« Getting Away With It | Main | Slate Revisited »

Pakistani Intelligence Behaving Badly

01 Aug 2008 11:24 am

Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt report on evidence that Pakistan's ISI helped plan the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul which is pretty distressing:

The conclusion was based on intercepted communications between Pakistani intelligence officers and militants who carried out the attack, the officials said, providing the clearest evidence to date that Pakistani intelligence officers are actively undermining American efforts to combat militants in the region.

Kevin Drum says "I'm not absolutely certain who my choice for scariest group in the world is, but if push came to shove it probably wouldn't be al-Qaeda. It would be the ISI, Pakistan's main intelligence service." Kevin and I were actually both part of a conversation at Netroots Nation where a third party argued that people feel Pakistan is terrifying because few people in the United States know anything about Pakistan or understand it. I countered that the very low level of knowledge about Pakistan in the United States is what makes it so scary on the merits. We're a very rich and powerful country and our wealth and might gives us a lot of ability to shape events in a favorable way. But that only works if we actually know what's going on -- in the absence of meaningful information, our power is useless.

The other smart thing, related, that somebody said to me recently about Pakistan is that Americans need to realize that all the stuff we care about is a secondary consideration over there. We think about Pakistan and its neighborhood primarily through the lens of al-Qaeda with other organizations defined by their relationship to al-Qaeda. The Taliban helps al-Qaeda and that's bad. Hamid Karzai fights the Taliban (which helps al-Qaeda) and that's good. When ISI helped the Taliban, that was bad. When Pakistan "flipped" and helped us establish Karzai, that was good. But when they fight Karzai (who fights the Taliban who help al-Qaeda) that's bad. This is how we order events and think about things.

But in Pakistan, the first, second, and third priority is India. Al-Qaeda, the United States, the Taliban, Karzai, warlords, the Northern Alliance, "militants," and so forth are only important insofar as they relate to India. To write about Pakistani intelligence "actively undermining American efforts to combat militants in the region" is to impose an America-centric frame on things. It makes it out as if Pakistani intelligence is waking up and thinking about American efforts to combat militants in the region, and then deciding to actively undermine them. More likely, they wake up and think about ways to undermine Indian efforts to expand influence in the region. If that means undermining American efforts, then our efforts are undermined.

Now where does that leave us? Unfortunately, it's hard to say. But reading Brian Katulis would be a good start.

Share This

Comments (37)

Maybe where that leaves us is that we should be actively trying to reconcile Pakistan and India (e.g., solving the Kashmir dispute) rather than arming both sides.

No more distressing than Cheney plotting an Iranian Gulf of Tonkin using Navy Seals as live targets to instigate a war. Exactly which party is the more dangerous and duplicitous?

As I wrote recently, this is one of the chief disadvantages of the imperialist (sorry, interventionist) school of foreign policy. We're constantly put in the position of trying to understand incredibly complex internal foreign machinations.

I have no doubt that the ISI is bad, that they don't like us, and that they're not on our side, but they aren't the ones sending people over here to do terrorist attacks on us. This all seems like a pre-election distraction from Bin Laden.

Drum:

"I'm not absolutely certain who my choice for scariest group in the world is, but if push came to shove it probably wouldn't be al-Qaeda. It would be the ISI, Pakistan's main intelligence service."

I think al-Qaeda is scarier.

The ISI looks out for Pakistani interests. It's not there to help Apartheid Israel or be a stooge for American imperialism. A large majority of PAKISTANIS support its efforts.

The ISI looks out for Pakistani interests. It's not there to help Apartheid Israel or be a stooge for American imperialism. A large majority of PAKISTANIS support its efforts.

The ISI looks out for Pakistani interests. It's not there to help Apartheid Israel or be a stooge for American imperialism. A large majority of PAKISTANIS support its efforts.

"I countered that the very low level of knowledge about Pakistan in the United States is what makes it so scary on the merits."

That may be what scares us, but it's a lot different in India. India has quite a lot of knowledge about the ISI, and they're still scared. The reason is that there is a lot of terrorism in India and much of it traces back to the ISI. If we knew more about the ISI, we would only be more scared. And if we had to face the terrorism that India faces, the ISI would be our top priority.

