Friday, May 29, 2009 - 5:31 PM

That's the title of a good piece in the new edition in the New York Review of Books by Ahmed Rashid, one of my proven providers.
Like anything Rashid writes, it is worth reading. But two things especially struck me. First, I've been more optimistic about Afghanistan than about Pakistan, but haven't really been able to articulate why. Rashid does it well. Afghanistan, he notes, has a weak and unpopular state, but is backed by the U.S. and NATO. Also, Afghans have a national identity and don't want to see the country broken up. Most importantly, they've tasted Taliban rule, and many hated it. In Pakistan, by contrast, he says, "there is no such broad national identity or unity." Among Pakistani officials, he says, "The sense of unrealism is widespread."
Second, the next time a Pakistani official assures us that his army can carry out a counterinsurgency campaign, he should be asked about this observation of Rashid's:
. . . the army and the government never protected the Pushtun tribal chiefs and leaders who were pro-government-some three hundred have had their throats slit by the Taliban in the FATA, and the rest have fled."
TARIQ MAHMOOD/AFP/Getty Images
All kinds of people are drawn into the conflict
Israel and its Lobby take delight in the conflict; anything that can kill Muslim extremists is fine. And can it be done that far from Israel itself that's even better.
We must never forget why we are there in the first place: Because the WTC and Pentagon got attacked by flying fuel-bombs. The Congress was the target as well, because, to quote the official 9/11 report: "It was the greatest source of support for Israel in the US". The architect of the attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's, animosity towards The United states stemmed not from his time there as a student, but because of his violent opposition to U.S. support for Israeli policies towards the Palestinians. If you wish to include other motives, the second most important such, was US troops continued stay on holy Saudi soil after the end of hostilities following The Gulf War in 1991. King Fahd had been promised that they would be withdrawn immediately after the war. The guy who was responsibly for their continued stay was the super-Zionist and -lobbyist Martin Indyk -- an Australian Jew, and US-citizen from 1993,-- later US ambassador to Israel.
And today people get attracted to places where Israels only ally on the face of the Earth run around with weapons in their hands - which means that it is legal to attack them.
Tom, you give Josh Foust crap for the "pomposity of the lede" on his post mentioning van Linschoten and then you trot out something comparable with that "one of my proven providers" line? Sweet. One is tempted to make a ham-fisted joke that no one gets about prep schools and Rashid being a funny name or something.
Anyway, Afghans having a strong national identity would probably be news to Hazaras and Tajiks at the very least. Pashtuns, when they aren't busy being divided amongst themselves, are about the only ones who regularly push the "Afghans are one" message.
is the name of a book I've added to my list. Here's a review:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05102009/postopinion/postopbooks/to_live_or_to_perish_forever_168430.htm
After listening to author Nick Schmidle on CSPAN/Book TV, it occurred to me that we're sending troops to shoot people for insurrection against governments and police that we might well be shooting at in our home states.
That's not a statement of support for a Taliban version of the French Terrors, nor does it reflect statements by Schmidle, who has family in uniform. But simmering/boiling insurrection in Pashtunistan, our lethal support for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is riddled with ambiguity.
It's not surprising that the IRP army made the same mistakes, failing to protect police, sources and tribal allies, as we made in 2003-6 Iraq. A revolution of disposessed hill tribes and mullahs is going to be really hard on the landholders, educated and government employees.
Pakistan is suffering from self-inflicted wounds. It was democratic government of Pakistan that facilitated relocation of Osama bin Laden from Sudan to Afghanistan in 1990s. Sandy Berger, Clinton’s national security advisor had told 9/11 Commission in March 2004 : ‘Pakistani Army was the midwife’ of Taliban’. Ex-CIA official Bruce Riedel said in an interview on 1/29/2009 that ''In Pakistan, the jihadist Frankenstein monster that was created by the Pakistani army and the Pakistani intelligence service, is now increasingly turning on its creators. It's trying to take over the laboratory.''
Declassified U.S. Department of State, Cable "Pakistan Support for Taliban" from Islamabad dated Sept. 26, 2000 states that "while Pakistani support for the Taliban has been long-standing, the magnitude of recent support is unprecedented." In response Washington orders the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad to immediately confront Pakistani officials on the issue and to advise Islamabad that the U.S. has "seen reports that Pakistan is providing the Taliban with materiel, fuel, funding, technical assistance and military advisors. [The Department] also understand[s] that large numbers of Pakistani nationals have recently moved into Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban, apparently with the tacit acquiescence of the Pakistani government." Additional reports indicate that direct Pakistani involvement in Taliban military operations has increased.
Declassified DIA Washington D.C., "IIR (intelligence Information Report) Pakistan Involvement in Afghanistan," dated November 7, 1996 states how "Pakistan's ISI is heavily involved in Afghanistan," and also details different roles various ISI officers play in Afghanistan. Stating that Pakistan uses sizable numbers of its Pashtun-based Frontier Corps in Taliban-run operations in Afghanistan, the document clarifies that, "these Frontier Corps elements are utilized in command and control; training; and when necessary combat“.
(4)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE