Unlike other intelligence agencies like CIA, RAW, MI-5, etc the ISI is not a career service.
Not sure if I can buy that Iqbal. As I understand it, ISI members are part of the intelligence apparatus, civilian or military. I believe that's what the ISI was created for, as an agency to merge the previous civilian intelligence bureau and Military Intelligence.
Thus, if you're a member of the intelligence profession, you're effectively part of a career service. And the intelligence field, by virtue of having access to resources and methods that are not public, can readily be exploited by those attempting to create a "shadow government".
Contrary to public perception, the ISI never had any control or influence over the Taliban, at most an open channel for dialogue. Till Sep 11, 2001 this channel was frequently used, the Taliban listened when it suited them. As recent events have shown, not only have the Taliban been their own masters, the ISI has very little field intelligence about them.
Really now??!! The Taliban are able to organize in Pakistan, launch a cross border invasion of Afghanistan and defeat all of those militias in that country, and there was no involvement by the Pakistani ISI??
The ISI wasn't concerned in the least about the nature of the government that was being created on Pakistan's "back door"??
I suppose the ISI has no hand in the various Jihadist/Deobandist insurgent/terrorist groups operating in Kashmir??
Iqbal.. I don't think you really believe this.. That would be comparable to saying that the CIA didn't play in role in Laos during the Vietnam war.
I am very pragmatic and can understand why the ISI (or dare we say the entire Pakistani military) might have believed that they could pursue the strategy the the Saudis in using Jihadists to defeat their enemies. In the case of the Saudis, it was the Ihkwan (Muslim Brotherhoood). And of course, after the Saudis won their kingdom, they turned around and massacred their Ihkwan "shock troops". Thus, why not use the luddite Deobandists to secure Afghanistan, as well as providing a force of non-attributable forces with which to commit attacks in Kashmir? It makes a lot of sense.. The blame could be placed upon Jihadist/Deobandist groups and the Pakistani government could assert that they currently unable to prevent such attacks, while at the same time, the majority of Pakistani forces could be focused on the eastern borders to back up their efforts to "liberate" Kashmir. (and who's to say that the Kashmiris do, or do not, desire "liberation.. I don't claim to know that answer).
By 1995, the ISI had been totally purged, except for a handful of favourites, no officer who had physically served in Afghanistan remained in ISI. Lacking either Afghan or combat experience, the ISI hierarchy developed an inferiority complex that made them petty, including ordering the surveillance of those patriots who had fought so hard for their country, risking life and limb without asking for reward or recognition.
If true, then where were this officers transferred to?? Were they put out of uniform, or transferred to a non-intelligence military unit?
And should one derive from this assertion that all officers with a Jihadist/Deobandist inclination have been removed from the Pakistani military?? I highly doubt it.. (not that Mush might not like to see such a result).
I think this article provides a different bent on the situation that Musharraf is currently facting, and why he's making such decisions:
washingtonpost.com
And selected sections from it:
But at home, where he hopes to win election in 2007 after eight years as a self-appointed military ruler, Musharraf needs to appease Pakistan's Islamic parties to counter strong opposition from its secular ones. He also needs to keep alive the Kashmiri and Taliban insurgencies on Pakistan's borders to counter fears within military ranks that India, which has developed close ties with the Kabul government, is pressuring its smaller rival on two flanks.
"It is clear that our current policy of stout denial fools nobody," columnist Irfan Husain wrote in the Dawn newspaper last Saturday. By allowing Islamic militant groups to flourish while seeking praise for helping to break up the plot in Britain, he said, Pakistani officials are "determined to see only one side of the coin," but "the rest of the world is bent on examining the other side very closely indeed."
Until recently, Musharraf had handled this balancing act with some success, Pakistani and foreign experts said. He formally banned several radical Islamic groups while quietly allowing them to survive. He sent thousands of troops to the Afghan border while Taliban insurgents continued to slip back and forth. Meanwhile, his security forces arrested more than 700 terrorism suspects, earning Western gratitude instead of pressure to get tougher on homegrown violence.
But this summer, a drumbeat of terrorist violence and plotting in India, Britain and Afghanistan have begun to blur the distinction between regional and international Islamic violence. Pakistan, which has a large intelligence apparatus, is now in the awkward position of denying any knowledge of local militants' links to bombings in India and Afghanistan, while claiming credit for exposing their alleged roles in the London airliner plot. ......
.....Some observers suggested that in different ways, both Pakistan and India are using the terrorist threat to bolster their competing relations with the West. Just as Pakistan, the regional underdog, may be exaggerating its role as a terror-fighter, they noted, India, the aspirant to global influence, may be exaggerating its role as a victim of terror.
Others suggest that U.S. policy in the Middle East is making it difficult for Muslim countries such as Pakistan to remain peaceful and in control of large, impoverished populations who increasingly turn to religion and identify with the struggles of Muslims in other countries.
But critics said Pakistan's problems with Islamic violence cannot be resolved as long as the military remains in power. In an unusual move last month, a diverse group of senior former civilian and military officials wrote an open letter to Musharraf, warning that the country is becoming dangerously polarized and that a uniformed presidency only exacerbates the problem by politicizing the armed forces. The only solution, the group wrote, is a transition to a "complete and authentic democracy."
I think one of the most important "nuggets" gleaned from that article was the mention of India's support for Karzai's government. This further underscores my belief that the Taliban receive encouragement, if not actually logistical support, from Pakistani intelligence and/or military.
Iqbal, I would REALLY LIKE TO BELIEVE that Musharraf is committed to undermining and defeating the Deobandist influences within Pakistani society. But I think he has made a decision to focus on his internal political concerns and decided that he has to woo the Deobandist and fundamentalist elements in Pakistan if he's going to have a chance of winning an election outright.
Hawk |
