The Pakistan connection

posted at 8:42 am on February 18, 2010 by J.E. Dyer

There’s been a lot of wonder expressed about the recent capture of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, Mullah Omar’s operations deputy, in Pakistan.  After the Pakistanis swore off any new offensives against the Taliban this year, and with their intelligence service, the ISI, known to be infiltrated by the Taliban and other Islamist extremists – why would they apparently cooperate in capturing Baradar?

Now the news is out that another Taliban commander has been captured in Pakistan.  This time it’s one Mullah Abdul Salam, reportedly the “shadow governor” of Kunduz Province.

Have the Pakistanis done an about-face?  Does the ISI now really want to roll up the Taliban?  Is there anything that would lead us to believe that, other than the blank fact of two recent takedowns?

The best answers are:  Unlikely; Probably not; and No.  But there is information readily available that sheds light on what’s going on.  And what it points to is the conclusion that Pakistan’s de facto leadership is determined to wield the primary influence over how any accord is negotiated between Afghanistan’s central government and the Taliban.

This priority has arisen just now because of the strong – some sources would say overriding – interest shown by the Obama administration in what’s being called “reintegration”:  negotiating with “moderate” Taliban to get them to lay down their arms and reintegrate with Afghan society and politics on a consensual basis.  That policy vector, combined with Obama’s 18-month window to begin a drawdown of US forces, means Islamabad has a limited time horizon for making key moves.

The recent captures probably represent one such key move.  Baradar, the second-in-command, is reported to have brokered a Taliban meeting in Dubai in January, with the UN’s top representative in Afghanistan, Kai Eide.  To jog your memory, Dubai is one of the United Arab Emirates over in the Persian Gulf (the insolvent one with the man-made island chain and the famous al-Burj Hotel).  And while there is contrary word about this – Baradar reported as denying it, some sources saying he was detained because he refused to meet with Eide – the meeting would be in character.  Baradar is considered more conciliating and diplomatic than his chief, Mullah Omar, and was the leader of last year’s Taliban delegation to Kabul for talks with Hamid Karzai’s older brother, Qayyum.

The disquieting aspect of Baradar’s diplomacy for the Pakistanis can be found in this passage from a piece by Nouvel Observateur reporter Sara Daniel in December 2009, based on interviews in Afghanistan (emphasis added):

…i[t] seems that the political leadership of the Taliban, tossing around between Peshawar, Quetta and Karachi, would like to put an end to its wanderings in Pakistan. That’s the sense of the messages from the Quetta choura [shura] and its representatives, Baradar and Mohamed Mansour, former chief education officer. The rebels would like to install themselves somewhere, then form a government-in-exile to elaborate the conditions for a negotiation with the Karzai government. Why not in Saudi Arabia where Mullah Zaeef, former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, has already tried to organize a meeting between the enemy sides? Then from Riyadh, the Taliban leadership could negotiate its own neutrality in exchange for a right to return, amnesty and participation in political life after the withdrawal of foreign troops.

Pakistan’s own extremist mullahs wouldn’t like the sound of that.  Now, they may not exert all the control over regional Islamists attributed to them by one of Daniel’s main sources, Maulvi Arsala Rahmani, a member of the Afghan Senate.  Rahmani is a one-time Taliban leader who joined the new government after the Coalition victory, and Daniel reports his analysis as follows:

According to him, the key to potential negotiations is in the hands of the Pakistani mullahs, themselves under ISI – the Pakistani secret services’ – control.  As are Mullah Fazel Rahman and Sami ul-Haq, who lead the coalition of Pakistani fundamentalist religious parties. “Before the Taliban, it is they who must be convinced to make peace, because today they control al-Qaeda and bin Laden and hold the future of the region in their hands …”

This last is an overstatement.  But:  to the extent the Pakistani mullahs want to hold the future of the region in their hands, they can’t like the prospect of the Afghan Taliban building a separate power base elsewhere, and negotiating a separate modus vivendi with the Karzai and NATO governments.  The Pakistani tribal mullahs have never been fans of corrupt Saudi money anyway, and the Afghan Taliban would only channel that competing influence into the Pakistanis’ back yard by leveraging Saudi assistance to gain a negotiating position.

McClatchy reporter Saeed Shah finds confirmation from Pakistani analysts that the main hope of negotiations for Taliban “reintegration” lay with Baradar, at least before his capture:

Analysts said Baradar was the most likely point of contact for any future talks.