As for who is worse: al Qaeda or the ISI, I'd say neither. The PKK in Turkey and the LTTE in Sri Lanka are both worse than either the ISI or al Qaeda. We ignore them because they don't attack Americans, but both groups have killed far more people. For the record, the only time I've been near a terrorist attack, it was carried out by the PKK.

Can someone please explain to me why we shouldn't be helping the Indians put down Pakistan permanently?

And which presidential candidate repeatedly brings up Pakistan and the incredibly serious threat it presents to the world and says that the US should be pressing the Pakistani government and intelligence services to stop the terrorists training in wideo-open camps on the Pakistan/Afghan border??? Anyone...anyone...anyone...?

And which presidential candidate repeatedly brings up Pakistan and the incredibly serious threat it presents to the world and says that the US should be pressing the Pakistani government and intelligence services to stop the terrorists training in wideo-open camps on the Pakistan/Afghan border??? Anyone...anyone...anyone...?

It's nice to see our billions are being put to good use. Proxy wars against India are so much more interesting than border fights with the Taliban.

It's interesting that the US and India are doing a nuclear deal. The ISI can't be too happy about that. Nor are the Indian communists.
I tend to thing nuclear proliferation, even to democratic allies is bad.

Interesting interview with Ahmed Rashid:

http://harpers.org/archive/2008/07/hbc-90003347

"Can someone please explain to me why we shouldn't be helping the Indians put down Pakistan permanently? "

Maybe we don't want to start WWIII? Maybe we don't want the sun blocked out for a few years because of the possible nuclear exchange? Maybe we have some concern for the 1/4 of the world's population that lives in South Asia? Just some ideas. Admittedly, the third suggestion is pretty far fetched.

Can someone please explain to me why we shouldn't be helping the Indians put down Pakistan permanently?

Oh now, there's a brilliant idea. Dick Cheney, is that you?

"Can someone please explain to me why we shouldn't be helping the Indians put down Pakistan permanently? "

And there's the issue of murdering innocents.

"To write about Pakistani intelligence "actively undermining American efforts to combat militants in the region" is to impose an America-centric frame on things."

Uh, how about a world-centric frame on things. Or does the rest of the world matter only when it is advocating in opposition to American interests?

India and the US are hardly the only nations with reservations about the ISI and the safety of the nukes within Pakistan. Russia is wary, and China may be growing concerned that a formerly useful client may be slipping off its leash. Not to mention the UK.

I don't think we need to be "helping" anyone "put down" any countries, but we should certainly stop acting as if a pseudo-military dictatorship with a terroristic intelligence aparatus is morally equivalent to the world's largest democracy.

...a democracy that has managed to survive, remain liberal, and thrive despite facing challenges of poverty and ethnic/religious/cultural antipathy far beyond what we have to deal with.

"but we should certainly stop acting as if a pseudo-military dictatorship with a terroristic intelligence aparatus is morally equivalent to the world's largest democracy."

The people of India have been saying that for years. The good news is that we are finally starting to listen. As much as I dislike Bush, he does deserve some credit for improving relations with India. The people of India do appreciate that and give him a remarkable 50% approval.

"...a democracy that has managed to survive, remain liberal, and thrive despite facing challenges of poverty and ethnic/religious/cultural antipathy far beyond what we have to deal with."

Thrive? I wouldn't go that far, India is still an appalling place on many levels. But the fact that they have even survived is nothing short of a miracle, given the daunting challenges they face. Every time I visit India, I am stunned that they can even function at all with the multiple languages (23 official), the religious conflicts (not just Muslim-Hindu), the crushing poverty, the 50% literacy rate, the deadly sanitation situation, the endemic corruption, and the countless other problems. I still can't figure out what holds them together. But so far, they have prevented the seemingly inevitable implosion.

Can someone please explain to me why we shouldn't be helping the Indians put down Pakistan permanently?

How do you "put down" a nation of 170,000,000 people? India doesn't want to invade and occupy Pakistan, because it would be just too much work (see Iraq as an example). Pakistan can't "take down" India, and they don't enjoy getting their ass handed to them whenever they fight a war with India.

Ultimately, they know they need to learn to get along. But, that's not going to get very far until the Kashmir issue gets worked out.

