Another R. Davis?

[T-Faz]

My central position has remained unchanged since I began posting here some years ago.

This is a war brought to America by Al Qaeda whom were hosted by the Afghan taliban government. The Afghan taliban are a pashtun-based political entity that have nothing to do with the multi-ethnic afghan mujahideen whom fought the Soviet Union other than a shared military experience by some of their very senior leaders.

They were founded by the spontaneous actions of Mullah Omar in southern Oruzgan province in 1994 and adopted by your ISI in preference to Hezb-i-Gulbuddin during the Afghan civil war. They became the dominant military faction during the Afghan civil war, seized control over most of Afghanistan, established a medieval society and sponsored Al Qaeda.

Don't forget the support that the Americans gave to the Taliban, you continue to overlook this particular fact.

1984-1994: CIA Funds Militant Textbooks for Afghanistan

The US, through USAID and the University of Nebraska, spends millions of dollars developing and printing textbooks for Afghan schoolchildren. The textbooks are “filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.” For instance, children are “taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles, and land mines.” Lacking any alternative, millions of these textbooks are used long after 1994; the Taliban will still be using them in 2001. In 2002, the US will start producing less violent versions of the same books, which President Bush says will have “respect for human dignity, instead of indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry.” (He will fail to mention who created those earlier books.) [WASHINGTON POST, 3/23/2002; CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, 5/6/2002] A University of Nebraska academic named Thomas Gouttierre leads the textbook program. Journalist Robert Dreyfuss will later reveal that although funding for Gouttierre’s work went through USAID, it was actually paid for by the CIA. Unocal will pay Gouttierre to work with the Taliban (see December 1997) and he will host visits of Taliban leaders to the US, including trips in 1997 and 1999 (see December 4, 1997 and July-August 1999). [DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 328]

October 1994: CIA and ISI Allegedly Give Help and Secret Cache of Weapons to Taliban

The CIA supposedly backs the Taliban around the same time the Pakistani ISI starts strongly backing them (see Spring-Autumn 1994 and 1994-1997). According to a senior Pakistani intelligence source interviewed by British journalist Simon Reeves, the CIA provides Pakistan satellite information giving the secret locations of scores of Soviet trucks that contain vast amounts of arms and ammunition. The trucks were hidden in caves at the end of the Afghan war. Pakistan then gives this information to the Taliban. “The astonishing speed with which the Taliban conquered Afghanistan is explained by the tens of thousands of weapons found in these trucks….” [REEVE, 1999, PP. 191] Journalist Steve Coll will later similarly note that at this time, the Taliban gain access to “an enormous ISI-supplied weapons dump” in caves near the border town of Spin Boldak. It has enough weapons left over from the Soviet-Afghan war to supply tens of thousands of soldiers. [COLL, 2004, PP. 291] Another account will point out that by early 1995, the Taliban was equipped with armored tanks, ten combat airplanes, and other heavy weapons. They are thus able to conquer about a third of the country by February 1995. “According to the files at one European intelligence agency, these military advances can be explained mainly by ‘strong military training, not only by the Pakistani services, but also by American military advisers working under humanitarian cover.’” Later in 1995, a Turkish newsweekly will claim to have learned from a classified report given to the Turkish government that the CIA, ISI, and Saudi Arabia were all collaborating to build up the Taliban so they could quickly unite Afghanistan. [LABEVIERE, 1999, PP. 262-263]

October 1994: US Gives Very Early Support to Taliban

Afghanistan has been mired in civil war ever since the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989. The Taliban arise organically in early 1994, but are soon co-opted by the Pakistani ISI (see Spring-Autumn 1994). By mid-October 1994, the Taliban takes over the town of Kandahar in southern Afghanistan. Before the end of the month, John Monjo, the US ambassador to Pakistan, makes a tour of areas controlled by the Taliban with Pakistan’s Interior Minister Nasrullah Babar, who is said to have been been a force behind the Taliban’s creation. The State Department issues a press release calling the victory of the “students” a “positive development likely to bring stability back to the area.” [LABEVIERE, 1999, PP. 261-262]

