Prickly problems in Pakistan

November 29, 2006

Despite stanch support from the [tag]Bush[/tag] White House, Pervez Musharraf’s government in Pakistan has not exactly been reliable of late. Musharraf recently suggested, for example, that Osama bin Laden could find safe haven in Pakistan, so long as he promised to behave himself. For that matter, [tag]Musharraf[/tag] also publicly disagreed with Bush’s notion that the U.S. could go into [tag]Pakistan[/tag] on actionable intelligence to apprehend terrorists.

A new report about Pakistan’s approach to the Taliban, however, is even more disconcerting. (thanks to beep52 for the tip)

Senior Pakistani officials are urging Nato countries to accept the Taliban and work towards a new coalition government in Kabul that might exclude the Afghan president Hamid Karzai.

Pakistan’s foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, has said in private briefings to foreign ministers of some Nato member states that the Taliban are winning the war in Afghanistan and Nato is bound to fail. He has advised against sending more troops.

The timing is particularly odd. Pakistan’s position was announced immediately before NATO’s critical summit in Latvia, at which the future of Afghanistan will be a major topic. Needless to say, the U.S. and our allies were hoping for a different message. “Kasuri is basically asking Nato to surrender and to negotiate with the Taliban,” said one Western official who met the minister recently.

Wait, it gets worse.

According to a report from ABC News, Pakistani officials are also taking a blind eye to terrorists in their midst.

The Taliban and al Qaeda have become so emboldened by recent events in Pakistan that senior al Qaeda operatives have been spotted “walking and talking openly” in the market of Mir Ali in North Waziristan, according to analysts at the British Joint Intelligence Committee.

North Waziristan is where the Pakistani military withdrew its troops following a peace agreement with the government of Pakistan in September. That event coupled with the recent U.S. Predator strike in Bajaur has given the Taliban and al Qaeda a new and growing vitality, according to British intelligence sources.

British and U.S. intelligence have also noted the increasing presence of foreigners in Waziristan, Bajaur and Dir, as well as up to Chitral, further north at the border with Afghanistan, where British intelligence sources tell ABC News that the Taliban are “recruiting openly” for the jihad in Afghanistan.

Pakistani militants have also opened several offices in Khar, the main city of Bajaur, to recruit volunteers for combat or suicide missions against NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan, according to intelligence sources.

Just two months ago, Bush reminded us that Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror, that Musharraf is targeting al Qaeda, and that we should have confidence in the government there. “The Paks are in the lead,” Bush said. “They know the stakes about dealing with a violent form of ideological extremists.”

Care to revise that assessment, Mr. President?

Maybe Frist knew what he was talking about some months back.

  • Full redeployment from Iraq to Afghanistan is a serious issue that needs immediate attention—but it does not equate in the madnesses of our current King George.

    We (the American People) are also faced with the even greater problem: Can the United States of America—and the rest of the world, for that matter—afford another twenty-five-plus months of this executive imbecile?

    I think not….

  • Volent Ideological Extremists? I sure hope on the day we are judged,the judge has a since of humor.

  • One of the most idiotic of rationales for invading Iraq was that Saddam would give WMD to terrorists. What country who’s spent billions on building a nuke is going to give it away to anybody?

    Pakistan is the only nuclear-armed country that terrorists may simply take over. Presto! Instant nukes. The only obstacle is Musharraf, who is regularly a target of assassins who try to kill him on the way to lunch.

    Pakistan is an ally only in the sense that its jihaad-leaning majority hasn’t gained power. Musharraf hasn’t worn himself out looking for bin Laden because it could cost him his head.

    Of all the nations that could threaten us, Pakistan, under the right conditions, is number one. If there is an extremist coup, we will have no alternative but to take quick and drastic action, not only with air strikes, but with troops on the ground.

  • “The Paks”?

    That’s a short step away from the offensive term “Paki.” Fine diplomatic work there, Mr. President.

    Let’s see … we have an country offering safe haven to terrorists with a nuclear arsenal, a penchant for sharing nuclear weapons technology and a despotic leader who’s grasp on power is shaky. How is it this country is an ally and Iran is a threat to U.S. security.

  • The Taliban was established by Pakistan as a proxy army to control Afghanistan, so we shouldn’t be surprised that they continue to support them. And regardless of whether we find them loathesome, the truth is that the Taliban are a regional force interested in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not an international terrorist force targeting the US.

    Their permitting Al Qaeda training camps was a blunder into the international arena that was at odds with their own (and Pakistan’s) purpose. That wasn’t so obvious until 9/11. It’s likely that when they take over Afghanistan in the next few years they’ll not repeat the mistake.

  • In a part of the world where ethnic divisions are rearing their ugly head, the fact that Pakistan is a cobbled together country of Pashtuns, Baluchi, Sindhi and Punjabi (the ruling majority) along with whatever else makes leaning on it a serious concern.

    But if I was in Islamabad I’d say to the “Tribal Governments” that if they like the Taliban so much, let them be ruled by the Taliban as Pashtustan. They would quickly find out just how fun it is to be a land-locked moneyless country.

    Especially when the Pakistani army is no longer protecting them from the Americans 😉

  • Seriously, in the history of US foreign policy, is this the worst period
    ever?

    Carter has got to be looking at this and thinking, “Wow, you’re making my presidency look great in comparison.”

    Speaking of the 70s, Musharraf is looking more and more like the new Shah Pahlavi of the Middle East. Well, him and Karzai, maybe along with Maliki.

  • “Pakistan has Nuclear Weapon And ties to terrorists. That is something Iraq Didn’t have.” – George Arndt

    Hence recent revelations that Colin Powell called them up in 2001 and basically said get in line or Islamabad is going to be a glowing hole in the ground 😉

  • After a brief and localized stay, it appears freedom is on the march in Afghanistan with the Taliban in pursuit. So much for what many regarded as one of the few successes of the Bush administration.

  • “The Paks are in the lead,” Bush said. — CB

    Sigh… Will the Chimp, *ever*, get *anything* right???

    It’s Pakis, dahlink, *Pakis*, not Paks. ‘n’ kikes, krauts, frogs, wops, polacks, niggers and towelheads (or ragheads). Now go back to your room and memorize all that before you get your banana and your pet goat back.

    • Comments are closed.