Secret war documents point to Pakistan's collaboration with Taliban

With over 90,000 documents, the Wikileaks trove of documents from Afghanistan will provide fodder for much discussion about that war. It's not pretty. And, the release of this information is creating a firestorm. It does make one wonder what the hell the Bush administration was doing for all those years. We'll have several posts on these documents, but the double-dealing role of Pakistan seems like one of the most egregious developments:

Americans fighting the war in Afghanistan have long harbored strong suspicions that Pakistan’s military spy service has guided the Afghan insurgency with a hidden hand, even as Pakistan receives more than $1 billion a year from Washington for its help combating the militants, according to a trove of secret military field reports made public Sunday.

The documents, made available by an organization called WikiLeaks, suggest that Pakistan, an ostensible ally of the United States, allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders.

Taken together, the reports indicate that American soldiers on the ground are inundated with accounts of a network of Pakistani assets and collaborators that runs from the Pakistani tribal belt along the Afghan border, through southern Afghanistan, and all the way to the capital, Kabul.

These documents may start to focus the attention of the American people on a war that has been ignored for too long. Maybe that can help bring it to an end. Read More......

Taliban role in NYC Times Square car bomb attempt?

As always, it might have been nice had we finished these guys off before going into Iraq. NYT:

American officials said Wednesday that it was very likely that a radical group once thought unable to attack the United States had played a role in the bombing attempt in Times Square, elevating concerns about whether other militant groups could deliver at least a glancing blow on American soil.

Officials said that after two days of intense questioning of the bombing suspect, Faisal Shahzad, evidence was mounting that the group, the Pakistani Taliban, had helped inspire and train Mr. Shahzad in the months before he is alleged to have parked an explosives-filled sport utility vehicle in a busy Manhattan intersection on Saturday night. Officials said Mr. Shahzad had discussed his contacts with the group, and investigators had accumulated other evidence that they would not disclose.

Read More......

When are we going to treat Pakistan as a real war?

Noah Shachtman of WIRED:

[T]oday, three U.S. soldiers were killed and two more were wounded by an improvised bomb in Pakistan. The area was known “as a Taliban stronghold,” the New York Times notes. But the “Pakistani military had declared cleared of the militants.”

It’s another sign that America’s once-small, once-secret war in Pakistan is growing bigger, more conventional, and busting out into the open. The U.S. Air Force now conducts flights over Pakistani soil. U.S. security contractors operate in the country. U.S. strikes are growing larger, more frequent, and more deadly; the latest attack reportedly involved 17 missiles and killed as many as 29 people. Billions of dollars in U.S. aid goes to Islamabad. And now, U.S. forces are dying in Pakistan.

Which begs the question: When are we going to start treating this conflict in Pakistan as a real war — with real oversight and real disclosure about what the hell our people are really doing there? Maybe at one point, this conflict could’ve been swept under the rug as some classified CIA op. But that was billions of dollars and hundreds of Pakistani and American lives ago.

Read More......

Blackwater allegedly running covert ops in Pakistan, posing as USAID employees

Yes, the Blackwater that Bush's DOJ was considering indicting last December. The same Blackwater that was accused of shooting at innocent Iraqi civilians. The same Blackwater that was accused, just a few weeks ago, of bribing Iraqi officials to quell criticism of the civilian shooting incident. Yes, that's the Blackwater that the Obama administration is reportedly employing to help plan assassinations in Pakistan.

Oh, and posing as USAID workers is a good way to make actual US development workers targets. From the Nation:

At a covert forward operating base run by the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in the Pakistani port city of Karachi, members of an elite division of Blackwater are at the center of a secret program in which they plan targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, "snatch and grabs" of high-value targets and other sensitive action inside and outside Pakistan, an investigation by The Nation has found. The Blackwater operatives also assist in gathering intelligence and help run a secret US military drone bombing campaign that runs parallel to the well-documented CIA predator strikes, according to a well-placed source within the US military intelligence apparatus.

The source, who has worked on covert US military programs for years, including in Afghanistan and Pakistan, has direct knowledge of Blackwater's involvement. He spoke to The Nation on condition of anonymity because the program is classified. The source said that the program is so "compartmentalized" that senior figures within the Obama administration and the US military chain of command may not be aware of its existence.

Read More......

Der Spiegel: Taliban's power continues to grow in Pakistan

Remember, Pakistan has nukes:

The Taliban's power in Pakistan continues to grow and it now has entire towns under its control. Under US pressure, the Pakistani army is fighting the Islamists -- with limited success. Pakistani intelligence says the Americans are doing more harm than good.

Read More......

Taliban beating of girl stirs outrage in Pakistan

The Taliban continues to do what the Taliban does. In this latest revolting example, a group of men held down a 17 year old girl and beat her due to what they considered a violation of Islamic law. The video (which is inside the linked Guardian article) has triggered a strong reaction among national leaders though in the region where the video was taken, the national government has little control or influence. Somehow I have my doubts that the outrage will translate into action against this band of criminals.

The Pakistani government has ordered an inquiry into the flogging of a 17-year-old woman by Taliban militants in the troubled Swat valley, after public outrage triggered by shocking video footage of the punishment.

The images, played yesterday on private television channels, show a burka-clad woman being pinned to the ground by two men while a third whips her backside 34 times. The woman is seen screaming and begging for mercy as a crowd of largely silent men look on. She is accused of having had an illegal sexual relationship, according to local law. Her brother is among those restraining her.

President Asif Ali Zardari led a wave of public condemnation, and ordered the arrest of the perpetrators. Prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani termed it "shocking" and called for an immediate inquiry. At the supreme court, the newly reinstated chief justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry, summoned officials to a hearing scheduled for Monday to investigate the incident.

Brace yourself for yet another failed action in Pakistan. Read More......

Murder of five women defended by Pakistan lawmaker

And to think Pakistan is supposed to be an ally. There's nothing honorable about murder and the violation of basic human rights.

A Pakistani lawmaker defended a decision by southwestern tribesmen to bury five women alive because they wanted to choose their own husbands, telling stunned members of Parliament this week to spare him their outrage.

"These are centuries-old traditions and I will continue to defend them," Israr Ullah Zehri, who represents Baluchistan province, said Saturday. "Only those who indulge in immoral acts should be afraid."

The women, three of whom were teenagers, were first shot and then thrown into a ditch.

They were still breathing as their bodies were covered with rocks and mud, according media reports and human rights activists, who said their only "crime" was that they wished to marry men of their own choosing.

Zehri told a packed and flabbergasted Parliament on Friday that Baluch tribal traditions helped stop obscenity and then asked fellow lawmakers not to make a big fuss about it.

Read More......

Facing impeachment, Musharraf quits

The possibility of impeachment has forced the resignation of Pakistan's president:

Under pressure over impending impeachment charges, President Pervez Musharraf announced he would resign Monday, ending nearly nine years as one of the United States’ most important allies in the campaign against terrorism.

Speaking on television from his presidential office here at 1 p.m., Mr. Musharraf, dressed in a gray suit and tie, said that after consulting with his aides, “I have decided to resign today.” He said he was putting national interest above “personal bravado.”

“Whether I win or lose the impeachment, the nation will lose,” he said, adding that he was not prepared to put the office of the presidency through the impeachment process.

I'm sure we'll hear endless chatter about what this means for the U.S. presidential election. Read More......

McCain's secret map of the Middle East

Courtesy of Matt Yglesias.

Brilliant.

Read More......

McCain worried about the "situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border" (Note to McCain: Iraq doesn't border Pakistan)

Yep, John McCain, whose campaign is based on his long-time foreign policy experience, told ABC that's he very worried about the Iraq/Pakistan border. But, there isn't one. Iran, a somewhat important nation in the scheme of things in the Middle East, is in between:

And it was McCain who owns the first big gaffe of the trip -- appearing to confuse Iraq and Afghanistan.

Asked by ABC’s Diane Sawyer Monday morning whether the "the situation in Afghanistan in precarious and urgent," McCain responded: "I think it’s serious. . . . It's a serious situation, but there's a lot of things we need to do. We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border," said McCain, R-Ariz., said on "Good Morning America."