That may be what scares us, but it's a lot different in India. India has quite a lot of knowledge about the ISI, and they're still scared. The reason is that there is a lot of terrorism in India and much of it traces back to the ISI. If we knew more about the ISI, we would only be more scared. And if we had to face the terrorism that India faces, the ISI would be our top priority.

Well, that's true as far as it goes. But it happens that the reason why India is so terrified of the ISI is because India would really like to hold onto Kashmir.

In other words, India pushes a territorial claim that puts it in conflict with Pakistan, and Pakistan pushes a territorial claim that puts it in conflict with India. Pakistan isn't scary to India because Pakistanis are scary; it is scary to India because India's policymakers have made a choice that they would rather suffer Pakistani terrorist attacks and have continued conflict with Pakistan than give up Kashmir.

That doesn't, however, mean that Pakistan is necessarily going to be as scary to us as it is to India, especially if we decided that it was in our interests to favor Pakistan on the Kashmir issue.

Reading the fucking articles I send you every night from Asia Times and Barnett Rubin might be a good start, too, Matt.

It might help you with your ignorance, which you graciously acknowledge you have in this post.

The bottom line here is that neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan is of any significance whatever to US national security. The presence of Al Qaeda ANYWHERE is not a significant threat to US national security - and can be handled in ways other than invading countries and destabilizing other countries with nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, neither John McCain nor Barack Obama have any clue in this regard. Obama claims to be willing to send another two combat brigades to Afghanistan. Experts have already said that if the Taliban can obtain another 2,000 recruits, that sees Obama's two brigades and raises him another two. There's no end to that until, like in Iraq, the US runs out of troops.

The answer is get out and deal with Al Qaeda using counterintelligence and infiltration - just like Mossad does it. Stop relying on the multi-billion-dollar weapons systems and satellites and invasions and start relying on crooked, violent human beings who can be bought and paid to infiltrate, find the enemy and kill them or betray them to arrest.

"it is scary to India because India's policymakers have made a choice that they would rather suffer Pakistani terrorist attacks and have continued conflict with Pakistan than give up Kashmir."

I'm not really sure that Kasmir is the entire issue when it comes to ISI terrorism. Would resolving the Kasmir conflict resolve conflicts in Punjab or Uttar Pradesh? I don't really think it would. Nor do I think it would resolve the hatred that many Indians feel towards Pakistan. It probably would help, though. Of course, India is loathe to give up any more territory, so I don't see a resolution to Kasmir happening in my lifetime. But maybe some US pressure on Pakistan would get them to limit their conflict with India to military means rather than terrorist attacks on civilians. Or maybe if India started returning the favor and sending Hindu terrorists to Pakistan, then maybe Pakistan's ISI might become a more responsible intelligence service. If nothing else, they'd have their hands full in Pakistan rather than in India.

I'm not really sure that Kasmir is the entire issue when it comes to ISI terrorism. Would resolving the Kasmir conflict resolve conflicts in Punjab or Uttar Pradesh? I don't really think it would. Nor do I think it would resolve the hatred that many Indians feel towards Pakistan. It probably would help, though. Of course, India is loathe to give up any more territory, so I don't see a resolution to Kasmir happening in my lifetime. But maybe some US pressure on Pakistan would get them to limit their conflict with India to military means rather than terrorist attacks on civilians. Or maybe if India started returning the favor and sending Hindu terrorists to Pakistan, then maybe Pakistan's ISI might become a more responsible intelligence service. If nothing else, they'd have their hands full in Pakistan rather than in India.

An eye for an eye and everyone goes blind.

Dilan,

Do you think that the Islamists in Pakistan will be satisfied with Kashmir? The Islamic fundamentalists who are inching ever closer to the courts of power in Pakistan, and who are already whispering in the ear of much of the Pakistani ruling class, have their own version of the Brezhnev doctrine. That any piece of land that was once ruled by Muslims, must return to Muslim rule again, irrespective of current demographics. In this case that would include the vast majority of the Indian nation (not to mention places like Spain, Roumania, and East Timor).

It is worth remembering that when the idea of Pakistan was originally floated back in the 1930s, the idea was for it to be much bigger than it actually is today. It was to have included _all_ of Bengal, _all_ of the Punjab, Hyderabad, Kerala, Kashmir, and assorted chunks of the rest of India. Rahmat Ali's dream is dead for the moment but I have no doubt that the Islamists are ready to revive it.

