WASHINGTON: The United States appears to have acquiesced in another Faustian bargain in Pakistan, allowing Islamabad to cede space to a rampant Taliban advancing from the west in exchange for continued cooperation in the war on terror, including Predator strikes mounted from Pakistani air bases.
Reactions from US officials to Islamabad’s latest "peace deal" with extremist forces who have scorched the Swat region indicated that Washington was once again buying into the discredited theory of "good Taliban and bad Taliban." Pakistan has argued that some Taliban (those sponsored by the ISI whom it regards as strategic assets) can be won over and trusted whereas others (who have turned "rogue") and are irreconcilable.
In initial reactions to the Swat deal, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that while "the activity by the extremists in Pakistan poses a direct threat to the government of Pakistan as well as to the security of the United States, Afghanistan and a number of other nations," Washington is studying the agreement and trying to understand the Pakistani government’s "intention and the actual agreed-upon language."
There were more signals from the State Department that the Obama administration, like its predecessor, would not take a firm stand against the agreement, despite the assessment of the military-intelligence community that similar deals in the past only gave time and space for the Taliban to regroup.
Asked on Tuesday for the administration's view of the truce, acting Spokesman Gordon Duguid said Washington was in touch with the government in Pakistan and discussing the issue. "We’ll wait and see what their fuller explanation is for us," he added.
More seriously, the administration brushed aside the growing concern that Pakistan was ceding not just geographical, but also ideological space, to extremists with medieval views.
TOI: Nothing further on the deal about allowing the rule of Islamic law?
DUGUID: Well, as I understand it, Islamic law is within the constitutional framework of Pakistan. So I don’t know that that is particularly an issue for anyone outside of Pakistan to discuss, certainly not from this podium.
TOI: But is it a good development or a bad development?
DUGUID: We’ve seen these sorts of actions before. What is, of course, important is that we are all working together to fight terrorism, and particularly to fight the cross-border activities that some Taliban engage in attacking in Afghanistan.
Human rights activists and terrorism analysts who have seen the consequence of such deals in the past are less sanguine about it. Bill Roggio, a terrorism expert who runs the Long War Journal, maintained that the "agreement will lead to a further deterioration of the situation in Pakistan and is a direct threat to the security of the Pakistani state."
Indeed, even as Islamabad was dressing up the deal to make it palatable to rest of the world, the Taliban leader Sufi Mohammed, with whom Pakistan’s democratically elected government clinched the deal, was telling a news agency about his hatred for democracy and his vision of imposing Islamic rule throughout the world.
"From the very beginning, I have viewed democracy as a system imposed on us by the infidels. Islam does not allow democracy or elections," Sufi told Deutsche Presse-Agentur. "I believe the Taliban government formed a complete Islamic state, which was an ideal example for other Muslim countries."
Roggio said Islamabad’s willingness to negotiate with the Taliban despite the failure of past agreements "is eroding the viability of the Pakistani state." Washington, Roggio told ToI, is repeating the same mistakes it made in 2006.
During the "peace periods," he explained, the Taliban would use the time granted to add new recruits, rest and re-arm its forces, and consolidate control over the new-found territory. The peace agreements also served to embolden and restore the morale of the Taliban while demoralizing those who fought against the Taliban and live in the regions.
Successive US administrations going back to the mid-1990s have been indulgent about the Taliban, buying into the thesis by its sponsor Pakistan that the outfit represents Pashtuns and is representative of its interests in the region.
But the increasingly nihilistic Taliban have been spreading a dark reign of terror in the region and are now, in the words of Pakistan’s own President, threatening to take over the country. Yet, both Washington and Islamabad appear to believe there is a "good Taliban" they can deal with.
On Wednesday, the same dark forces telegraphed their intentions by killing a Pakistani journalist hours after the "peace" deal.
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4152578.cms?TOI_mostemailed
Reactions from US officials to Islamabad’s latest "peace deal" with extremist forces who have scorched the Swat region indicated that Washington was once again buying into the discredited theory of "good Taliban and bad Taliban." Pakistan has argued that some Taliban (those sponsored by the ISI whom it regards as strategic assets) can be won over and trusted whereas others (who have turned "rogue") and are irreconcilable.
In initial reactions to the Swat deal, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that while "the activity by the extremists in Pakistan poses a direct threat to the government of Pakistan as well as to the security of the United States, Afghanistan and a number of other nations," Washington is studying the agreement and trying to understand the Pakistani government’s "intention and the actual agreed-upon language."
There were more signals from the State Department that the Obama administration, like its predecessor, would not take a firm stand against the agreement, despite the assessment of the military-intelligence community that similar deals in the past only gave time and space for the Taliban to regroup.
Asked on Tuesday for the administration's view of the truce, acting Spokesman Gordon Duguid said Washington was in touch with the government in Pakistan and discussing the issue. "We’ll wait and see what their fuller explanation is for us," he added.
More seriously, the administration brushed aside the growing concern that Pakistan was ceding not just geographical, but also ideological space, to extremists with medieval views.
TOI: Nothing further on the deal about allowing the rule of Islamic law?
DUGUID: Well, as I understand it, Islamic law is within the constitutional framework of Pakistan. So I don’t know that that is particularly an issue for anyone outside of Pakistan to discuss, certainly not from this podium.
TOI: But is it a good development or a bad development?
DUGUID: We’ve seen these sorts of actions before. What is, of course, important is that we are all working together to fight terrorism, and particularly to fight the cross-border activities that some Taliban engage in attacking in Afghanistan.
Human rights activists and terrorism analysts who have seen the consequence of such deals in the past are less sanguine about it. Bill Roggio, a terrorism expert who runs the Long War Journal, maintained that the "agreement will lead to a further deterioration of the situation in Pakistan and is a direct threat to the security of the Pakistani state."
Indeed, even as Islamabad was dressing up the deal to make it palatable to rest of the world, the Taliban leader Sufi Mohammed, with whom Pakistan’s democratically elected government clinched the deal, was telling a news agency about his hatred for democracy and his vision of imposing Islamic rule throughout the world.
"From the very beginning, I have viewed democracy as a system imposed on us by the infidels. Islam does not allow democracy or elections," Sufi told Deutsche Presse-Agentur. "I believe the Taliban government formed a complete Islamic state, which was an ideal example for other Muslim countries."
Roggio said Islamabad’s willingness to negotiate with the Taliban despite the failure of past agreements "is eroding the viability of the Pakistani state." Washington, Roggio told ToI, is repeating the same mistakes it made in 2006.
During the "peace periods," he explained, the Taliban would use the time granted to add new recruits, rest and re-arm its forces, and consolidate control over the new-found territory. The peace agreements also served to embolden and restore the morale of the Taliban while demoralizing those who fought against the Taliban and live in the regions.
Successive US administrations going back to the mid-1990s have been indulgent about the Taliban, buying into the thesis by its sponsor Pakistan that the outfit represents Pashtuns and is representative of its interests in the region.
But the increasingly nihilistic Taliban have been spreading a dark reign of terror in the region and are now, in the words of Pakistan’s own President, threatening to take over the country. Yet, both Washington and Islamabad appear to believe there is a "good Taliban" they can deal with.
On Wednesday, the same dark forces telegraphed their intentions by killing a Pakistani journalist hours after the "peace" deal.
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4152578.cms?TOI_mostemailed
No comments:
Post a Comment