Why We Should Be "Nice-Nice" to Pakistan

“Diplomacy [is] the art of restraining power,” said Henry Kissinger. Think what you will of him, that’s not a bad quote.

His words seem to describe what terrorism expert Evan Kohlmann conveyed to Keith Olbermann on MSNBC last evening, about the tricky cost/risk assessments involving a capture of Osama bin Laden. Manno a manno:

OLBERMANN: So why the kid gloves here? I mean, I’m fascinated that the head of the CIA [Porter Goss] is using terms [in the Time magazine interview] like “acceptable to the international community” and “international obligation” and “fair play.” I mean, the general consensus from all ends of the political spectrum seems to have been, for four years now, that if we could go back before 9/11 and find Osama bin Laden, whoever had the chance should have dropped a bomb on him, even if he was in Toronto or your hometown or my hometown.

Why the nice-nice on this?

Below, why the “nice-nice”:

KOHLMANN: Hey, listen, you’re right. … But the fact is, is that in Pakistan, we have a situation that’s very complex and potentially pretty dangerous.

We have a government that’s really the best of a bad lot. Pervez Musharraf has shown himself to be a member of the war on terror and a part of the war on terror, but not necessarily an extremely committed member of that alliance. He’s, you know, been responsible for the arrests of various operatives, including most recently Abu Faraj al-Libbi in Pakistan. Certainly Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s arrest ranks up there.

But fact that these man are choosing to operate inside of Pakistan alone should be an indication of something. If you look, the most significant al Qaeda arrests that we’ve had in the last three years have all been inside Pakistan. And in many cases, we’re not even talking about the Pakistani-Afghani border. We’re talking about cities in central Pakistan, like Lahore and Karachi.

Look, the problem is, is this. If we go after this too aggressively, if we send in U.S. special forces into Pakistan, we endanger causing an Islamic revolution there, in a country that already is known to have atomic weapons. And that could be even potentially a worse situation than we have now. Imagine a nuclear-armed Pakistan run by a government extremely sympathetic to that of Osama bin Laden. It’s a problem.

Then, Kohlman deftly denudes the theories of Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) and his new, inflammatory book (“Countdown to Terror: The Top-Secret Information that Could Prevent the Next Terrorist Attack on America . . . and How the CIA Has Ignored It”) that he’s hawking on any show that’ll have him:

OLBERMANN: So is that it, though? I mean, there’s one quote that we haven’t used from this, Goss’s first answer to the question about getting bin Laden was—let me read it exactly—“That is a question that goes far deeper than you know.” And if you mix that with all this stuff about international obligation, is it limited to the Pakistanis, or is there some additional wild card, like—I’m just making this up—but like, the Saudis know where he is?

Is there some worse dimension to it?

KOHLMANN: Well, there’s been a lot of suggestion lately about Iran. In fact, someone even wrote a book suggesting that Iran right now is currently harboring Osama bin Laden. I really think that’s mostly just speculation, and unfounded speculation.

Everything we have, including intercepts of al Qaeda operatives, including messengers, mules that we’ve picked up carrying messages from Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders, all of these individuals are being picked up along the Pakistani-Afghani border region, in Waziristan and Baluchistan.

So unless these guys are taking first-class trips from their mules from Iran into Afghanistan, and that’s where they’re being captured, or the reality simply is that that’s where these guys are.

This is where the cerebrum of al Qaeda remains. And if we want to take real action against it, if we really want to destroy the network, it’s inside of Pakistan, where some of the most valuable answers that we can find still are.

OLBERMANN: And politically, we have to let them, essentially, do it for us.

KOHLMANN: Well, if we want to be careful.

If we want to be careful.

Makes sense to me. How about you?

___________________________________

P.S. Kohlmann’s firm, Global Terror Alert came out today with a study of the national/geographic make-up of foreign insurgents in Iraq:

According to data compiled by Globalterroralert.com [PDF] since June 2003, over 50% of known casualties among foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudi Arabian nationals. A total of 300 foreign fighters were included in the study, including 165 men from various locations in Saudi Arabia–including Riyadh, at-Taif, Jeddah, Hail, Mecca, and Hafr al-Batin. Syrian nationals were the next most populous group of foreign fighter casualties in Iraq, numbering 38 or approximately 13%.

5 Comments

Hoya90 on June 21, 2005 at 2:09 pm

Which is that Musharraf has been aggressively undermining the SECULAR opposition parties in Pakistan and letting the Intelligence Service help build up the Islamic Parties.

Take this quote from an Asia Times article from 2003 discussing the elections in Pakistan:

The MMA owed its remarkable success in the October elections to Musharraf’s munificence. He ordered the withdrawal of the cases against many of their candidates from the anti-terrorism courts so that they were not disqualified by the Election Commission. He made the Election Commission pass an order giving the certificates in Islamic studies issued by the madrassas (religious schools) the equivalence of an university degree so that the newly-introduced electoral provision that only graduates can contest elections did not come in the way of the mullahs and their proteges contesting the polls. He broke the PML-N and the PPPP, thereby weakening their ability to counter the religious fundamentalist parties.

The MMA is the alliance of Islamist parties that are as radical as Bin Laden. The PPPP (led by Benazir Bhutto) and PML-N are both strong secular parties. Prior to Musharraf’s little games with the electoral rules and his handling of the war on terror, the MMA crowd never got more than 5% of the vote. Now they’re a major block in Parliament.

The analysis by Kohlmann is correct, except for noting that Musharraf created the situation where the choice is between him and the Islamists. His tactics force the U.S. to choose between supporting his dictatorship (and it’s weak record against Al-Qaeda) or trying to back a secular opposition that can’t hope to win against the combined power of the ISI and the Islamists.

It is also important to note that the ISI helped create most of the Islamic militants during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, that the ISI was backing the Taliban’s rise to power in Afghanistan, and that the ISI used Islamic militants to carry out a proxy war in Indian controlled Kashmir.

My own belief is that the current course in Pakistan is a slow slide towards a radical Islamic state that will be nuclear armed. The more the secular opposition is shut down by Musharraf, the better the Islamists will do. Eventually, they will demand power and enough people in the ISI will decide that they can work with the Islamists that they created.

Dean Pajevic on June 21, 2005 at 2:20 pm

I sent your reply to Kohlmann in the hope he may respond to you.

But, what choice is there in Pakistan except a dictatorship or an Islamic state?

Maybe by helping along the fundies, M. is hoping to keep them in check and not too restless?

(And I’ve been wondering if the rise of Muslim fundamentalism is actually helpful to the Neocon agenda .. all their token talk about democracy aside. A repressed, religiously bound people are more malleable, aren’t they, than free, thinking people?)
- Hoya90 on June 21, 2005 at 2:36 pm
  
  between the Islamists and the Pakistani Intelligence Services. It’s all tied up in the history of the Soviet war in Afghanistan. The ISI and the Islamists made each other successful and they still need each other.
  
  The U.S. sends in CIA operatives, some money, and lots of equipment. The U.S. also backs Pakistan’s dictator at the time, Zia Ul-Haq. The Pakistani ISI does most of the running of the operations, managing the Afghan camps on their side of the border, providing training, and helping direct the other money coming in. The Saudis, in particular, send tons of money to Pakistan to finance the fighters AND MORE IMPORTANTLY TO SET UP MADRASSAS. For the last 25 years, the Saudi and Pakistani pieces of this operation have been grinding along changing the nature of Pakistan.
  
  Fareed Zakaria had a great article in Newsweek right after 9/11 where he talked about the change in Islam in South Asia:
  
  But as the moderate majority looks the other way, Islam is being taken over by a small poisonous element, people who advocate cruel attitudes toward women, education, the economy and modern life in general. I have seen this happen in India, where I grew up. The rich, colorful, pluralistic and easygoing Islam of my youth has turned into a dour, puritanical faith, policed by petty theocrats and religious commissars.
  
