All Roads Lead to Islamabad

If the killing of peace negotiator Burhanuddin Rabbani and the attacks on Kabul tell us anything, it's that peace in Afghanistan will only come when Pakistan wants it.

BY SHAMILA N. CHAUDHARY | SEPTEMBER 22, 2011

It has been a rough couple of weeks for U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. The Obama administration's reconciliation and transition efforts and parallel attempts to repair U.S.-Pakistan relations faced fresh challenges as the Pakistan-based Haqqani network was implicated in major attacks against the United States, NATO, and Afghanistan.  

On Sept. 14, six insurgents launched a 20-hour siege on the U.S. Embassy and NATO headquarters in Kabul. American officials subsequently assigned responsibility for the attacks to the Pakistan-based Haqqani network, just four days before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar met at the U.N. General Assembly session in New York to reset frayed U.S.-Pakistan relations. Although some discussion during that meeting addressed a reposturing of the U.S. presence in Pakistan, Clinton primarily reiterated the message already conveyed by top officials, including U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen: Pakistan must stop supporting the Haqqani network or else.

On Sept. 17, Haqqani network leader Sirajuddin Haqqani spoke with Reuters in a rare telephone interview in which he allegedly claimed that his group no longer resides in Pakistan's sanctuaries. It had moved to Afghanistan, he claimed, where it enjoyed the support of senior military and police officials. Haqqani also said that his group would partake in peace talks with the U.S. and Afghan governments -- as long as the Taliban did. But a few days later, on Sept. 20, a suicide bomber thought to be negotiating on behalf of the Taliban assassinated Burhanuddin Rabbani, an ethnic Tajik, a former president of Afghanistan, and head of Afghanistan's High Peace Council. Initial information alludes to the Haqqani network's involvement in this attack as well.

So what should we make of all this? Are any real efforts at peace negotiations now dead and buried? The escalations of violence coupled with attempts at diplomatic overtures are emblematic of the underpinnings of the reconciliation effort as defined by the United States: support dialogue, but keep the pressure on. Recent public statements by U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker confirm U.S. support for this approach, but the accommodation of this strategy by the Taliban and associated groups suggests that they are beating the United States at its own counterwarfare narrative. This is not to suggest that the current dialogue is wholly legitimate or reconciliation-worthy. Haqqani's comments should be taken with a grain of salt. He and his father have carefully cultivated relationships with local groups in Pakistan that will not diminish quickly. There is also fresh debate on the Haqqani network's ideological links with al Qaeda and whether they are so strong that they prevent the type of political resolution the Afghan and U.S. governments seek with the Taliban.

But what's clear is that Pakistan is at the heart of any possible peace negotiations. As Panetta remarked following the Sept. 14 Kabul attack, "Time and again we've urged the Pakistanis to exercise their influence over these kinds of attacks from the Haqqanis, and we have made very little progress in that area.... We're not going to allow these types of attacks to go on." How far would the United States go to prevent such attacks? Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said on Sept. 16 that unilateral action in Pakistan by the United States should not be ruled out. The reality is, however, that the United States needs Pakistan, not least for logistics support for the estimated 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

That being said, Rabbani's death and the attacks on the U.S. embassy and NATO headquarters come at a time of great transition for the United States in Afghanistan, but more importantly in its relationship with Pakistan. U.S. policymakers and Congress have reached their limits in overlooking Islamabad's tacit relationships with militant groups in exchange for counterterrorism cooperation. Doing so comes at too great a cost to the continuing efforts in Afghanistan, not to mention President Barack Obama's planned force drawdown. The United States will no longer tolerate Pakistan's rumored role in these attacks; but the reality on the ground indicates that Pakistan's patience with the United States has also run out.

SHAH MARAI/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: AFGHANISTAN, PAKISTAN
 

Shamila N. Chaudhary is a South Asia analyst at the Eurasia Group and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.

BEN-PK

1:47 AM ET

September 22, 2011

Shattered dreams of peace....

