Biden: Pakistani Support for Taliban ‘In the Past’

[sabra]

Source: DOD

WASHINGTON, July 29, 2010 – Vice President Joe Biden today acknowledged that some people in Pakistan’s intelligence community had supported the Taliban, but he said that situation is changing.

“That’s been a problem in the past, it’s a problem we’re dealing with, and (it) is changing,” Biden said in an interview that aired on NBC’s “Today” television show this morning. The interview with Ann Curry was taped yesterday while Biden and his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, were at Fort Drum, N.Y., to welcome home the Army’s 10th Mountain Division’s 2nd Brigade Combat Team from Iraq.

Biden’s comments referenced WikiLeaks’ July 25 Web posting of at least 75,000 secret documents on the war in Afghanistan spanning from January 2004 to December 2009. One issue highlighted in the documents involves allegations that members of the Pakistani intelligence agency, ISI, supported the Taliban while accepting U.S. funding to fight against them. President Barack Obama announced the current U.S. policy in Afghanistan, to include Pakistan, in December 2009.

“All those leaks predate our policy,” Biden said. “Not one leak is consistent with our policy announced in December.” He added that no U.S. money was diverted from its stated purposes in Pakistan.

Read more: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=60224

[xchrom]

1. Phooey. Nt

[grantcart]

7. Obviously you don't know any Pakistanis

1) The assassination of President Bhutto was a more tramatic event for Pakistanis than the assassination of Kennedy was for Americans.

2) Several high profile attacks changed the public perception of Pakistan's main security threat as being from extremists rather than their traditional nemisis India. These included attacks on visiting sporting teams and, perhaps the stupidest move by the Taliban assassination of key Pakistani military leaders, including Lt. Gen. Mushtaq Baig.

3) The terrorist attack on Mubai was the coup de grace for Pakistan's alliance with Taliban forces.


The evidence of the change in Pakistan's ISI was shown in the massive Waziristan where the army moved out 3 million Pakistanis to root out the Taliban and wipe them out in the province. Pakistan's General who led the attacks against

The clearest confirmation of this change was ISI's ability to get Tribes warriors to switch sides

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_North-West_Pakistan

Tribesmen declare war against the Taliban
By the beginning of September 2008, Pakistani tribal elders began organising a private army of approximately 30,000 tribesmen to fight the Taliban. A lashkar, or private army, composed of Pakistani tribesmen, began torching the houses of Taliban commanders in Bajaur, near the Afghan border, vowing to fight them until they are expelled.

A local jirga decided to form the lashkar in the wake of the increasing presence of the local Taliban in the area. The lashkar began torching houses, including the house of a local Taliban commander named Naimatullah, who had occupied several government schools and converted them into seminaries. A tribal elder named Malik Munsib Khan, who heads the lashkar, said that tribesmen would continue their struggle until the Taliban were expelled from the area, adding that anyone found sheltering Taliban militants would be fined one million rupees and their houses will be torched. The tribesmen also torched two important centres of the Taliban in the area and gained control of most of the tehsil.

The main reasons for this was that the operations that were taking place in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas had displaced some 300,000 people while dozens of citizens have been killed in clashes between the militants and military. Since the start of Pakistan's war against the Taliban some 150,000 tribesmen have sided with them.<75><76><76[br />

Another indicator is that Pakistan cashiered the head of ISI and installed the general who had fought the Taliban, the same candidate for the job that the US government favored.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shuja_Pasha

The newly elected civilian government of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani tried for two months to gain control of the appointment for the director of the ISI as well as place the agency under the administrative, financial, and operational control of the Interior Ministry.<6> However, the attempt failed when Chief of Army Staff, General Kayani appointed Pasha on September 29, 2008.<1><7> Pasha’s prior post was responsible for planning operations against Taliban and al-Qaeda militants in the FATA and NWFP provinces of Pakistan, signaling a reorientation from the ISI's traditional Kashmir/India focus.<8> Pasha was appointed director of the ISI at Washington's behest;<9> Pasha is closely allied to General Kayani, the CIA, and holds anti-Taliban views.<7><9> The United States Government had pressured Pakistan to replace Nadeem Taj, the prior chief of the ISI, whom they claimed as "double dealing" with militants with a more acceptable candidate like Pasha.<10><11> Additionally, Pasha’s appointment was part of a wider Chief of Army Staff reappointment shake-up that solidified General Kayani’s loyalty among the military as all prior appointees were done by former President and Chief of the Army Pervez Musharraf.<1>

Scepticism of the ISA is based on the talking heads impression that the ISA was motivated by religious sympathy with the Taliban. Nothing could be further from the truth. The ISA, like the Army and the Pakistani elites are secularists. The ISA's interest in the Taliban was in creating an inexpensive proxy force that could help create problems for India, especially in Kashmir.


Your refutation of Vice President Biden's statement that none of the leaked material contains references to material after December 2009 will be quickly settled by your citing a single instance to the contrary.

In the meantime your undocumented smear against the Vice President will have to stand as "uninformed".

[Igel]

10. There are two arguments here.

The first is that since Pakistan supported the Afghanistan Taliban until 2009, they continue to support the Afghanistan Taliban.

Biden says this is false and offers his word as proof. He'd be expected to say this whether he knows it's true or not, so his word is meaningless. The counterargument is that unless something changes Pakistan so that they turn against "the Taliban" they would continue to support it. After all, the ISI supported it and Pakistan still sees Afghanistan as their backyard, their kindred Muslims and E. Iranians (for lack of a better term), and a bulwark against the influence of the dreaded Indians who are out to destroy Muslims in general and the "stan" of the pure in particular.

So, is there evidence the Pakistanis have turned against "the Taliban." This is your argument.

For that argument we have to assume that the Taliban is a single, monolithic organization. We know this to be false for Pakistan. We know that Baitullah does not view Mullah Omar as his boss and that Mullah Omar does not view Baitullah as his boss. So at a minimum there are two distinct organizations. But we also know that Baitullah is the first among equals, with his Mehsud tribe not entirely in league with, say, the Waziris. In other words, allegiance to him is partial and conditional--and also fairly recent. There is a set of Pakistani Talibans what are united for some purposes and not for others. The unity that exists was prompted by the greater threat by the Pak government. This is very Pashtun. You'll fight with other clans in your tribe unless the tribe is threatened; you'll fight other tribes until the next larger group is threatened--whether it be Pashtuns or some other supra-tribal ethnic designation or whether that be the ummah.

Hekmatyar in Afghanistan was also called "Taliban" very often, but he (IIRC) is loyal to Omar now, not before, and possibly not for long. In other words, while the Afghanistan Taliban is a bit more united this is probably due to the stronger and longer-lived external threat.

We also assume that everybody in Pakistan is loyal to the central government and whatever the head person says. We don't make this assumption about US politics; in fact, many deny it and call others un-American and un-patriotic. We know it's false for Mexican politics and for numerous other countries. There can be presumption that this assumption is true, esp. since we know it was false in 2008 and 2009.

So, to summarize, we know that there is no single Taliban in either Pakistan or Afghanistan, although they cooperate against perceived common threats. We know that there is no valid presumption of internal governmental unity on the part of the Pakistanis. We know that at least the ISI had interests in supporting at least some of the Afghanistan Taliban(s) until 2009 and that those interests continue unchanged. This isn't proof that the ISI continues to support the ISI. It does, however, shift the burden of proof towards providing evidence of change.

Biden may have secret evidence that the ISI has changed. He might be forbidden from revealing it. On the other hand, he poses it as "we are special and of course everybody follows our policy". This is not evidence--he actually offers none--and there is no logical support for his claim. It's PR.

To say that his utterance is meaningless does not entail that he's lying; there's no evidence that he is. Since neither of us sets foreign policy or deals with Zardari, there'd be little point in accusing him of lying. There's also no evidence that he's telling the unvarnished truth, and no grounds for defending him except, "Rah-rah-rah! He's our Joe, of course he'll defend us from our foe! Go, Biden--slay the lion!" "Democratic exceptionalism" is little better than the American exceptionalism that it mirrors. Both are harmful delusions.

[grantcart]

14. There is overwhelming evidence that has been confirmed by historical action

1) Cashiering ISI's head and replacing him with the US government's choice, a known opponent of Pakistan's policy.

2) The largest non Indian related military action in Pakistan's history moving against the Taliban in Waziristan at tremendous cost. More Pakistani soldiers have been killed in the fight against the Taliban in the last 12 months than either American or Afghans. More than 3 million Pakistanis were displaced in the offensive

3) Taliban going after and killing Pakistani Army leadership.

4) Pakistan arresting Taliban officials

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/09/AR2010040904807.html

5) The transfer of loyalty by tribes previously alligned with the Taliban in Pakistan.


This isn't a rah rah for Biden.

It isn't an argument for or against any military action.

It is an advocacy that discussions at DU grow past the bumper sticker peanut gallery level and people actually try to learn the basic facts.


Eighteen months ago the Taliban had an understanding with the Pakistan government in Waziristan to let each other alone.

The Taliban overplayed their hand and the Pakistani establishment finally had enough, especially after the Mumbai attacks.

It resulted in 180 degree turn of the Pakistani political, army and intelligence attitude toward the lethal potential of tolerating the Taliban any further.

The analysis by all observers in the area is that the Taliban committed the worst strategic and tactical political miscalculation in its history, even worse than its handing AQ a blank check to run operations out of Afghanistan. Biden is simply reflecting on facts that have been well established.

[BootinUp]

15. Too many here are not interested

in facts. They are not interested in hearing about improvements in the war effort at all. Instead of looking at the positive, they only see the negative. Its like trying to discuss politics with a Teabagger.

[totodeinhere]

16. What about David Cameron's comments?

In words which will be greeted with alarm in Islamabad, the Prime Minister also suggested that Pakistan had links with terrorist groups, and was guilty of double dealing by aligning itself with both the West and the forces it was opposing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7913905/David-Cameron-Pakistan-is-promoting-the-export-of-terror.html

Kudos to Prime Minister Cameron. He has had to walk back his comments to a certain extent because of the uproar his comments caused in Pakistan. But he wouldn't have said it in the first place if he didn't believe it. You told another poster that Biden knows more about Pakistan than that poster does. Well, perhaps I could suggest that Cameron knows more about Pakistan than you do.

[grantcart]

19. The operative word is "had". Exactly what Biden said.

After Taliban oveplayed its hand in Wiziristan, abbrogated the truce with Islamabad, the attacks in Mumbai, the assassination of Bhutto, the election of the PPP, the election of Gillani as Prime Minister, threatening Musharraf with impeachment, the succession of Zardari as President, the Waziristan offensive, the displacement of 3 million Pakistanis, ousting pro Taliban ISI Director Taj, appointing anti Taliban ISI Director Pasha things have changed.

Kudos to Cameron? He gets reamed here on a daily basis but when it APPEARS that he agrees with our uninformed view he is a reliable source.

The opinion that Pakistan/Taliban relations have taken a dramatic turn and that the Taliban made a strategic miscalculation in pressing in Waziristan is a fairly universally held opinion that isn't considered very contreversial by people who are familiar with the area.

[totodeinhere]

20. No, the verb "had" was used because Cameron's comments were framed in the past tense.

Cameron meant that Pakistan is playing both sides of the street now, not just in the past. Why do you think his comment caused such an uproar? Don't you think that maybe it's because he hit a raw nerve and he was accurate?

On edit, here is another quote from the same article.

David Cameron has risked inflaming international relations after suggesting Pakistan is promoting the ‘export of terror’ in Afghanistan and around the world.

(The bolding was mine.)

It didn't say "was," it said "is."

[gratuitous]

2. Yesterday is in the past

And by Saturday, Friday will be in the past, too.

[bemildred]

3. Is this the Onion? nt

[Downwinder]

4. Nothing about US support for the Taliban in the past?

[asjr]

5. I hope our VP does not become a cartoon character.

Surely he knows BS when he sees it or hears it.

[grantcart]

8. Actrually the VP knows what is happening in Pakistan and you do not

Pls see reply 7 above

[asjr]

18. I've had snarky replies before yours, but I have to say

you are one of the rudest on this blog. As well as being a smart ass!

[rug]

6. What about U.S. cooperation with the Taliban?

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-07-23-talks-with-taliban-key-to-afghanistan

A third approach -- reconciliation -- was not publicly discussed during the conference, but it is now high on everyone's agenda. The United States, which has been sceptical of dialogue, now appears to have accepted its inevitability.

Essentially it means talking to key elements of the insurgency and cutting political deals to enable the withdrawal of foreign forces. Consideration of this option has developed to the point that each side has set out its preconditions.

For Nato these are that the Taliban break its ties with al-Qaeda, stop fighting and respect the Afghan constitution, whereas the Taliban insists that foreign forces withdraw, prisoners are freed and Taliban names are removed from the United Nations Security Council's sanctions list.

[flyarm]

12. United States Military Funding the Taliban in Afghanistan

United States Military Funding the Taliban in Afghanistan - ...
Jun 22, 2010 ... U.S. Surge: How the Taliban Sees It. In one case, a security company ... "Our firm knowingly pays thieves to ensure the safety of our cargo. ...




http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Afghanistan/united-states-military-funding-taliban-afghanistan/story?id=10980527

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

US Private Security in Afghanistan "Pay Off Warlords, Taliban ...
Jun 23, 2010 ... US Private Security in Afghanistan "Pay Off Warlords, Taliban". by Pratap Chatterjee. WASHINGTON - Every day, as many as 260 trucks filled ...

www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/23-9 - Similar


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.alan.com/2010/06/22/us-pays-tens-of-millions-to-warlords-insurgents-and-the-taliban/


US Pays Tens Of Millions To Warlords, Insurgents And The Taliban
Posted in Liberaland by Alan • June 22, 2010, 12:45 AMET • 14 Comments » WaPo reports that the US is paying millions of dollars in protection money that we know is winding up in the hands of the Taliban, insurgents, and warlords in Afghanistan.

The security arrangements, part of a $2.16 billion transport contract, violate laws on the use of private contractors, as well as Defense Department regulations, and “dramatically undermine” larger U.S. objectives of curtailing corruption and strengthening effective governance in Afghanistan, a report released late Monday said.

The report describes a Defense Department that is well aware that some of the money paid to contractors winds up in the hands of warlords and insurgents. Military logisticians on the ground are focused on getting supplies where they are needed and have “virtually no understanding of how security is actually provided” for the local truck convoys that transport more than 70 percent of all goods and materials used by U.S. troops. Alarms raised by prime trucking contractors were met by the military “with indifference and inaction,” the report said.

Trucks deliver materials needed by the military on roads controlled by warlords.

The report found no direct evidence of payoffs to the Taliban, but one trucking program manager estimated that $1.6 million to $2 million per week goes to the insurgents.

[BootinUp]

13. Its not going to happen

I think this is more an effort to learn more about the Taliban for intelligence purposes.

[mike r]

9. Hey Joe, you know it's bullshit

[NJmaverick]

11. how so?

Joe has always been a pretty straight shooter

[DebbieCDC]

17. Right Joe, uh-huh

[Lost4words]

21. I believe MBNA Joe, I do