  Pakistan was at the center of this religious battle. General Zia, as Pakistan’s dictator, needed a new source of support that he wouldn’t get from secular elites. The Saudis meanwhile had a bunch of religious zealots who despised the decadent ways of the royal family. The House of Saud cut a deal – you leave us alone at home and we’ll help you spread your version Islam across the world. And so the money flowed and the madrassas spewing hate blossomed.
  
  Musharraf and the ISI crowd think that they can control the monster they’ve helped to create. The problem comes when younger ISI officers decide to drink the Kool Aid that the Islamists are offering. When that happens, they can help them seize power – and they may ALREADY be providing cover for Al-Qaeda from the inside.
  
  To the extent that there is a real choice, we need to help the moderates and secular people in the Islamic world take their countries back. Pressure Musharraf to cut a deal with the secular parties. Push Musharraf to fund more SECULAR schools and stop cutting deals with the MMA. Maybe it’s too late to reverse the damage of the last 25 years, but it’s no different than undoing the work of Richard Mellon Scaife and the other GOP whackjobs in the U.S.

ohwilleke on June 21, 2005 at 2:27 pm

This source (without references) says:

June 16, 2005: Car bombs have, over the past two years, become the favorite weapon of terrorists in Iraq. Since July 2003, when the first one was used, there have been (as of June 5th) 278 such attacks. These caused 9,167 casualties (2,818 people dead, 6,349 wounded.) That’s an average of 33 casualties per car bomb. Not all were suicide car bombs, 42 percent were set off by remote control. Nearly all the drivers of the suicide car bombs have been foreign Arabs, mainly from Saudi Arabia. [snip] The operation is more dependent on al Qaeda supplied suicide drivers. Even the quality of these volunteers has declined, with several later identified as retarded, and apparently convinced to do something the “martyrs” could not really understand.

If true, it points to Saudi Arabia, again, being the source of a significant source of individuals willing to kill themselves to strike American or American related targets. And, if the Administration agrees with this assessment, why is it treating Saudi Arabia with kid gloves?

Hoya90 on June 21, 2005 at 2:37 pm

Same reasons as above. If you lose the House of Saud (or at least the part of the family that likes the House of Bush), then you get something even MORE radical in power in Saudi Arabia.

Hoya90 on June 21, 2005 at 2:09 pm

Which is that Musharraf has been aggressively undermining the SECULAR opposition parties in Pakistan and letting the Intelligence Service help build up the Islamic Parties.

Take this quote from an Asia Times article from 2003 discussing the elections in Pakistan:

The MMA owed its remarkable success in the October elections to Musharraf’s munificence. He ordered the withdrawal of the cases against many of their candidates from the anti-terrorism courts so that they were not disqualified by the Election Commission. He made the Election Commission pass an order giving the certificates in Islamic studies issued by the madrassas (religious schools) the equivalence of an university degree so that the newly-introduced electoral provision that only graduates can contest elections did not come in the way of the mullahs and their proteges contesting the polls. He broke the PML-N and the PPPP, thereby weakening their ability to counter the religious fundamentalist parties.

The MMA is the alliance of Islamist parties that are as radical as Bin Laden. The PPPP (led by Benazir Bhutto) and PML-N are both strong secular parties. Prior to Musharraf’s little games with the electoral rules and his handling of the war on terror, the MMA crowd never got more than 5% of the vote. Now they’re a major block in Parliament.

The analysis by Kohlmann is correct, except for noting that Musharraf created the situation where the choice is between him and the Islamists. His tactics force the U.S. to choose between supporting his dictatorship (and it’s weak record against Al-Qaeda) or trying to back a secular opposition that can’t hope to win against the combined power of the ISI and the Islamists.

It is also important to note that the ISI helped create most of the Islamic militants during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, that the ISI was backing the Taliban’s rise to power in Afghanistan, and that the ISI used Islamic militants to carry out a proxy war in Indian controlled Kashmir.

My own belief is that the current course in Pakistan is a slow slide towards a radical Islamic state that will be nuclear armed. The more the secular opposition is shut down by Musharraf, the better the Islamists will do. Eventually, they will demand power and enough people in the ISI will decide that they can work with the Islamists that they created.
- Dean Pajevic on June 21, 2005 at 2:20 pm
  
  I sent your reply to Kohlmann in the hope he may respond to you.
  
  But, what choice is there in Pakistan except a dictatorship or an Islamic state?
  
  Maybe by helping along the fundies, M. is hoping to keep them in check and not too restless?
  
  (And I’ve been wondering if the rise of Muslim fundamentalism is actually helpful to the Neocon agenda .. all their token talk about democracy aside. A repressed, religiously bound people are more malleable, aren’t they, than free, thinking people?)
  - Hoya90 on June 21, 2005 at 2:36 pm
    
    between the Islamists and the Pakistani Intelligence Services. It’s all tied up in the history of the Soviet war in Afghanistan. The ISI and the Islamists made each other successful and they still need each other.
    
    The U.S. sends in CIA operatives, some money, and lots of equipment. The U.S. also backs Pakistan’s dictator at the time, Zia Ul-Haq. The Pakistani ISI does most of the running of the operations, managing the Afghan camps on their side of the border, providing training, and helping direct the other money coming in. The Saudis, in particular, send tons of money to Pakistan to finance the fighters AND MORE IMPORTANTLY TO SET UP MADRASSAS. For the last 25 years, the Saudi and Pakistani pieces of this operation have been grinding along changing the nature of Pakistan.
    
    Fareed Zakaria had a great article in Newsweek right after 9/11 where he talked about the change in Islam in South Asia:
    
    But as the moderate majority looks the other way, Islam is being taken over by a small poisonous element, people who advocate cruel attitudes toward women, education, the economy and modern life in general. I have seen this happen in India, where I grew up. The rich, colorful, pluralistic and easygoing Islam of my youth has turned into a dour, puritanical faith, policed by petty theocrats and religious commissars.
    
    Pakistan was at the center of this religious battle. General Zia, as Pakistan’s dictator, needed a new source of support that he wouldn’t get from secular elites. The Saudis meanwhile had a bunch of religious zealots who despised the decadent ways of the royal family. The House of Saud cut a deal – you leave us alone at home and we’ll help you spread your version Islam across the world. And so the money flowed and the madrassas spewing hate blossomed.
    
    Musharraf and the ISI crowd think that they can control the monster they’ve helped to create. The problem comes when younger ISI officers decide to drink the Kool Aid that the Islamists are offering. When that happens, they can help them seize power – and they may ALREADY be providing cover for Al-Qaeda from the inside.
    
    To the extent that there is a real choice, we need to help the moderates and secular people in the Islamic world take their countries back. Pressure Musharraf to cut a deal with the secular parties. Push Musharraf to fund more SECULAR schools and stop cutting deals with the MMA. Maybe it’s too late to reverse the damage of the last 25 years, but it’s no different than undoing the work of Richard Mellon Scaife and the other GOP whackjobs in the U.S.
ohwilleke on June 21, 2005 at 2:27 pm

This source (without references) says:

June 16, 2005: Car bombs have, over the past two years, become the favorite weapon of terrorists in Iraq. Since July 2003, when the first one was used, there have been (as of June 5th) 278 such attacks. These caused 9,167 casualties (2,818 people dead, 6,349 wounded.) That’s an average of 33 casualties per car bomb. Not all were suicide car bombs, 42 percent were set off by remote control. Nearly all the drivers of the suicide car bombs have been foreign Arabs, mainly from Saudi Arabia. [snip] The operation is more dependent on al Qaeda supplied suicide drivers. Even the quality of these volunteers has declined, with several later identified as retarded, and apparently convinced to do something the “martyrs” could not really understand.

If true, it points to Saudi Arabia, again, being the source of a significant source of individuals willing to kill themselves to strike American or American related targets. And, if the Administration agrees with this assessment, why is it treating Saudi Arabia with kid gloves?
- Hoya90 on June 21, 2005 at 2:37 pm
  
  Same reasons as above. If you lose the House of Saud (or at least the part of the family that likes the House of Bush), then you get something even MORE radical in power in Saudi Arabia.

Why We Should Be “Nice-Nice” to Pakistan

About The Author

Dean Pajevic

5 Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments