« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
NIE: Pakistan 2007 is Afghanistan 2001
For years, the Bush administration has lived in fear of this moment. The formal consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community is that Pakistan's federally administrated tribal areas ("FATA" is the new jargon-y acronym, natch) is al-Qaeda's new "safehaven," where the al-Qaeda Senior Leadership (similarly, AQSL) is reconstituting its "Homeland attack capability." Now comes the hard question: what to do about it?
Frances Fragos Townsend, President Bush's chief homeland security and counterterrorism adviser, gave an answer that was at least honest in its straightforward obfuscation. The administration has a two-fold strategy: first, rely on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf; and second, pray.
OK, so Townsend could have given a better answer than saying Iraq is the center of the war on terrorism because... Bush says it is. (And because bin Laden is "clear" about believing the same thing -- of course, were I bin Laden, I'd want to tie the U.S. down in Iraq, far away from where I am and what I'm plotting. But anyway.)
When considering a global, decentralized network (or movement, if you prefer), it's misleading to suggest that there's a single, fixed "center" that would mean the destruction of the network if defeated. But the effort to avoid affixing special significance on Pakistan arises for a simple reason: neither the administration nor its critics is prepared to invade Pakistan. Even the infiltration of special forces and intelligence assets into the area is potentially destabilizing. Bush once said before 9/11, when casting doubt on a Richard Clarke-authored plan to go after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, that he didn't want to "swat at flies." In Pakistan, fly-swatting is the most anyone has proposed against a well-entrenched AQSL. Welcome back to 2001, when the most robust option against a looming al-Qaeda threat is exactly the one that remains unthinkable.
That leaves the U.S. with just one choice: backing Pervez Musharraf. Townsend attempted to shift away from the conclusion that Musharraf is the central figure in the South Asian theater of the war on terrorism, but it could hardly be otherwise. Until the U.S. is prepared to risk the destabilization of Pakistan by moving U.S. and allied troops into the FATA, there's little other option except getting Musharraf, already on shaky political ground, to clamp down on the area. This is where we are after six years, two wars, 4,000 U.S. troop deaths and around half a trillion dollars -- except with exhausted military resources and far more recruits for al-Qaeda.
According to yesterday's Balt. Sun (can't link), our plan to "hearts and minds" these FATA rogues is to--get this--give the tribal leaders $750 MILLION. No strings attached.
It gets better. Because they're all so anti-foreigner in that region, the U.S. cant even brand this donation as being from the US. In other words, we'll impress them by giving them almost a BILL (what's the cost of living???), but not telling a soul that it's from us.
And THAT is supposed to win their loyalty. Unfuckingbelievable.
July 17, 2007 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
here you go:
"The United States plans to pour $750 million in aid into Pakistan's tribal areas over the next five years as part of a "hearts and minds" campaign to win over the lawless region from Al Qaeda and Taliban militants.
But even before the plan has been fully carried out, documents and officials involved in the planning are warning of the dangers of distributing so much money in an area so hostile that oversight is impossible, even by Pakistan's own government, which faces rising threats from Islamic militants."
lotsa money, little oversight. just the way the administration likes it.
July 17, 2007 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Theoretically, I think we could probably find some back channel to fund some moderate madrasas and textbooks and some general development type assistance (clean running water, crop assistance, funds for teachers, build housing/schools/clinics/hospitals, buy clothing/other essentials).
You can actually see how you could get to a big number pretty quickly, although $750 million does seem like an ungodly high number. Giving directly to tribal leaders with no strings seems like it would be worse b/c there is no accountability. They could just use it to buy weapons (although further development assistance might just free up other funds and allow them to buy weapons anyway).
I'd think we could launder money and give it to a Pakistani NGO, make it look like it came from the Saudis or something like that, perhaps even funnel funds through Musharraf if need be.
July 17, 2007 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
And once again the US is propping up a dictator. How long until we're calling Musharraf the new Saddam Hussein? He's already not above jailing moderates who speak out against him and could erode his tenuous foundation as "president." And the Red Mosque situation--however dangerous those extremists might have been--has resulted in a bloodbath for those who do not fall in line with Musharraf.
Okay, protect the US interests the US--the American people. Support a military dictator who is steps away from Saddam-like genocide in order to protect US "interests" in Pakistan?
I just don't see how this can end well.
July 17, 2007 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pakistan's ISI, spay and security service, built, nurtured and has protected al Qaeda. It is almost certainly continuing to do so, at least some portion of the ISI. Al Qaeda and the Taliban seem to be supported by large portions of the Pakistani populace, particularly in the tribal areas.
Ever notice how whenever we rattle the cage, Pakistan coughs up another high level al Qaeda lieutenant?
Musharraf has to walk a tightrope, holding together his own constituency to maintain his hold on power, and keeping the various ethnic, social and other power bases under control. He's just fired his Supreme Court Justice and laid siege to a militant mosque, while loosening up on AQ Khan. Oh yeah, someone just shot a home made machine gun at his plane, but it wasn't serious. He really doesn't need the western third of his country in open, armed revolt.
Musharraf will take the money, he'll tell us anything we want to hear, and he'll do a little bit around the edges. But he's mainly going to be looking out for himself and Pakistan's best interest. I doubt that going house to house through the tribal territories is high on his list.
Now, all of this is largely a problem of our own making. The US outsourced the roundup of al Qaedda to warlords, who then cut their own deal, letting bin Laden escape. Previously, the US supported the introduction of Saudi styled Wahabi and Salfist islam in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. We poured billions into the mujahadeen. Then when the war was over we just lost interest in all those assets we'd trained up into an effective army, leaving them to their own devices.
But for the US to sent forces over the border or start rocketing farmhouses based on shaky tips is not the solution. We've already done that and it only makes the locals more receptive to al Qaeda. I doubt doubling the price on bin Laden's head will do much either. $25 million already bought plenty over there. $750 million can buy an awful lot, so spread around in the right way, and used to increase ties to the Pakistani government and tamp down the tribes, it may be useful. It all depends on how it's used.
July 17, 2007 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
umm, make that 'spy' not 'spay', kay? Funnier the other way...
July 17, 2007 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al Qaeda here, Al Qaeda there. I see Al Qaeda everywhere! This NIE is important for what reason, exactly?
If the answer is "9-11", it's abundantly clear that 9-11 was an inside job, that on that evil day Americans attacked Americans, that Americans killed Americans.
I do not see any further point in ignoring solid research while continuing to peddle the line that an obscure tribal group in a third world country poses, or has posed, any significant threat whatsoever.
On 9-11, Americans attacked Americans. What is to stop them from doing that again?
July 17, 2007 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Americans dont understand Pakistan, please Pakistan is not Aghanistan, how dare you? Yes we share a border with Afghanistan and that is a like 2% land mass of the entire country. You people refuse to see the other 95%. Americans need to mind their own business. LEAVE US ALONE. Pakistan has ethnically divided. you dont understand the country. dont try to...good bye
July 17, 2007 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pakistan use to be a liberal country, we are all open minded, then americans supported fascist dictators who made us fight the soviets and now again in afghanistan. Musharraf is liar, he locks up all the liberals, the majority of the population is silence, while idiotic radicals get all the freedom. Americans want any excuse to justify death and destruction. Liberals and moderates want a democracy, if elections were held today, a women would become the a primie minister. we would have the third female, America-oh thats right zero. Hillary Clinton is only their because of her husband...which is pretty pathetic to depend on a man...anyway like the person above said this is an ETHNIC problem...do people understand THAT TALIBAN IS AN ETHNICITY OF PEOPLE!!!! The Afgh-Pak border is an ETHNIC dispute. Statistically 95% reject terrorism in all form more than Americans can say. I apologize to Americans if we do not believe in war, we are only guilty of being too TOLERANT of the intolerant from Americans to Talbian. We suffer by these idiots..good bye
July 17, 2007 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why dont you ask your CIA agents where Osama was, everyone with "brain" in Pakistan knows he was given great treatment in the American hospital in an American base, with CIA agents visiting him regularly. Bush even flew his entire Saudi family in the American air base in Pakistan after 9/11 to meet their dead relative. He is dead, failed kidney. Did you not read that people attended his funeral, that it was reported in most major Pakistani that Musharraf the dictator reported his death. Americans government are just liars. Ooops was I not suppose to tell Americans that, wake up Americans, you people need a slap of reality.
July 17, 2007 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why dont you ask your CIA agents where Osama was, everyone with "brain" in Pakistan knows he was given great treatment in the American hospital in an American base, with CIA agents visiting him regularly. Bush even flew his entire Saudi family in the American air base in Pakistan after 9/11 to meet their dead relative. He is dead, failed kidney. Did you not read that people attended his funeral, that it was reported in most major Pakistani that Musharraf the dictator reported his death. Americans government are just liars. Ooops was I not suppose to tell Americans that, wake up Americans, you people need a slap of reality.
