Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Insight: As Afghan exit looms, U.S. debate rages over Haqqani militants

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Insight: As Afghan exit looms, U.S. debate rages over Haqqani militants

    Insight: As Afghan exit looms, U.S. debate rages over Haqqani militants
    By Missy Ryan and Mark Hosenball
    WASHINGTON | Mon Jun 4, 2012 5:17pm EDT

    ___________________________________________


    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Five days after Afghan militants showered the U.S. embassy in Kabul last September with rockets and bullets in a bold, nearly 20-hour assault, top U.S. officials pointedly pressed the Pakistani government to take action against the Haqqani network, the Taliban-allied militant group.

    A handful of American officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Marc Grossman, President Barack Obama's envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, laid out during the meeting in New York what they knew about the attack, which they traced back to the town of Miranshah, where the network has a base in northwest Pakistan.

    The Americans walked away from the 3-1/2 hour encounter much as they have from many others that preceded and have followed it - with Pakistani promises to support U.S. goals but little else.

    Now, as the United States and other NATO nations prepare to withdraw from Afghanistan and their time grows short to cripple a still-potent insurgency, debate is raging within the Obama administration about how to confront the threat posed by Haqqani militants - and about how actively Pakistan is supporting them.

    "There are troubling links between elements of the Pakistani government and the Haqqanis," said one U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "How high those links go is an open question."

    The September 18, 2011 meeting, on the margins of the U.N. General Assembly, was an important moment in the Obama administration's nearly four-year-long bid to persuade Pakistan to take decisive action against the Haqqanis. The group's tenacious guerrilla tactics - more than those of the rest of the Afghan Taliban - may represent the future Afghan insurgency.

    Whether or not the United States can convince Pakistan to act may help determine the legacy of the war in Afghanistan, which began in 2001. With most American troops due to be out of Afghanistan in 2014, the United States appears to have limited options to confront the Haqqanis.

    "The Haqqanis are currently the strongest horse in the race ... for influence in a post-U.S. Afghanistan. The Pakistani security services plan to ride that horse as far as it will take them," said Jeffrey Dressler of the Institute for the Study of War think tank, a leading U.S. scholar on the Haqqani network.

    'GOODNESS PERSONIFIED'

    The Haqqani network, founded by Jalaluddin Haqqani, fought the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, with varying levels of support from Pakistani, Saudi and U.S. officials. His son Sirajuddin Haqqani now plays an increasingly prominent role in a network that operates both in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    Influential U.S. congressman Charlie Wilson once called Jalaluddin Haqqani, in his days as a U.S. ally against Moscow in the 1980s, "goodness personified."

    "They went from 'goodness personified' to terrorists," said former CIA operations officer Arturo Munoz.

    Dressler said current and retired elements of Pakistani security forces, including the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), at times gave the Haqqani network financial, logistical and possibly more direct support. Occasionally, he said, they help them plan or carry out attacks.

    Some current and former U.S. officials say that a handful of sophisticated attacks by the Haqqani network have shown direct support from elements of Pakistani intelligence, including a 2008 suicide attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul. Some U.S. officials believe such links were evident in the 2011 assault on the U.S. embassy in Kabul but other American officials disagree.

    Pakistan vehemently denies such links and points out that thousands of its own soldiers have died battling militants.

    U.S. officials assert that Pakistan, riven by tensions between weak elected leaders and a powerful military, has allowed the Haqqani network to fester. Beyond that, U.S. officials say the picture of the relationship between the ISI and Haqqani militants becomes more murky.

    "The longer this case goes on, it is impossible to say that there is not a large degree of (Pakistani government) complicity, if not overt assistance, to the Haqqani network," a senior U.S. intelligence source said on condition of anonymity.

    Speaking in the September 2011 New York meeting, Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar repeated her government's long-standing denials of institutional support from the ISI for Haqqani militants, Reuters has learned. Show us the evidence of such links, she said, and Pakistan will act on it.

    Jalaluddin Haqqani made his name as a revered anti-Soviet commander in the area of southeast Afghanistan known as "Loya Paktia," seen by the Haqqanis as their rightful homeland. The United States and Gulf nations also supported Haqqani indirectly as they funneled money and weapons to the Afghans rebels' fight.

    A counterpart to Mullah Omar, the one-eyed Muslim cleric who became the Taliban leader, Haqqani in 1995 joined the Taliban, which went on to rule Afghanistan until being ousted in 2001 in the U.S.-led invasion. Eventually named a minister, he stayed on the margins of Taliban decision-making as it fought to impose a hard-line version of Islam before 2001 and, later, expel foreign troops.

    Some experts say the Haqqani group appears to have evolved beyond the goal of controlling its Afghan homeland, embracing more ambitious aspirations closer to those of al Qaeda. That shift has taken place as Sirajuddin, who grew up around foreign militants who flocked to the region, has gained prominence.

    For years, the Haqqanis and the Taliban barely registered as a major military threat for most U.S. officials, as the United States under former President George W. Bush sought to limit the degree of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan to focus on Iraq, which U.S.-led forces invaded in 2003.

    Attacks by the Taliban and its allies began to pick up in 2006 and increased sharply in 2008. Over time, attacks by Haqqani insurgents showed increasing military sophistication.

    The Haqqani insurgents have been blamed for some of the most daring, complex attacks in Afghanistan, including a 2011 truck bombing in Wardak province, a 2008 attack on a Kabul parade ground where Afghan President Hamid Karzai was present, and major assaults on Kabul's most important hotels.

    After the suicide bombing on the Indian embassy, which killed nearly 60 people, U.S. officials said they intercepted telephone calls between militants carrying out the attack and individuals in Pakistan associated with the ISI.

    Some intelligence sources say cell phones or testimony collected after the 2011 U.S. embassy attack also point back to individuals in Pakistan linked to the ISI. That assertion is rejected by Pakistan and is disputed by some U.S. officials.

    The extent of disagreement within the Obama administration about such links was evident days after Clinton's meeting in New York. Admiral Mike Mullen, speaking to Congress just before he retired as the top U.S. military officer, described the Haqqani network as a "veritable arm" of the ISI.

    Mullen, incensed that such attacks continued despite his long effort to court Pakistani Army chief General Ashfaq Kayani, also suggested the ISI supported the group as it launched the U.S. embassy assault and similar high-profile attacks.

    The testimony not only triggered heated denials from Pakistan but angered officials in the White House and State Department, who believed the evidence was not so clear.

    'WENT TOO FAR'

    Reviewing Mullen's testimony in advance, the State Department had urged the Pentagon to delete some of the stronger accusations against Pakistan. It did not do so.

    "He went too far," another U.S. official said of the exchange, which has not previously been reported.

    Mullen has since stood by what he said. And many in the military cheered his parting shot.

    "They're killing our people," a third U.S. official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity. "They're able to do that to some degree because they're allowed to have safe havens ... and in some cases given tacit support."

    The debate over the Haqqani network also manifests itself in tensions between the State Department, Congress and the Pentagon over whether it should be officially listed as a "terrorist" group by the United States.

    The State Department, leading a push for a peace deal between the Afghan government and the Taliban, has resisted pressure to list the group. U.S. diplomats appear to be hoping the Haqqanis can be part of a deal - if one is possible.

    Last summer, U.S. negotiators met with Ibrahim Haqqani, Jalaluddin's brother, in an encounter brokered by Pakistan. Such contacts could make a terrorist listing awkward.

    The United States has pressed Pakistan to mount a military offensive targeting the network. Pakistani officials have expressed uncertainty about how well their forces would fare against a group entrenched and well-armed in North Waziristan.

    Robert Grenier, a former senior U.S. intelligence official who was CIA station chief in Pakistan until 2002, said the Haqqanis could create major problems for Pakistan's government.

    "It's not just a client-master relationship," Grenier said.

    Clinton, during an October 2011 visit to Islamabad, said Pakistan's own security was at risk. "You can't keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbors," she said. "Eventually, those snakes are going to turn.

    The United States also has sought to use millions of dollars in civilian and military aid to Pakistan as leverage, to little avail. That leverage might disappear if Congress follows through with moves to cut aid, the latest in a series of bilateral crises including the killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers last November in a U.S. air attack along the Afghan border.

    The United States has continued a campaign of drone strikes in North Waziristan that has accelerated in recent weeks. It also has taken steps to target the group's financing.

    While U.S. military commanders have expressed concern about a simmering threat in areas of eastern Afghanistan that are home to Haqqani militants, there are no current plans to shift the bulk of remaining foreign troops there. That means much of the fight would fall to the inexperienced Afghan army in those areas.

    U.S. officials should keep in mind that Pakistan is already looking past the departure of most U.S. troops, said Jonah Blank, a foreign policy expert at the RAND Corp. research group.

    "We are asking them to turn against an outfit they consider a valuable asset - and make an enemy out of a group that will be in the region forever," Blank said.

    (Editing by Warren Strobel and Will Dunham)

  • #2
    the US lost this before the bullets ever started flying. they should have worked with these guys instead of agaisnt them in the beginning

    Comment


    • #3
      @ kushal thats true .

      but this leads us again to the begining , why did they start this war , and who actually was behind 911 ???

      and i stongly belive that the isi is behind the leading shura of the taliban .

      because if we would just calculate and balance the interessts , the taliban were the solution of american interessts in the region .

      they stopped the civil war ( and cut out the different interesst groups who were behind the fractions and who we see now again , chinese , russian ,iranians ) , were anti iranian , sorounded by enemies and open for support .

      their " idology " was not so much different than saudi arabia , so why were their not recognized by the americans ??? why could they not negotiate a way out ?

      i strongly belive that the americans just left us for proxycolonie and client state of the pakis who were by their selfes clients of the west .

      but with the development of the world economy , the shift of energy demand , afghanistan as the key to central asia become again important .

      and thats were the pakis kick in , they are not interessted in any development in afghanistan , because they know any afghan goverment , regardless in which colour , red , greeen , black , as long they are independent or at least a vasal of the first grade , and have a power base which is stable enough , will activly push the pashtunistan question as the balochistan question , to get access to the sea . and this will beging of the end .

      and thats were the taliban aka haqqani like people have their place , tha pakis use the taliban to safe their interessts .

      did you ever wonder why all taliban commanders who were willing for negotiations were handed over to the americans and lost all their potential ???
      some people have really funny views of wars here . the americans will not just leave like that , and even if they would , their interessts and all the cash they spent is just too much to give it up .

      so wether they like it or not they are forced to negotiate with the
      americans and vice versa .

      we can even see it here , did you ever noticed how some pakistani individuals ,here praise afghan taliban , but condem ttp ???
      just ask you why ?

      and in the momemt the pakistanis realize that taliban are recognized by the americans and direkt deals are made , you will see how fast they will stop to support them , and instead of the muslim muslim card , they will play the race card , by supporting again tajik facists , hazaras or turkmens .



      on the american side they were so arrogant to say after 911 to say that they dont wanted any taliban and no communists/socialists in the goverment .

      what kind of funny pair to exclude ? , but today we see alot of former parchamis and khalqis working in the goverment , just for the cause they are professionals did studied and are capable for civil service , which we can not claim about na thugs .

      their alllies did more harm and trouble to them than the taliban ever could !!!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by khushal View Post
        the US lost this before the bullets ever started flying. they should have worked with these guys instead of agaisnt them in the beginning
        the US could only work with pro-Occupation groups like the Northern Alliance. It was impossible from the get go. They could not work with the majority of Pashtuns because Pashtuns resent foreign occupation. Its lost only in that sense of not realizing this. Now the whole NATO alliance is breaking apart as a result. France has led the way to break from NATO instructions.

