Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 7, 2008
Filkins on Pakistan

Dexter Filkins has a traveled the Pakistani western boarder region for some years. He went back this summer and now wrote a long piece on the current situation.

The Pakistani army and government have no incentive to hinder Taliban attacks within Afghanistan. Indeed they have several reasons to support such and they do so. As emphasized in prior pieces here, their top motivation is the strategic position towards India. Pakistan fears Indian influence in Afghanistan that could end with fighting India in the east and in the west:

After the U.S.-led invasion in the fall of 2001, .. , India lost no time in setting up consulates throughout Afghanistan and beginning an extensive aid program. According to Pakistani and Western officials, Pakistan’s officer corps remains obsessed by the prospect of Indian domination of Afghanistan should the Americans leave. The Taliban are seen as a counterweight to Indian influence. “We are saving the Taliban for a rainy day,” one former Pakistani official put it to me.

The second reason offered is general anti-American and pro-Islamic disposition in the Pakistani security forces.

The third one is a new aspect to me and interesting:

The reason the Pakistani security services support the Taliban, [the retired Pakistani official] 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.

On the situation in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and North-West Frontier province (map) Filkins finds the traditional tribal structures with tribal heads (malik) through which the government rules broken. The Taliban have overwhelmed those structures by force, but also by social means:

Hamidullah, for instance, was an illiterate wheat farmer living in Khyber agency when, in 2002, a wealthy landowner seized his home and six acres of fields. Hamidullah and his family were forced to eke out a living from a nearby shanty. Neither the local malik nor the government agent, Hamidullah told me, would intervene on his behalf. Then came Namdar, the Taliban commander. He hauled the rich man before a Vice and Virtue council and ordered him to give back Hamidullah’s home and farm. Now Hamidullah is one of Namdar’s loyal militiamen.

The Pakistani army only fights the Taliban, when they turn against Pakistan outside of the FATA. Then it hits back hard to make a point and after that offers peace.

The [peace agreement struck between the army and Mehsud], which has not been officially released, provides a look into the Pakistani government’s new strategy toward the militants. According to the agreement, members of the Mehsud tribe agreed to refrain from attacking the Pakistani state and from setting up a parallel government. They agreed to accept the rule of law.

But sending fighters into Afghanistan? About that, the agreement says nothing at all.

The Pakistani strategy is to redirect the Taliban threat from inner Pakistan areas towards Afghanistan. It has several good reasons to do so and I can not think of a scenario that would take away these incentives except a retreat of ‘western’ forces from Afghanistan. But that is still some years away. Meanwhile a lot of people will be killed in the conflict.

Comments

than b for focusing what will clearly be the new fires of hell

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 7 2008 15:59 utc | 1

For the last 7 years the Pakistan leadership has found itself in a US – Taliban sandwich, trying to hedge their bets both ways. Zardari I suspect will be no different.
With the Taliban as their proxy army, Pakistan’s government is trying to grind of the thorn of an India friendly Kabul. Pakistan is today as much as during the soviet occupation the vital logistics and hardware supplier the Taliban needs to have a fighting chance. Afghanistan’s mujaheddin have been receiving strong support from Pakistan during the Soviet days 20 years ago, an alliance which is still honoured and deemed existing in sections of Pakistan’s military and religious establishment.
At the same time Zardari must continue to appease the US by giving Al-Qaida as hard a time as possible in its heartland in the NWFP. Although the relationships between Al-Qaida and the Taliban aren’t as rosy anymore as they used to be, Zardari will somehow have to solve the conundrum of how to support the force of guerilla warriors in Afghanistan whilst simultaneously keeping the US happy by fulfilling his role as reliable ally of the US administration’s WoT, by sending his own army after their common foe, the AQ gang.
Since Pakistan shares also a border with Iran, its role as a US ally becomes even more important. With Pakistan being largely Sunni, one would think that not a great deal of sympathy exists between the people of these two countries, but quite contrary, according to this Asia Times story from May last year, large portions of the Pakistani population would not support any US attacks on its Shia neighbors.
What I found most interesting though in the above quoted AT article were the last 4 paragraphs, where the author, M K Bhadrakumar, a former Indian Foreign Service diplomat, is suggesting that the real issue for America in the US-Iran-Pakistan politics triangle is, surprise surprise, natural resources and their distribution, as in pipelines and US access to them:

…there is a sideshow to these happenings that is no less profound. US intelligence operatives must be laughing all the way to Washington that they could manage with such ease what their suave diplomats (and wily Congress members) have had a hard time achieving in recent years – arresting Islamabad and New Delhi from finalizing the $7 billion Iran-Pakistan-India gas-pipeline project. In geopolitical terms, the project holds the definite potential to forge a unified Asian energy market, with deep implications for US energy security.
Washington was increasingly finding it counterproductive to resort to arm-twisting New Delhi and Islamabad into putting the project on the back burner until such time as US-Iran relations were normalized and Washington, too, could dip into Iran’s energy reserves.
Now, just as it was becoming clear that the three regional capitals were inching toward finalization of the project at a trilateral meeting in Tehran in June, the high volatility in the security situation in the Iran-Pakistan border region puts question marks on their energy dialogue. To be sure, the pipeline project is predicated on a climate of trust and confidence prevailing among the three parties.

I reckon you are absolutely right B when you write that the primary aim for most of Pakistan’s military and political establishment is to keep Indian influence under control, be that in Kashmir or Afghanistan. And although

the PPP government has already made its intentions clear about putting its relations with India on a new footing through a “pro-India” trade policy,

the overall goal posts have not changed. Support for Afghanistan’s Taliban, aimed at unseating India friendly Kharzai in Kabul, is a definite in Pakistan’s foreign policy. The US Admin knows that, but there is precious little they can do about it.

Posted by: Juan Moment | Sep 8 2008 7:37 utc | 2

Tariq Ali does not like Zardari:

Khalilzad is an inveterate factionalist and a master of intrigue. Having implanted Hamid Karzai in Kabul (with dire results as many in Washington now admit), he had been livid with Musharraf for refusing to give 100% support to his Afghan protege. Khalilzad now saw an opportunity to punish Musharraf and simultaneously try and create a Pakistani equivalent of Karzai.
Zardari fitted the bill. He is perfectly suited to being a total creature of Washington.

The majority of the population is deeply hostile to the US/Nato presence in Afghanistan. Almost 80% favour a negotiated settlement and withdrawal of all foreign troops. Three days ago, a team of US commandos entered Pakistan “in search of terrorists” and 20 innocents were killed. Zardari was being tested. But if he permits US troops to enter the frontier province on “search-and-destroy” missions his career will be short-lived and the military will return in some shape or form. The High Command cannot afford to ignore the growing anger within its junior ranks at being forced to kill their own people.

Asif Ali Zardari: the godfather as president

Posted by: b | Sep 8 2008 8:53 utc | 3

Tanker supplying oil to Nato attacked; driver killed

QUETTA, Sept 7: The driver of an oil tanker was killed when a rocket hit his vehicle here on Sunday. According to police, armed men fired the rocket on the tanker carrying fuel for Nato forces deployed in Afghanistan.
The driver was killed while his companion was injured. A police officer confirmed that the assailants had targeted the tanker.
The Taliban have attacked and destroyed in the border town of Chaman several tankers carrying fuel for coalition forces in recent past. However, the Taliban have not claimed responsibility for the attack.

Posted by: b | Sep 8 2008 11:54 utc | 4

It may be new to you. But this has been going on since 1989. India had warned US that Pakistan was selling nuclear technology for missile technology. This put under raps until US could use it for its own benefit. Without the fuel subsidy from Saudi Arabia, Chinese engineers and US money, Pakistan would already be non-existent country. In fact Pakistan was mainly created by the British so that India couldn’t get to Iranian Oil. Instead of Mullahs running Iran, it should have been socialist muslims and they would have aligned with India. But alas Indian politicians couldn’t see this strategically so no have to suffer. Pakistan still will fail because of Peak Oil and Global Warming. It is just going to take 20 years of hard slog. Only real solution is to build border fence on the northern border just like there is one is east and west.

Posted by: r | Sep 8 2008 18:41 utc | 5

@r – I don’t agree with that take – there was quite a genuine religious motiv for Pakistan to separate from India. Not simply British manipulation.
If Pakistan “fails” – whatever that verb may mean – what comes after that?
Border Fence on the northern area? Where, why?

Posted by: b | Sep 8 2008 18:55 utc | 6

r must be a neoMinuteman who thinks fences are the answer to everything.
Great Post b

Posted by: waldo | Sep 10 2008 14:43 utc | 7