In view of the fact that Haqqani Network may not be the sole reason of humiliating defeat of the mightiest armies, it is beyond comprehension that USA is pressuring Pakistan into launching an attack on the so-called sanctuaries of the Network in NWA. This is particularly disturbing in view of the circumstantial evidence (ability of the Network to operate deep into Afghan capital) that the sanctuaries may have been relocated to somewhere in Afghanistan. Is this pressure a sincere effort to salvage Afghanistan situation for the US? For the sake of argument, if we concede that the Network is indeed hiding in NWA and Pakistan Army’s operation will weaken their ability to attack US interests in Afghanistan, will this give some sort of face saving to the retreating NATO forces? What should be the priority of Pakistan’s security establishment? To attack and eliminate the elements of TTP and al Qaeda attacking Pakistan or further thin out its resources to fight those who are a threat to NATO forces? This is where interests of Pakistan and USA do not converge and they will have to find a middle ground to come to an understanding. The circumstances point to the fact that the problem exists within Afghanistan and should be sorted out by NATO and Afghan National Army. The only way-forward to peace in Afghanistan is purely home-grown initiative keeping in view the demographic realities. Any proposal based on any other consideration will complicate the matters further and push Afghanistan into a never-ending chaos and anarchy. Read more at: http://pksecurity.blogspot.com/2011/09/haqqani-network-pakistan-connection-and.html

 

DANIIMOVEIS

8:20 AM ET

September 22, 2011

10 Years

Taliban in Pakistan doesn't give a flying flip about civilian casualties. They go after the leaders, they inspire fear among the population and there's a very clear
Ar Condicionado Imoveis Acompanhantes Massagem

 

NICOLAS19

9:26 AM ET

September 22, 2011

you knew that, didn't you?

You gotta love these articles. Not a day goes by without a huge revelation that Pakistan is, in fact, not the Taliban. OGM, this changes everything!

Stop the blame game. Pakistan aided the Taliban who aided AQ long before the US offensive started. That was the situation in which you chose to attack Afghanistan and it didn't change ever since. If you want to win in Afghanistan, you have to win Pakistan over or you have to destroy it. This was as plain then as it is now, so there is really no point in the smear campaign against Pakistan, Iran or any other country with regard to their conduct in Afghanistan.

The very possibility that they could intervene in Afghanistan means that your occupation is a failure. If you could occupy and control Afghanistan properly, they would have no room left there. Can Pakistan control India the same way it controls the Taliban in Afghanistan? No. Can Iran control Turkey the same way it controls the insurgency in Afghanistan? No. Why? Because they are strong, well led states unlike the US-puppet in Afghanistan. So... the world's leading military is in a country for a decade, and never ceases to complain because other are in there, too. Pathetic.

This blame game will continue until the world ends, there is no defeat clear enough (exhibit A: Vietnam) to make the US introspect for a second and rethink its chances when starting an invasion half the globe away.

 

MARTY MARTEL

2:49 PM ET

September 22, 2011

US appeasement of Pakistan has led to endless Afghan war

This endless war in Afghanistan has been of US’ own making. Taliban insurgency has been fueled by Pakistani government since 2001.

The years of American policy of appeasing Pakistan at any cost have resulted in endless Afghan war.

Intentional and willful denial of Pakistani State’s terrorist connections by Bush administration since 2001 and then Obama administration have brought this untold suffering to not just American troops but to Afghan – civilian and security - people as well.
The seeds of the ‘current Afghan tragedy’ were sowed in Washington when Bush administration decided to allow Musharraf to spirit away by airlift hundreds, if not thousands, of Taliban operatives cornered by the advancing Northern Alliance in Kunduz in November, 2001. Pakistan relocated those Taliban cadres including Mullah Mohammed Omar in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan (now relocated to Karachi by Pakistani ISI to protect them from possible US drone attacks) and Haqqani network (HQN) in North Waziristan from where Mullah Omar’s QST and Haqqani’s HQN have been planning raids in Afghanistan ever since.

U. S. has deliberately deluded itself about Afghan Taliban’s Pakistani connections in fueling and sustaining Afghan insurgency as reported by Matt Waldman in ‘The sun in the sky‘ on 6/13/2010, corroborated by WikiLeaks leaks on 7/25/2010 and then further corroborated by Chris Alexander, Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005 and Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Afghanistan from 2005 until 2009 in his article on 7/30/2010 titled ‘The huge scale of Pakistan‘s complicity‘.

Duplicitous Pakistan has U. S. under the barrel of a gun - US can NOT use its aid leverage to force Pakistan to stop supporting terrorist groups who kill US/NATO troops in Afghanistan day in and day out because US needs Pakistan’s help in ferrying supplies to those very US/NATO troops.

Previous US ambassador Anne Patterson to Pakistan, wrote in a secret review in 2009 that ‘Pakistan's Army and ISI are covertly SPONSORING four militant groups - Haqqani‘s HQN, Mullah Omar‘s QST, Al Qaeda and LeT - and will not abandon them for any amount of US money‘, as diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show.

How can Pakistani State or its nuclear arsenal be in danger of falling to Islamic fundamentalists when ‘Pakistani Army and ISI are SPONSORING those very Islamic fundamentalists led by Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, Mullah Omar’s QST, Haqqani’s HQN and Hafiz Saeed’s LeT’ as so clearly written by Ambassador Patterson?

Ambassador Patterson had NO reason to mislead her own State Department and U. S. government.

Following are verbatim quotes from what Gen (rtd) Jack Keane (a former Pentagon official) said at a discussion on Afghanistan organized by the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based think-tank on June 30, 2011:

1. "The truth is, the ISI aids and abets the sanctuaries in Pakistan that the Afghan (Taliban) operate out of. They (ISI) provide training for them, they provide resources for them and they provide intelligence for them. From those sanctuaries, every single day Afghan fighters come into Afghanistan and kill and maim us".
2. "There's a direct relationship of ISI's complicity and the deaths of American soldiers and the catastrophic wounding of those soldiers. The chief of staff (General Kayani) of the Pakistani military is complicit. He used to be the director of ISI. He put the guy (General Ahmed Pasha) in there who is in charge now and he has full knowledge of what I'm just describing".
3. "There are two ammonium nitrate factories in Pakistan. 80 per cent of the explosive devices that are used to kill our soldiers, kill Afghan security forces and kill Afghan people come from Pakistan."
4. "All of what I just said to you, when we confront them with this, they lie to us.”

With Pakistani Army headed by General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, who once headed ISI, former President Musharraf as well as current Pakistani civilian government repeatedly lying to the United States, America‘s Afghan mission was doomed from the very beginning.

 

TARQUINIS

3:32 PM ET

September 22, 2011

My issue with Marty

It is beyond dispute that the one clear result of this endless and pointless war has been the progressive if not fatal destabilization of Pakistan. The war effort is entirely counterproductive to our true security interest in South Asia, being the stabilization rather than the fatal destabilization of Pakistan, a vast Muslim nation with a significant armament of nuclear weapons.

Bear in mind there were few major anti-governmental terrorist bombings in that country before this war began, and now they are commonplace with huge civilian death counts as we have recently seen.

Before this war, there were zero direct attacks of any consequence on the Punjabi Pak army, and now they must conduct major military campaigns against the fiercest elements of their whole population. Hundreds of thousands have been displaced in the result of such ongoing campaigns.

The weather element is also involved in the destabilization of Pakistan, outside of geopolitics. Most should be aware of the recent massive flooding incidents in Pakistan. They are unprecedented in scope and impact. Perhaps as much as 20% of the total population is without shelter, income, sanitation, or self sufficiency in food.

The Pakistanis know all this if we do not. It is the primary reason why they are deeply conflicted by this war, are playing a double game, and support our efforts in Afghanistan only to the degree they must.

I argue that in terms of our true security interests, there is far more to lose in the fatal destabilization of Pakistan, than ever to gain in Afghanistan. This war is counterproductive to our real interests.

 

XTIANGODLOKI

4:56 PM ET

September 22, 2011

The Indian writers are transparent

Okay, I got it that you guys hate Pakistan. It's also true that Pakistan breeds terrorism. However if the US don't pay Pakistan things will only get worse. The problem with places like Pakistan and Afghanistan is that the people there are poor, uneducated, and unemployed. These people are easily recruited as terrorists. Economic development is the only way out. As an American I think Indians should be happy that America is footing the bill for all of this. If Pakistan goes completely terrorist India would be the biggest victim.

 

CLEARSKIES

9:13 PM ET

September 22, 2011

Now Really!

Do you think that the Pakistani government really cares about economic development? They have done zilch to increase tax revenues. Few within the Pakistani leadership even pay taxes. It is an open secret that that all of the key leaders have a foot out the door by ways of homes (mansions) in Dubai, Saudi, UK and elsewhere.

It is utopian to think that our aid will be put to much good use when they themselves aren't willing to do their part.

 

VISIONTUNNEL

3:16 PM ET

September 26, 2011

If Pakistan goes totaly terrorist India would be the victim

XTIANGODLOKI,

India has been attached 4 times and bore the brunt of multiple covert actions, series bomb blasts, Parliament attack, Mumbai attack.

The list is endless.

Pakistan in real terms only means Pakistani Army and ISI, the REAL Rulers.

The real rulers do not give a damn about the people, the large part of whom they have successfully managed to make fanatics and religious obscurantists.

That has happened by drumming up perpetual fear of India gobbling up the pure and holy Pakistan.

The numbskull feeble civilian rulers dance on tune of army bosses.

When trigger happy radicalized Army with expansionist dreams makes foreign policy, whatever has happened is the natural consequence of series of lunatic decisions made.

Pakistani army has successfully hoodwinked Americans and exploited the opportunity provided by Russians ingress in to Afghanistan and resulting knee-jerk US actions and objectives to their own advantage.

Pakistani Army want to annex Kashmir and colonize Afghanistan at any cost.

It is may not make sense to the world, but then Pakistan is not an ordinary nation.

It is a unique nation, perpetually seized of self destruction to realize its strategic ultimate national goals.

Kashmir and Afghanistan....

 

SHAAMYL77

3:10 AM ET

September 24, 2011

Outgoing or Gone out of

Outgoing or Gone out of Mind?

Outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen is really outgoing or he has gone out of mind?

The only question to be asked is " who will really benefit from attacks on US embassy or NATO troops?"

Certainly not Pakistan or ISI but Adm Mike Mullen or US itself, trying to blame their own failures on others, particularly Pakistan; and out of sheer frustration, directly blaming ISI.

WEll, after few days, one will also hear that Rabbani was actually killed by "US Killing Squad", which are rampant in Afghanistan and which ISI refused to let work in Pakistan - remember Raymond David case.

And for consumption of Mr Mullen, as there is movement from Pakistan to Afghanistan, there is also lot of traffic from Afghanistan to Pakistan's tribal areas and attacks on Pakistani security posts on the border and on population in the adjoining villages. The logical and fair question then is: if the problems of American troops are caused only by groups based in Pakistan, why don't US/NATO forces better patrol the border on their side?

And this is also very evident that Pakistan has more security posts on its side of border than American or Afghan security posts on the other side. Also with specific reference to recent attacks in Kabul - the city is hundreds of miles away from North Waziristan. If the groups attacking American interests are really traveling all the way from North Waziristan Agency, they are covering a fairly large distance. Why there is no security between the Pak-Afghan border and Kabul?

The US must accept its own responsibility in the problems in Afghanistan. And most importantly, 10 years after starting a war in the country, it must try to understand it for the complex, multi-layered and complex place that is Afghanistan.

And also stop blaming your own failures on Pakistan/ISI.

 

2NDLOOK

6:01 AM ET

September 24, 2011

The headache that is Pakistan

Gunmen in USA have attempted and killed more people, more US Presidents than gunmen in Pakistan.

American Government has made guns cheap and accessible in – both in USA and Pakistan.

http://wp.me/pl2xA-1RS

 

UTMANZAI

2:23 AM ET

September 28, 2011

The US will lose in the long run

The US is it own big enemy... instead of focusing its economy and creating opportunities for its jobless people, it is fully indulged in dubious wars... US made a fundamental error in assuming that it can continue to wheel & deal with the corrupt leadership of Pakistan to achieve its objectives, ignoring the will of the People of Pakistan who are suffering on daily basis due to the so called WoT... the People of Pakistan do not want to be part of the WoT anymore, they are sick of burying their loved ones on daily basis... if democracy means anything to the US, it will understand the sentiment of the People of Pakistan, not its corrupt establishment, and leave the People of Pakistan alone... Pakistan is ripe for a change through democracy, but does the US really want such change? No, because puppets work out better for US interests.... There are 180 million men, women and children living in Pakistan, you will not win by going to war with them or with the intention that they would do your dirty work; you can only win by reaching out to them with the "true intention" of friendship... that's all!

 

BERN

10:24 PM ET

October 6, 2011

Peace and Negotiations

I admire Obama’s strategy of seeking peace with the Afghanistan government. However, this issue, if I may say, has been an age long problem, that until now has not faced any resolution. From one presidential term to another, we’ve been hearing and seeing peace talks and negotiations that have been reported to be initialized by either party, but still ends up with nothing – simply because no one wants to be “under” the other. In long run, this long waiting situation may cause poor circulation. I believe that if one seeks peace, there should be neither demand nor anything alike. Peace won’t be achieved that way, and someone should be aware of that. Else, any effort for peace will be worthless.

 
 

YARINSIZ

7:08 PM ET

October 18, 2011

The seeds of the ‘current

The seeds of the ‘current Afghan tragedy’ were sowed in Washington when Bush administration decided to allow Musharraf to spirit away by airlift hundreds, if not thousands, of Taliban operatives cornered by the advancing Northern Alliance in Kunduz in seslichat November, 2001. Pakistan relocated those Taliban cadres including Mullah Mohammed Omar in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan (now relocated to Karachi by Pakistani ISI to protect them from possible US drone attacks) and Haqqani network (HQN) in North Waziristan from where Mullah Omar’s QST and Haqqani’s HQN have been planning raids in Afghanistan ever since.