Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is one of the premier forums for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include foreign & defense policy, international security, military developments, weapons proliferation, terrorism, international strategic affairs, and politics. Our membership includes many from military, defense industry, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
|
 |
03-28-2008, 19:11 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Regular
Join Date: 08-14-05
Country: 
|
Taliban seeking Afghan territorial expansion?
Very interesting article.
Quote:
THE AFGHAN MISSION: TALKING TO THE TALIBAN: TRIBAL DIPLOMACY
Pakistan's brutal beneficiaries betray their refuge
Globe survey finds Taliban have only harsh words for nation that allegedly supports them, claiming large parts of it belong to them
GRAEME SMITH
gsmith@globeandmail.com
March 26, 2008
KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- Despite a long history of using Pakistan as a safe haven, Taliban on the front lines of the insurgency say they have no loyalty to their neighbouring country.
A survey of 42 insurgents in Kandahar found most were critical about Pakistan, where they are reported to have headquarters and supply lines, and most were critical of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, often using the harshest language to describe him.
Some insurgents claimed they want to fight for the seizure of vast swaths of Pakistan's territory in the name of expanding Afghanistan to include the major cities of Quetta and Peshawar. Every fighter asked said those two cities belong inside Afghanistan, and all of them rejected the existing border as a legitimate boundary between the countries.
The Globe and Mail's modest sample of Taliban opinion may only reflect an effort by the insurgents to hide their sources of support in Pakistan, analysts say, or it may point to something more troubling: the growing indications that parts of the insurgency are no longer controlled by anybody.
"If they are supported by ISI [Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency], why are they attacking Pakistan?" said Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, the former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, after reviewing The Globe's raw video footage. "Why would the ISI want these kinds of activities in Pakistan? It's out of control. Nobody is able to control it."
"This is Afghan government propaganda, about the Pakistan government controlling the Taliban."
Few historians dispute that Pakistan's intelligence services played a decisive role in establishing the Taliban movement in 1994, and Islamabad appeared to retain a strong influence over the regime that seized Kabul two years later.
President Musharraf formally cut ties with the Taliban in 2001, but in recent years a growing number of observers have accused Pakistan's agents, or former agents, of continuing their assistance for the radical movement.
"With the collaboration of elements within one of Pakistan's ... intelligence services, the ISI, the Pashtun borderlands have become a safe haven for the Taliban," write Thomas Johnson and Chris Mason, of the Naval Postgraduate School in California, in a coming issue of the journal International Security.
The Afghan government strongly endorses that view, often helping journalists arrange interviews with captured insurgents who tell stories of training centres in Pakistan.
During one such interview session last year at the Kandahar Governor's Palace, an Afghan intelligence official paraded out a group of prisoners who described themselves as Pakistanis persuaded to wage jihad against foreign troops in Afghanistan after attending madrassas in Pakistan. They gave details of an informal training camp in Chaman, Pakistan, that suggested the insurgents were making little effort to hide their activities from local authorities.
If the Taliban are creatures of Pakistan, however, The Globe and Mail's survey suggests they are not a particularly obedient creation.
Some parts of the Taliban in particular, such as the recently created Pakistani Taliban group led by Baitullah Mehsud, have proven themselves more of a threat within Pakistan than anywhere else.
"The Islamist extremist Frankenstein is no longer confined to the whims of political power games," wrote Irm Haleem, a South Asian expert who teaches at New York's Seton Hall University, in an article this month that devoted itself to the comparison between the Taliban and Mary Shelley's mythical creature.
Every insurgent asked by The Globe researcher said huge parts of Pakistan belong to Afghanistan, but they offered varying ideas about how much territory should be claimed and how it is historically justified.
One fighter said that only half of Pakistan's provinces, Sindh and Punjab, rightfully belong in the country.
"Those areas of Pakistan were small," the fighter said. "In the time of Zahir Shah or someone else, then they made this line [the new border]." Another gave a similar explanation for the loss of Quetta and Peshawar: "The King Zahir Shah sold them, but when Mullah Omar was in Kandahar, he saw the contracts and the contracts were expired."
In fact, the Durand Line agreement established the southeastern border of Afghanistan in 1893, long before the reign of King Zahir Shah, which lasted from 1933 to 1973. Pakistan and Afghanistan still formally disagree about whether the agreement has expired.
Some of the Taliban seemed to be appropriating the nationalistic cause of reclaiming the Durand territory as part of the insurgency's agenda.
"They [Quetta and Peshawar] absolutely belong to Afghanistan, and if we become successful in our war we will take it back from Pakistan, because it is a part of our holy Afghanistan," one insurgent said.
"Unfortunately, at the moment, Afghanistan is in a big pressure: Non-Muslims are here," another fighter added. "But when the non-Muslims leave Afghanistan, then it [the Durand territory] can never be a part of Pakistan. We will erase the Durand line."
Others blamed the government of President Hamid Karzai for failing to raise the issue with Islamabad, implying that Mr. Karzai cannot take action because he is controlled by foreign powers.
One fighter, asked why Pakistan retains control of the territory, said, "Because there is no Islamic government, all of them are non-Muslims, and the government of Pakistan is also a non-Islamic government, and that's why."
"The British handed it over to them," another said. "Where is the government? It belongs to the Americans now."
"So the Americans don't want it to be a part of Afghanistan?" he was asked. "He [Mr. Musharraf] is also a son of the Americans, and Karzai is as well. So if he [President George W. Bush] takes it from one son and gives it to another, what does he gain here?"
Despite their talk about Pakistan's unfair seizure of the Pashtun lands, the Taliban were strongly reluctant to accept the idea of "Pashtunistan" as a separate country, a concept raised by some ethnic nationalists in the border region. Only four respondents said they favour the creation of a new country for Pashtuns.
These front-line fighters likely don't realize the close relationship between Pakistan's government and the insurgents, said one Western expert in Kandahar.
"How many idealists have been manipulated by Machiavellian masters who kept themselves hidden in world history?" the observer said. "They almost certainly are not aware of the Pakistan government's involvement in their movement."
A former Afghan intelligence officer, whose experience in Kandahar spans three decades, agreed that the Taliban are unaware of their masters.
"The ISI co-ordinates Taliban activities, for sure," the retired officer said. "But the ISI has a few members who are leading the Taliban and the Taliban don't always understand the Pakistan role behind them. If the Taliban were aware they are puppets, they would stop fighting."
During a long afternoon of discussion last year in Kandahar, a Taliban sympathizer chuckled at the idea of the insurgents as unwitting pawns.
"The Pakistanis have two faces," said the full-bearded man, with an ample belly and a quick laugh. "They're friends with Talibs and Americans at the same time. They are betrayers of Islam."
He continued: "Pakistan gets money from Americans and uses many tricks against the Taliban. They give the Taliban money, training and places to stay. On the other side, they arrest them and sell them. ... The small Taliban don't understand this."
globeandmail.com: Pakistan's brutal beneficiaries betray their refuge
|
__________________
|
|
|
|
03-29-2008, 02:45 AM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
|
Postmaster General
Military Professional
Join Date: 08-20-03
Country: 
|
I don't think Pakistan has betrayed Islam.
Terrorists are terrorists.
Maybe the new govt will subscribe to the Taliban's brand of Islam to make the Taliban happy!
But then it might be that Pakistan is overtaken by the Taliban, which is actually their aim!
__________________
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
|
|
|
|
03-29-2008, 15:48 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
|
Regular
Join Date: 08-14-05
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
I don't think Pakistan has betrayed Islam.
Terrorists are terrorists.
Maybe the new govt will subscribe to the Taliban's brand of Islam to make the Taliban happy!
But then it might be that Pakistan is overtaken by the Taliban, which is actually their aim!
|
If that article is anything to go by then the Taliban have their eyes on 'overtaking' some parts of Pakistan, not all. A few months back i remember reading about those embarrassing clashes between the pro-Taliban tribes and Pakistani army. On a few of occasions it was reported that the Pashtun tribes pulled down the Pakistani flags from forts and other places they had captured, and raised their own flags instead. Didn't quite see why they did that at the time, but after reading this report, it all makes sense now. Their movement in Pakistan's northwest is as much secessionist as it is extremist. |
|
|
|
|
04-07-2008, 22:53 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
|
Banished
Regular
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alamgir
Their movement in Pakistan's northwest is as much secessionist as it is extremist.
|
Why wouldn't it be? Pashtun tribes had always been united, as the Kingdom of Kabul did not include their territories. Babur had to fight through them to get into what is now Pakistan.
Their current division is courtesy of the Brits, who apparently rather enjoyed going around the world and splitting tribal and ethnic groups with borders to provide never ending future conflict. |
|
|
|
|
04-07-2008, 23:18 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
|
|
Patron
Join Date: 07-11-07
Location: West Des Moines, Iowa
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zemco
Their current division is courtesy of the Brits, who apparently rather enjoyed going around the world and splitting tribal and ethnic groups with borders to provide never ending future conflict.
|
Its quite alright to blame the British for splitting up regions. They did what they had to do at that time to serve their purpose.
But its quite stupid to blame them to be unable to work out things now don't you think?
Only the smart ones deserve to rule anyways.
__________________
God is a cruise missile.
|
|
|
|
|
04-08-2008, 20:27 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
|
Contributor
Join Date: 12-12-07
Location: Auburn Hills
Country: 
|
Quote:
|
Why wouldn't it be? Pashtun tribes had always been united, as the Kingdom of Kabul did not include their territories.
|
I made an observation when I first joined this forum, that the Pashtun in Pakistan do not necessarily have any love lost for the Afghan refugees, and pointed out that in this case at least, ethnic homogeneity does not automatically indicate irredentism (had a tough exchange with that one..).
An article that illustrates the sentiment of the most popular Pashtun nationalist party in Pakistan, the ANP, which just got elected into power in the NWFP.
