theDuke866
All American
52661 Posts
user info
edit post |
This has been a problem for, ohhh, right around 20 years. The ISI is kind of a shadow government...and yes, historically, the Islamists in Afghanistan have been products of the ISI.
In the interest of bleeding the Soviets, we propped up the mujahideen, with our own and Saudi dollars (the Saudis also established a significant private donor network, and also funneled in a lot of volunteer manpower and fighters). To a great extent, we routed that money through the ISI, and let them handle our proxy war (remember that we were allied with Pakistan due to their rivalry with India, who at the time was kind of a Soviet client state).
Towards the end, we started getting more picky about which factions within Afghanistan we wanted to support, but once the Soviets were vanquished, the USSR collapsed, and the Cold War ended, we lost most of our interest in Afghanistan. We still tried to shape a more pro-western government in Afghanistan, supporting Massoud rather than ISI favorites such as Haqqani and Hektmayer (networks that we are engaged in combat with right now), and had some support and cooperation within the official Pakistani gov't (Benazir Bhutto, for example), but the ISI never really followed orders...in some cases (particularly early on), we played both sides in an effort to drive out any Communist players...in other cases, our dollars got surreptitiously diverted to the hardline Islamists (and later, the Taliban specifically), and in other cases, we supported the relatively-good guys, but with our waning interest in Afghanistan altogether, it wasn't enough to overcome the Pakistani support for the really bad guys.
The Saudis, despite having a contentious alliance with--and sometimes violent infighting with--the mujahideen, supported the Taliban. Apparently, their intel/covert operations guys, headed by Prince Turki (who was Western-educated, and--by Saudi standards, fairly progressive and worldly) believed that the Taliban would mellow out some with age (the view being that pretty much all revolutions start--by necessity--with extremists, and they generally then moderate themselves). In the case of the Taliban, that turned out not to be the case.
but anyway, I disgress...that's a couple books worth of stuff condensed into a couple of paragraphs...and yes, there has long been a clash of interests between America and Pakistan regarding Afghanistan, and even when the Pakistani government aids us significantly, the ISI sometimes has significantly, covertly subverted us.
___________________
I did personally hear the Commandant of the Marine Corps say, about a week ago, that he is pleased and optimistic about the direction of U.S.-Pakistani cooperation as of late. My own personal take--reading his tone and expressions--is that it's a sort of qualified optimism, not without reservations...but still pleased nonetheless.
[Edited on August 23, 2010 at 9:27 PM. Reason : ]
[Edited on August 23, 2010 at 9:29 PM. Reason : It could be shut down tomorrow if the public willed it=Not a chance in hell.]  8/23/2010 9:22:08 PM
|
theDuke866
All American
52661 Posts
user info
edit post |
^^ yeah, that's an awesome, absurdly into-the-weeds and thorough book. it isn't quick reading, but it's very much worth it. I have that, Charlie Wilson's War by George Crile, America's Secret War by George Friedman, and a History Channel DVD documentary on the Taliban (that I haven't actually watched yet).
[Edited on August 23, 2010 at 10:45 PM. Reason : ]
[Edited on August 23, 2010 at 10:45 PM. Reason : and the History Channel's "True Story of Charlie Wilson"] 8/23/2010 10:44:19 PM |
