Pakistan: Oh, by the way, we captured the Taliban’s number two to derail peace talks with Karzai

posted at 5:01 pm on August 23, 2010 by Allahpundit

A dynamite piece, to the point where there’s too much for me to safely quote, so please read it all. But here’s the lesson to take away: The crazy, nutty, jihadbot Taliban actually might not be the biggest obstacle to peace in Afghanistan.

But then, we knew that already, didn’t we?

“We picked up Baradar and the others because they were trying to make a deal without us,” said a Pakistani security official, who, like numerous people interviewed about the operation, spoke anonymously because of the delicacy of relations between Pakistan, Afghanistan and the United States. “We protect the Taliban. They are dependent on us. We are not going to allow them to make a deal with Karzai and the Indians.”…

A senior NATO officer in Kabul said that in arresting Mr. Baradar and the other Taliban leaders, the Pakistanis may have been trying to buy time to see if President Obama’s strategy begins to prevail. If it does, the Pakistanis may eventually decide to let the Taliban make a deal. But if the Americans fail — and if they begin to pull out — then the Pakistanis may decide to retain the Taliban as their allies…

The Pakistanis refused to allow the C.I.A. to interrogate Mr. Baradar or even to be present when they spoke. Another Pakistani official said Mr. Baradar was taken to a safe house in Islamabad, where he was debriefed. It was only several days later that the C.I.A. learned of his identity and were allowed to question him.

The Pakistani official even joked about the C.I.A.’s naïveté. “They are so innocent,” he said.

Follow the link for lots more, including speculation that Pakistani intel duped the CIA into assisting in the Baradar operation plus the mind-boggling revelation that the many lesser Taliban leaders whom they rounded up right after Baradar have now been released, freed to fight again after a gentle admonition not to go making any peace deals with anyone without Pakistan’s approval. Why that isn’t instant grounds for recalling the U.S. ambassador from Pakistan, I have no idea; if they’re releasing men into the field who are angling to kill American troops and destabilize the Afghan government, they’re basically operating parallel to how Iran is operating with some of the Shiite militias in Iraq. And yet, no consequences.

Two other things. First, why would Pakistani intel go blabbing about this to the Times right now? Might it have something to do with what Kerry said over the weekend about there being “very active” efforts underway to reach some sort of peace settlement? If he’s right, maybe Pakistan is starting to panic about once again being cut out of negotiations and is trying to signal here to the Taliban (and Obama and Karzai, natch) that they’re not to be trifled with. (In fact, according to the Times piece, some U.S. officials accuse Pakistan of overstating their role in the Baradar capture precisely in order to “make themselves appear more influential.”) Second, I’ve been following the Pakistan/Taliban saga off and on for four years at Hot Air and I confess I’m more confused than ever as to how much control one has over the other, and even how much control important figures in each faction have over their own men. It’s commonly assumed that Zardari and the leaders of the Pakistani government don’t have much sway over the jihadist elements in ISI who coordinate with the Taliban; does Baradar, who allegedly wants peace, have any sway within the Taliban to actually make them lay down their arms if a deal is reached or will they simply kill him as a traitor and ignore the terms? Also, per my point in the Kerry post about the pathetic history of “peace deals” with the Taliban, if Pakistan supposedly has so much control over them, how come they can’t convince them to abide by treaties reached with Islamabad without having to go in and bludgeon them with military force? There’s a bizarre media narrative that somehow, simultaneously, Pakistan exercises huge amounts of control over the Taliban in Afghanistan while struggling constantly to repel the Taliban’s jihadist menace in the tribal areas across the border. I can’t tell who has more leverage over whom.

Your exit question: How long are we planning to muddle through here with this “Pakistan is our partner in peace in Afghanistan” charade? It seems like we have two options: Either we can try to eliminate Pakistani influence in the country by bringing in India and going for broke in pushing out the Taliban, or we can basically give up and hand the country over to Pakistan in hopes that they can keep their Taliban proxy in line better than we can. What we’re doing now, fighting the Taliban while keeping Pakistan’s hand relatively strong, doesn’t make sense to me.

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

This is why we should just nuke them all from orbit.

It’s the only way to be sure.

catmman on August 23, 2010 at 5:05 PM

We could always, er, bomb them back to the stone age?

John the Libertarian on August 23, 2010 at 5:06 PM

What we’re doing now, fighting the Taliban while keeping Pakistan’s hand relatively strong, doesn’t make sense to me.

The paki’s have nukes.

lorien1973 on August 23, 2010 at 5:09 PM

It makes me all warm and fuzzy to think that billions of our own ‘aid’ dollars are paying for Pok-ee-stahn to f*ck us over.

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 5:09 PM

And this will help encourage people to donate to flood victims, how?

YYZ on August 23, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Of course, the Paks play us like fools. We keep throwing money at them which is often used against us. The rest probably ends up in Swiss bank accounts. It’s the Pali game over and over.

We should stop sending money and aid. We’re broke. India can deal with the Pakis, and I’d gladly let them do it. Take away the incentives, and see how serious they are about cleaning things up. Here’s a hint….. they aren’t.

Cody1991 on August 23, 2010 at 5:10 PM

How the CIA and State Department deal with the Paki’s I’ll never know. To know that we’re sending billions over there to support that government is really depressing.

WisRich on August 23, 2010 at 5:10 PM

So Obama’s plan is working, right?

Skandia Recluse on August 23, 2010 at 5:11 PM

Your exit question: How long are we planning to muddle through here with this “Pakistan is our partner in peace in Afghanistan” charade?

Allah, you’re just a blogger and I’m just a web manager. What do we know? We should just leave this to the experts like Hillary and Obowma, who know how to impress world leaders with their knowledge of languages and how to bow humbly, and especially how to apologize.

AubieJon on August 23, 2010 at 5:12 PM

The Pakistani official even joked about the C.I.A.’s naïveté. “They are so innocent,” he said.

Innocent. Then the CIA must be among the numbered of “innocent American” dead victims of Islam mentioned by the Obamamosque imam.

maverick muse on August 23, 2010 at 5:15 PM

Since this is something else President Obama has screwed up, I’m wondering: What are George W. Bush’s views on the Ground Zero mosque?

catmman on August 23, 2010 at 5:15 PM

And this will help encourage people to donate to flood victims, how?

YYZ on August 23, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Tell the Pakistani government to take it out of the missing US ‘aid money’ they’ve been stealing for years. I’m horrified at the flooding and resulting homelessness but anyone who’s intellectually honest knows any more aid sent isn’t getting to the victims of the floods.

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 5:16 PM

I don’t think any of us have the faintest clue as to what’s really going on over there.

faraway on August 23, 2010 at 5:16 PM

And this will help encourage people to donate to flood victims, how?

YYZ on August 23, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Hillary tells us that the floods in Pakistan are due to global warming. Shouldn’t Al Gore be donating to that flood relief ?

macncheez on August 23, 2010 at 5:19 PM

Shouldn’t Al Gore be donating to that flood relief ?

macncheez on August 23, 2010 at 5:19 PM

That’s your job plebeian. Pay up! Hillary already gave her $10.

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 5:22 PM

AP,
The government does not have much control over ISI. Army and ISI have to maintain their importance and control. Civilian government can’t be allowed to take control.

This is the strategic depth Pakistan has been working for years.

antisocial on August 23, 2010 at 5:23 PM

We could always, er, bomb them back to the stone age?
John the Libertarian on August 23, 2010 at 5:06 PM

That would actually raise their standard of living. I’m in no mood to do them any favors right now…

joejm65 on August 23, 2010 at 5:23 PM

I don’t think any of us have the faintest clue as to what’s really going on over there.

faraway on August 23, 2010 at 5:16 PM

I know I don’t. My head is spinning trying to grasp this. I’m sure Obama said “screw it, I’m playing golf”.

WisRich on August 23, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Now, seven months later, Pakistani officials are telling a very different story. They say they set out to capture Mr. Baradar, and used the C.I.A. to help them do it, because they wanted to shut down secret peace talks that Mr. Baradar had been conducting with the Afghan government that excluded Pakistan, the Taliban’s longtime backer.

In the weeks after Mr. Baradar’s capture, Pakistani security officials detained as many as 23 Taliban leaders, many of whom had been enjoying the protection of the Pakistani government for years. The talks came to an end.
============================================================

Ugh,with all this fog,I’m reminded of the 7 CIA Officers
that were snuffed out by the Taliban suicide bomber !

canopfor on August 23, 2010 at 5:25 PM

The paki’s have nukes.

lorien1973 on August 23, 2010 at 5:09 PM

Or as our Airforce calls them, “targets”.

elfman on August 23, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Oprah should just buckle down and give them a year of Central Asia Makeovers.

Limerick on August 23, 2010 at 5:26 PM

The paki’s have nukes.

lorien1973 on August 23, 2010 at 5:09 PM

So does India. Time to play pakis and Indians. Think of it as a warm up. Mushroom clouds over each country should put the Iranian mullahs into a drooling, jabbering fit of impatience, and kick Egypt and Saudi Arabia into high gear for nuke deveopment. It’s just a matter of time till that whole area is glass, and democratic elections won’t mean much then. Pakistan is broken and can never be fixed. Too much jihadi burrowed down too deep.

a capella on August 23, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Since 2001, the C.I.A. and the ISI have maintained an uneasy relationship. They have cooperated on hundreds of operations and detained dozens of militants, but they have clashed over the ISI’s support for the Taliban.

That’s quite a paragraph. So the ISI, which is supporting the Taliban, “cooperates” with operations and detentions of miliatnts. If theye are supporting the Taliban, which militants are they helping the CIA with? Obviously, if this is true, they are getting rid of expendables, handing out a few scraps, while using the Taliban to advance their own interests…the expense of how many Canadian, American and other allied lives?

Blaise on August 23, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Btw,I don’t think that Team Hopey is prosecuting this
theater to well!!!

I don’t hear much of collateral damage,so I think,
Obama is playing it safe,touchy-feely-Liberal and all!!!

canopfor on August 23, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Is this a bad thing? Do we want peace deals with the taliban? I mean, we do peace, we leave, and then the tals step in and do the same crap they did when the soviets left.

OTOH, who the heck knows what is going on over there. I bet the paks don’t either.

WitchDoctor on August 23, 2010 at 5:30 PM

a capella on August 23, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Bingo! And the Indians won’t hesitate. Pakistan was always destined to be a failure. We’ve played our part in supporting a failed cause because of our naivete. Whatever support we give should be to India – full force if they want it. As for the Paks, they can go to hell. Let them kick up a fuss. As you say, the rest of the Islamic nations will start screaming. They want to play with fire. Let them do it in their territory.

And then there’s Russia. Well, they asked for it.

Cody1991 on August 23, 2010 at 5:33 PM

Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Official website
=======================================================

Pakistan Defence Forum

http://www.defence.pk/forums/general-defence/551-isi-pakistan-inter-services-intelligence.html

canopfor on August 23, 2010 at 5:34 PM

I bet the paks don’t either.

WitchDoctor on August 23, 2010 at 5:30 PM

With 5,000 years of civilization and they have like 500 miles of paved roads I think you bet wisely.

Limerick on August 23, 2010 at 5:34 PM

What we’re doing now, fighting the Taliban while keeping Pakistan’s hand relatively strong, doesn’t make sense to me.

Yes, it is confusing when your allied with your enemy.

BL@KBIRD on August 23, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Pakistan may have tried to thwart Afghan talks: report

http://www.defence.pk/forums/search.php?searchid=1910768

canopfor on August 23, 2010 at 5:37 PM

That’s your job plebeian. Pay up! Hillary already gave her $10.

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 5:22 PM

Strange isn’t it that its the US taxpayers that are providing relief to Pakis and no one from the muslim world can be bothered with it ?
Yet all you hear in Pakistan while they mooch off us every chance they can is :

” Jo Amrica ka yaar hai
gaddar hai , gaddar hai “

macncheez on August 23, 2010 at 5:41 PM

With 5,000 years of civilization and they have like 500 miles of paved roads I think you bet wisely.

Limerick on August 23, 2010 at 5:34 PM

Limerick: And 1 toilet!!:)

canopfor on August 23, 2010 at 5:42 PM

We are not going to allow them to make a deal with Karzai and the Indians

If they would butt out of Kashmir they wouldn’t have to worry about India.

agmartin on August 23, 2010 at 5:48 PM

Jo Amrica ka yaar hai
gaddar hai , gaddar hai “

macncheez on August 23, 2010 at 5:41 PM

macncheez:The Man Who Would Be King movie comes to mind!!
========================================================

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073341/

canopfor on August 23, 2010 at 5:49 PM

” Jo Amrica ka yaar hai
gaddar hai , gaddar hai “

macncheez on August 23, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Durka durka durka jihad durka.

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 5:49 PM

I have read some books on the war in Afghanistan and one of the main points I pull away from is that you can’t trust anybody over there. Between the Afghan government, various warlords, the Taliban, the Paks….they are all corrupt and will ally with the one with the most money or happens to be winning at the time.

And lets not even think about making peace over there, we already know the outcome – we get screwed or killed.

tommer74 on August 23, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Send Cheney over…….. Problem solved.

ThePrez on August 23, 2010 at 5:52 PM

If they would butt out of Kashmir they wouldn’t have to worry about India.

agmartin on August 23, 2010 at 5:48 PM

agmartin:Yup!!
==================================================

India has lost Kashmir ( 1 2 3 … Last Page)

Sticky: The Future of Kashmir? “Seven” Possible Solutions!

Indian Agents infiltration and sabotage in Pakistan by RAW
======================================================

http://www.defence.pk/forums/search.php?searchid=1910768

canopfor on August 23, 2010 at 5:52 PM

And lets not even think about making peace over there, we already know the outcome – we get screwed or killed.

tommer74 on August 23, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Which option will make them like us more? – imam O

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 5:53 PM

” Jo Amrica ka yaar hai
gaddar hai , gaddar hai “

macncheez on August 23, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Durka durka durka jihad durka.

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Sorry :(
I should have translated before hitting submit ,

translation :
” Whoever is a friend of America
is a traitor, is a traitor “

macncheez on August 23, 2010 at 5:53 PM

Send Cheney over…….. Problem solved.

ThePrez on August 23, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Send The ‘Stache. Bolton is the love child of Cheney and Chuck Norris. He would prevail.

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 5:53 PM

Send Cheney over…….. Problem solved.

ThePrez on August 23, 2010 at 5:52 PM

ThePrez: Yes,Liz will clean house!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on August 23, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Send The ‘Stache. Bolton is the love child of Cheney and Chuck Norris. He would prevail.

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 5:53 PM

Monica: The Stash,lol,ya no kidding!!!:)

canopfor on August 23, 2010 at 5:55 PM

Send The ‘Stache. Bolton is the love child of Cheney and Chuck Norris. He would prevail.

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 5:53 PM

Send `em all. It`ll be like a real life “The Expendables,” only much more awesome!

ThePrez on August 23, 2010 at 5:56 PM

Send Cheney over…….. Problem solved.

ThePrez on August 23, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Just back out of supporting Pakistan and that will take care of the problem.

antisocial on August 23, 2010 at 5:59 PM

When dealing with “Islam” and the word “ally” in the same sentence…. the term oxymoron comes to mind.

Yakko77 on August 23, 2010 at 6:00 PM

ThePrez: Yes,Liz will clean house!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on August 23, 2010 at 5:54 PM

I was thinking Dick Cheney. Imagine it, he goes over their to the ISI, rips out his heart and shoves it in their face. “GET OFF YOUR DAMN A$$ES AND DO WHAT YOU`RE TOLD PRINCESS, OR THIS WILL BE YOUR HEART IN MY HAND!”

ThePrez on August 23, 2010 at 6:02 PM

Btw,if anyone wants to hear the case,for Iraq,
Hitchens was debating his brother,and man,did
he nail it!!!

Its in the 3 out of 14 video!!
==================================
Iraq/Religion Debate
Hitchens vs. Hitchens (1 of 14)
April 07 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmnVQLOd9Lg&feature=related
————————————————————

Hitchens vs. Hitchens (3 of 14)—(comes in at 2:55)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iYRkrBD3eg&feature=related

canopfor on August 23, 2010 at 6:02 PM

The Stash,lol,ya no kidding!!!:)

canopfor on August 23, 2010 at 5:55 PM

Heres one for the good times :
http://minx.cc/?post=184105

macncheez on August 23, 2010 at 6:04 PM

As antisocial pointed out, the Pakistani government isn’t a western style unitary government. The ISI, the Army and the current reigning civilian government have different priorities and when you make a deal with one, you haven’t made a deal with the others.

We have a very mild form of that in the state department who sometimes operates counter to what the President may want.

The ISI may well support the Taliban extending its influence in the tribal areas of Pakistan as a counter and possible pressure point that can be used politically against the Army and central government. Their influence on the Taliban only gains in value as the Taliban power in the tribal areas grows.

sharrukin on August 23, 2010 at 6:04 PM

I was thinking Dick Cheney.

ThePrez on August 23, 2010 at 6:02 PM

ThePrez: Yes I know,new Cheney blood,*wink-wink*,ripeth
outeth thy hearteth,lol!!:)

canopfor on August 23, 2010 at 6:06 PM

canopfor on August 23, 2010 at 5:55 PM
=========================
Heres one for the good times :
http://minx.cc/?post=184105

macncheez on August 23, 2010 at 6:04 PM

macncheez: Oh gawd those were good,love ACE’s site!!:)

canopfor on August 23, 2010 at 6:08 PM

Pakistan: Oh, by the way, we captured the Taliban’s number two to derail peace talks with Karzai

Since we are on the subject of “Oh, by the way” -

Pentagon: Oh, by the way, we are training America’s Warriors to be dhimmis.

Tav on August 23, 2010 at 6:09 PM

The Paks obviously tremble in their boots when they hear Obama is on the phone.

slickwillie2001 on August 23, 2010 at 6:12 PM

This is why we should just nuke them all from orbit.

It’s the only way to be sure.

catmman on August 23, 2010 at 5:05 PM

:)

Viper1 on August 23, 2010 at 6:16 PM

If we cut aid or break ties with Pakistan, who will fill the vacuum?

novaculus on August 23, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Your exit question: How long are we planning to muddle through here with this “Pakistan is our partner in peace in Afghanistan” charade?

Probably about as long as “we” are planning to muddle through in Afghanistan with the “Afghans are our partners in wanting liberty in Afghanistan” charade. You see, when you have an idiot in the White House and most of America’s top generals are idiots, insanity prevails pretty widely.

Tav on August 23, 2010 at 6:17 PM

Our only word from Afghanistan lately is that Petraeus needs more time?

Your exit question: How long are we planning to muddle through here with this “Pakistan is our partner in peace in Afghanistan” charade? It seems like we have two options: Either we can try to eliminate Pakistani influence in the country by bringing in India and going for broke in pushing out the Taliban, or we can basically give up and hand the country over to Pakistan in hopes that they can keep their Taliban proxy in line better than we can. What we’re doing now, fighting the Taliban while keeping Pakistan’s hand relatively strong, doesn’t make sense to me.

1. Either we can try to eliminate Pakistani influence in the country by bringing in India and going for broke in pushing out the Taliban,–

Whoever said that India wants into this mess? Has India offered to even get involved? Have they sent troops as part of our coalition of forces? “We can bring India in to push out the Taliban” AS IF pushing India around is JUST what would work to get our way. sheesh

2. or we can basically give up and hand the country over to Pakistan in hopes that they can keep their Taliban proxy in line better than we can.

That, more or less, is where we presently are. Our military still depends on Pakistan for information. And the information that Pakistan is feeding us is propagandized to situate themselves as the power player king of the mountain to get what THEY want out of our military involvement over there.

Obama’s campaign pledge to bomb Pahkeestahn with drones is still in Pantywaist’s pocket. Leaving anything up to him is courting disaster knocking down our doors.

maverick muse on August 23, 2010 at 6:19 PM

If we cut aid or break ties with Pakistan, who will fill the vacuum?

novaculus on August 23, 2010 at 6:16 PM

They are already allied with China and produce Chinese based Tanks, jets, missiles, and other equipment.

That horse has already left the barn.

sharrukin on August 23, 2010 at 6:19 PM

sharrukin on August 23, 2010 at 6:19 PM

Any way to make them China`s problem?

ThePrez on August 23, 2010 at 6:20 PM

What we’re doing now, fighting the Taliban while keeping Pakistan’s hand relatively strong, doesn’t make sense to me.

You clearly have none of the qualifications to be in either the Obama administration, nor to be a general in today’s army. I guess you are stuck at Hotair.

Tav on August 23, 2010 at 6:21 PM

Lets see….

Russia backs Iran.

China backs Pakistan.

We’re in Afghanistan.

Super.

BallisticBob on August 23, 2010 at 6:22 PM

Any way to make them China`s problem?

ThePrez on August 23, 2010 at 6:20 PM

China isn’t dumb enough to get involved unless they benefit so I suspect not. China’s involvement in Sudan or Angola would be a better bet in that regard.

sharrukin on August 23, 2010 at 6:24 PM

Lets see….

Russia backs Iran.

China backs Pakistan.

We’re in Afghanistan.

Super.

BallisticBob on August 23, 2010 at 6:22 PM

And half of Mexico is either in the United States or on the way.

Tav on August 23, 2010 at 6:24 PM

Tav on August 23, 2010 at 6:24 PM

So we got that going for us.

BallisticBob on August 23, 2010 at 6:28 PM

Charles de Gaulle: No nation has friends, only interests. Except for the United States, which has no friends and no interests as far as can be rationally determined anyway.

Tav on August 23, 2010 at 6:30 PM

When dealing with “Islam” and the word “ally” in the same sentence…. the term oxymoron comes to mind.

Yakko77 on August 23, 2010 at 6:00 PM

That’s what I’m saying. If you have a basic understanding of Islam and know it’s history, all of this makes perfect sense from an Islamic point of view.

They’re nuts.

Guardian on August 23, 2010 at 6:33 PM

Tav on August 23, 2010 at 6:17 PM

That bit about our active military generals (not the retired tv couch quarterbacks) is totally out of line.

It isn’t as if an American general has the luxury to choose a war and when to fight one, even how to fight a war independent of orders from the CinC.

As of yet, that is politicians work, Potus with Congress, choosing and declaring wars military action. Thank the buck stops here Truman who fired the general who knew how to WIN the undeclared UN Korean Conflict fought by Americans, but never had guts enough to declare war on North Korea. POLITICS cause wars thrown to the military to fight while opportunist partisan PC politicians juxtapose themselves above the military ordering how to function and when to quit.

That would have been one of the few ways the government adheres to the Constitution, except for the military industrial complex (employing retired military generals) now running that entire show in America, manipulating all three branches.

maverick muse on August 23, 2010 at 6:34 PM

China’s involvement in Sudan or Angola would be a better bet in that regard.

sharrukin on August 23, 2010 at 6:24 PM

Pretty sure China wouldn’t mind ” developing” Afghanistan’s newly found mineral resources !

macncheez on August 23, 2010 at 6:34 PM

Pretty sure China wouldn’t mind ” developing” Afghanistan’s newly found mineral resources !

macncheez on August 23, 2010 at 6:34 PM

Agreed, but they would ally themselves with the worst of the Taliban to ensure local control for Chinese companies. That isn’t something the west would do. They are more ruthless and therefore have options we don’t. They would make deals with Pakistan and Iran as they have done in the past which also gives them an advantage over American efforts.

sharrukin on August 23, 2010 at 6:41 PM

That bit about our active military generals (not the retired tv couch quarterbacks) is totally out of line.

maverick muse on August 23, 2010 at 6:34 PM

Did you read the article at the link I commented?

U.S. Soldiers are being trained/indoctrinated to enter an Afghan police station [this would apply elsewhere in Afghanistan, of course], beg permission to take off armor, ask all the proper subservient questions of the Afghan police officer, allow the Afghan police officer to call the Soldier’s predecessor a liar without a single word in objection, and then offer unconditional aide , aide not dependent on anything whatsoever. Just who’s in charge here? The answer is obvious. How much respect Afghans will have for U.S. Soldiers is pretty obvious too.

All in all, I think I was being overly kind.

Tav on August 23, 2010 at 6:43 PM

They’re nuts.

Guardian on August 23, 2010 at 6:33 PM

Until Muhammad, maturing in 600 A.D., Arabs didn’t even have a written record of history.

Muhammad was clearly disturbed and disgusted by the idolatry of his contemporaries and thier lack of devotion to the true God. He was painfully aware that the disciplined religious life of the Jews and Christians about him contrasted sharply with the materialistic paganism of his compatriots.

Religious faith replaced old tribal blood ties. Opposition was practically wiped out. By 632, when Muhammad dies, almost the whole of the Arabian Peninsula had embraced Islam.

pp. 259, 262 The Columbia History of the World, the arabs and the rise of islam

Islamic static history began after Muhammad who literally coerced conversion of Arabian pagans, Christians and Jews at the point of the sword. And all the hype of their great accomplishments contributing to civilization (architecture, writing) is a fraud because Arabs stole and pirated knowledge from others, not contributing original thought or accomplishments.

Contributing Islamic life as 15th century throwback is inaccurate and generous, missing the point that Islamic life is a 7th century throwback.

maverick muse on August 23, 2010 at 6:49 PM

Durka durka durka jihad durka.

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Sorry :(
I should have translated before hitting submit ,

translation :
” Whoever is a friend of America
is a traitor, is a traitor “

macncheez on August 23, 2010 at 5:53 PM

No need, I was just being silly.

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 6:59 PM

From Warriors to Dhimmis

The critique actually complained that the performance wasn’t even more dhimmi -

One of the soldiers pointed out that Campbell forgot to take off his gloves before shaking the Afghan commander’s hand, which could be seen as disrespectful. Campbell made a little grimace as he recalled the incident. A camp instructor, Sgt. 1st Class Gregory Payne, agreed Campbell should have taken his gloves off. But he said overall, the [dhimmi] session went well.

Tav on August 23, 2010 at 7:22 PM

Actually, that is my point. China would love to increase its influence in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pakistan in particular in particular is useful given their common adversary. Pakistan would be useful proxy, perhaps even generating direct military conflict with India in Kashmir. The Chinese would have little reason to contain al Qaeda or the Taliban so long as they didn’t interfere with China’s economic or strategic interests.

My point is simply that all our options have consequences, some good, some bad. The Pakistanis are corrupt and untrustworthy but that is a fact of life in that part of the world.

novaculus on August 23, 2010 at 7:25 PM

sharrukin on August 23, 2010 at 6:19 PM

sharrukin, my comment directly above was in response…

novaculus on August 23, 2010 at 7:26 PM

My point is simply that all our options have consequences, some good, some bad. The Pakistanis are corrupt and untrustworthy but that is a fact of life in that part of the world.

novaculus on August 23, 2010 at 7:25 PM

The problem is that an alliance has to actually have an ally on both ends. Pakistan is an American ally in what sense?

They will not support the US militarily unless it is in their interest to do so, and we need no alliance if that is the case. They actively support militants who are attacking the American position in that part of the world.

Distancing the US from Pakistan allows more options to be exercised in regard to support for India, or the threat of strikes against Pakistan if they go too far.

Pakistan is already useful to China as a counter to India and the American alliance allows them to act towards India while American influence acts as a brake on what India does in response.

The alliance currently serves only Pakistan’s interests, not American.

sharrukin on August 23, 2010 at 7:36 PM

I agree that Pakistan is not an ally, and should not be relied upon. But Pakistan is a player, and we need to maintain influence. The relationship should be better managed, but I doubt the Obama adminsitration or the Clinton State Department are capable of formulating coherent and effective policy.

novaculus on August 23, 2010 at 7:47 PM

On 9/12 we should have attacked Saudi Arabia and Pakistan along with the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The fear of God, especially in a Neutron form, does wonders for an enemy’s future attitude.

We will pay greatly for underestimating our opponent and failing to crush them when we had the moral and military chance.

Everything since then is pu$$yfooting backwards.

profitsbeard on August 23, 2010 at 8:00 PM

… almost the whole of the Arabian Peninsula had embraced Islam.

pp. 259, 262 The Columbia History of the World, the arabs and the rise of islam

maverick muse on August 23, 2010 at 6:49 PM

People embrace Islam the way a woman being raped embraces the attacker who puts a knife to her throat and says “Hug me, b*tch, or die!”

profitsbeard on August 23, 2010 at 8:06 PM

There’s a bizarre media narrative that somehow, simultaneously, Pakistan exercises huge amounts of control over the Taliban in Afghanistan while struggling constantly to repel the Taliban’s jihadist menace in the tribal areas across the border. I can’t tell who has more leverage over whom.

Coldwarrior could do an excellent job of answering these questions.

I think the reality of “ISI control over the Taliban” has many cracks in it.The ISI is certainly in partnership with the strongest elements of the Taliban like the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET),Neo Taliban (headed by Mullah Mohammad Omar),
Haqqani network,and several others.

They have been partners for decades and have supported,funded,provided intelligence and arms to many jihadist groups such as al-qaeda:


Both Sirajuddin Haqqani and his father Jalaluddin Haqqani have been long-term assets of the ISI. They are both members of the ruling council of the Taliban, headed by Mullah Mohammed Omar. More importantly, Jalaluddin Haqqani, together with the ISI, has helped Osama bin Laden’s jihadi network in Afghanistan and Pakistan since 1988,

This is why it is naive for some people to imply that “al-qaeda is who we should be fighting” or “it was only al-qaeda that attacked America”…..
Al-qaeda is only part of a major jihadist network that has many different interest…but one major goal…destroy the west.
ISI and these jihadist networks have very similar goals and have found a working relationship to achieve them.

There are other Taliban that the ISI cannot control.They have some similarities but these groups also consider the ISI and Pakistani government enemies since the 2007 raid on the Red Mosque. Some of these groups include”

Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) was born after the Lal Masjid raid (Red Mosque).
Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ), an anti-Shia terrorist organization. the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM),

They claim that they do not want to fight against the Pakistani army or ISI, but the killing of their people in the Red Mosque have made them enemies.

So with so many elements of the Taliban in Pakistan,it is no wonder that the ISI/government cannot control all of them.They basically go with the strongest and eliminate the “rouge” tribes the best they can.

One thing they all have in common though is their war against NATO forces in Afghanistan.No matter the local disputes…they are united when it comes to killing Americans.

Either we can try to eliminate Pakistani influence in the country by bringing in India and going for broke in pushing out the Taliban,

This is what should be done.It is the exact opposite of what the Obama administration is doing.They have pushed India to the side and decided not to “defeat” the Taliban,but to weaken it and then go with “peace agreements”.

or we can basically give up and hand the country over to Pakistan in hopes that they can keep their Taliban proxy in line better than we can.

This is what it looks like we are doing:

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

WASHINGTON: The United States and its allies are expected to set up a $500 million integration fund at a conference in London this week to lure Taliban fighters to join the political mainstream.

“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.”

Don’t know exactly how this turned out but this certainly exemplifies the Obama administration’s direction concerning Afghanistan.

The White House is working in conjunction with Karzi and the defacto man in charge of Pakistan,Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani,to make peace deals and basically turn Afghanistan into Pakistan II:

New Delhi evidently recognises that Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and his ISI chief are working overtime to get the Taliban leader Sirajuddin Haqqani, now based in Pakistan, to control southern Afghanistan through a deal they appear to be negotiating with a beleaguered Afghan President Hamid Karzai,

If this is our policy….we will leave Afghanistan stronger and deadlier than it was before we entered it in 2001.

Afghanistan and Pakistan will still be funding,training,and promoting terrorism just like they did before we invaded,except they will have more money and weapons along with better training.

I think this line sums it up quite well:


For the moment, Pakistan has the upper hand, because both the UK and US need it more than ever. Pakistan is playing an adroit diplomatic game of chicken with the US – and winning. 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.”

Smart Power??????

Baxter Greene on August 23, 2010 at 9:02 PM

This is why it is naive for some people to imply that “al-qaeda is who we should be fighting” or “it was only al-qaeda that attacked America”…..
Al-qaeda is only part of a major jihadist network that has many different interest…but one major goal…destroy the west.
ISI and these jihadist networks have very similar goals and have found a working relationship to achieve them.

Baxter Greene on August 23, 2010 at 9:02 PM

Nail hit on head.

Al Qaeda, more or less, is to Islam what the SS was to the Nazis. In WWII we didn’t just go after the SS.

Tav on August 23, 2010 at 9:44 PM

How long are we planning to muddle through here with this “Pakistan is our partner in peace in Afghanistan” charade?…What we’re doing now, fighting the Taliban while keeping Pakistan’s hand relatively strong, doesn’t make sense to me.

…personal philosophical not follows….

…and that is because Americans tend to think like Americans. It’s just like the British of the 19th Century…everything that isn’t British (and that generally means English, exclusive of the Scots, Welsh and Irish) are foreigners, and speaking English more loudly and forcefully cuts through the fog or their foreign higgledy-piggle…remember the saying “the wogs begin at Calais”?

…Americans have the same worldview…separated by appreciable bodies of water (the Channel or two oceans, take yer pick) makes us geographically insular, and tends to make us more insular mentally….

…and, given the whole “nation of immigrants” canard, foreigners are half-considered “potential Americans”…Mexicans in the orchards, Canadians in the classrooms, Pakistanis at the counter of the stop-and-rob or on the few helpdesks not run from India….

…ergo, we give ‘em too much credit for “nice”…we’re a childishly trusting people…and that includes some of the career jugheads in the Company and at State…some of ‘em educated beyond all useful employment….

…that is to say nothing about the worthless layabouts in the international bodies (bodies normally supine, by the way), who think that they’re even more generously endowed with both the milk of human kindness and generous draughts from the horn of infallibility….

…by way of resume, I remember once (80 pounds and a hundred years ago) gearing up to go downrange and secure a town to help the Kurds come back out of the hills…the UN High Commission for Refugees or some such Sunday School clique threw a hissy fit and we were stood down…we were supposed to go into a largely deserted town along an axis of advance (road) by helicopter, and the officer briefing all the pooh-bahs in theater used an unfortunate bit of military jargon to describe our milkrun to Dogpatch, Iraq: “air assault”. In Army lingo, it means “you don’t have to walk, we’ve got you all a ride. There’s a word for “carried in by truck”, but it isn’t as sexy.

…anyway, with visions of Bob Duvall as the surfing Col. Whassisname in “Apocalypse Now” dancing in their heads, they threw a hissy fit and we went in a week later by truck (“vehicular assault”? “rotary mounted advance”? “rubber-coated insertion”?) and did little more than stir up a little dust and wake up a bored goat….

…anyway…the “wogs” of Old Queen Vic’s day are today slick, sophisticated, and ruthless…they may not have air superiority and flush toilets in some cases, but they recognize the fundamentally tribal nature of interpersonal and internation relations, and use it to advantage.

…look at the score so far…they create the Taliban whole cloth, and get the US to fund them through funding Pakistan…that’s like our fighting the Vietnamese and yet funding them, buying their beans’n'bullets through a Russian or Chinese middleman…tell that Mrs. Smith from Paducah, who’s just buried her Marine son, coffin marked “remains not viewable”…it’s enough to make you weep….

…nope…if the enemy of my enemy is my friend (the disparate threads of the Iranian resistance, for instance), then the friend of my enemy is my enemy…period….

Puritan1648 on August 23, 2010 at 9:54 PM

…personal philosophical not follows….

…it’s a poor writer who stumbles out of the gate…should read “personal note”…guess I should drink…I’m much wiser when I’m drunk…much better looking, as well….

Puritan1648 on August 23, 2010 at 9:56 PM

Nail hit on head.

Al Qaeda, more or less, is to Islam what the SS was to the Nazis. In WWII we didn’t just go after the SS.

Tav on August 23, 2010 at 9:44 PM

Great analogy.

Funny how people who understand History and are abreast of what is going on have no problem seeing this…..Obama administration….not so much.

Baxter Greene on August 23, 2010 at 10:43 PM

…look at the score so far…they create the Taliban whole cloth, and get the US to fund them through funding Pakistan…that’s like our fighting the Vietnamese and yet funding them, buying their beans’n’bullets through a Russian or Chinese middleman…tell that Mrs. Smith from Paducah, who’s just buried her Marine son, coffin marked “remains not viewable”…it’s enough to make you weep….

Puritan1648 on August 23, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Dam#….
Really puts this in perspective.

Baxter Greene on August 23, 2010 at 10:48 PM

It is not clear that India has good supply routes to support a substantial military presence in Afghanistan. We rely on a Pakistani supply route that would be closed to India. It seems to me that the solution is not India guarding Afghanistan but an improvement in the quality of the Afghan government, army and police forces. Preteaus is working on all that while supporting local lashkar uprisings against the Taliban. But he needs time. His recent news tour to work against the 2011 deadline for withdrawl was an effort to prevent a self-inflicted defeat.

In 2007 many thought Iraq hopeless. In 2010, there is substantial hope. Let’s be patient enough to see how things look in 2013 when we have a new administration and different congressional leadership in the US. If we appear determined and reliable, many may take risks to throw off Taliban/Al Queda tyranny that right now are waiting to see which way the wind will blow.

KW64 on August 24, 2010 at 12:38 PM