Pakistan, U.S. at Odds over Taliban Leader

By: Daniel Carty
Topics: Pakistan

(CBS/AP)

When President Barack Obama announced his decision to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan, he stressed that success in that region was "inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan."

But despite the rhetoric of increased cooperation on counter-terrorism, relations between the two nations appear to be frayed.

Pakistan has refused U.S. demands that it crack down on Siraj Haqqani, an Afghan Taliban militant leading insurgents against American forces but who also serves as an asset for Pakistani intelligence, according to a New York Times report Tuesday.

Haqqani uses the restive Pakistani region of North Waziristan as a safe haven and has been linked to senior al Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, according to the report.

The U.S. has pressed the Pakistani military to turn on Haqqani, both in State Department messages and a follow-up meeting by Gen. David Petraeus. Pakistan's failure to cooperate could mean increased American drone attacks within their border, U.S. officials have reportedly told them.

According to the report, Pakistani officials are privately fuming over the increasing burden of their U.S. alliance and view Mr. Obama's new surge strategy with skepticism. In refusing to go after Haqqani, Pakistan may be preparing for a post-America Afghanistan – one in which regional powers like China, Russia and, especially, India will jockey for influence. In short, Pakistan may need Haqqani to shore up support among locals.

Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the head of Pakistan's military, has argued against going after Haqqani for short-term reasons: Pakistan has its hands full fighting its own Taliban in South Waziristan and can't afford to wage a second offensive against the Afghan Taliban, which moves in and out of North Waziristan.

Pakistani officials also say that because Haqqani spends so much time in Afghanistan, the U.S. could eliminate him there, without help from Pakistan, according to the report.

3 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment


by worldcitizen1 December 15, 2009 11:02 PM EST: The US needs to break it's dependence on middle east oil and let the region take care of it's own problems. The US has nothing to gain in the region but much to loose. We can not be the police to the world and take care of problems at home.; Reply to this comment


by Nikos_Retsos December 15, 2009 8:33 PM EST: Pakistan cannot afford to clean up the Pashtun from Pakistan and Afghanistan, and thus allow it to come under the full control of a U.S.-India alliance because that will undermine its national security. Obama continues the war in Afghanistan in an effort to determine unilaterally the re-shaping of Central Asia in a way that Muslims will become marginalized and irrelevant, and Pakistan, therefore, doesn't seem to be willing to commit suicide. Pakistanis have been through 3 wars with India since 1948, and lost their East Pakistan province (Now Bangladesh) after India invaded it with 100.000 army in 1971 and and forced the Pakistani army there to surrender. But I don't see how the Pakistanis will surrender their interests in Afghanistan to a U.S.- India alliance. Do they want to be boxed from India in the East, and a pro-Indian regime in the West? Of course not! The U.S. and Pakistan alliance is one of temporary necessity, but looking at long term, the Pakistanis don't want anybody with hostile or mistrustful attitude to control Afghanistan.

Obama's claim that "the U.S. is fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan" is quite foolish because a former senior U.S. official in Afghanistan has blown the whistle on this false claim! He is Matthew Hoh, who resigned his post at the U.S. State Department to protest the war in Afghanistan. He stated clearly "that the Afghans who fight the U.S. ARE NOT AL QAEDA!" They are nationalists fighting the U.S. occupation!" (ABC News, October 29, 2009) The war in Afghanistan, therefore, is not about Al Qaeda; it is about foreign occupation -as it was against the Soviet occupation in 1979!

Also, Obama's plan for a "broader relationship with Pakistan" also has an insidious meaning. But what it actually means is "more pressure on Pakistan to either disarm or exterminate the Pashtun," the avowed anti-U.S. tribe, since some north Afghan tribes helped the U.S. to push the Pashtun out of power during the U.S. invasion.
The other side of this plan is to empower other tribes in Afghanistan. It involves heavy involvement and reconstruction by India on one hand, and heavy recruiting, training, arming, and funding of non-Pashtun tribes by the U.S. and its European allies - since Pakistan is not trusted to participate on this. At some point the U.S. and India envision a non-Pashtun empowered government taking over in Pakistan, at which point the U.S. will shift its Pakistan funding to that Afghan government, and sustain it with U.S. military bases and funding. India will be the trusted U.S. ally on this process, with increased funding for its civilian and re-construction projects, and intelligence support from India's intelligence services embedded into reconstruction and business groups in Afghanistan.

The current U.S. pressure on Pakistan to take on Pashtun Taliban inside the Afghan borders - in addition to the Pakistani Taliban, is part of Obama's secret "New Way Forward" for the aforementioned U.S. secret plan. Of course, Afghan president Hamid Karzai said that he will need 15-20 years to raise and pay a 400.000 army to sustain Afghanistan as a pro-U.S. allied state. But he is clueless that the U.S. has written off the Pashtuns as a future ally in controlling Afghanistan, and at some point he should be expected to meet the fate of Hafizullah Amin in a shake up by the Soviets. That is also reminiscent of a similar shake up against the U.S. puppet president Ngo Diem in Vietnam. History and precedents, therefore, tell us that superpower puppets that do not succeed have always ended up in cemeteries.

After 8 years of war in Afghanistan, the U.S. has had enough failures with its present structure of control, and the present centers of regional powers. And given the prevailing suspicion among the U.S. allies in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, the U.S. has probably decided to restructure its operations, and secure control of Afghanistan with a non-Muslim ally, India. And that is what I believe Obama's new plan is all about! It is a gradual "fait accompli" process to eventually drive the Pashtun into military and political extinction in both Pakistan and Afghanistan! But destruction of the Pashtun, the best warrior tribe in Central Asia, is not acceptable to Pakistan - especially when India seems to be a partner of that American policy. Nikos Retsos, retired professor; Reply to this comment


by mjlewis6 December 15, 2009 6:51 PM EST: With over 6.6 billion sent to Pakistan over the previous 7 years of the Bush Administration....is it any surprise that the 'enemy' is not defeated across the border from Afghanistan, also reputed to be corrupt even under the Karzai government. Gee, it is called TROOPS on the ground to win a war....

Fight the battle or get out.; Reply to this comment