From the Guardian's William Dalrymple:
Since then the nature of Karzai's plans have become clearer: it has emerged that the head of the ISI, Lieutenant General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, has secretly been visiting Karzai; on Monday General Kayani, the head of the Pakistani army, will arrive in Kabul, presumably to confirm whatever deal has been agreed. It seems the Pakistanis are encouraging an accommodation between Karzai and the ISI-sponsored jihadi network of Sirajuddin Haqqani, which would give over much of the Pashtun south to Haqqani but preserve Karzai in power in Kabul. The US has been party to none of this, and administration officials are apparently surprised and alarmed…
Most sober observers recognize that any endgame to the Afghan conflict requires pinching our noses and accommodating large elements of the Taliban. But it seems that Karzai would prefer to do this on Pakistan's terms, not on America's terms. This is quite rational--Pakistan, unlike America, will always be next door, and the whole question is rendered moot if the ISI is as close to the Taliban as many people are currently reporting. But does Pakistan actually have control over the Taliban and their jihadist fellow-travelers? The worsening security situation in Pakistan suggests not, and this is in many ways the more important point.
Since then the nature of Karzai's plans have become clearer: it has emerged that the head of the ISI, Lieutenant General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, has secretly been visiting Karzai; on Monday General Kayani, the head of the Pakistani army, will arrive in Kabul, presumably to confirm whatever deal has been agreed. It seems the Pakistanis are encouraging an accommodation between Karzai and the ISI-sponsored jihadi network of Sirajuddin Haqqani, which would give over much of the Pashtun south to Haqqani but preserve Karzai in power in Kabul. The US has been party to none of this, and administration officials are apparently surprised and alarmed…
Most sober observers recognize that any endgame to the Afghan conflict requires pinching our noses and accommodating large elements of the Taliban. But it seems that Karzai would prefer to do this on Pakistan's terms, not on America's terms. This is quite rational--Pakistan, unlike America, will always be next door, and the whole question is rendered moot if the ISI is as close to the Taliban as many people are currently reporting. But does Pakistan actually have control over the Taliban and their jihadist fellow-travelers? The worsening security situation in Pakistan suggests not, and this is in many ways the more important point.
Comments
Evan
07/12/2010 10:14
Something also tells me this isn't the ISI's end game, but simply a way to gain leverage moving forward.
Joe
07/12/2010 14:12
SF Chronicle October 15, 2006
'When Sen. Frist called for the assimilation of "people who call themselves Taliban into a larger, more representative government" last week, Democratic legislators accused him of trying to appease the Taliban..."Sen. Frist now suggests that the best way forward in Afghanistan is to coddle the Taliban ... as if 9/11 had never happened," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, said in a statement.'
Leave a Reply
Loading