“This is inexplicable. Pakistan has destroyed its own credentials as a mediator between Taliban and Americans.  And the trust that might have existed between Taliban and Pakistan is shattered completely,” said Rustam Shah Mohmand, a former Pakistani ambassador to Kabul after the overthrow of the Taliban.

He added: “Mullah Baradar was talking peace. … For the time being, there are no prospects for talks. I think it’s now going to be a fight to the bitter end.”

With his arrest, reaching Taliban officials for contacts is likely to become more difficult. Karzai and Baradar come from the same Popolzai tribe.

“If they want to talk to the Taliban, he (Baradar) was the known person, the known address. But what Pakistan’s done is disappear the address for the Taliban. No Taliban will show themselves now. For a long time, they’ll disappear again,” Abdul Salam Zaeef, the former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan and a former prisoner at Guantanamo, told McClatchy.

I don’t buy the prediction that this has to be a fight to the bitter end, with Baradar out of the picture.  But I think this has happened:  the threat of an independent negotiating initiative by the Afghan Taliban has been removed.  The Pakistani mullahs have averted, for now, a separate process they didn’t have control over.  The Shah article even suggests they may try to make Baradar their own asset, and exert control of any negotiation process through him, after a suitable interim.

As Afghan senator Rahmani implied to Sara Daniel, the government in Islamabad has a mutual interest, with its Islamist party leaders and tribal mullahs, in averting an independent negotiation process that would leave Pakistanis without a central role.  For the government itself, this is in large part because of the long-disputed border between the two countries, in theory demarcated by the Durand Line.  Pakistan will not easily tolerate the Afghan Taliban, with their strong tribal and ethnic ties to elements within Pakistan, negotiating national reconciliation with outsiders, and abetted by outsiders.  That’s how Islamabad ended up with the disputed Durand Line in the first place.

The Great Game continues.

Cross-posted at The Optimistic Conservative.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Tags: , , ,

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

“If they want to talk to the Taliban, he (Baradar) was the known person, the known address. But what Pakistan’s done is disappear the address for the Taliban. No Taliban will show themselves now. For a long time, they’ll disappear again,” Abdul Salam Zaeef, the former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan and a former prisoner at Guantanamo, told McClatchy.

I would bet that with Baradar in custody they have more addresses now than they did before.

It’s amazing how bringing a car battery into the room facilitates conversation.

Akzed on February 18, 2010 at 8:57 AM

Looks like an orchistrated exit strategy. High profile arrest, exile in Saudi Arabia for the rest, surge, declare victory, go home.

One wonders what little details are being left unadressed.

percysunshine on February 18, 2010 at 9:05 AM

Another one bites the dust!

hawkman on February 18, 2010 at 9:07 AM

Minor quibble:

and with their intelligence service, the ISI, known to be infiltrated by the Taliban

The ISI created the Taliban to assert control over Afghanistan, to end the Afghan civil war after the Soviet Union left. There were hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Afghans living in displacement camps in Pakistan due to the Afghan civil war. Pakistan didn’t like that, for understandable reasons. The question is not why did the ISI create a movement to assert control over Afghanistan, but why did it choose such a radical, violent ideology that even freaking Iran called medieval.

Is the entire ISI of such a though, or just elements within it? From outward appearances Pakistan seems to be a secular, though with an Islamic tradition, state (at least where the national government can assert control) even though it is incredibly corrupt. Why would its secret service go to such an extreme version of Islam?

Then there’s the question of whether Baradar is an actual capture or whether this is a kabuki theater negotiation. He’s not actually under arrest so much as this is a way to talk to the Taliban.

rbj on February 18, 2010 at 9:11 AM

With his arrest, reaching Taliban officials for contacts is likely to become more difficult. Karzai and Baradar come from the same Popolzai tribe.

So the ISI and Pakistan have an interest in using Baradar as a negotiating tool against Afghanistani president Karzai. Nothing is more important than tribal loyalty among these people so maybe the ISI and Pakistan are exacerbating the conflict not trying to resolve the conflict. I think I am more confused after reading the article than I was before.

fourdeucer on February 18, 2010 at 9:21 AM

“This is inexplicable. Pakistan has destroyed its own credentials as a mediator between Taliban and Americans. And the trust that might have existed between Taliban and Pakistan is shattered completely,” said Rustam Shah Mohmand, a former Pakistani ambassador to Kabul after the overthrow of the Taliban.