July 17, 2007 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should continue to support the Shah of Iran... um, Saddam of Iraq...um,I mean Musharraf of Pakistan because he is a loyal Bushie and he has the popular support of the people. Muslims don't care if they are ruled by a dictator as long as they know that the strings are being pulled by the US Government.
July 17, 2007 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Khaled Ahmed, contributing editor at Daily Times writes, “Pakistanis invariably blame Saudi Arabia and Iran for the violence since they funded and trained the partisans of this war. They are aware that Pakistan was subjected to someone else’s ‘relocated’ war. Much of the internal dynamic of this war remains hidden from public view...
The Afghan mujahideen government was set up in Peshawar in 1989, but, under Saudi pressure, the Shia militias were not given representation in it. The rise of the Taliban in 1996, quickly recognised by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, was in a way a reversal of Iran at Saudi hands in the final count. The Taliban were recruited from the Deobandi and Wahhabi outfits, which were historically anti-Shia.
----------------------
I track the Saudi-backed expansion of militant, extremist Wahhabi (Salafi) Islam on my blog, Wahaudi. http://wahaudi.blogspot.com
July 17, 2007 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Taliban was fostered by the Pakistan military's intelligence arm, ISI, with active CIA cooperation from among the Pashtun tribal lands straddling the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The Pashtuns have never accepted the Durand Line, the demarcation line drawn up by the British between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Both the Saudis and the US have used the Taliban and nurtured it to channel funds. The former to counter Shia influence and the latter ostensibly to fight the Soviets through proxies although CIA-ISI involvement in creating the Taliban goes back beyond that. Saudi moneys are channelled through 'social' programs, ie, madrassas and mosques which inculcate fundamentalist Wahhabi and Deobandi schools of Islam among its recruits.
There are many ever widening fault lines across Pakistan that are direct results of such outside meddling. The real casualty is an atrophied civilian bureaucratic infrastructure that impedes democratically elected governments from functioning effectively, thus providing the military with excuses to to dismiss civilian governments on grounds of incompetence, corruption, etc and establish military dictatorships. Musharraff is not the first of these dictators, he is the most recent one.
Bhutto's PPP is the largest of the political parties and is the most secular of all the political parties in Pakistan. Bhutto's political base is the landowning class. Shariff's power base was the corporate establishment but he is too tainted with corruption to represent viable opposition to Bhutto's PPP.
While Musharraff personally eschews religious fundamentalism, he has played with it to shore up personal support.
He has also introduced changes in the Constitution that vests the role of Commander in Chief in the President and not in the Prime Minister. This revision was allowed to stand on the understanding that the President will be a civilian and not a military general. This is at the heart of his displeasure with his Chief Justice who held Musharaff cannot legitimately seek another term as the President if he remains in the military.
He played his hand poorly - first, in his summary dismissal of the Chief Justice, then in using his shills to provoke riots to contain civil protests that caused fatalities in double figures mostly among PPP supporters. He had to bow to public pressure and refer the matter to the judiciary.
His third misstep was the timing of the Lal Masjid saga. The militants did not take over the mosque overnight. It had been festering from the days of a previous military dictator, Yahya Khan, who hanged Bhutto's father, encouraged religious fundamentalism, imposed Sharia law and who made a grant of prime land in the heart of the capital to establish the Lal Masjid and an associated madrassa. Its activities have not been popular among a plurality of Pakistani society for a considerable time. Musharraff wanted to make this a token gesture of cracking down on fundamentalism as the US State Department had been demanding and he miscalculated. it to be a way to dampen down popular dissatisfaction with his dictatorship. He may have convinced Bush but not the latter who question why armed militants were allowed to hole up in the heart of the capital in the first place.
To add to his woes, the courts have thrown out his complaints against the Chief Justice, who, it has decreed, should be reinstated.
The aid money of $750m was actually agreed by the US administration to cover the cost of securing the border area. It is not really aid. Even if it were, it could be better spent in dismantling the madrassas and replacing them with public schools and other development projects. Musharraff has made noises to the effect before but that's all they ever were, noise for US consumption. In any event, Musharraff does not have the capacity to openly take on the Taliban-AQ nexus in the border areas. The Pashtuns constitute a significant element of the Pakistan army and they are not keen. Neither does the US even if its inhospitable terrain is reduced to rubble.
The State Department is wary of being able to control a democratically elected government and prefers to stick with Musharraff. That is no solution. More needs to be done to choke off the money train from Saudi Arabia. Musharraff and the world is staring at a very probable civil war unfolding between an unarmed secular plurality and heavily armed fundamentalist minority. Who will control the nukes?
July 21, 2007 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink