Biting The Hand That Fed You

Biting The Hand That Fed You

Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, has shown his perfidy on more than one occasion in the past. He has relied for monetary and military support from the United States. He has also relied on the fact that two administrations have treated Afghanistan as a partner rather than as a conquered nation. Unlike the Emperor of Japan and the Nazi high command at the end of WW II, Karzai has been handled as if he were a co-conqueror.

Without the cooperation of the United States government, Karzai has been treating with the very Taliban who destroyed Afghanistan and paved the way for Al Qaeda to launch its attacks on the Unites States and its allies. And now, in the face of the Obama administration's cut-and-run disengagement policy, Karzai has been emboldened to choose sides in a possible confrontation between America and Pakistan.

Many of the legislators in Kabul have issued stronger condemnations of Karzai's embrace of the Taliban and Pakistan than our own government. Karzai's exact statement was: "If fighting starts between Pakistan and the United States, we are beside Pakistan. If Pakistan is attacked and the people of Pakistan need Afghanistan's help, Afghanistan will be there with you." The statement was made on a Pakistani television station this past Saturday.

Both the American government and the legislators in Kabul have been saying repeatedly that Pakistan is providing sanctuary to militant groups which have launched attacks in and on Afghanistan. Factions of the Taliban and Al Qaeda associates have been camping out on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, executing incursions into Afghanistan on a regular basis. The Afghan interior minister blamed the sanctuary and Pakistani encouragement of militancy for the recent assassination of former Afghan president Burhanuddin.

The United States has never made any statement that would appear to suggest a war between the U.S. and Pakistan. But Karzai latched onto the statement by American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that said that if Islamabad is unwilling to take the fight to Al Qaeda and the Taliban/Pakistani terrorist group Haqqani, the U.S. would show them how to rid Pakistan of safe havens for the terrorists. Rather than wait for further diplomatic developments, Karzai hopped in as if the U.S. had just given Pakistan the ultimatum of total surrender or war. And he has chosen his ally in advance.

Despite clear language from the State Department saying that the U.S. has no intention of deploying ground troops in Pakistan, both the U.S. and NATO have been conducting operations designed to disrupt terrorist operations in Kabul and along the Afghan border with Pakistan. Some of those missions have utilized drones to take out Haqqani and Taliban strongholds in Pakistan. The increasingly-Islamist Pakistani government has expressed hurt feeling and some anger over the drone attacks, but is not about to go to war with the United States over them. In fact it seems that to protect their own rear ends, they decry the surgical strikes while secretly hoping the U.S. will do the job they're afraid to do.

So the question becomes, is Karzai serious or is he just maneuvering to polish his credentials with the Taliban, Haqqani, and major factions in the Pakistani government? It's easy to take sides in a war which is highly unlikely ever to occur. Karzai's recent overtures to Pakistan's mortal enemy India adds extra confusion to the formula. But people who play with other people's fire tend to get burned. It is entirely unnecessary to point out the hypocrisy and ingratitude of a leader who is in power thanks largely to the United States and its military. As the old saying goes, Karzai has all the fine traits of a bedbug except loyalty.

I suppose my next question is, if this continues through the final American withdrawal in 2014, how long before the Taliban and to a lesser-extent Haqqani string Karzai up in the central square in Kabul? I know I won't be conducting memorial services for him.

Note: On Monday, Karzai tried to talk his way out of his self-created mess. He claimed that his remarks were "taken out of context" and "mistranslated." If he ever needs a new job, he could move to the United States and become a non-apology apology writer for politicians caught with their pants down and their hands in the cookie jar. Karzai doesn't realize that with instant global communications and the worldwide web, it's just no longer possible to make a major policy statement to a particular audience and say the opposite to another audience without getting caught. Likewise, nobody with an IQ above room temperature is buying into the "mistranslation" baloney.

Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, has shown his perfidy on more than one occasion in the past. He has relied for monetary and military support from the United States. He has also relied on the fact that two administrations have treated Afghanistan as a partner rather than as a conquered nation. Unlike the Emperor of Japan and the Nazi high command at the end of WW II, Karzai has been handled as if he were a co-conqueror.

Without the cooperation of the United States government, Karzai has been treating with the very Taliban who destroyed Afghanistan and paved the way for Al Qaeda to launch its attacks on the Unites States and its allies. And now, in the face of the Obama administration's cut-and-run disengagement policy, Karzai has been emboldened to choose sides in a possible confrontation between America and Pakistan.

Many of the legislators in Kabul have issued stronger condemnations of Karzai's embrace of the Taliban and Pakistan than our own government. Karzai's exact statement was: "If fighting starts between Pakistan and the United States, we are beside Pakistan. If Pakistan is attacked and the people of Pakistan need Afghanistan's help, Afghanistan will be there with you." The statement was made on a Pakistani television station this past Saturday.

Both the American government and the legislators in Kabul have been saying repeatedly that Pakistan is providing sanctuary to militant groups which have launched attacks in and on Afghanistan. Factions of the Taliban and Al Qaeda associates have been camping out on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, executing incursions into Afghanistan on a regular basis. The Afghan interior minister blamed the sanctuary and Pakistani encouragement of militancy for the recent assassination of former Afghan president Burhanuddin.

The United States has never made any statement that would appear to suggest a war between the U.S. and Pakistan. But Karzai latched onto the statement by American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that said that if Islamabad is unwilling to take the fight to Al Qaeda and the Taliban/Pakistani terrorist group Haqqani, the U.S. would show them how to rid Pakistan of safe havens for the terrorists. Rather than wait for further diplomatic developments, Karzai hopped in as if the U.S. had just given Pakistan the ultimatum of total surrender or war. And he has chosen his ally in advance.

Despite clear language from the State Department saying that the U.S. has no intention of deploying ground troops in Pakistan, both the U.S. and NATO have been conducting operations designed to disrupt terrorist operations in Kabul and along the Afghan border with Pakistan. Some of those missions have utilized drones to take out Haqqani and Taliban strongholds in Pakistan. The increasingly-Islamist Pakistani government has expressed hurt feeling and some anger over the drone attacks, but is not about to go to war with the United States over them. In fact it seems that to protect their own rear ends, they decry the surgical strikes while secretly hoping the U.S. will do the job they're afraid to do.

So the question becomes, is Karzai serious or is he just maneuvering to polish his credentials with the Taliban, Haqqani, and major factions in the Pakistani government? It's easy to take sides in a war which is highly unlikely ever to occur. Karzai's recent overtures to Pakistan's mortal enemy India adds extra confusion to the formula. But people who play with other people's fire tend to get burned. It is entirely unnecessary to point out the hypocrisy and ingratitude of a leader who is in power thanks largely to the United States and its military. As the old saying goes, Karzai has all the fine traits of a bedbug except loyalty.

I suppose my next question is, if this continues through the final American withdrawal in 2014, how long before the Taliban and to a lesser-extent Haqqani string Karzai up in the central square in Kabul? I know I won't be conducting memorial services for him.

Note: On Monday, Karzai tried to talk his way out of his self-created mess. He claimed that his remarks were "taken out of context" and "mistranslated." If he ever needs a new job, he could move to the United States and become a non-apology apology writer for politicians caught with their pants down and their hands in the cookie jar. Karzai doesn't realize that with instant global communications and the worldwide web, it's just no longer possible to make a major policy statement to a particular audience and say the opposite to another audience without getting caught. Likewise, nobody with an IQ above room temperature is buying into the "mistranslation" baloney.

Biting The Hand That Fed You

View Detail

With Friends Like Pakistan . . .

With Friends Like Pakistan . . .

Admiral Mike Mullen recently testified at the Senate Armed Services Committee that our "ally" Pakistan has allowed the Taliban-supported faction Haqqani to become nothing less than an arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency. This testimony comes from the outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It wasn't very politic, and it has caused quite a stir.

We have been buoying up our Pakistani “allies” for years, often to the detriment of our much firmer ally, India. The Afghanistan War has opened wounds we either didn’t know we had or thought were healing. Pakistan makes no pretense of being a purely secular state. After all, its capital is Islamabad (“the abode of Islam”). But we counted on the fact that after the first round of Islamists were ousted from power decades back, the military would suppress the major jihadist impulses of the government and the Muslim clerics. They even elected a woman as head of state. It worked for awhile and up to a point.

The war in Afghanistan, a nation which borders Pakistan, has ripped the bandage off the long-festering wound. After successfully driving the largest groups of Taliban out of Afghanistan, we quickly discovered they were being given safe harbor and assistance in Pakistan, particularly the border province of Waziristan. Waziristan is comprised of two administrative districts, North and South, but for all intents and purposes, South Waziristan is an independent state under the very loose administrative control of the central Pakistani government.

Both parts of the province are comprised largely of warring tribes. In the South, the population is largely comprised of Waziris, Mahasuds and Burki. They are not ethnically close to the Pakistani Punjabis, Sindhi or Pashtuns, and consider Pakistan to be an occupying force. In the North, the main tribe is the Darwesh Khel, alternatively known as the Utmanzai Waziris. They are ethnically Waziri, but often at war with the southern Waziris. Unlike the South, which is largely uncontrolled, the North is actually under some direct control from Islamabad, but also unlike the South, the North shares an open border with Afghanistan. In fact, both North and South Waziristan sound a lot like Afghanistan just before the Taliban took over the government.

The battles between the North, the South and the central Pakistani government make this a slippery situation for both Islamabad and Washington DC. The problem that has come to light in recent years is that despite their internal battles, Pakistan and Waziristan are extremely Taliban-friendly. Pakistan makes occasional forays into Waziristan to stamp out open rebellions or arrest terrorists who want to blow up Islamabad. But by their own admission, the Pakistanis are unable to gain effective control of the province.

Though the government of Pakistan is still largely in military hands, those at the top are now more militantly Islamic and bellicose toward India and hesitant toward the United States. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) has been the recipient of complaints from the White House for its complicity in Taliban-sponsored terrorism since early in the Clinton administration. The army’s failure to gain effective control of the Afghan border regions has also been a source of considerable diplomatic maneuvering.

But it is only recently that a personage as important as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has publicly and clearly called Taliban-supported Pakistani terror group Haqqani a “veritable arm of the ISI.” American-Pakistani relations, already strained, were pulled to near-breaking by the honest words of an American Admiral. The official Pakistani response was very angry, indicating that the government believes America is interfering in internal Pakistani matters. The usual mad Muslims took to the streets in the thousands to warn America not to try to deal with Haqqani on its own (though there was no suggestion from any American official that America has any intention of doing anything faintly resembling acting independently on the Haqqani matter).

All that Admiral Mullen really did was point out the danger of an ally which officially claims to be doing its best, but in reality is at best neutral about Taliban/Haqqani terrorism and at worst, actively complicit. Having the truth pointed out in public caused the Pakistani government to announce that it would not tolerate American attacks on Taliban and Al Qaeda bases in Waziristan without prior permission from Islamabad. This, even though the government admits outright that it has scant control of the border regions. It doesn’t help that the Pakistani government at its highest levels has more leaks than a sieve, and that any forewarning to Islamabad about a pending American attack on terrorist bases would get to the terrorists faster than the drones and the bombs.

This is clearly a thorny problem. But pretending that we don’t know how treacherous Pakistan has been is simply no longer viable. The best example of all was the capture and killing of the greatest terrorist of the last half of the twentieth century—Osama bin Laden. He had been living comfortably in a very obvious compound a mere sixty miles from Islamabad, in a security zone, and practically on the grounds of a nearby Pakistani military base.

When a sophisticated American helicopter went down during the operation, the Pakistani government made sure the first people to get to it were the Chinese military experts. Yet we are expected to believe that our ally didn’t know about bin Laden’s compound, had no idea he was in Pakistan, and was acting in the interest of our alliance by allowing Chinese military operatives to sort through highly-sensitive war-making machinery before allowing the Americans in.

So how does the Obama administration react to the admiral’s statement? Just about as you would expect. It wussed out. Barack Obama has refused to publicly endorse the admiral’s statement, and is presently hiding under his desk. He has sent his better-half, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to soothe the Pakistani savage breast.

Despite recent border incursions from Pakistan into Afghan war zones aiding the Taliban, the Taliban-led attack on the US embassy in Kabul, and attacks on NATO outposts near the border, Clinton failed to address the fact that Haqqani was clearly linked to the attacks. Instead, she met for three hours with the Pakistani ambassador, repeating platitudes about cooperation and vital strategic interests.

This flies in the face of the unrefuted testimony of Admiral Mullen who named names and tied Pakistan and the terrorists together: “With ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted the truck bomb attack on September 10 which killed five and wounded seventy-seven coalition soldiers. We also have credible evidence that Haqqani was behind the June 28th attack on the International Hotel in Kabul and a host of other smaller but effective operations.”

So what did our brave Secretary of State do? Her department leaked a memo to the Washington Post that said: “Adm. Mike Mullen’s assertion last week than an anti-American insurgent group in Afghanistan is a veritable arm of Pakistan’s spy service was overstated and contributed to overheated reactions in Pakistan and misperceptions in Washington.” She doesn’t contradict the admiral’s statement with any evidence whatsoever, but makes it very clear we mustn’t upset our “allies.”

Admiral Mike Mullen recently testified at the Senate Armed Services Committee that our "ally" Pakistan has allowed the Taliban-supported faction Haqqani to become nothing less than an arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency. This testimony comes from the outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It wasn't very politic, and it has caused quite a stir.

We have been buoying up our Pakistani “allies” for years, often to the detriment of our much firmer ally, India. The Afghanistan War has opened wounds we either didn’t know we had or thought were healing. Pakistan makes no pretense of being a purely secular state. After all, its capital is Islamabad (“the abode of Islam”). But we counted on the fact that after the first round of Islamists were ousted from power decades back, the military would suppress the major jihadist impulses of the government and the Muslim clerics. They even elected a woman as head of state. It worked for awhile and up to a point.

The war in Afghanistan, a nation which borders Pakistan, has ripped the bandage off the long-festering wound. After successfully driving the largest groups of Taliban out of Afghanistan, we quickly discovered they were being given safe harbor and assistance in Pakistan, particularly the border province of Waziristan. Waziristan is comprised of two administrative districts, North and South, but for all intents and purposes, South Waziristan is an independent state under the very loose administrative control of the central Pakistani government.

Both parts of the province are comprised largely of warring tribes. In the South, the population is largely comprised of Waziris, Mahasuds and Burki. They are not ethnically close to the Pakistani Punjabis, Sindhi or Pashtuns, and consider Pakistan to be an occupying force. In the North, the main tribe is the Darwesh Khel, alternatively known as the Utmanzai Waziris. They are ethnically Waziri, but often at war with the southern Waziris. Unlike the South, which is largely uncontrolled, the North is actually under some direct control from Islamabad, but also unlike the South, the North shares an open border with Afghanistan. In fact, both North and South Waziristan sound a lot like Afghanistan just before the Taliban took over the government.

The battles between the North, the South and the central Pakistani government make this a slippery situation for both Islamabad and Washington DC. The problem that has come to light in recent years is that despite their internal battles, Pakistan and Waziristan are extremely Taliban-friendly. Pakistan makes occasional forays into Waziristan to stamp out open rebellions or arrest terrorists who want to blow up Islamabad. But by their own admission, the Pakistanis are unable to gain effective control of the province.

Though the government of Pakistan is still largely in military hands, those at the top are now more militantly Islamic and bellicose toward India and hesitant toward the United States. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) has been the recipient of complaints from the White House for its complicity in Taliban-sponsored terrorism since early in the Clinton administration. The army’s failure to gain effective control of the Afghan border regions has also been a source of considerable diplomatic maneuvering.

But it is only recently that a personage as important as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has publicly and clearly called Taliban-supported Pakistani terror group Haqqani a “veritable arm of the ISI.” American-Pakistani relations, already strained, were pulled to near-breaking by the honest words of an American Admiral. The official Pakistani response was very angry, indicating that the government believes America is interfering in internal Pakistani matters. The usual mad Muslims took to the streets in the thousands to warn America not to try to deal with Haqqani on its own (though there was no suggestion from any American official that America has any intention of doing anything faintly resembling acting independently on the Haqqani matter).

All that Admiral Mullen really did was point out the danger of an ally which officially claims to be doing its best, but in reality is at best neutral about Taliban/Haqqani terrorism and at worst, actively complicit. Having the truth pointed out in public caused the Pakistani government to announce that it would not tolerate American attacks on Taliban and Al Qaeda bases in Waziristan without prior permission from Islamabad. This, even though the government admits outright that it has scant control of the border regions. It doesn’t help that the Pakistani government at its highest levels has more leaks than a sieve, and that any forewarning to Islamabad about a pending American attack on terrorist bases would get to the terrorists faster than the drones and the bombs.

This is clearly a thorny problem. But pretending that we don’t know how treacherous Pakistan has been is simply no longer viable. The best example of all was the capture and killing of the greatest terrorist of the last half of the twentieth century—Osama bin Laden. He had been living comfortably in a very obvious compound a mere sixty miles from Islamabad, in a security zone, and practically on the grounds of a nearby Pakistani military base.

When a sophisticated American helicopter went down during the operation, the Pakistani government made sure the first people to get to it were the Chinese military experts. Yet we are expected to believe that our ally didn’t know about bin Laden’s compound, had no idea he was in Pakistan, and was acting in the interest of our alliance by allowing Chinese military operatives to sort through highly-sensitive war-making machinery before allowing the Americans in.

So how does the Obama administration react to the admiral’s statement? Just about as you would expect. It wussed out. Barack Obama has refused to publicly endorse the admiral’s statement, and is presently hiding under his desk. He has sent his better-half, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to soothe the Pakistani savage breast.

Despite recent border incursions from Pakistan into Afghan war zones aiding the Taliban, the Taliban-led attack on the US embassy in Kabul, and attacks on NATO outposts near the border, Clinton failed to address the fact that Haqqani was clearly linked to the attacks. Instead, she met for three hours with the Pakistani ambassador, repeating platitudes about cooperation and vital strategic interests.

This flies in the face of the unrefuted testimony of Admiral Mullen who named names and tied Pakistan and the terrorists together: “With ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted the truck bomb attack on September 10 which killed five and wounded seventy-seven coalition soldiers. We also have credible evidence that Haqqani was behind the June 28th attack on the International Hotel in Kabul and a host of other smaller but effective operations.”

So what did our brave Secretary of State do? Her department leaked a memo to the Washington Post that said: “Adm. Mike Mullen’s assertion last week than an anti-American insurgent group in Afghanistan is a veritable arm of Pakistan’s spy service was overstated and contributed to overheated reactions in Pakistan and misperceptions in Washington.” She doesn’t contradict the admiral’s statement with any evidence whatsoever, but makes it very clear we mustn’t upset our “allies.”

With Friends Like Pakistan . . .

View Detail