Pakistani military withdraws, cedes tribal areas to jihadis
posted at 2:21 pm on September 5, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Smells like disaster, but it might not be. First, from the Blotter:
The Pakistani military will no longer operate in the area where Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda operatives are believed to be hiding, according to terms of what the Pakistan government calls a “peace deal,” signed today with militant tribal groups allied to the Taliban and al Qaeda…
The agreement, signed in the North Waziristan district of Pakistan’s volatile tribal belt, calls for the military to return to its barracks and for the insurgents to stop launching attacks on Pakistani troops…
Under the agreement, the Pakistan military will stop monitoring the activity of the militants, who will pledge to “live like good citizens,” General Sultan said.
The AP corroborates the report. The question is simply this: are the Pakistanis getting out of the Taliban’s way? Or are they getting out of the way of the U.S. military? From the Asia Times:
The Americans are pointing directly at the two Waziristans as the primary conduit for the suicide bombers who are currently playing havoc with the US-NATO-led war machine in Afghanistan, and a safe haven for enemy combatants. The US now has come up with a plan to confront the strategic arm of the Taliban based on the Pakistani side of the border…
Sources say the Americans are set on a plan of hot pursuit of enemy combatants across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and they want a clear demarcation of the Pakistani tribal areas that have long been volatile and which they say should be part of the Afghanistan front in the “war on terror”.
Last month, Pakistan considered the issue and offered in response a geographical demarcation of the border and a fence along it. In fact the border in this region is the imaginary Durand Line, which passes through mountains and populated areas, and is impossible to seal. The only practical solution, as far as Washington is concerned, is hot pursuit of enemy combatants into their refuges in Pakistan.
Is this Musharraf’s way of essentially washing his hands of responsibility for Waziristan? If the U.S. attacks, it’s the jihadis’ problem now, not his. Or is this op-ed in today’s LA Times correct in calling him a double-dealing thorn in our side who should be called to account for his anti-democratic, Taliban-sympathizing militarization of the country?
Make sure your answer accounts for the disposition of Pakistani nukes in the event of regime change.
Update: The Blotter updates and calls it a “free pass” for Osama. Is it? Or are the gloves off now?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Can we heavily BOMB that area NOW?
Defector01 on September 5, 2006 at 2:27 PM
I like it. Is it wrong of me to assume the opposite of whatever the Times editors think?
Pablo on September 5, 2006 at 2:51 PM
In other words, we’re not talking about a country decimated by 10 years of crippling embargoes, a no fly zone and a military that had, for all intents and purposes, been crushed by a massive coalition. Nope, not a helpless Iraq upon which Rumsfeld can once again demonstrate his tactical genious.
THeDRiFTeR on September 5, 2006 at 2:57 PM
Ok, but what are you talking about, THeDRiFTeR? We’re not talking about a country at all, but a traditionally lawless region that straddles a border. What are you on about?
Pablo on September 5, 2006 at 3:10 PM
I think Musharraf is now free to conduct a nuke test in this region he no longer controls. I think that would solve a few problems for everyone.
On a more serious note, I think Mushy has now given himself some cover internally to allow forces to pursue the Taliban. If he does not have forces there, what can he do? Lodge a protest or two and we can acknowlege and let him rattle his sabre a bit to keep peace at home.
I think this buys him a great deal of time at home.
The Nukes and Regime change – tough one. (See Above)
dallas94 on September 5, 2006 at 3:17 PM
/sarc on
“That bloody genius (genious), that Rummy. What’s he up to next, that senile fool?”
“If only we and the U.N. wouldn’t have gone along we wouldn’t have had:
…and Sadaam (or Sedam, as Bush 41 and Mark Steyn would say) would be one of our allies today…if only, if only we’d wise up. If only Al Gore would have won, it would all be so different”. /sarc off
On a serious note:
It’s the latter. Also, there won’t be any regime change in Pakistan any time soon, for obvious reasons.
Note how selectively the Left wants regime change? I haven’t heard them wishing for one in Venezuela, Cuba, Myanmar, North Korea, etc. yet…
For objectivity, I haven’t heard the Right wishing for one in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan either.