1994-1997: US Supports Taliban Rise to Power

Journalist Ahmed Rashid, a long-time expert on Pakistan and Afghanistan, will later write in a book about the Taliban that the US supported the Taliban in its early years. “Between 1994 and 1996, the USA supported the Taliban politically through its allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, essentially because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia, and pro-Western. Between 1995 and 1997, US support was even more driven because of its backing for the Unocal [pipeline] project.” He notes that many US diplomats “saw them as messianic do-gooders—like born-again Christians from the American Bible Belt.” [DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 326] Selig Harrison, a long-time regional expert with extensive CIA ties, will later say that he complained at the time about how Pakistani ISI support of the Taliban was backed by the CIA. “I warned them that we were creating a monster.” [TIMES OF INDIA, 3/7/2001] There is evidence the CIA may have helped supply the Taliban with weapons during the first months of their rise to power (see October 1994).

 

[Laughing_soldier]

Must be CIA agents.

 

[Rank]

1st Side America say ... PAKISTAN IS THE MOST DANGEROUS COUNTRY

another side sending Americans to Pakistan

Waaaaaaaaah!

 

[S-2]

Books, eh?

What's Afghanistan's literacy during the height of the taliban? Were those books central to the Taliban Minister of Education's plan to raise forth Afghanistan's children? Who distributed those books during the Afghan-Soviet war? How many of them made their way to Pakistani madrassahs?

In sum, some old textbooks lie in Afghan warehouses and Pakistani madrassahs, a state dept. spokesman says something nice about a government of which we know next to nothing, some Texas oil businessmen quickly learn that doing business with afghan mullahs isn't the same as working with arab sheikhs so by 1997 we divest ourselves from the afghan taliban...

Pakistan, however, did not...

...and still haven't.

Now- the weapons are interesting. It would appear that's on Pakistan, as intended. Reeves indicates we turned the satelliate intel over to the ISI. Coll indicates that the taliban were enriched with weaponry from ISI-supplied warehouses. Naturally Pakistan COULD have chosen to assure the civil war wasn't fueled by this weapons largesse.

But since when did the slaughter of afghans by afghans ever chill the blood of a Pakistani ISI officer?

In sum I note the "do-gooder" and UNOCAL trail goes cold in 1997, one year after the taliban assumed power in Kabul. Whatever illusions or hopes we held for the taliban's ability to act as an agent for positive afghan change evidently evaporated rather rapidly.

That still can't be said of Pakistan.

 

[Musafar]

100% these guys are CIA.

 

[S-2]

"That your positions have not changed since you began posting here is regrettable - it suggests that you have made an effort to not learn - it's your prerogative of course, but generally, certainly in my experience, finding no reason to change one's understanding is not something to be proud of..."

I'd suggest you re-evaluate your assessment. It's flawed. Part of learning is confirmation or rejection of any thesis. I've spent four years here and much, much more elsewhere trying to understand your very interesting region of the world.

I've learned that my assessment in 2007 of this war is turning to truth before my eyes. Yup.

Lieven's five proffered myths are, for the most part, accurate. So? What element of my discourse essentially contradicts his findings?

Did I say Pakistan was America's ally in the WoT? No. I said America was Pakistan's ally though. Did I say Pakistan is an ally of the afghan taliban? No. I said Pakistan has harbored the Afghan taliban leadership...and Pakistan has. Lieven suggests it's Pakistan's desire to retain the Afghan taliban as post-American proxy weapon in a looming civil war. I've long-said EXACTLY that. There is a simple but subtle difference which eludes many. Perhaps even you.

Have I said an islamist revolution is coming to Pakistan? Absolutely not. I've indicated clearly that Pakistanis are happy to foist upon the afghan people that which they won't accept for themselves.

Massive U.S. aid hasn't gained us one iota of traction towards removing Haqqani or Omar from the equation. To this end, most here whom rail at their Pakistani civilian government should instead offer credit where due. Zardari, Gilani, et al have done a superb job of offering lip service to the U.S. government while not commiting yourselves to a thing. Almost certainly self-preservation yet the net result is they're hardly our stooges as so-often implied here at def.pk.

