Have we been had?

[S2]

ASparr Reply

"Yes, but that's not the point. The point is Pakistan's intentions."

No. You asked if we'd "been had". Doing so implied that Pakistan's arrests of these men contravened OUR objectives.

"Were they trying to scuttle the peace talks and that's the reason they suddenly arrested Baradar and co? If so, why?"

The reason, IF SO, would seem apparent, no? OTOH, OUR REASON for assisting them in that endeavor, and we DID assist it seems, would meet our objectives as much as Pakistan's reasons might meet their's.

"If not, was it just a genuine mistake on their part or did they just not care?"

If we played a central role in these operations-and I believe we well may have by providing the SIGINT that revealed info necessary to their bust-why the desire to isolate Pakistan's rationales and place them in contravention to ours?

"...we were led to believe that this was the start of a new level of CIA-ISI cooperation."

Was that level defined for your benefit? If so, would you reveal it because I missed the policy announcement of the particulars surrounding this sea-change? Change may well have occurred...or not. That remains to be seen and to what extent, if so. This isn't the first time arrests have been made.

"I'm posing the question: What if it wasn't and what if it was actually worse?"

I'll pose a question as well-why did we assist such if the net effect impedes our objectives?

[ASparr]

Yes, but that's not the point. The point is Pakistan's intentions. Were they trying to scuttle the peace talks and that's the reason they suddenly arrested Baradar and co? If so, why? If not, was it just a genuine mistake on their part or did they just not care?

Talks with the Taliban is one thing, but when this happened we were led to believe that this was the start of a new level of CIA-ISI cooperation. I'm posing the question: What if it wasn't and what if it was actually worse?

[S2]

Asparr Reply

"So, my question is: Have we been had?"

Who is "we"?

If the NYT is to be believed these arrests (certainly Baradar's) came with America's assistance? Every indication that I've read suggests that the U.S. government neither believes that taliban negotiations would be genuine nor that we possess sufficient leverage yet to create reasonable conditions for any success.

In short, the taliban would dictate conditions and we'd raise the white flag. America, it seems, would like to alter those circumstances and perceptions a bit before engaging in such. Karzai and Eide may have had different goals.

That also again raises the concerns expressed by Peter Galbraith WRT to the elections. Was Eide so in bed with Karzai to assist the manipulation of elections to further both of their goals regarding the taliban negotiations?

Galbraith has also suggested that, from his perspective, Eide is talking out of his azz about these negotiations-

Eide Greatly Exaggerating Talks Former Deputy Says-Foreign Policy Cable March 19, 2010

Finlly, Robert Watkins has made clear that the U.N. has no interest in assisting the civil rehabilitation of Marjah. Doing so, don't you know, might associate the U.N.'s civil assistance efforts with the military- ISAF military to be exact. The same military whom the U.N. has identified as the force responsible for implementing the U.N. security mandate for Afghanistan.

Let's be clear about what U.N. objectives actually are here. IMHO, they REALLY wish to be seen as visionary and indispensible force behind Afghanistan's transformation for their own purposes of perpetuation.

[ASparr]

Pakistani Analysts Respond to Former UN Official's Criticism | Asia | English

Plot thickens.

[ASparr]

Like many people, I celebrated when Pakistan arrested Baradar and half the Quetta Shura. It seemed like they were finally starting to pick up on the issue and work with us and fight the Taliban with their full efforts. But then, it comes out that the UN and Afghan governments had been contacting and negotiating with the Taliban and these arrests put a halt to them.

So, my question is: Have we been had? Was this new willingness to help us just a sham to scuttle the peace talks? Or was Pakistan unaware of this when they made the arrests or maybe they just thought they couldn't pass it up and the peace process would be ok even with these arrests?

Pakistan Arrests Halt UN Contacts With Taliban - ABC News