Quote:
|
Repatriation at all costs, ANP tells Afghan refugees Wednesday, April 09, 2008
By our correspondent
NOWSHERA: The Awami National Party (ANP) on Tuesday told Afghan refugees that the accord of tripartite commission on their repatriation would be implemented at all costs.
Addressing a meeting of the Grand Council of Jalozai Camp's Afghan commanders as chief guest, ANP provincial Chief Afrasyab Khattak said refugees should go back to their country according to the agreement already inked by governments of Pakistan, Afghanistan and the UNHCR.
Afghan Commissioner Waqar Ayub, Additional Commissioner Faridullah Khan and a number of commanders attended the meeting organised by the Afghan Commissionerate from Jalozai camp. Under the agreement, all the three million registered and hundred of thousands of unregistered Afghan refugees would have to leave Pakistan till 2009.
The authorities had asked the refugees in Jalozai camp to vacate the camp by April 15. The repatriation process was started in March but only 500 families comprising 5,000 individuals left for Afghanistan. The repatriation process slowed down due to victory of ANP in February 18 election and with its subsequent coming into power in NWFP.
There was impression that nationalist party would help in extending refugees stay in Pakistan, but its central and provincial leaderships Tuesday favoured their repatriation according to the tripartite commission accord.
Khattak told Afghan commanders that peace had returned to their country and they should go back to participate in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of their country. Referring to Dubai Declaration and Islamabad Accord, he said there was no reason for refugees to demand extension in their stay in Pakistan. He pledged that NWFP government would extend all possible help in the repatriation process.
|
The flags raised in Swat were those of the Taliban, not Afghanistan or Pashtunistan.
__________________
Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
|
|
|
|
|
04-08-2008, 21:39 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
|
Military Professional
Join Date: 09-11-06
Location: Bend, Oregon
Country: 
|
A.M. Reply
"Repatriation at all costs, ANP tells Afghan refugees"
This is an encouraging development that's long overdue and appears to be fast-tracked at this point. (applause  )
__________________
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
|
|
|
|
|
04-09-2008, 03:19 AM
|
#8 (permalink)
|
|
Regular
Join Date: 03-26-08
Location: where the aliens meet predator
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by S-2
"Repatriation at all costs, ANP tells Afghan refugees"
This is an encouraging development that's long overdue and appears to be fast-tracked at this point. (applause )
|
More problems for your troops only sir. It might be beneficial to Pakistan, but to nato  |
|
|
|
|
04-09-2008, 03:27 AM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
|
Military Professional
Join Date: 09-11-06
Location: Bend, Oregon
Country:
|
ravi12 Reply
"More problems for your troops only sir. It might be beneficial to Pakistan, but to nato"
Their families are now in the cross-hairs. There's leverage there. Conversely, it draws down the refugee camps and reduces sanctuary across nat'l borders. Helps Karzai keep that foreign aid to Pashtus at a minimum as well.
I think it's good.
|
|
|
|
|
04-09-2008, 03:48 AM
|
#10 (permalink)
|
|
Regular
Join Date: 03-26-08
Location: where the aliens meet predator
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by S-2
"More problems for your troops only sir. It might be beneficial to Pakistan, but to nato"
Their families are now in the cross-hairs. There's leverage there. Conversely, it draws down the refugee camps and reduces sanctuary across nat'l borders. Helps Karzai keep that foreign aid to Pashtus at a minimum as well.
I think it's good.
|
basically you will move the families in camps from pakistan to camps in afghan. Does the afghan govt have the wherewithal to provide security and amenities to them? I guess it will be your duty as well.
Right now, only those who wanted to attack were mostly coming to afghan. Now they can royally come without any checks as among the millions crossing over, whom will you check?
The families shifted something like 10-15 years ago. I could not understand the leverage which you are speaking of. It is actually increasing sanctuary, because from now on, you will not be able to question who is coming to afghan. The question is, are the afghans in refugee camps the primary source for the taliban? If say the percentage is atleast around 70-80, I can see some benefits for nato in the long run of say 3-4 years. If not, you have just increased your problems, in my very humble opinion only. |
|
|
|
|
04-09-2008, 12:12 PM
|
#11 (permalink)
|
|
Military Professional
Join Date: 09-11-06
Location: Bend, Oregon
Country:
|
ravi12 Reply
Not so humble and well-taken.
I don't know about means but it's Afghanistan and NATO's obligation to do our best.
I imagine there's multiple points of friction and possibilities for mischief. ravi12, I've little faith in predictions when we know that there's unforeseen downstream impacts, both good and bad, to near any decision in these circumstances.
As such, I think we need to do this and see what the effect is. Change the 28 year paradigm. If worse, the Afghans can always invite their newly-repatriated citizens to immigrate to Pakistan...again.  |
|
|
|
|
04-09-2008, 13:04 PM
|
#12 (permalink)
|
|
Contributor
Join Date: 12-12-07
Location: Auburn Hills
Country:
|
Quote:
|
If worse, the Afghans can always invite their newly-repatriated citizens to immigrate to Pakistan...again.
|
A fence, a fence... a penny for a fence! |
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Rate This Thread |
 Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:53 PM.
|
| 
Similar Threads