I know that and we haven't even addressed your army. So let's do so-

"...none of this means that the United States should pursue more aggressive policies against Pakistan to win the war on terrorism. Pakistan’s enormous population, nuclear weapons and 500,000-strong military limit American options. Any U.S. action that endangered the stability of the Pakistani government would be insane. Nukes could fall into the hands of terrorists, along with huge quantities of conventional arms. Still embroiled in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, President Obama has no choice but to work with Pakistan and its military..."

Now Lieven is wrong suggesting we're "embroiled" anywhere but Afghanistan. Our military drawdown in Iraq is nearly complete. Our engagement in Europe's lil' Libyan affair is peripheral at best. He's also wrong suggesting Pakistan's 500,000 man army limits our options. Your vaunted military are a non-issue. Obama does have a choice and is slowly exercising it-withdrawal.

You write of a divergence of interests. No kidding. Tell me something I don't know please? Now...while we may be your ally Pakistan is America's enemy. You sustain a proxy war against our forces today and have for the entire length of this war. To that end there's American blood already on Pakistan's hands. I understand that. We can't be more diverged than such. My government has naively held out hope that might change-one for all and all for one global community of nations sh!t.

Not I. I pray for our departure-the sooner the better. Of course Pakistan shall emerge triumphant. Gloatingly so, likely. That's fine. Into what shall you emerge though?

Here's where the "great game" to which you allude becomes interesting. Your afghan taliban may have their way for the most part. Never, though, shall they have all. As such Afghanistan is condemned to perpetual civil war with the primary actors Pakistan, the afghan taliban, northern alliance (again), India, Russia, Iran and the CAR states. All will play their part.

Pakistan? Your TTP won't be going away anytime soon. You've set up their afghan brothers all-too-nicely and sanctuary awaits them across the border. So too other helpfully meddlesome hands. As it is you've not nor can eliminate the threat now. Add to the threats, though, because Balochistan will only get worse. Not better. Meddlesome opportunities abound there as well. Pakistan can be assured others also know how to play the proxy game.

America? We'll be fine. Our energy doesn't come from there nor likely shall anytime soon. Meanwhile CAR's development as a resource repository for the world will wait a never-ending civil war.

"...in the long run, the US must deal with why she does not have deep or mutually friendly relations with a single Muslim majority country..."

You are correct that we don't have such a relationship but you're incorrect to assume we must anytime before "the long run". The fact is there's not a muslim-majority nation of sufficient worth to have a deep and meaningful government-to-government relationship.

Have you recently looked at a map? America is accused of propping despotic regimes all over the muslim world. Of course we'll ignore Iraq as they could easily CHOOSE to again become a despotic sh!thole...not that they aren't offered a chance otherwise. Still, the list is non-existent...including Pakistan. Of course, what would muslims say were we to 1.) withdraw all contacts and/or 2.) militarily intervene in, say, Syria...or Iran...or Pakistan.

OTOH, do you recall what nation gave the afghan taliban the most humanitarian aid through the auspices of the U.N. during their reign? Allow me to remind those here. America.

Friendly relations with muslim-majority states is a fascinating discussion that merits further exploration sometime. Let's do so, shall we?

 

[S.M.R]

1st Side America say ... PAKISTAN IS THE MOST DANGEROUS COUNTRY

another side sending Americans to Pakistan

Waaaaaaaaah!

It is bcaz of americans themselves, as soon as they are out, Pakistan will be the most peaceful country.

 

[tallboy123]

In a hurry to bust yanks in Pakistan, eh? Let's see...Headley, Khan and Faisal Shahzad- all known Pakistani terrorists busted in America. Bet there's a few more Pakistanis in America we could (and SHOULD) bust. Quite a few in fact.

Go for it. Toss all the Americans out on their azzes. Nothing would more please me.

Thanks.

+tahawwur Rana

 

[T-Faz]

Books, eh?

What's Afghanistan's literacy during the height of the taliban? Were those books central to the Taliban Minister of Education's plan to raise forth Afghanistan's children? Who distributed those books during the Afghan-Soviet war? How many of them made their way to Pakistani madrassahs?

