Musharraf: ISI Has A Role in Afghanistan

In an interview with Voice of America, former benign dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf defends the military's and ISI's role in Afghanistan. He also insists the ISI has a role to play in Afghanistan:

Asked if any talks can reach a political accommodation in Afghanistan without Pakistan's input, Musharraf said it would be difficult - and that the ISI could play a positive role.

"ISI knows the environment, ISI knows the people, ISI understands the environment, much more than anyone else. So therefore ISI can contribute towards anything that we want to do," he said.

The former president dismissed the notion that the Pakistan army has not been sufficiently aggressive in trying to clear out al-Qaida and Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan's tribal areas. He also accused the U.S. of failing to trust the Pakistan Army and the ISI.

It is like letting the fox into the hen house.

Bin Laden and Zawahiri LIving The High Life?

I know people like to believe the worst about Pakistan (I'm one of them), but even I find this absurd:

WASHINGTON: World's most wanted terrorists Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri may be hiding close to each other in houses in northwest Pakistan, protected by some members of ISI, a media report said on Monday.

The two top al-Qaida commanders may not be together and are not living in caves as forseen by American experts to evade detection, the CNN reported quoting a top NATO officer based in Afghanistan.

"Nobody in al-Qaida is living in a cave," said the official, who declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the intelligence matters involved, CNN said.

Rather, al-Qaida's top leadership is believed to be living in relative comfort, protected by locals and some members of the Pakistani intelligence services ISI, the official said.

Has anyone asked why? What's Pakistan's interest in protecting bin Laden and al-Zawahiri? There's nothing for Pakistan to gain in protecting these yahoos except earning the opprobrium of harboring terrorists intimately involved in 9/11! And what use is bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to anyone these days, Al-Qaeda included?

In fact, if I were Pakista and had bin Laden and al_Zawahiri in custody, I would hand them over to the United States without thinking twice. If anything, to curry more favor with the United States.

A very funny article, in my opinion.

US Needs Pakistan More Than Pakistan Needs US

The relationship between the United States and Pakistan reminds me of two drug addicts whose co-dependency put them on a mutual path to self-destruction. And like drug addicts, they enable each other in ways that feed their respective addictions: Pakistan gets money to fund its military and line the pockets of its politicians; and the United States-led NATO force gets a secure base in order to eliminate terrorism in Afghanistan (which it hasn't done despite being in that blight of a country for nearly a decade).

One can argue who needs the other more, but I would place my bet on the United States. For the United States, Pakistan is the only game in town. Iran is not an option; and the central Asian republics are unreliable. This dependency was brought to light when Pakistan closed its border to NATO resupply columns after its sovereignty was violated by NATO jets. The United States couldn't do anything about it except to agree to work it out with Pakistan.

What would happen if, for example, Pakistan got a backbone and told the United States to take a hike? Meaning, no use of Pakistani territory-- air, land, or sea-- to support operations in Afghanistan. No cooperation. No sharing of intelligence. No troops in FATA or Waziristan. No diplomatic or political support. Nothing whatsoever! This scenario is wholly plausible if the Pakistani government gave a shit about their country.

But they don't

Never, Ever Forget

It is hard to believe that eight years have passed since the attacks of 9/11. Like many anniversaries, it is a good time to take stock of what happened, what is happening, and what will happen.

I am dismayed by the fact that 9/11 has quickly become ancient history for many people, especially the pundits, bloggers and the rest of the commentariat. Many are complaining about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The war in Iraq, whatever its outcome, is a boondogle and never should have been undertaken. There was no al-Qaeda or weapons of mass destruction; so whatever its supporters say, it was a strategic failure. There is no arguing this point.

On the other hand, the war in Afghanistan is a "just" war, which has been treated like a neglected step-child, especially by the Bush Administration and their misguided "War on Terrorism". Underfunded and undermanned, the war in Afghanistan has been floundering for awhile now. The Taliban, it seems, is getting stronger by the day. Osama bin Laden has yet to be found. And our chief ally in the region, Pakistan, has been wishy-washy at best.

The time has come to rethink this war and the war on terrorism.

We can quibble over how to go about it, but leaving Afghanistan is not an option. We need to fight smarter. After all, the price of peace is eternal vigilance.

Calling The Kettle Black

Members of the editorial board of The Pakistan Observer are such blockheads that they often answer their own questions without realizing it. This editorial on the homicide attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul is typical:

It is regrettable that instead of getting to the roots of the problem, some circles and forces prefer to indulge in blame game. As for the Kabul blast, it seems to be the work of those who are weary of growing Indian interference in the internal affairs of Afghanistan. There is a strong perception that more than a dozen Indian consulates, many more companies including dummy ones, NGOs and above all military personnel are engaged in activities that are seen by majority of Afghans as direct interference in their domestic affairs. Indians are hands in glove with the Northern Alliance in undermining and suppressing the freedom movement of Afghan people. Its agencies are also using Afghanistan as a staging post for launching acts of sabotage in neighbouring countries especially Pakistan. It has been stated on more than one occasion by Pakistani authorities which publicly complained that Indians were deeply involved in exploiting the law and order situation in FATA and Balochistan. Apart from Pakistan and Afghanistan, Indians are also interfering in the internal affairs of Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Maldives. We hope that Indian leaders would review their policy and would not allow their agencies to sponsor acts of terrorism or sabotage in other countries. That would contribute towards maintenance of peace and security in the region.

Emphasis is mine, of course. The only people who are complaining about India and Afghanistan is Pakistan, who considers Afghanistan to be in its sphere of influence. Afghans seem happy with India's efforts to rebuild their country; which is more than Pakistan has ever done. India builds roads. Pakistan? The Taliban. The reason FATA and Balochistan are restive because of Pakistan's stepmotherly treatment.

I can go on, of course, but what would be the point?

Homicide Bomb Attack On Indian Embassy In Kabul

Enjoyed a long-weekend doing almost absolutely nothing only to return to this:

A suicide bomber has rammed a car full of explosives into the gates of the Indian embassy in the Afghan capital, killing 41 people and injuring 141.

Five embassy personnel were killed - India's defence attache, a senior diplomat and two security guards - as well as an Afghan man.

Five Afghans died at Indonesia's embassy nearby.

I heard the news report on BBC while driving to work. The anchor interviewed Afghan, Indian and Pakistani officials, quizzing them on the details. The Afghans and Indians claimed the attack was made by 'enemies of Afghan-Indian friendship' - this is code for Pakistan. BBC anchors are a pushy lot, and this one was no exception. He repeatedly tried to bait these officials into admitting it was Pakistan. Pakistan, whose Foreign Minister was interviewed, condemned the attack while vehemently denying it had anything to do with it. This is standard operating procedure practiced by diplomats: accusations and counter-accusations will be left to surrogates.