Kashmir acceded to India in 1947, according to the will of its king, who was the only person who bore the legal right to dispose of Kashmir's sovereignty. I see no reason why we need to hand it over to Pakistan in response to bullying by Pakistani terrorist infiltrators.

And it has been very, very far from 'an eye for an eye'. Muslims are a legally privileged minority in India with the right to polygamy and various other rights that no other group has. Whereas Hindus and Christians in Pakistan are executed for questioning the divine inspiration of the 'prophet' Muhammed.

While it's true that there are lots of issues between India and Pakistan, and between radical Muslims and the rest of the world, it is my impression that the Kashmir dispute is the South Asia equivalent of the Israeli/Arab dispute over "Palestine"--a symbol and a catalyst producing more trouble than the immediate issue seems to be worth.

Wouldn't the best solution be an autonomous Kashmir with guarantees of religious freedom and minority rights?

Powell,

Kashmiris, like all Indian citizens, have religious freedom and minority rights now. Hell, the Muslims are even allowed to have four wives, marry their cousins, and divorce them at the drop of a hat, none of which Hindus, Christians, Sikhs or Zoroastrians are allowed to do.

Hector-
It's my impression that Kashmiris have been subject to rather heavy-handed repression by Indian troops. Perhaps it's not about religion per se, but repression is repression. Why not autonomy?

The Kashmiri situation is quite complicated. For starters, the princely state of Kashmir also includes places like Jammu (majority Hindu) and the Buddhist-dominated mountainous areas to the north-east. Pakistan claims those areas too, but none of the non-Muslims there has any desire to accede to Pakistan, because Pakistan has systematically gotten rid of most of its non-Muslim minorities, one way or another.

There used to be a large number of Hindus in the vale of Kashmir. They are typically called Kashmiri Pandits (Nehru was one), and they have been almost totally ethnically cleansed, even with India controlling the area. It's not hard to guess what would happen to the Hindus in Jammu and the Buddhists in Ladakh if Pakistan or an independent Kashmir was formed.

Now, the parts of Kashmir in Pakistan are 99% Muslim and have no desire to accede to India, so a border along the line of control (which is what India favors) would be more possible, though it would leave the Muslim-dominated Vale of Kashmir in India.

The Kashmiris do suffer repression at the hands of Indian security forces, but this has reduced somewhat with the easing of tensions between India and Pakistan recently.

It's most likely that eventually the LOC will become the border, though Pakistan would be greatly unhappy with that. After all, India is the stronger power, has what it wants, and whenever Pakistan has tried to change things by force, it has drawn the bulk of world condemnation.

My long-term view is that the best thing forward would be for Pakistan to give up the idea of it being a home for all of India's Muslims (a stupid goal since many Muslims remained in India willingly and a ridiculous goal after the democide in East Bengal caused by Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh) and just try to create a state for all of its citizens that respects cultural and religious diversity and is democratic.

Thanks for the info, Hektor. I'm not holding my breath waiting for the day Pakistan becomes a state that "respects cultural and religious diversity".

No post is complete without the rantings and conflations of Hector re: India and Muslims. The grandiose exaggerations of "islamist" power in Pakistan are hilarious, as is the claim that there is any sig. percentage of muslims who want to "reclaim" former muslim lands. But thanks for the laugh of th day.

No post is complete without the rantings and conflations of Hector re: India and Muslims. The grandiose exaggerations of "islamist" power in Pakistan are hilarious, as is the claim that there is any sig. percentage of muslims who want to "reclaim" former muslim lands. But thanks for the laugh of th day.

Correct me if I'm wrong Sid, but isn't Pakistan an officially Muslim State? I'm okay with differentiating between various religious states, including Iran and Israel, but to the extent that "islamist" represents a major tendency in Pakistan, particularly in the ISI, I don't think it's out of order to make a note of it. Do you?

Hector -- Hindus in Pakistan are allowed polygamy and other priveliges. As are Hindus in Bangladesh.

It's not really a privilige -- it's a legacy of an unreformed minority legal code in all former British possessions in South Asia.

引越に関することなら全てファミリー引越センターにお任せください。きめ細かいサービスとまごごろで対応いたします。確かな技術が支える安心の作業。作業員の姿勢が違います!


Comments closed August 15, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.