It not about the literacy or national curriculum per-se, its about the use of these books as a source to indoctrinate Madrassa students in our region which went unabated and with the blessings of USG. Not only that, USAID, a federal agency overlooking aid dispersal was involved in this particular scenario and the kind of penetration they have meant that a lot of children were being indoctrinated through these books for a number of years.

These books were primarily used in Madrassa's run by Jamaat-e-Islami (Afghanistan and Pakistan) and Jamaat-e-Ulema-Islam, as you probably know, Pakistan used to have a few hundred Madrassa's but after the Soviet invasion (I should wrote invitation as PDPA invited them) of Afghanistan, the number mushroomed into thousands and these centers were used to prepare Jihadi's through American support and funding. Saudi Arabia was also another source for funding and they all did this for a strategic goal overlooking future implications.

I know that our leaders were complicit in this too and the blame lies upon them too but at least we tried to remove these leaders though unsuccessfully as they had international support. My intention here is to pin point the American state machine that had a major hand in creating this Jihadi movement that has hurt the entire world a lot more and over what, the demise of USSR, a failing super power which would have collapsed anyway.

We are not alone in this saga, we are here with you and we must address the source of all our blunders before we can develop a successful strategy to combat global Islamic extremism. I have yet to see any real American project that aims to in doctrine the people of the region, more specifically the Madrassa students who have been led astray and into a life of extremism. America to this day hosts JI, JUI leaders, I am sure it can use its power to alter these groups thinking or damage them to such an extent that they cannot and will not interfere in a negative manner in the region through the use of religion.

Instead we have the American ambassador here who is entertaining Maulana Fazlur and reporting to her Gov that he could potentially be used temporarily for further gains. All this adds to our complicated relation and further distances the secular/liberal individuals from the American establishment.

In sum, some old textbooks lie in Afghan warehouses and Pakistani madrassahs, a state dept. spokesman says something nice about a government of which we know next to nothing, some Texas oil businessmen quickly learn that doing business with afghan mullahs isn't the same as working with arab sheikhs so by 1997 we divest ourselves from the afghan taliban...

Pakistan, however, did not...

...and still haven't.

Its not as simple as that, the American support and continued engagement meant that the Taliban were able to gain a hold in Afghanistan. Similarly, if the Americans wanted, they could have taken out Osama much earlier without any hassle. What occurred instead was that the Americans considered the Taliban as a positive idological force which could bring peace to Afghanistan and improve the prospects for American business ventures in the area.

There is a difference between the Arabs and the people from this region, the Arab would sell his mother for some money, the people here might get dazzled when shown a little money but they will always look out for their own interests. Americans tried to employ the same plan in this particular region, keep extremists in power but as long as you have a hold on them, nothing will go wrong. Unfortunately it did not work out and the people from this region played the Americans, you have found yourself in a quagmire where certain people are willing to shelter a man that has very little support in Pakistan but he was still kept here, just so he could be used against the Americans. What was Osama? Nothing, he was an old coward living like a coward and he died like a coward. But there are people here who might have hid him just because he had a lot of ideological value for the Americans.

As you stated that your position has remained constant throughout in regards to the assessment of the region, this particular fact is true for the American government. The secular or liberal elements are against the American Gov because they supported extremists and hard liners, the fundos and extremists are against the Americans because they abandoned them after the disintegration of the Soviet States. This constant position is the wrong one as once again your point of view is restricted to your own goals, short term goals to be precise. The long term implications of your actions remain to be seen and I can guarantee that tomorrow things will get worse if the wrong strategy is employed.

Now- the weapons are interesting. It would appear that's on Pakistan, as intended. Reeves indicates we turned the satelliate intel over to the ISI. Coll indicates that the taliban were enriched with weaponry from ISI-supplied warehouses. Naturally Pakistan COULD have chosen to assure the civil war wasn't fueled by this weapons largesse.

But since when did the slaughter of afghans by afghans ever chill the blood of a Pakistani ISI officer?

Pakistan too made a mistake, much like the Americans, when we supported the Taliban blindly and some sections of our country still do to this day. It was all about securing short term interests and ISI did all it could to secure a friendly government in Afghanistan, even if it meant that the country would continue to dive further into chaos. What occurred then is continuation of the old strategy whereby the Mijahideen, a bunch of ragtag militant were used to control and achieve goals.

Lets admit to one thing here shall we?

The Mujahideen, the Taliban or whatever religiously derived militant group that there is, they are all terrorists and must be condemned, we, Paksitani's and Americans, must sit down together and agree that there is no such thing as a good terrorist. You might love Massoud and we might love Haqqani (your old love and now bitter enemy) but the fact is that these people were terrorists for someone at some stage.

Either we eliminate them or bring them to the table and work together to change their ideology and methods of survival or forms of engagement that they employ.

In sum I note the "do-gooder" and UNOCAL trail goes cold in 1997, one year after the taliban assumed power in Kabul. Whatever illusions or hopes we held for the taliban's ability to act as an agent for positive afghan change evidently evaporated rather rapidly.

That still can't be said of Pakistan.

UNOCAL continued to engage the Taliban till 1999 when the talks fell suddenly, isn't America talking to the Taliban again?

These illusions and hopes remain alive, Robert Gates said that the Taliban are an important part of the Afghan political set up.

So your assertion goes up into thin air as your government is willing to engage the same Taliban it is fighting against.

Pakistan remained constant in its actions while you and your country remained constant in your assessment.

Whats more difficult, trying to play a dangerous game with the only super power of the world or keeping at a wrong assessment that is not wielding any results.

Remember one thing, we have no qualms or anger towards the American people, many of us condemn every form of terrorism and sincerely apologize for any attack that emanated from this country. But its not as if our country is a cause of all this by its own choice, your government walked us into this mess and you got out while we burned and continue to burn. Also its not people with my kind of thinking that have been a part of this governments set up, had you supported moderates and not people like Gen. Zia, things might have turned out to be great.

We can work from here to achieve a better future for everyone or we could achieve short term goals and then a decade later come together uneasily to solve another major problem that threatens everyone.

 

[T-Faz]

one thing i dont understand is, why those liberal scums who troll in every bomb blast thread cant come here to condemn the american terrorists, i mean they speak jehadi jehadi every where but cant condemn these scums

there is something very wrong here

they dont say beat the shitt out of these vermons and extract info for the main source

if americn terrorist is arrested, there is complete silience??, where is niaz, muse, t-faz, chogy, americaneagle, dark wave, mastankhan, solomon2 etc

We know how to deal with people the right way, not how you have learned to cry and moan.

I don't know why Islamist Muhajirs were allowed into Pakistan when they were against it?

We are in a mess because of these Islamists.

 

[Safriz]

+tahawwur Rana

None had diplomatic passports...There is a difference between diplomats abusing diplomatic immunity and ordinary people breaking the law..

 

[muse]

We are in a mess because of these Islamists.

Historically, these people are unreasonable people -- look at the example of Kamal Pasha, no amount of his reasoning, pleading and cajoling succeeded with these people, until the entire framework had to be dismantled -- and unfortunately these Islamist lunes will continue to push until no other option is left.

 

[TOPGUN]

Three more caught red handed with fake lic plates unreal....

 

[Oldman1]

Always knew that you guys were trying to protect the terrorists by finding and arresting the CIA. You guys are scrambling to find more to prevent another fiasco over the death of Osama Bin Laden. The CIA found him and now you are trying to prevent another one. Stop protecting them.

 

[Safriz]

Historically, these people are unreasonable people -- look at the example of Kamal Pasha, no amount of his reasoning, pleading and cajoling succeeded with these people, until the entire framework had to be dismantled -- and unfortunately these Islamist lunes will continue to push until no other option is left.

If you are on about events of 1940's which lead to the creation of Pakistan? You are forgetting that at that time Islam was the only reason to unite people of so many ethnic origins,different cultures and different languages...
As for Kamal Pasha,he was more of an opportunist in his own rightful way..With the collapse of Ottoman empire,Turk nationalism was the only remaining reason to unite Turks and build a new country from the ashes of Ottoman empire.