says Masood, "the army is taking measures against officers who are too religious minded." Those deemed overly fanatic are discreetly steered into nonsensitive or dead-end jobs, he says, and a soldier needs permission from his commanding officer before he is permitted to grow a beard.
These doesn’t include the Islamist Generals, the second highest ranking officer in Pakistan, General Aziz, is a hardcore Islamist.
These same countervailing forces are at play in Islamabad’s relations with militants fighting to expel India from the part of Muslim-majority Kashmir that it occupies. The militants’ cause is popular within the Pakistani security forces and among Pakistanis in general. After India and Pakistan, both nuclear armed, nearly went to war over the conflict in May 2002, Musharraf assured Bush that there were no militant training camps in Pakistani territory.
That was just before his lips fell off...
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage reminded Musharraf of that guarantee when the two met in Rawalpindi before Musharraf’s last meeting with Bush in June. Armitage then produced a dossier of satellite photos showing camps of that nature. "Musharraf acted outraged and upset," a State Department official tells TIME, but it wasn’t clear to the Americans whether he was angry that the camps were functioning or that the U.S. had uncovered them.
I would think it’s the latter, afterall, the Pakistani press was reporting all along that the camps continued to function.
In January 2002, at the insistence of the U.S., Musharraf banned five such groups. Yet the government has allowed them to resurface under new names. Abdul Rauf Azhar, formerly of Jaish-e-Muhammad, says, "We are still doing our work." Azhar is not just any militant. Indian police suspect him of organizing the 1999 hijacking of an Indian Airlines flight to secure the release of his brother Maulana Masood Azhar, among other prisoners, from an Indian jail. The two Azhar brothers top India’s wanted-terrorist list, but Pakistan brought no charges against Abdul Rauf. Musharraf did vow to keep Masood under house arrest, but staff members at his ornate mansion in Bahawalpur say he is free to travel, give incendiary sermons against the U.S. and collect donations for the Kashmiri insurgency.
It's called hypocrisy. We've seen so much of it in the past couple years it's hardly worth commenting upon...
Ultimately, the most explosive issue between the U.S. and Pakistan is the nuclear one. American intelligence officials believe Pakistani scientists have shared—with North Korea and Iran—the technology they developed on their way to becoming a nuclear power. That is a possibility Washington cannot ignore when North Korea is explicitly threatening to sell nuclear weapons to terrorists unless the U.S. gives in to Pyongyang’s demands for security guarantees, diplomatic ties and economic aid. U.S. officials do not think government agents are responsible for the leakage of Pakistani technology, but the U.S. has repeatedly asked Pakistan to impose tighter export controls and remains unsatisfied with Islamabad’s response.
Posted by:Paul Moloney

#7  Perhaps this will register on your surprise meter... We have NO friends in the Middle East. We have a few countries who are willing (more or less) to help us deal with problems, but those problems affect them as much as it does us. Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and several other small players see us as the balance against the territorial ambitions of the rest of the Mideast. They're willing to help, because they know we will help them in exchange - we feel a moral obligation to do so. Such an obligation doesn't exist toward us. Pakistan needs us to help keep the lid on the explosion that's building among its population as the Mullahs and Imams constantly preach hate - toward the United States, toward India, and even to a lesser degree, toward Afghanistan and Iran. Saudi Arabia uses us like a dirty shirt, constantly balancing our (and more importantly, our allies') need for oil against its support of Paleo fundies.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2003-9-22 3:32:53 PM  

#6  Tap... Tap... This surprise meter's busted, dammit!

Left it in the basement when Isabel came through, eh? That'll teach you! :-)
Posted by: Steve White   2003-9-22 2:15:14 PM  

#5  The General's bro is a dr. and lives in Oak Brook, IL.
Posted by: Anonymous   2003-9-22 2:05:47 PM  

#4  Depends on who's talking...
Posted by: Ptah   2003-9-22 12:37:28 PM  

#3  Perhaps
Posted by: Shipman   2003-9-22 11:59:12 AM  

#2  I agree with Super Hose. Pakistan is both. The General in charge is sort of a friend, big chunks of the population are not.
Posted by: Yank   2003-9-22 11:55:13 AM  

#1  Is Pakistan friend of foe?

Yes.
Posted by: Super Hose   2003-9-22 11:12:31 AM  

00:00