        Northern Alliance is finished. There wont be a civil war, and if there is it will be ended in Panjshir where whatever is left of Northern Alliance will most probably retreat to

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by khushal View Post
          the US lost this before the bullets ever started flying. they should have worked with these guys instead of agaisnt them in the beginning
          America won't give up like that, afghanistan has lots natural resources and they want that. They're just taking the Tabliban and other groups and the 9/11 attack as an excuse. You can compare that by Syria which doesn't has natural resources, they could've gone there with there allies the same way they went to Libya which has more natural resources. Think yourself why would they bother about Afghans and Afghanistan??

          Comment


          • #6
            ^ 14 year old ,ey??

            I am no bird, and no nest ensnares me.

            non commercial would cost less if he was in charge himself which he plans on doing. right now it's n herat but soon it will be in qanadahar.

            Comment


            • #7
              "We are asking them to turn against an outfit they consider a valuable asset - and make an enemy out of a group that will be in the region forever," Blank said.


              this sums up the whole article, except I do not agree with the "valuable asset talk".

              Pakistan can not afford to support the NATO war anymore and nor can it afford to create more enemies within the region, especially Pashtun enemies because they will be in the region forever.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by A.Alraeesi View Post
                America won't give up like that, afghanistan has lots natural resources and they want that. They're just taking the Tabliban and other groups and the 9/11 attack as an excuse. You can compare that by Syria which doesn't has natural resources, they could've gone there with there allies the same way they went to Libya which has more natural resources. Think yourself why would they bother about Afghans and Afghanistan??

                the whole NATO war was a strategic failure because it rested on Pakistan giving NATO lethal supply routes continously. Pakistan is the only country that gives NATO lethal supplies. The Northern Distribution Network only allows non-lethal supplies.


                The war has no succeded with the NATO supply lines, and the NATO supply lines are needed for this failing war to carry on.

                This is the reason the war was a strategic failure from the get go. Pakistan would only involve themselves with such a dirty game of supplying NATO/Karzai regime for as long as the situation allows it (resulting in Pashtun bloodshed)- meaning as long as the state stability is not at risk.


                It never served any regional countries interest to support the NATO war/Karzai regime since it was a source of instability.
                Last edited by Shah-i-Kot; 06-05-2012, 01:23 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by lynx View Post
                  the whole NATO war was a strategic failure because it rested on Pakistan giving NATO lethal supply routes continously. Pakistan is the only country that gives NATO lethal supplies. The Northern Distribution Network only allows non-lethal supplies.


                  The war has no succeded with the NATO supply lines, and the NATO supply lines are needed for this failing war to carry on.

                  This is the reason the war was a strategic failure from the get go. Pakistan would only involve themselves with such a dirty game of supplying NATO/Karzai regime for as long as the situation allows it (resulting in Pashtun bloodshed)- meaning as long as the state stability is not at risk.


                  It never served any regional countries interest to support the NATO war/Karzai regime since it was a source of instability.
                  Again, i agree
                  Stupid pakis :D

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by abassinafghan View Post
                    @ kushal thats true .

                    but this leads us again to the begining , why did they start this war , and who actually was behind 911 ???

                    and i stongly belive that the isi is behind the leading shura of the taliban .

                    because if we would just calculate and balance the interessts , the taliban were the solution of american interessts in the region .

                    they stopped the civil war ( and cut out the different interesst groups who were behind the fractions and who we see now again , chinese , russian ,iranians ) , were anti iranian , sorounded by enemies and open for support .

                    their " idology " was not so much different than saudi arabia , so why were their not recognized by the americans ??? why could they not negotiate a way out ?

                    i strongly belive that the americans just left us for proxycolonie and client state of the pakis who were by their selfes clients of the west .

                    but with the development of the world economy , the shift of energy demand , afghanistan as the key to central asia become again important .

                    and thats were the pakis kick in , they are not interessted in any development in afghanistan , because they know any afghan goverment , regardless in which colour , red , greeen , black , as long they are independent or at least a vasal of the first grade , and have a power base which is stable enough , will activly push the pashtunistan question as the balochistan question , to get access to the sea . and this will beging of the end .

                    and thats were the taliban aka haqqani like people have their place , tha pakis use the taliban to safe their interessts .

                    did you ever wonder why all taliban commanders who were willing for negotiations were handed over to the americans and lost all their potential ???
                    some people have really funny views of wars here . the americans will not just leave like that , and even if they would , their interessts and all the cash they spent is just too much to give it up .

                    so wether they like it or not they are forced to negotiate with the
                    americans and vice versa .

                    we can even see it here , did you ever noticed how some pakistani individuals ,here praise afghan taliban , but condem ttp ???
                    just ask you why ?

                    and in the momemt the pakistanis realize that taliban are recognized by the americans and direkt deals are made , you will see how fast they will stop to support them , and instead of the muslim muslim card , they will play the race card , by supporting again tajik facists , hazaras or turkmens .



                    on the american side they were so arrogant to say after 911 to say that they dont wanted any taliban and no communists/socialists in the goverment .

                    what kind of funny pair to exclude ? , but today we see alot of former parchamis and khalqis working in the goverment , just for the cause they are professionals did studied and are capable for civil service , which we can not claim about na thugs .

                    their alllies did more harm and trouble to them than the taliban ever could !!!

                    I agree.
                    America and NATO did not come to Afghanistan for the sake of its people, they just came for controling / conquering it for its natural resources and mass area. They take the 9/11 attack and the Taliban and other groups as an excuse.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by DaZahroJaam. View Post
                      ^ 14 year old ,ey??
                      I swear im 14 :o
                      والله im 14
                      Here i sweared on god's name that im 14 do u still think im a lier???

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        i don't believe they are there in afghanistan, for the natural resources. they would have taken control like they did in iraq. more to do with strategic positioning, in the long run.
                        al-qaeda and taliban gave them the excuse, just like those idiot dictators in the middle east, give them the excuse to invade. by being oppressive idiots, that murder their own muslim citizens, until the west gets called in to help the victims of oppression.
                        the mining rights appear to be going to lots of countries, even china.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          nice little "Europeans are innocent" story you got going on there.

                          The West needs no excuse to start wars with other countries. Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are primary examples of this.

                          The West has been interfering in the East for oil.


                          The West is full of barbarians who massacred and wiped out the aboriginals in Australia, the US, New Zealand,Canada, etc. etc.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            the West is retreating out of Afghanistan, disguising it in whatever ridiculous manner- face-saving exit like the losers they are.

                            Now they keep talking about a new boogie man every other day. One day its the Mickey Mouse network, another day it is the Barney Dinosaur network.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by lynx View Post
                              nice little "Europeans are innocent" story you got going on there.
                              The West needs no excuse to start wars with other countries. Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are primary examples of this.
                              The West has been interfering in the East for oil.
                              The West is full of barbarians who massacred and wiped out the aboriginals in Australia, the US, New Zealand,Canada, etc. etc.

                              true, they can make their own excuse but duds like some of your buddies just make it easy for them.
                              yeah, the west is full of moronic barbarians, like you. american dimwitted leech, living in america with all those atheists, gays, hos, secularists, pagans, democrats, christians and everyone else you look down your snout at.
                              it is YOUR country which is leading the world into wars and stirring up crap so they can get oil and sell more arms to keep the likes of you, living in comfort.

                              and stop FAKING concern for the aboriginals in australia when you are a coloniser in america. you don't like pagans such as aboriginals and american indians, remember.
                              you feigning concern for australian aboriginals for use in a debate, because you can't think of any good arguments against me, is like those who sham concern for afghan women, for the their political purposes.
                              go tell your muslim brother assad to get his s**t together or else YOUR AMERICA and NATO will be called in to sort the crap out.
                              Last edited by faye; 06-06-2012, 05:42 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X