So if I am reading this correctly…Pakistan and the ISI have played us again for money by giving up Taliban elements that cause them problems but allow our politicians and intelligence agencies to brag about a great capture.
But in the end nothing will change in the way of real success against the financing and training of jihadist within their boarders.

Why anyone would think a peace agreement from the Taliban is worth even the energy to shake a hand on is beyond me.
They have a 100% record of breaking them.

“integration” of the Taliban seems more to me of turning the country back over to the elements we came there to defeat in the first place.

………this must be one of the reasons India was sent packing….they know this game to well.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/south-asia/Is-the-neighbourhood-set-to-get-even-more-dangerous/articleshow/5541012.cms

Islamabad may be hopelessly dependent on Washington’s money, but that doesn’t stop it from refusing to give visas to US officials, refusing money that comes with ‘conditions’.

Pakistan has made it clear it will not stop supporting the Afghan Taliban; there is absolutely no attempt to tackle al Qaida; and Mullah Omar’s Quetta Shura functions unimpeded. In short, it holds veto power over whether the Obama surge succeeds in Afghanistan. Washington, said an Indian official scornfully, is “kowtowing to Pakistan just like they did to China.”

But Obama seems to think that giving the Taliban billions of dollars will make them act nice….forget all about that New Caliphate thing and become moderates.

…..WHAT THE HE!! IS A TALIBAN MODERATE????????

Has the Obama administration defined what a “moderate” jihadist is yet.

One thing is for sure,they won’t mind taking our tax dollars to help them buy more sophisticated weapons….


US, allies plan $500m fund to woo Taliban
By Anwar Iqbal
Wednesday, 27 Jan, 2010
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/12-announcement-to-be-made-in-london-us,-allies-plan-$500m-fund-to-woo-taliban-710–bi-08

“We are going to go to London to affirm our international support for it,” said US special envoy Richard Holbrooke. “Money will be forthcoming for it. I can’t say how much. The Japanese are going to take the lead.”

In an interview to MSNBC television on Monday evening, Mr Holbrooke said that the initiative would fill a gap in dealing with the Taliban because “there’s no good programme to invite them back into the fold”.

……the Taliban obviously don’t like this program either.

Taliban rejects UN’s idea to buy them off in Afghanistan
Thursday, January 28, 2010, 5:40 PM
Jim Hoft

The delegates at the conference announced a plan to bring low- and mid-level Taliban into the international effort to rebuild Afghanistan.  The effort is modeled in part on the Sons of Iraq program, where Washington put insurgents on its payroll to fight the growing al-Qaida influence in Iraq.  The Taliban discounted the effort, saying it was a trick by the international community, Pakistani newspaper The News International reports.


“They think the mujahedin will be enticed by money or by positions of power,” a Taliban statement read. ”Such thoughts are baseless and futile and have no truth.”

Has it not been the liberals that have crowed on for years that we know about the weapons that the jihadist have because we still have the receipts.

…..would love to see them square this circle.

……..then maybe they could explain this major capitulation:

The Pakistani demand has been succinctly laid out by Munir Akram, one of its top diplomats: “Pakistan’s cooperation should be offered only in exchange for tangible and immediate US support for Pakistan’s national objectives: an end to Indian-Afghan interference in Baluchistan and FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas); a Kashmir solution; a military balance between Pakistan and India; parity with India on nuclear issues; transfer of equipment and technology for counter-terrorism ; unconditional defense and economic assistance; free trade access.”

You can’t buy off radical jihadist……
….Their one and only goal is total Islamic control and destroying anybody that does not succumb to it.

Baxter Greene on February 18, 2010 at 9:42 AM

Looks like an orchistrated exit strategy. High profile arrest, exile in Saudi Arabia for the rest, surge, declare victory, go home.

Sure beats the hell out of the original libtard goal, which amounted to a modern version of the Bladensburg races. But of course…

One wonders what little details are being left unaddressed.

percysunshine on February 18, 2010 at 9:05 AM

Given that Team Obama is making Bush look like Einstein, there have to be more than a few ‘little details’ that are not being addressed.

Dark-Star on February 18, 2010 at 9:43 AM

I think Bill Roggio at LWJ has a pretty good take on the situation

http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2010/02/why_would_pakistan_arrest_bara.php

nagee76 on February 18, 2010 at 9:44 AM

We got nine more Al-Queda in Karachi.

That phone book we got last month must be the common link.

WashJeff on February 18, 2010 at 9:49 AM

i am digressing a bit, but how is that Kerry Lugar bill on Pakistan working out ? as usual Kerry ends up looking like a total douchebag and out of touch with the reality of the situation in Pakistan.. only this time Lugar is giving him company.

The Paki military is running this transparent puppet show and their civilian Govt has no control over it.

Note to people who work with Kerry on any legislation : its usually a crappy idea !

nagee76 on February 18, 2010 at 9:55 AM

The ISI created the Taliban to assert control over Afghanistan, to end the Afghan civil war after the Soviet Union left.

rbj on February 18, 2010 at 9:11 AM

….and they will stay loyal to the Taliban….there is to much money to be lost in shutting them down:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07pakistan-t.html?_r=2&ref=world&pagewanted=print

the retired Pakistani official offered another explanation — one that he said could never be discussed in public. The reason the Pakistani security services support the Taliban, he said, is for money: after the 9/11 attacks, the Pakistani military concluded that keeping the Taliban alive was the surest way to win billions of dollars in aid that Pakistan needed to survive. The military’s complicated relationship with the Taliban is part of what the official called the Pakistani military’s “strategic games.” Like other Pakistanis, this former senior official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of what he was telling me.


“Pakistan is dependent on the American money that these games with the Taliban generate,” the official told me. “The Pakistani economy would collapse without it. This is how the game works.”

More bones thrown our way and games being played to keep the money coming in.

Looking at how much the Obama administration is willing to give up….you would think that a deal for Osama or al-Zawahiri is in the works.

It would fit Obama’s MO perfectly.

They would be the ultimate catch,Americans would celebrate,Obama would claim victory,….but in the end Pakistan would not have to eliminate the Taliban,the financing,and the training,all the while collecting big money and other serious perks.

We all want Osama…but winning the war against the jihadist is much more important.

Baxter Greene on February 18, 2010 at 9:57 AM

So there is a power vacuum in Afghanistan (Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, . . .) and a power struggle to fill it. Ok, I get that part.

But the rest reads like the opening game of an NBA season and the seers are trying to fill the end of season tournament slots and select the final four.

Skandia Recluse on February 18, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Baxter Greene on February 18, 2010 at 9:57 AM

Wow. Ouch. The ISI is using the Taliban/AQ as a means of economically propping up the country (as opposed to manufacturing/services) while our young men are fighting & dying? That is evil. Pakistan is corrupt-corrupt.

rbj on February 18, 2010 at 10:03 AM

one-day London conference designed to boost the flagging war effort in Afghanistan, where U.S. and NATO forces have been taking increasing casualties from a resurgent Taliban

The NPR has it exactly backwards. The taliban are taking heavy casualties from a US Marine push into taliban territory. [expletive deleted]

Skandia Recluse on February 18, 2010 at 10:10 AM

After reading through all of the material I get the impression that the more violent, radical, extremists are ‘the nail that sticks up must be hammered down’ while the less violent warlords are being . . uh. . enticed into a power sharing arrangement with Pakistan hip deep in the machinations.

Ya, I can see a stable future for Afghanistan (Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia,. . .) with that type of foreign policy. You betcha!

Skandia Recluse on February 18, 2010 at 10:19 AM

nagee76 on February 18, 2010 at 9:44 AM

Two things kind of stuck out in Roggio’s post and also at the Pakistan site:

And equally important, as Afghans have engaged in a multitude of secret peace talks in the region, the Pakistan Army would like to ensure that it, to the exclusion of India, is part of the glue that holds together any power sharing arrangement in Kabul.

…”engaged in a multitude of peace talks” ……that always end in failure.

I know that India is a lightning rod but they are excluding a country that could actually offer major trade and economic growth to Afghanistan for a country that has facilitated the very enemy we are trying to defeat…and has a terrible economy.

I thought that one of the keys to fighting terrorism was improving the way of life of the average muslim and providing economic opportunity.
How can Pakistan do that when it can’t even take care of it’s own back yard.

From the Pakistan blog:

In the briefing, Kayani articulated his Afghanistan doctrine. Pakistan, he said, seeks a friendly government, stability, and ”strategic depth” in Afghanistan. He also added that Pakistan does not seek a Talibanized Afghanistan and offered to train the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police.

Pakistan “does not seek a Talibanized Afghanistn”……
…that sounds good, but less than credible coming from the “Talibanized Pakistan”.

How can following Pakistan’s lead in Afghanistan keep it from becoming exactly what we came there to fight against when they have not achieved not being a “Talibanized Pakistan”.

Is the Obama administration’s idea of victory in Afghanistan leaving it to become just like Pakistan…..a major training ground for jihadist around the world?????

Baxter Greene on February 18, 2010 at 10:21 AM

He added: “Mullah Baradar was talking peace. … For the time being, there are no prospects for talks. I think it’s now going to be a fight to the bitter end.”

It was seen for what it was – a stall tactic so they can regroup, that’s how they do it over there, they call for negotiations “let’s talk” to buy time….how is that regrouping working out for them now in Helmand Province, with Mullah Baradar in custody…it’s kind of distracting I’m guessing.

When they attacked the C.I.A. Khost outpost, they knocked over the hornet’s nest. It couldn’t happen to a lousier group of intolerant Islamic fascist. There is no such thing as a moderate Taliban, these people executed women in Soccer Fields. I know this has been going on for 9 years, and people forget just what the Taliban represents, but these leopards have not changed their spots.

Dr Evil on February 18, 2010 at 10:24 AM

rbj on February 18, 2010 at 10:03 AM

It has been stated by military and intelligence personal for years that Afghanistan cannot be “won” without taking out the jihadist training and financing that exist across their boarder in Pakistan.

Now we are supposed to believe that Pakistan’s influence and policy initiatives are going to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan without it becoming “Talibanized”.

It seems to me they know that the Obama administration just wants a way out so Pakistan/Taliban are getting everything they can using the considerable leverage that we have submitted to them before we “surrender with style”….
…not having actually defeated the Taliban or stopped the financing and training of jihadist.

Roggio addressed this some time ago:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/10/analysis_al_qaeda_is.php

It is remarkable that anyone would argue that a Taliban safe haven in Afghanistan would not necessarily lead to an al Qaeda safe haven there given that the two currently enjoy the same safe havens in Northern Pakistan. After the two jointly established the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan in 2006, for example, it should have become painfully obvious that they had not given up on their combined territorial ambitions.

Just as in pre-9/11 Afghanistan, these safe havens are home to broad cooperation between the Taliban and al Qaeda. The Taliban hosts camps for al Qaeda’s paramilitary army, as well as al Qaeda’s external network – that is, those terrorists responsible for striking the West. By some estimates there are more than 150 training camps, of various sizes and configurations, in the tribal areas in Northwestern Pakistan.

This idea that allowing Pakistan to gain power along with the “moderate Taliban” (that we still need a definition for)in keeping Afghanistan from reverting right back to the Taliban controlled nation it was before makes about as much sense as having a pimp teach an abstance course.

Baxter Greene on February 18, 2010 at 10:44 AM

When all is said and done, Hamid Karzai is going to come down on the side of Pakistan rather than India because the Paks are Islamic and India isn’t. Karzai has repeatedly chosen his Muslim brethren rather than make sensible choices for the good of Afghanistan.

SilentWatcher on February 18, 2010 at 10:48 AM

Pakistan has so many different elements of the Taliban in it’s country that the idea that they can control them seems more than far fetched.

Reading this article gives a concise look at how vast the Taliban are and how hard it is to even think about keeping the politics straight between them so that they will be “moderate”.

Why the Taliban is attacking the ISI
May 29, 2009 14:35 IST

http://news.rediff.com/column/2009/may/29/guest-why-the-taliban-is-attacking-the-isi.htm

The various tribal sirdars, who are supporting the TTP, repeatedly make the following points: Firstly, they did not want to fight against the Pakistan Army. It was the army which forced them to take to arms against it by raiding the Lal Masjid and killing their children. Secondly, their real enemy is the US-led NATO forces in Afghanistan and not the Pakistan Army. They are fighting against the Pakistan Army because it prevents them from assisting the Neo-Taliban against the US-led NATO forces. Thirdly, they will stop fighting the Pakistan Army if it makes amends for the alleged massacre of tribal children at the Lal Masjid, removes restrictions on their going into Afghanistan to fight against the US-led NATO troops and stops assisting the US-led NATO troops in their war against the Neo-Taliban.

The Taliban sect that attacks the ISI (created in response to the attack on the Red Mosque by the Pakistani government)is smaller,younger,and weaker than the stronger forces led by Omar and Meshud.

But what becomes apparent is that to help maintain stability in Pakistan….the government needs to allow certain Taliban elements within their country to exert more control in Afghanistan.

So allowing Pakistan more “control” in Afghanistan helps control their radical problems while exporting to Afghanistan the very elements we came there to defeat.

Pretty much along the lines of what MB4 has been posting about for months.

Baxter Greene on February 18, 2010 at 11:07 AM

If Bob was the Supreme Leader of Earth, he would be fatigued by all the strife and nonsense occurring around the world today.

He would issue an order requiring the complete isolation any country located in the region “Persian Gulf”, including Pakistan, Afghanistan, in fact, any country ending with “-stan”, North Korea, and most of Africa.

This order would be in effect until the shooting (in the affected areas) stops.

I really do think the US should disengage from solving the worlds problems. Lord knows we enough of our own.

BobMbx on February 18, 2010 at 11:28 AM

There’s something really strange about this. Especially since they just captured another.

scalleywag on February 18, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Political response to recent criticism?

The timing of the recent ‘explosion’ in captures comes right after Mark Thiessen’s book criticizing the Administration for relying exclusively on drones for killing terrorists… meaning that there are few to interrogate… the idea that detaining and interrogating high-level terrorists is difficult ideologically for the Administration… they won’t waterboard them… they won’t put them in Guantanamo… they won’t put them in black sites, etc.

Maybe just a coincidence… but the way the Administration plays politics with national security… one wonders.

stillaneocon on February 18, 2010 at 11:56 AM

This is a very interesting analysis. I haven’t read this anywhere else.

It has the stench of truth about it. Your reasoning for why PK would bother helping to round up some Tali makes sense.

jlibson on February 18, 2010 at 12:27 PM

There’s something really strange about this. Especially since they just captured another.

scalleywag on February 18, 2010 at 11:43 AM

This actually happens quite often when high ranking jihadist are taken.

In Iraq…many other al-qaeda leadership and bit players were nabbed after Zarkawi and several other jihadist leaders were tagged.

Cell phones,documents,and interrogation would bring several in as long as you did it quickly and before news of the capture or kill was publicized.

This is one of the reasons Obama’s “reading miranda rights” to captured terrorist is such a stupid idea..

….and it goes without saying that these top Taliban are not getting the same rights that liberals whine and cry about all the time.

The fact is that if they were captured by Americans..under Obama…we would not have gotten hardly any of this intel..

….and if we did…it would probably be to late to act.
…
………..that is why liberals are A-okay all of a sudden with extraordinary rendition.

Ass long as someone else is doing the “torturing” it is just fine with the liberals now…unlike it was under Bush.

How Progressive!!!!

Baxter Greene on February 18, 2010 at 12:33 PM

Always on my mind that Obama’s Occidental roommate was a Pakistani named Chandoo (sp); that when Obama made his 3-week visit to Pakistan in 1981, when American’s weren’t allowed to visit, that he traveled there with Chandoo and stayed with his family while in Pakistan; that the Chandoo father was a prominent Pakistani banker; that the Chandoo who was a roommate is now a financial supporter of Obama – as is Chandoo’s brother – and that one of those Chandoo brothers was a bundler for Obama during the campaign.

These thing come to mind because since Obama’s tenure began there has been what seems to be a reversal in policy regarding the Afgan war relative to Pakistan. It seems that the ‘do not cross this border’ signs were removed at the time several months ago that the Taliban suddenly was looking as if it would overrun the Pakistan capital.

Does anyone else wonder whether the troop enhancement in Afganistan is not for Afganistan’s future security as much as it might be to protect the Pakistan economy from the ‘wrong’ arm of Islam taking over Pakistan? Obama has pointed out that he knew the difference between Sunni and Shia before the rest of us even had a clue it was all on the radar. He pointed out that expertise of his in the same sentence in which he inadvertantly let slip that he had traveled to Pakistan. Until that private fundraiser in San Francisco, that he had traveled to Pakistan was one of the items on his list of secrecies, i.e., he had never mentioned it before – not in bios, not in any speech, not in either of his books – nada.

How much might the phrase “follow the money” enter into Barry’s interest in Afganistan/Taliban/Pakistan?

GGMac on February 18, 2010 at 1:14 PM