Iraq and Pakistan do not share a border. Afghanistan and Pakistan do.

Pretty basic stuff. Pretty big mistake for John McCain.

If McCain knew how to use the internet, he could do "a google" and find National Geographic
Read More......

Pakistani city could fall to Islamic militants

From Canada's Globe and Mail:

Security around Peshawar, the provincial capital in northwest Pakistan, has been dramatically stepped up amid fears that the city could fall to heavily armed Islamic militants who have now massed around its outskirts.

From three sides, Peshawar, which borders Pakistan's wild tribal belt, is menaced by Taliban groups and other warlords.

If Peshawar is taken over by extremists, the rest of the North West Frontier Province is also threatened, raising the possibility that religious fundamentalists may gain control of a state on Afghanistan's border. The drama in Peshawar reinforces existing doubts about the new Pakistani government's policy of pulling back the army and seeking peace deals with militants.

Read More......

The latest from Pakistan

Professor Juan Cole has an extraordinarily useful breakdown and analysis of the latest political developments in Pakistan. Parties opposed to President Musharraf won a significant victory in recent Parliamentary elections, and multiple disparate parties are now coalescing to form a legislative coalition that should reach roughly a 2/3 majority, which would be enough to amend Pakistan's constitution, among other things. As Cole explains,

The strong two-thirds majority that the new coalition enjoys in the lower house gives the victors the ability to move steadily and swiftly to accomplish their goal of restoring the rule of law and marginalizing Musharraf or even force him to step down. The military, now led by Ashfaq Kiyani, who had been Benazir Bhutto's military secretary, is an important player here but it has not spoken. If Kiyani stays out of civilian politics, Musharraf is likely in trouble. If the army moves again, there is a question of whether the public will stand for it.

One of the reasons I'll never be a good (or perhaps "good") pundit it because I often predict continuation of the status quo while other people are in hysterics about some possible mayhem in another country's domestic situation. Predicting that something will be the same in six or twelve months as it is now doesn't fill airtime very well, but it's often correct. In Pakistan, however, I think there's a very real possibility of significant confrontation between Parliament and President Musharraf. I think, right now, it's still likely that he'll stay in power, but the situation continues to be fluid and very much worth watching. Read More......

Bush asks Pakistan to keep Musharraf despite election rout

And to think many find Bush's democratic ideas to be rubbish. Why bother to even hold elections if you are not prepared to live with the results? Musharraf was routed but in the Bush world, that doesn't matter.

Bush's policy of hanging on to Musharraf has caused friction between the White House and the State Department, with some career diplomats and other specialists arguing that the administration is trying to buck the political tides in Pakistan, U.S. officials said.

Officials in the White House and the intelligence community fear that the longer Pakistan remains without a new government, the deeper the gridlock, threatening the progress made in the elections toward greater stability and helping the country's Islamic extremists.

One Western diplomat said, however, that the strategy could backfire if Pakistanis feel betrayed after voting to kick Musharraf from office.

"This is dangerous," said the diplomat.

Read More......

McCain: tough on Obama, soft on terrorists

Senator McCain trotted out a truly weird attack against Senator Obama last night, accusing him of wanting to invade Pakistan and thereby undermine our good buddy President Musharraf. What Obama said, of course, if he had actionable intelligence on al Qaeda leaders, he would drop a bomb on them. Yay! Not only is McCain apparently criticizing Obama for believing we should go after terrorists, what he's objecting to isn't even particularly controversial. We've notified nations of military operations as they occurred for a while, perhaps most notably in strikes against terrorist targets under Clinton but also with increasing frequency and aggressiveness after 9/11.

Spencer Ackerman, who is truly a national treasure, in writing for the new -- and excellent -- Washington Independent, rightly shreds McCain on this issue:

Good to know that John McCain, who allegedly knows something about defending America in the course of advocating a war that has made America drastically less secure, would do absolutely nothing. Good to know that John McCain doesn’t care that those people murdered 3,000 Americans. Good to know that John McCain doesn’t think those souls demand justice. Good to know that John McCain would read an intelligence report about al-Qaeda in Pakistan planning to murder more Americans and say LOL HAI LOOK IRAN KTHXBAI.

Senator John McCain: Oh noes!! Read More......

Bin Laden, Taliban, al-Qaida support plummets in Pakistan

In 2004, the BBC released a powerful series called The Power of Nightmares, The Rise of the Politics of Fear. It is about the parallel rise of radical Islam and the radical neocon right since the 1950s. (View online here.) One issue that the three part documentary covered was the rise and then hard fall of radicals in places such as Algeria. Indiscriminate killing and a steady blood bath in the name of the cause has lowered support for the movement time after time. The documentary is well worth viewing.

The poll suggests Pakistanis are looking to peaceful opposition groups after months of political turmoil and a wave of suicide attacks.

In the latest bloodshed, a bomber blew himself up at an opposition rally in the northwestern town of Charsadda on Saturday, killing 27 people and injuring 50.

According to the poll results only 24 percent of Pakistanis approved of bin Laden when the survey was conducted last month, compared with 46 percent during a similar survey in August.

Backing for al-Qaida, whose senior leaders are believed to be hiding along the Pakistani-Afghan border, fell to 18 percent from 33 percent.

Read More......

More and better foreign policy voices: Alex Thurston

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, I strongly believe in giving a bigger megaphone to those who deserve it but perhaps aren't yet very well known, especially because that's the kind of perspective that allowed me to come on board here in the first place. So I'm making an effort to highlight and recommend emerging voices every few weeks or so, mostly on foreign policy but sometimes other topics as well. The first was Matt Duss, and today I'd like to introduce y'all to Alex Thurston, another young foreign policy observer whose insights and expertise make his writing essential reading.

Alex is currently a student in the Master's program of Arab Studies at Georgetown, and studied religion as an undergrad at Northwestern. Unlike many pundits, he has actually lived abroad, spending much of 2006 and 2007 in Senegal as part of the Fulbright exchange program, studying Muslim youth movements. His understanding of the Middle East and Africa is comprehensive, and he's one of a growing group that understand internationalism *and* politics -- an intersection that was less necessary before the entire foreign policy apparatus was politicized but is absolutely vital now.

His recent post on continued escalation of tensions in Pakistan rightly warns against any rash moves by the US; moving east, his excellent analysis of the latest in Darfur helps keep focus on a still-overlooked tragedy. So you know the drill: Add The Seminal to your RSS feed or your daily reading list, and know that when you read Thurston, you're reading a progressive who knows his stuff and can be trusted. It's important. Read More......

Bhutto coverage emblematic of foreign policy coverage issues

Basically just a degree away from my explanation of why Bhutto has attracted such a media crush -- shorter version: she was Westernized, female, and attractive -- is this darkly funny parody piece by Tim Noah. Since apparently every pundit east of the Mississippi knew her from Harvard, Oxford, or a cocktail party, we've been subjected to a never-ending barrage of Bhutto nostalgia pieces, and this is (farcically) an addition to the genre.

In all seriousness, though, it really does point to a serious problem in foreign policy coverage and thinking. From the American perspective, generally speaking, analysis of foreign leaders too often goes something like this: Speaks English? Sophisticated. Speaks language of country of origin? Backwater. Went to an Ivy League school? Moderate. Educated anywhere in the Eastern Hemisphere? Extremist. Appreciates single malt? A partner for peace. Eschews the party circuit? Untrustworthy.

And through these heuristics, you get things like people predicting electoral victories of, for example, Iraq's Allawi and Chalabi the day before Sadr and Hakim sweep the polls. It's very frustrating. Read More......

The Bhutto media crush

I was talking with a friend this weekend about the Bhutto situation. He knows a little about foreign policy, though it's neither his vocation nor his avocation, and he asked, roughly, This isn't going to have any effect on the primaries, right? Probably not. And it ruins our Pakistan policy, but that policy was terrible to begin with? Right. Pakistan isn't going to fall apart? No. It's not going to affect the fact that Pakistan and Afghanistan are disasters when it comes to counter-terror? Might make it a little worse, but essentially that's accurate. So why, he asked, why the wall-to-wall coverage and focus? The answer after the jump . . .

It's primarily because Bhutto hits the trifecta for media attention paid to a foreigner: Westernized (attended Harvard, no less), attractive (was once named one of People's 50 most beautiful), and female (self-evident). The media has a habit of focusing on Westernized, charming foreign leaders -- and the US has a habit of backing them despite evidence that maybe we shouldn't -- and especially so when the subject is telegenic. Now, I'm not one to complain about media focus on foreign affairs, not *at all*; still, it's worth noting the particular reasons and inclinations behind this kind of media crush. It's interesting that now there's some real coverage of the events in Pakistan, beyond just Bhutto herself, and that's great -- though the actual situation apparently continues to deteriorate.

If US foreign policy for a particular country or topic depends on an *individual* rather than a system or structure or process, odds are it's a crummy policy. The very idea that our foreign policy for Pakistan could be utterly destroyed by the death of a single person, however tragically and unexpectedly, shows you how bad a policy it was in the first place.
Read More......

Pakistan political commentator speaks out against "modern feudalism"

The British press has been increasingly critical of the position-for-life politics of the Bhutto family. In France, Eva Joly (famous and brilliant anti-corruption judge) referred to Asif Zardari (Bhutto's husband) as "Mr. 40%" referring to his cut on deals passing through the office of his wife during her term in office. There is no shortage of talk about democracy within the family. However, there has been little sign of actual democracy including the recent transition from student to leader of the largest political party in Pakistan, without a democratic vote.

Pakistan political commentator Tariq Ali is much more critical, calling it a "medieval charade." More from Tariq Ali including Bhutto-Kennedy comparisons, after the jump.

A triumvirate consisting of her husband, Asif Zardari (one of the most venal and discredited politicians in the country and still facing corruption charges in three European courts) and two ciphers will run the party till Benazir's 19-year-old son, Bilawal, comes of age. He will then become chairperson-for-life and, no doubt, pass it on to his children. The fact that this is now official does not make it any less grotesque. The Pakistan People's Party is being treated as a family heirloom, a property to be disposed of at the will of its leader.

Nothing more, nothing less. Poor Pakistan. Poor People's Party supporters. Both deserve better than this disgusting, medieval charade.

Benazir's last decision was in the same autocratic mode as its predecessors, an approach that would cost her – tragically – her own life. Had she heeded the advice of some party leaders and not agreed to the Washington-brokered deal with Pervez Musharraf or, even later, decided to boycott his parliamentary election she might still have been alive. Her last gift to the country does not augur well for its future.

How can Western-backed politicians be taken seriously if they treat their party as a fiefdom and their supporters as serfs, while their courtiers abroad mouth sycophantic niceties concerning the young prince and his future.

That most of the PPP inner circle consists of spineless timeservers leading frustrated and melancholy lives is no excuse. All this could be transformed if inner-party democracy was implemented. There is a tiny layer of incorruptible and principled politicians inside the party, but they have been sidelined. Dynastic politics is a sign of weakness, not strength. Benazir was fond of comparing her family to the Kennedys, but chose to ignore that the Democratic Party, despite an addiction to big money, was not the instrument of any one family.

Read More......

I'm Mike Huckabee?

"Dammit! Who put a question mark on the prompter? How many times do I have to tell you that he will read anything put on that prompter!"

Huckabee said 660 Pakistanis entered the country illegally last year. When asked by a reporter the source for that statistic, Huckabee appeared unsure, saying, "Those are numbers that I got today from a briefing, and I believe they are CIA and immigration numbers." The Huckabee campaign later said the figure came from a March 2006 report by The Denver Post. But the Border Patrol told CNN on Friday that it apprehended only "a handful" of illegal immigrants from Pakistan in 2007.

Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican Iowa front-runner, Mike "Ron Burgandy" Huckabee!

You stay classy, Little Rock.

Remember way back when, how we decided nobody without extensive experience in (or at least understanding of) foreign affairs could ever be elected president? Riiiiiight . . . Read More......