Entelechy on September 5, 2006 at 3:25 PM
The devil you know is still a devil it would seem.
honora on September 5, 2006 at 4:01 PM
Allah, you’re missing a vital part in your equation. Last week Pak military killed Nawab Akbar Bugti a seperatist leader in Balochistan South and West of Waziristan. Balochistan is half of Pak geographically, sparsely populated, mineral and gas rich, and relatively unexploited. It set off huge riots in an already overheated area. I think Mushy has to re-deploy to stabilize the govt. and either get Baloch under control or press his advantage there while he can.
Incidentally, one of the arrested trans-Atlantic plotters was related by marriage to Bugti and that may be why Pak intel got so quiet on the disposition of their prisoners in that plot. They may have made some kind of trade for intel or were afraid intel they recieved would leak before they could act. Anyway, I trust you, Shackleford, and the Pajamahadeen can run down the connections here. I think the truce is an internal Pakistani matter and I don’t think it has much to do with us. Unless our guys in Defense and Intel just got more competent and imaginative by leaps and bounds in the last couple days and applied the right kind of pressure to an already desperate Mushy. I doubt it though. They’re more re-acters than pro-acters.
The Apologist on September 5, 2006 at 4:03 PM
Drifter, at least your anti-Iraq rhetoric is consistant. Rummy had sugery today for an old sports injury. Spin that one into a lesson on the ineffectiveness of fighting terror abroad if you can.
The Apologist on September 5, 2006 at 4:07 PM
Entelechy:
There have been a large number of us crazy blood soaked wingers arguing for taking on the Saudis, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. Given Mush’s behaviour post 9/11 it is obvious that we weren’t the only ones. He had a frank and open discussion with the US that mentioned America’s interest in taking out the Taliban, our need to go through Pakistan, and how maybe we would let the Indians ensure our way through. In return we’ve guaranteed his regime and have effectively seized his nukes. Mush is stuck between a rock, a hard place, and a US with annihilation on the brain… not somewhere I’d like to be, and results in only one possible reaction.
The goal with Mush is to go Pinochet/Franco style, a supported ally who eventually transitions back to a stable liberal democracy (no jihadis, just as the commies were kept out of Chile and Spain, until recently at least).
We stabilise Iraq and deal with Iran and Syria, that allows us to take on Saudi and Egypt. There’s a grand strategy, and a very good reason why all 4 of the above are trying to keep Iraq stirred up. Too bad the administration isn’t discussing this more.
libertarianuberalles on September 5, 2006 at 4:34 PM
libertarianuberalles, we understand each other. I love nothing better than macro-economics and macro-everything. This includes politics and war strategy.
You’re right that this admin. doesn’t communicate well and clearly. On the other hand, I’m glad they don’t put all the cards on the table.
One of my favorite warriers of all times is Genghis Khan – surprise was part of his best strategy. His sons then destroyed it all…
Entelechy on September 5, 2006 at 5:21 PM
Libertarian über alles, forgot to tell you what a great pen name you have :)
Entelechy on September 5, 2006 at 5:23 PM
Uneducated liberals (redundant, I know) say “Why haven’t we caught bin laden yet?” Well they don’t understand how if Pakistan let us in there the people of Pakistan would possibly overthrow Mushy. No big deal right? Wrong. Pakistan has nukes. We don’t want islamic radicals to have them. So we’d hafta bomb their nukes or send in Spec Ops to secure the weapons. Better to let Paki troops (unreliable as they are) to fight the terrorists from their side of the border while we fight ‘em from the Afghan side. Maybe this new development means we’ll be at least droppin’ some ammo on them from above. No boots on your freakin’ “holy islamic land” so whattaya bitchin’ about? Mushy stays in power, nukes are safe, everybody wins. Well, ‘cept for the dead terrorists.
By the way, read the crawl on Fox News, everyday they tell us how many talibanis/A.Q.s we’ve killed that day. Sweet.
Tony737 on September 5, 2006 at 5:51 PM
Comment pages: