Thursday, September 16, 2021

Karachi-Born US Senator Van Hollen Stands Up For Pakistan During Afghanistan Hearing

Maryland Democrat Chis Van Hollen, a key US senator who was born in Karachi, said it was the Trump administration that asked Pakistan to release the top three Taliban leaders for US-Taliban peace talks in Doha Qatar. He was speaking at a recent US Senate hearing on the fall of Kabul to the Taliban and the chaotic US withdrawal that followed the Afghan Army collapse

Senator Chris Van Hollen

Senator Chris Van Hollen was born in 1959 in Karachi where his father was serving as a foreign service officer at the US Embassy in Karachi, Pakistan. His father later served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs (1969–1972) and US Ambassador to Sri Lanka and the Maldives (1972–1976). His mother worked for the CIA as chief of the intelligence bureau for South Asia.

“Is it not the fact that the Trump administration asked the Pakistani government to release three top Taliban commanders as part of that (peace) process?” Senator Van Hollen asked. Targeting the Trump administration, Van Hollen continued, “And so, we pick a date. We say to the Taliban you can attack Afghan forces and then we say, now let’s negotiate the future of Afghanistan. Isn’t the way it was set up when you walked in?” “That’s essentially, yes," Blinken replied.   

Referring to allegations of Pakistan's complicity in promoting chaos in Afghanistan, Senator Van Hollen said, “I think a number of those countries, at least Pakistan — like India, like the others — have an interest in preventing chaos and civil war in Afghanistan".

Here's the exchange between Van Hollen and Blinken at the Afghanistan hearing on Capitol Hill:

 Van Hollen: “Is it not the fact that the Trump administration asked the Pakistani government to release three top Taliban commanders as part of that process?” 

Blinken: “That’s correct".

Van Hollen: “And one of them is now number two in the Taliban government, Baradar, right?”

Blinken: “That’s correct.” 

Van Hollen: “He is the person everybody saw in those photos in Kabul, right?” 

Mr Blinken: “That’s correct.” 

Van Hollen: “And there was another senior commander, and they began the discussions in Doha.” 

Blinken: “That’s right.” 

Van Hollen: “They (US negotiators) did not include the Afghan government, did they?” 

Blinken: “That’s right, correct.” 

Van Hollen: “And they in fact essentially ordered, pressured, the Afghan government to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners, right?” 

Blinken: “That’s correct.” 

Van Hollen: “Many of those fighters are involved in the attack on Kabul today, right?” 

Blinken: “Yes.” 

Van Hollen: “Now, let’s see what the negotiation was: the US will leave by a certain date in May this year, right?” 

Blinken: “Correct.” 

Van Hollen: “You can’t attack American forces, but you can attack the Afghan forces with impunity, right?” 

Blinken: “That’s correct.” 

Van Hollen: “And so, we pick a date. We say to the Taliban you can attack Taliban forces and then we say, now let’s negotiate the future of Afghanistan. Isn’t the way it was set up when you walked in?”

Blinken: “That’s essentially, yes.” . 

British Defense Forces Chief General Sir Nick Carter is another western leader who has defended Pakistan recently. Responding to the familiar charge of "safe havens" for Taliban in Pakistan, General Nick Carter told BBC's Yalda Hakim that Pakistanis have hosted millions of Afghan refugees for many years and "they end up with all sorts of people". "We would be very worried if they heartlessly kicked out" the Afghans from Pakistan. He said that Pakistan's Army Chief General Bajwa genuinely wants to see a peaceful and stable Afghanistan. 

Carter Malkasian, former advisor to US Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dunford, has also recently talked about how Afghan governments have scapegoated Pakistan for their own failures. He said: "Let’s take Pakistan, for example. Pakistan is a powerful factor here. But on the battlefield, if 200 Afghan police and army are confronted with 50 Taliban or less than that, and those government forces retreat, that doesn’t have a lot to do with Pakistan. That has to do with something else". 

In another discussion,  Malkasian explained the rapid advance of the Taliban and the collapse of the Afghan government led by President Ashraf Ghani. Here's what he said:

Over time, aware of the government’s vulnerable position, Afghan leaders turned to an outside source to galvanize the population: Pakistan. Razziq, President Hamid Karzai and later President Ashraf Ghani used Pakistan as an outside threat to unite Afghans behind them. They refused to characterize the Taliban as anything but a creation of Islamabad. Razziq relentlessly claimed to be fighting a foreign Pakistani invasion. Yet Pakistan could never fully out-inspire occupation.  

Many westerners, including politicians, generals, analysts and journalists, are angry with Pakistan for the stinging US defeat in Afghanistan. They are trying to scapegoat Pakistan for the West's failed policies. Some want to punish Pakistan. However, many of them also recognize the importance of Pakistan in dealing with the aftermath of the Afghan fiasco. American analyst Michael Kugelman recently tweeted about America's use of Pakistani airspace (ALOCS) for "over-the-horizon" counter-terrorism ops in Afghanistan, underlining Pakistan's importance to the United States.  

US Analyst Michael Kugelman on American Reliance on Pakistan

A recent piece in Politico summed up US reliance on Pakistan as follows :

"The Biden administration has been unusually circumspect about revealing its contacts and discussions with Pakistan. While Pakistan’s actions often appear at odds with the United States, it nonetheless is a nation with links to the Afghan Taliban whose cooperation on fighting terrorism can be helpful. It’s also a nuclear-armed country American officials would prefer not to lose entirely to Chinese influence".  


Riaz Haq said...

The #US War on Terror Was Corrupt From the Start. Look under the hood of the “good war,” and this (#corruption) is what you see. #WarOnTerror #Afghanistan #Ghani #Karazi #Taliban #contractors

The war in Afghanistan wasn’t a failure. It was a massive success — for those who made a fortune off it.

Consider the case of Hikmatullah Shadman, who was just a teenager when American Special Forces rolled into Kandahar on the heels of Sept. 11. They hired him as an interpreter, paying him up to $1,500 a month — 20 times the salary of a local police officer, according to a profile of him in The New Yorker. By his late 20s, he owned a trucking company that supplied U.S. military bases, earning him more than $160 million.

If a small fry like Shadman could get so rich off the war on terror, imagine how much Gul Agha Sherzai, a big-time warlord-turned-governor, has raked in since he helped the C.I.A. run the Taliban out of town. His large extended family supplied everything from gravel to furniture to the military base in Kandahar. His brother controlled the airport. Nobody knows how much he is worth, but it is clearly hundreds of millions — enough for him to talk about a $40,000 shopping spree in Germany as if he were spending pocket change.

Look under the hood of the “good war,” and this is what you see. Afghanistan was supposed to be an honorable war to neutralize terrorists and rescue girls from the Taliban. It was supposed to be a war that we woulda coulda shoulda won, had it not been for the distraction of Iraq and the hopeless corruption of the Afghan government. But let’s get real. Corruption wasn’t a design flaw in the war. It was a design feature. We didn’t topple the Taliban. We paid warlords bags of cash to do it.

As the nation-building project got underway, those warlords were transformed into governors, generals and members of Parliament, and the cash payments kept flowing.

“Westerners often scratched their heads at the persistent lack of capacity in Afghan governing institutions,” Sarah Chayes, a former special assistant to U.S. military leaders in Kandahar, wrote recently in Foreign Affairs. “But the sophisticated networks controlling those institutions never intended to govern. Their objective was self-enrichment. And at that task, they proved spectacularly successful.”

Instead of a nation, what we really built were more than 500 military bases — and the personal fortunes of the people who supplied them. That had always been the deal. In April 2002, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dictated a top-secret memo ordering aides to come up with “a plan for how we are going to deal with each of these warlords — who is going to get money from whom, on what basis, in exchange for what, what is the quid pro quo, etc.,” according to The Washington Post.

The war proved enormously lucrative for many Americans and Europeans, too. One 2008 study estimated that some 40 percent of the money allocated to Afghanistan went back to donor countries in corporate profits and consultant salaries. Only about 12 percent of U.S. reconstruction assistance given to Afghanistan between 2002 and 2021 actually went to the Afghan government. Much of the rest went to companies like the Louis Berger Group, a New Jersey-based construction firm that got a $1.4 billion contract to build schools, clinics and roads. Even after it got caught bribing officials and systematically overbilling taxpayers, the contracts kept coming.

“It’s a bugbear of mine that Afghan corruption is so frequently cited as an explanation (as well as an excuse) for Western failure in Afghanistan,” Jonathan Goodhand, a professor in conflict and development studies at SOAS University of London, wrote me in an email. Americans “point the finger at Afghans, whilst ignoring their role in both fueling and benefiting from the patronage pump.”

Riaz Haq said...

#China, #Russia bring #Iran, #Pakistan into fold to face #Afghanistan crisis jointly. Top diplomats from China, Russia, Iran & Pakistan met Thursday for their first quadrilateral summit on the sidelines of the SCO summit in the Tajik capital of Dushanbe.

"Acting in good faith," he (Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov) added, "we can make a difference in creating necessary external conditions for the Afghans to get their destiny in their own hands, without any threats emanating from the Afghan territory in regards to terrorism, drug trafficking, and without any risks and challenges created from the territory of Afghanistan to its neighbors."

In a readout released following their discussions, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that "approaches were compared on issues of facilitating establishment of peace, stability and security in Afghanistan, while the necessity to establish national reconciliation in the country was stressed."

The Iranian Foreign Ministry also reported positive results.

"At the meeting, the top diplomats supported the formation of an inclusive government with the participation of all ethnic groups in Afghanistan," the Iranian side said in its own account of the four-way talks. "An Afghanistan free of terrorism, free of drugs and free of threats against its neighbors was another topic on the agenda."

The meeting is the latest platform among involving regional countries to address the situation in Afghanistan, where the international country at large remains concerned about the Taliban's ability to stabilize the war-torn nation and curb the spread of militant groups known to operate there.

The security climate across Afghanistan and its periphery also dominated a meeting held Thursday by member states of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), a post-Soviet, Russia-led alliance that also includes Armenia and Belarus as well as the Central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

"The situation in the CSTO's zone of responsibility and on the external borders of its member states remains unstable and spells new and truly acute challenges and risks for the security of our countries," Russian President Vladimir Putin said.

Putin was slated to stage another appearance at Friday's Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) leaders' summit also taking place in Dushanbe. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan also count themselves as members of the SCO, as do China, India, Pakistan and Uzbekistan.

Iran, like Afghanistan, Belarus and Mongolia, is an SCO observer state. But the Islamic Republic is expected to receive full membership as Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi traveled to Tajikistan to appear in person alongside Pakistani Foreign Minister Imran Khan and other leaders, while Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi were scheduled to speak virtually.

While these differences continue to exist, the situation in Afghanistan has presented a path for Beijing, Moscow, Tehran and Islamabad to overcome their differences and coalesce. It was also an opportunity to present to the world an alternative order to that advertised by the United States.

The U.S. has accused both China and Russia of pursuing destabilizing moves across the globe, and has instituted tough sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. Relations between the U.S. and Pakistan have also strained due to the former's warming relationship with India and the latter's long-cultivated ties to the Taliban.

The emerging dynamic reverses Cold War-era interactions that saw the U.S. and Pakistan on one side of the decades-long geopolitical dispute, and the Soviet Union and India on the other. India and Russia still maintain warm relations, but the SCO has sought to bring all regional parties together, leaving the U.S. on the sidelines.

Riaz Haq said...

Iran first welcomed #Taliban victory but assault on the #PanjshirValley changed #Iran. Iranian media falsely alleged #Pakistan military was assisting Taliban offensive, an allegation had earlier been made in hysterical clown show that is the #Indian media

by Zarrar Khuro

"Brinkmanship may be a hallmark of Iranian policy but it only works when you know for sure where the brink actually is"


When Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan met Iranian President Seyed Ibrahim Raisi on the sidelines of the SCO summit in Dushanbe, it was perhaps without the bonhomie that would ordinarily accompany such a meeting. But then these are extraordinary times, with the Taliban sweeping to power after the escape of Ashraf Ghani who, from the confines of his ivory tower in Kabul, perhaps imagined that the US would never abandon him and who also made the cardinal sin of believing his own spin.
As the region and the world attempts to reconcile itself with the new reality, Iran seems increasingly discomfited despite initially having welcomed ‘the military defeat and withdrawal of the United States’ from Afghanistan. Soon after the Taliban took Kabul, Iran resumed fuel supplies to Afghanistan in what was seen as an attempt to, if not normalize relations, then to at least not start off on the wrong foot with the new rulers of Kabul. But then once the Taliban assault on the Panjshir Valley began, the messaging from Iran became curious indeed, with Iranian media alleging that the Pakistan military was assisting the Taliban offensive with special forces and drone strikes. This allegation had previously been made in the hysterical clown show that is the Indian media which, true to form, used old footage from air exercises in Wales and Arizona and the occasional video game to illustrate its farcical reports. But even that spectacle was less surreal than seeing Iranian media quoting Fox News (not exactly known for its fair and balanced approach toward Iran) which in turn quoted an anonymous CENTCOM (which is listed as a terrorist organization in Iran) source as the origin of this ‘report.’
Now, one could argue that these are media reports and thus by no means an official state narrative-- but then just a few days back, an Iranian MP repeated the allegation, even going so far as to accuse Pakistan of using Chechen veterans of the Syrian civil war in this alleged assault. Now this is amusing because it’s not so much the pot calling the kettle black, but the pot actually inventing a kettle; if anyone can be accused of using proxy forces as an extension of foreign policy it is Iran, which has used sectarian militias operating under the aegis of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards to project power and influence across the Middle East, from Iraq to Syria and Lebanon. It’s been a rather successful and relatively low-cost strategy, the transnational nature of which was on full display when on September 16, a convoy of Iranian fuel trucks entered Lebanon through Syria and was welcomed by Hezbollah members. A successful strategy begs to be replicated in other theaters and so Iran likely bet on doing the same in an Afghanistan where the Taliban and government forces would remain in a military deadlock for some time to come. In that scenario, not only would Ismail Khan of Herat prove an invaluable asset, but a prolonged conflict may also have provided the opportunity to redeploy the Liwa Fatemiyoun, a militia comprised of Afghan Shias which saw extensive action in Iraq and Syria. Even if that deployment never took place, Iran would still have been able to use the good offices of its main Afghan ally, warlord Ismail Khan of Herat, to project influence in a post-US dispensation.

Riaz Haq said...

#Blinken Sees 'Strong Unity of Approach' on #Taliban After Talks With #Pakistan, Key Regional Players. Pakistan says the world has “a moral obligation” to collectively work to help the #Afghan people to avert #humanitarian crisis. #US #Afghanistan

Qureshi “hoped that the world would not repeat the mistake of disengaging with Afghanistan,” according to the statement.

The U.S. State Department said Blinken stressed “the importance of coordinating our diplomatic engagement and facilitating the departure of those wishing to leave Afghanistan” in his talks with Qureshi.

The Taliban swept through Afghanistan in August, after Washington and Western allies withdrew their troops in line with U.S. President Joe Biden’s orders that there was no point in extending America's longest war beyond 20 years.

The Islamist movement’s return to power prompted the Biden administration to swiftly block billions of dollars held in U.S. reserves for Kabul, while the World Bank and International Monetary Fund both halted Afghanistan’s access to crucial funding amid worries about the fate of Afghan basic human rights under Taliban rule.

Blinken told reporters Thursday the Afghan issue was the focus of his multilateral and bilateral meetings, including with counterparts from Russia and China. He said the Taliban continue to seek legitimacy and international support for their rule in Kabul, saying the world is united on how to deal with Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

“I think there is very strong unity of approach and unity of purpose... again, the Taliban says that it seeks legitimacy, that it seeks support from the international community; the relationship that it has with the international community is going to be defined by the actions it takes. That’s what we’re looking for,” Blinken stressed.

He reiterated U.S. priorities for the Islamist group, including allowing Afghans and foreign nationals to leave the country, respecting human rights, particularly for women, girls and minorities, preventing terrorist groups from using Afghanistan to threaten other countries, and forming a “genuinely inclusive government” that can reflect aspirations of the Afghan people.

The Taliban have dismissed criticism of their male-only interim cabinet, saying it represents all Afghan ethnicities and it promised to “very soon” bring women on board.

“The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (the Taliban) has writ all over the country and enjoy grassroots support. We truly represent the aspirations of the people of Afghanistan and are ready to engage with the world,” Suhail Shaheen, whom the Taliban have nominated as their permanent representative to the U.N., said Friday.

Pakistan, China, and Russia have all moved to engage with the Taliban and have been urging the global community to engage with and help the new rulers in Kabul meet urgent humanitarian needs of Afghans.

They have demanded unfreezing of Afghan assets and removal of other economic sanctions on Kabul but they also have linked recognition of the new Taliban government until it delivers on its stated commitments.

“Just as an overwhelming majority of countries around the world, we prefer to most closely watch what the Taliban have been doing in Afghanistan, what final shape the structure of power in that country will take, and how the given promises will be fulfilled. We are monitoring this very closely,” Russian media quoted presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov as saying Friday.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, while addressing a virtual conference of G-20 foreign ministers on Thursday, also underscored the importance of the Taliban ensuring a broad and inclusive governance system in Kabul but slammed the freezing of Afghan assets by the U.S. and international lending institutions.

Riaz Haq said...

Exclusive: Pakistani Leader Imran Khan Says Taliban Can Be America's Partner for Peace

IMran Khan: "For its part, the United States has divested a liability—its costly military intervention—which, as the U.S. President has himself admitted, was not a strategic priority for the United States. Both Pakistan and the United States need to prevent terrorism emanating from Afghanistan. To this end, we should cooperate to help in stabilizing Afghanistan by addressing the humanitarian crisis in that country and supporting its economic recovery. Of course, there may be an immediate negative impact in the U.S. due to the chaotic nature of its evacuation from Kabul. The U.S. has withdrawn voluntarily from Afghanistan. Therefore, I don't think that the U.S. withdrawal will erode U.S. credibility globally in the long term."

"As for China, if China offers economic support to Afghanistan, it's natural that the Afghans will accept it. The Taliban have welcomed the prospects of being incorporated in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and establishing close relations with China.

However, the U.S. too can play an important and positive role in Afghanistan by providing humanitarian assistance, contributing to Afghanistan's recovery and reconstruction, and cooperating in containing terrorism from Afghanistan. During the Doha peace process, the U.S. established a working relationship with the Taliban. There was direct cooperation between the U.S. and the Taliban during the evacuation process. I believe that the U.S. can work with a new government in Afghanistan to promote common interests and regional stability".

Riaz Haq said...

Opinion: The time for equivocating about a nuclear-armed, Taliban-friendly Pakistan is over
by John Bolton

Is President Biden sufficiently resolute to do the necessary? Probably not. In George Packer’s recent biography of diplomat Richard Holbrooke, he quotes from Holbrooke’s notes taken during an Obama administration Situation Room meeting on Afghanistan. “Among his notes were private interjections,” Packer writes. “Vice President Joe Biden said that every one of Pakistan’s interests was also America’s interest: ‘HUH?’”

Riaz Haq said...

#Pakistan is critical to #US #intelligence & national #security because of its proximity to #Afghanistan & connections to the Taliban. Ex diplomats & intelligence officers from both countries say the possibilities for cooperation are severely limited.

Pakistan’s prime minister, in remarks Friday to the U.N. General Assembly, made clear there is a long way to go. Imran Khan tried to portray his country as the victim of American ungratefulness for its assistance in Afghanistan over the years. Instead of a mere “word of appreciation,” Pakistan has received blame, Khan said.


The Biden administration is looking for new ways to stop terrorist threats in Afghanistan after withdrawing all troops.

Over two decades of war, American officials accused Pakistan of playing a double game by promising to fight terrorism and cooperate with Washington while cultivating the Taliban and other extremist groups that attacked U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Islamabad pointed to what it saw as failed promises of a supportive government in Kabul after the U.S. drove the Taliban from power after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as extremist groups took refuge in eastern Afghanistan and launched deadly attacks throughout Pakistan.

But the U.S. wants Pakistani cooperation in counterterrorism efforts and could seek permission to fly surveillance flights into Afghanistan or other intelligence cooperation. Pakistan wants U.S. military aid and good relations with Washington, even as its leaders openly celebrate the Taliban’s rise to power.

“Over the last 20 years, Pakistan has been vital for various logistics purposes for the U.S. military. What’s really been troubling is that, unfortunately, there hasn’t been a lot of trust,” said U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat who is on the House Intelligence Committee. “I think the question is whether we can get over that history to arrive at a new understanding.”

Riaz Haq said...

#Russia says it’s in sync with #US, #China, #Pakistan on #Taliban. FM Lavrov said all 4 governments are in ongoing contact and their representatives have recently traveled to #Qatar and then to #Afghanistan’s capital, #Kabul to urge "inclusive government"

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Russia, China, Pakistan and the United States are working together to ensure that Afghanistan’s new Taliban rulers keep their promises, especially to form a genuinely representative government and prevent extremism from spreading, Russia’s foreign minister said Saturday.

Sergey Lavrov said the four countries are in ongoing contact. He said representatives from Russia, China and Pakistan recently traveled to Qatar and then to Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul, to engage with both the Taliban and representatives of “secular authorities” — former president Hamid Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah, who headed the ousted government’s negotiating council with the Taliban.

Lavrov said the interim government announced by the Taliban does not reflect “the whole gamut of Afghan society — ethno-religious and political forces — so we are engaging in contacts. They are ongoing.”

The Taliban have promised an inclusive government, a more moderate form of Islamic rule than when they last ruled the country from 1996 to 2001 including respecting women’s rights, providing stability after 20 years of war, fighting terrorism and extremism and stopping militants from using their territory to launch attacks. But recent moves suggest they may be returning to more repressive policies, particularly toward women and girls.

“What’s most important ... is to ensure that the promises that they have proclaimed publicly to be kept,” Lavrov said. “And for us, that is the top priority.”

At a wide-ranging news conference and in his speech afterward at the U.N. General Assembly, Lavrov criticized the Biden administration including for its hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan.

He said the U.S. and NATO pullout “was carried out out without any consideration of the consequences ... that there are many weapons left in Afghanistan.” It remains critical, he said, that such weapons aren’t used for “destructive purposes.”

Later, in his assembly speech, Lavrov accused the United States and its Western allies of “persistent attempts to diminish the U.N.’s role in resolving the key problems of today or to sideline it or to make it a malleable tool for promoting someone’s selfish interests.”

As examples, Lavrov said Germany and France recently announced the creation of an Alliance For Multilateralism “even though what kind of structure could be more multilateral than the United Nations?”

The United States is also sidestepping the U.N., he said, pointing to the recent U.S. announcement of a “Summit for Democracy” despite, Lavrov said, U.S. President Joe Biden’s pledge this week “that the U.S. is not seeking a world divided into opposing blocs.”

“It goes without saying that Washington is going to choose the participants by itself, thus hijacking the right to decide to what degree a country meets the standards of democracy,” Lavrov said. “Essentially, this initiative is quite in the spirit of a Cold War, as it declares a new ideological crusade against all dissenters.”

Riaz Haq said...

Get the Generals Out of Pakistani-U.S. Relations
Civilian-led outreach can find areas of actual cooperation instead of mutual blame.
By Adam Weinstein, a research fellow at the Quincy Institute.

What makes the U.S.-Pakistan relationship so toxic is not that their interests have diverged widely from the halcyon days of anti-Soviet cooperation but the prevailing assumption that their differences can only be managed through coercive engagement, money thrown at the problem, or disengagement

One root cause of this dysfunction is relations are largely managed through the two countries’ security establishments. In 2018, then-commander of U.S. Central Command Gen. Joseph Votel testified to the House Armed Services Committee, saying he spoke to his Pakistani counterpart “almost weekly.” U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has spoken by phone with Pakistan’s army chief, Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa, at least four times, and in early September, CIA director William Burns met with Bajwa and ISI Director-General Faiz Hameed. U.S. President Joe Biden has yet to call Khan, and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi met in person for the first time last week on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.

Relations between the United States and Pakistan have often grown closer during periods of military rule, such as during the 1960s under then-Pakistani President Ayub Khan, the 1980s under then-Pakistani President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, and the early 2000s under Musharraf. Ties grew noticeably colder under the civilian leadership of then-Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in the 1970s, who ultimately accused Washington of plotting against him prior to his imprisonment and execution by Zia-ul-Haq.

Washington’s leaders might say they have no choice but to deal directly with Pakistan’s security establishment, which is the country’s real decision-maker on matters of national security. But Washington, as Bolton’s words in 2010 indicated, has also grown accustomed to the political expediency of going straight to Pakistan’s brass and sidelining its civilian government. Bush’s “with us or against us” ultimatum to military dictator Pervez Musharraf was successful precisely because he was the sole decision-maker. Had Pakistan been a genuine democracy 20 years ago, fully accountable to its lawmakers and public opinion, then things might have gone differently. Instead, Washington and Islamabad’s spymasters and generals have eked out a working relationship while the civilian government remains disengaged.

Congress’s dubious attitude toward Pakistan was best summarized by Rep. Bill Keating when he recently described it as “one relationship that really always troubled me.” During that same hearing, Rep. Scott Perry struck at the heart of Pakistan’s insecurities when he exclaimed, “we should no longer pay Pakistan [for counterterrorism cooperation], and we should pay India.” Recently introduced legislation calls for an assessment of Pakistan’s past support for the Taliban but falls short of any punitive measures.

Khan’s jovial charm is powerful, but it hasn’t led to a significant shift in Washington perceptions of Pakistan, save for a few well-tended interlocutors like Sen. Lindsey Graham. But even there, praise for Islamabad is sometimes little more than an underhanded compliment intended to poke at a domestic political rival, such as when Graham criticized Biden for failing to reach out to Khan by phone—a snub that is a source of anxiety in Islamabad and a sign of how little Biden prioritizes Pakistan’s civilian leadership.

Riaz Haq said...

Get the Generals Out of Pakistani-U.S. Relations
Civilian-led outreach can find areas of actual cooperation instead of mutual blame.
By Adam Weinstein, a research fellow at the Quincy Institute.

On Sept. 27, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan penned an op-ed in the Washington Post asking the United States to stop scapegoating Pakistan. He has a point. Pakistan’s nefarious role in Afghanistan is very real, but scapegoating Islamabad also became a coping mechanism for Washington and Kabul to avoid confronting their own failures. Washington’s unhealthy reliance on Pakistan throughout its war in Afghanistan kept the relationship at a dysfunctional equilibrium, but now relations are at risk of degenerating sharply, and the two countries have only themselves to blame. Overcoming this requires both Washington and Islamabad to prioritize realistic areas of cooperation over rehashing tired narratives of blame.

Pakistan, once rattled by the United States’ arrival in Afghanistan, became comfortable with the status quo of gradual Taliban gains kept at bay by a stuck United States reliant on Pakistan’s help. Islamabad only began to show inklings of buyer’s remorse over its support of the Taliban as the U.S. withdrawal deadline grew closer.

Almost exactly one year earlier, Khan penned an op-ed in the Washington Post warning against a “hasty international withdrawal” from Afghanistan. It was a carefully worded paean to Pakistan’s efforts in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table. Khan concluded that “bloodless deadlock on the negotiating table is infinitely better than a bloody stalemate on the battlefield.” He got the deadlocked negotiations—but the result was anything but bloodless. Afghanistan descended into a tempest of Taliban-led fighting, unclaimed targeted killings with the Taliban quick to use Islamic State-Khorasan for plausible deniability, and diplomatic gridlock.

Islamabad’s hopes for what it called a “geoeconomic reset” that would broaden relations beyond security were cast aside by a new iteration of “do more.” As the Taliban advanced, Pakistan’s purported red line for its intransigent protégé retreated from don’t restore Afghanistan to don’t enter Kabul by force. That second line was never tested as the Taliban simply moseyed into the capital following the collapse of the Afghan government.


The “maximum pressure” campaign used against Iran eroded the middle class, hurt private businesses, was a boon for ventures backed by the security establishment, and helped advance hard-liner narratives. A copy-and-paste application of this failed policy in Pakistan would likely produce similar results or simply foment a rally-around-the-flag effect. Some critics of Washington’s reliance on Pakistan propose a narrower approach focused on targeted sanctions against specific officials, ending its major non-NATO ally status, and scaling back attempts to cooperate. But like it or not, Pakistan’s cooperation is crucial for continued evacuations, refugee resettlement, and economic development in Afghanistan. Even some of the biggest critics of Pakistan’s security establishment have credited it with assisting Washington against transnational terrorist groups. Washington and Islamabad will likely continue to fight these groups together, even if the target list is narrower than the U.S. Defense Department and the CIA prefer. Pakistan also holds an inherent importance as a nuclear-armed country of more than 226 million people that finds itself on the front lines of climate change.

Riaz Haq said...

Pakistan: The handy Afghan bête noire?Published 2 hours ago on October 1, 2021By Amjed Jaaved

International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) published a ‘research’ dossier titled ‘Nuclear Black Markets: Pakistan, A. Q. Khan and the Rise of Proliferation Networks‘. The information in the dossier is largely re-churned old wine in new bottle. Still, there are silver linings in the dossier.

Despite its pro-India bias, the dossier admits ‘Khan may have acted largely on his own volition, for his own profit’ (page 2). ‘Khan’s nuclear activities were largely unsupervised by Pakistani governmental authorities and his orders of many more components, than Pakistan’s own enrichment programme required, apparently went undetected’ (p. 66). ‘Most of Khan’s dealings were carried on his own initiative’ (DG, IISS, press statement dated may 2, 2007).

The dossier reflects well on Pakistan’s efforts to tighten its nuclear security and safety controls _ The dossier mentions ‘Many of Pakistan’s internal reforms since 2001, and then following Khan’s confession and confinement to house arrest in 2004, have been transparent and appear to have worked well. A robust command-and-control system is now in place to protect Pakistan’s nuclear assets from diversion, theft and accidental misuse. A.Q. Khan and his known cohorts are out of business’.

The dossier also notes that ‘A new defence policy was adopted in March 2004. This policy reportedly intended to “further strengthen institutionalization of control of strategic assets”, and “turn all policies and decisions from an invisible secrecy into solid documentary form following the recent proliferation scandal” (p. 36).

The dossier realises dangerous implications of the 123 agreement (revised version on anvil) for Pakistan. Extract: ‘Fears that the India-US nuclear cooperation agreement will free up Indian domestic uranium for additional weapons purposes gives Pakistan an additional motivation to continue to produce weapons-grade fissile material of its own. Pakistan has resisted any nonproliferation regimes that it believes would give a ‘perpetual edge’ to India. This is one reason Pakistan has been the country most resistant to negotiating a fissile material cut-off treaty’.

Aside from its Pakistan-bashing title, the dossier observes ‘Pakistan was not the only country to evade nuclear export controls to further a covert nuclear weapons programme (page 7). ‘Almost all of the countries that have pursued nuclear weapons programmes obtained at least some of the necessary technologies, tools and materials from suppliers in other countries. Even the United States (which detonated the first nuclear weapon in 1945) utilised refugees and other European scientists for the Manhattan Project and the subsequent development of its nascent nuclear arsenal. The Soviet Union (which first tested an atomic bomb in 1949) acquired its technological foundations through espionage. The United Kingdom (1952) received a technological boost through its involvement in the Manhattan Project. France (1960) discovered the secret solvent for plutonium reprocessing by combing through open-source US literature. China (1964) received extensive technical assistance from the USSR’.

From the dossier, one gets to know that Asher Karni, an Israeli businessman, and Alfred Hempel, an ex Nazi who died in 1989, are co-fathers of India’s ‘indigenous’ bombs. Hempel, a German nuclear entrepreneur, helped India overcome difficulties of heavy-water shortage by organising illicit delivery of a consignment of over 250 tonnes of heavy water to India’s Madras-I reactor, via China, Norway and the USSR. The duo also arranged transfer to India of sensitive nuclear components.

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir Riaz

Thanks for this useful and informative post, Sir this is to inform you that I just saw a news yesterday on youtube channels of Pakistan, it says that 22 senators in American Congress are working on making a bill against Pakistan and soon they will try to pass this bill.

This bill was actually made to re-evaluate the reason why Afghan Taliban took over Kabul(Capital City of Afghanistan). These senators are in doubt that Pakistan intelligence(ISI) and Pak army tried to help Afghan Taliban in taking over Kabul and remaining parts of Afghanistan.

Their is as far as I know only 1 senator and I think that is Mr.Van Hollen about whom you just posted who stood for Pakistan and tried to defend Pakistan against this bill.

Sir, this is a serious issue, Allah na karey if this bill gets accepted then strict sanctions can be imposed on Pakistan which can damage the country and its economy badly. Can you pls contact high-profile Pakistanis in America and tell them to pls do something about it?

I think all these Pakistani Americans must gather at White House in Washington D.C and must protest against this bill and they must try to convience and remind the American government that how Pakistan army and Pakistan government helped American troops to escape from Afghanistan.

Sir can you pls do something about it?


Riaz Haq said...

Anon: "Allah na karey if this bill gets accepted then strict sanctions can be imposed on Pakistan"

The bill draft put forward by 22 senators, all Republicans, does not call for sanctions on Pakistan. It demands a review of US policy toward Pakistan.

Any serious policy review will conclude that cutting off Pakistan will not be helpful to the US for several reasons:

1. US needs Pakistani airspace for its "over the horizon" strike capability in Afghanistan to deal with any emerging terror threats to American interests in the region.

2. Pakistan is a large nuclear armed country of 220 million people. Pakistan's stability is critical to US policy in "Indo Pacific".

Ahmed said...

Dear Sir

Thanks for the post, Sir their is a debate going on in the Congress of America, few senators in America are questioning the allegations of the American generals who are throwing the blame on Pakistan for the loss of America in Afghanistan.

Mashallah it is great to see how few senators in Congress of America are defending Pakistan.

Sir do you know that according to Sajid Tarar sahab who is an advisor to Trump administration, the 5 senators in American Congress are of Indian origin? Definitely they must be in this 22 senators team and these Indian senators are involved in policy making of America.

Sir not even a single Pakistani is their in the Congress of America either as a Congressman or senator.

Riaz Haq said...

Ahmad: "Sir do you know that according to Sajid Tarar sahab who is an advisor to Trump administration, the 5 senators in American Congress are of Indian origin?"

There are no Indian-Americans in the US Senate. Two of the 5 Indian-Americans in the US House of Representatives, namely Rohit Khanna and Pramila Jaypal, openly detest Modi.They reject Hidutva outright.

Ahmad: "senators in America are questioning the allegations of the American generals who are throwing the blame on Pakistan for the loss of America in Afghanistan."

There's nothing new here. Scapegoating Pakistan has been going on in US Congress/Senate for years. At the end of the day, US has no choice but to work with Pakistan for the reasons I stated above:

1. US needs Pakistani airspace for its "over the horizon" strike capability in Afghanistan to deal with any emerging terror threats (from the likes of Al Qaeda or ISIS-K) to American interests.

2. Pakistan is a large nuclear armed country of 220 million people. Pakistan's stability is critical to US policy in "Indo Pacific".

Riaz Haq said...

Pakistan can repel militants, protect nukes, says US report

Pakistan is capable of repelling any ‘jihadi’ attempt to seize power and of protecting its nuclear weapons, says a report by a prestigious US think-tank.

The Brookings report — “The Agonising Problem of Pakistan’s Nukes” — argues that the Taliban victory in Afghanistan has emboldened militants in Pakistan, stirring fears of a resurgence of militant activities in the country.

“The fear now includes the possibility that jihadis in Pakistan, freshly inspired by the Taliban victory in Afghanistan, might try to seize power at home,” the report claims.

“Trying, of course, is not the same as succeeding. If history is a reliable guide, Pakistan’s professional military would almost certainly respond, and in time probably succeed,” the author, Marvin Kalb, adds.

But the report warns that even a failed attempt could reopen “the floodgates of a new round of domestic warfare between the government and extremist gangs.”

The Brookings report warns that a resurgent insurgency would “leave Pakistan again shaken by political and economic uncertainty.”

The report then turns to another possibility that Pakistan has often warned against — instability in South Asia increases the possibility of a nuclear conflict in the region. Pakistan uses this argument to strengthen its demand for international arbitration to settle the Kashmir and other disputes in India.

The Brookings report does not mention the Kashmir dispute but it acknowledges that “when Pakistan is shaken, so too is India, its less than neighbourly rival and nuclear competitor.”


Former President Barack Obama translated this challenge into carefully chosen words: “The single biggest threat to U.S. security, both short term, medium term and long term,” he asserted, “would be the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon.” (Author’s italics).

The nation that has both nuclear weapons and a dangerous mix of terrorists was — and remains — Pakistan.

No problem, really, Pakistan’s political and military leaders have quickly assured a succession of anxious presidents. Whether it be Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Tehreek-e-Labaik, al-Qaida, or the Afghan Taliban’s Quetta Shura — these terrorist organizations have always been under our constant surveillance, checked and rechecked. We keep a close eye on everything, even the Islamic madrassas, where more than 2 million students are more likely studying sharia law than economics or history. We know who these terrorists are and what they’re doing, and we’re ready to take immediate action.

Riaz Haq said...

Western Dependence on Pakistan Is Not Going Away
With the Taliban now running Afghanistan, calls are mounting in Washington to punish Pakistan for its alleged support of militant groups.

by Rupert Stone

First, they still need to evacuate some of their citizens and Afghan helpers who were left behind after the troop withdrawal concluded on August 31. Pakistan’s close ties to the Taliban, its open embassy in Kabul, and its long land border with Afghanistan suggest it could be well placed to facilitate evacuations.

Pakistan already evacuated some Afghans on behalf of Germany in August, prompting an appreciatory message from the German ambassador in Islamabad. Since then, Foreign Minister Heiko Mass has visited Pakistan as part of a regional tour, followed by the Dutch and Italian foreign ministers. U.S. deputy secretary of state Wendy Sherman is visiting, too.

Former British foreign secretary Dominic Raab traveled there in September, and his successor Liz Truss recently entertained her Pakistani counterpart. Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan facilitated the departure of Americans from the city of Mazar-i-Sharif, prompting a letter of thanks from Glenn Beck, whose organization was overseeing the evacuation.

Second, there is the issue of refugees. Western governments are concerned that they may see a repeat of the 2015 refugee crisis, when more than a million Syrians, Afghans, and others fled to Europe, fueling support for anti-immigrant populist parties. This was not a concern during and after the Soviet war, when Afghans settled mainly in Iran and Pakistan.

Now, however, regional countries appear reluctant to accept any more refugees to the millions they already host. The European Union is, therefore, planning an aid package to fund neighboring countries’ settlement efforts. The UK is also providing more assistance to Pakistan.

A third factor is narcotics. The Afghan illicit drug economy is far larger than it was before the U.S.-led invasion: in 2018, the area under opium poppy cultivation was three times what it was in 2000, and Afghanistan has in recent years diversified into methamphetamine, which was unheard of in the 1990s.

Western counter-narcotics agencies have now lost their foothold in Kabul and will need to rely more on Pakistan as a regional base and partner in addressing the Afghan drug menace. This is more of a problem for European countries than it is for the United States, given that opiates from Afghanistan do not reach America in large quantities.

The fourth issue is, of course, terrorism. The United States is far more concerned about this than it was before 9/11. Indeed, the Biden administration has been working to develop an “over the horizon” counterterrorism capability that will enable it to monitor and neutralize targets from outside Afghanistan.

But this is easier said than done. The country is flanked by U.S. adversaries like China and Iran. Finding a partner to host a U.S. base or grant access to its airspace for airstrikes or commando raids is not a simple task. The Central Asian states are under heavy Russian influence, and Russian president Vladimir Putin has apparently rejected American facilities there.

That leaves Pakistan as the only real option. The Biden administration has reportedly been negotiating with the Pakistani government for basing rights. But as far as we know, these efforts have not yet borne fruit, and Khan has publicly and forcefully opposed hosting U.S. forces.

Without a base in Pakistan, the United States would have to launch drones from the Gulf and fly into Afghanistan through Pakistani airspace. The only alternative is to send flights from the Caucasus over Turkmenistan, which is not only under Chinese and Russian influence but is farther away from the areas of Afghanistan where terrorist organizations tend to operate.

Riaz Haq said...

#India's security concerns will be 'first and foremost' and in "front and center" for the #UnitedStates, says Deputy Sec of State Wendy Sherman in #NewDelhi.
#US putting together a robust program for "over-the-horizon" (OTH) capability for #Afghanistan.

The US Deputy Secretary of State said both India and the US have a similar approach on the way forward in Afghanistan.

Riaz Haq said...

Moeed W. Yusuf
My article in
, highlighting Pakistan's sacrifices; positive contribution and commitment to peace in Afghanistan - sustainability of which is only possible through constructive global engagement with the new Afghan government.

Afghanistan deserves peace and prosperity, and a blame game among international actors will not get us there. Nor will a repeat of the mistakes of the 1990s, when the United States abandoned Afghanistan and sanctioned Pakistan, its close ally throughout the 1980s, once the Soviets had been driven from Kabul. This isolated the region as international assistance and attention disappeared, placed Afghanistan on a path to civil war and economic meltdown, and strengthened international terrorist outfits—eventually culminating in the 9/11 attacks. Although ordinary Afghans and Pakistanis will always face the greatest risks from instability inside Afghanistan, mass migration flows and terrorism threaten the entire world. It is therefore in every country’s interest to prevent history from repeating itself.

The prudent way forward is for the international community to engage constructively with the new government in Kabul. The goal must be to create the conditions for Afghan civilians to earn a respectable livelihood and to live in peace. This will require the international community, especially the countries that were present in Afghanistan for two decades, to play a positive role in leveraging its influence to further the cause of peace and stability.

Pakistan has been at the forefront of international humanitarian efforts since the fall of Kabul. It has helped evacuate approximately 20,000 foreign citizens and Afghans from the country and has created an air and land bridge to channel emergency supplies to the country. These efforts are important, but diplomatic engagement with Afghanistan must go much further. Afghanistan does not have the resources or the institutional capacity to stave off economic disaster on its own. In order to ensure a durable peace, the international community must determine the means through which development assistance can be provided while ensuring that its concerns about the situation in the country are addressed. But given the precarious humanitarian and economic situation in Afghanistan, time is of the essence. A wait-and-see approach, although more politically tenable for many countries, would be tantamount to abandonment.

Pakistan’s expectations of the new government are no different than those of Western governments: Pakistan wants a state that is inclusive, respects the rights of all Afghans, and ensures that Afghan soil is not used for terrorism against any country. Unlike in the 1990s, the Taliban have repeatedly stated their interest in continued engagement with the world. This is an opportunity for the international community. The leverage generated through assistance and the legitimacy the Taliban will derive from it can be used to secure inclusive governance from the new administration.

Over the past month, Pakistan has led diplomatic initiatives with Afghanistan’s immediate neighbors and other countries in the region to discuss the way forward. We will continue these efforts. However, Western diplomacy needs to be better connected with regional initiatives to forge a common agenda for engagement and decide on the multilateral and bilateral avenues available to channel assistance. A starting point could be a major donor conference where regional players and Western countries sit down together and draw up specific plans for humanitarian and economic relief. An understanding is also required on the terms of the release of the Afghan central bank’s reserves, most of which are held by the United States. Such a forum could also be used to encourage countries that have unfinished development projects in Afghanistan to consider completing them for the benefit of the Afghan people.

Riaz Haq said...

The war in #Afghanistan is over, but the West still needs #Pakistan. "It is too important—and dangerous—to ignore" #Nuclear #Taliban #ISIS_K #Terrorism #US #Europe #NATO #CIA #ISI #India #China #Russia #Iran @TheEconomist

When the last American troops departed from Kabul on August 30th, it meant not only the end of a 20-year campaign in Afghanistan but also the end of Western reliance on neighbouring Pakistan. In that time the country had been an infuriating partner that had helped nato forces with logistics and intelligence even as it provided a haven to the Taliban’s leaders. Now, perhaps America could wash its hands and walk away.

America and its allies have plenty of reasons to feel aggrieved. Pakistan is perpetually sparring with its neighbour, India—which is steadily becoming a vital regional partner for the West. It has close diplomatic and commercial ties with China, to which it provides access to the Indian Ocean, via the Karakoram highway and the port of Gwadar. It is home to lots of Muslim extremists. With a gdp per head that is just two-thirds of India’s and which has in recent years been falling, Pakistan might seem a sensible country to shun.

Riaz Haq said...

#Pakistan struggles to balance ties between #Washington & #Beijing:"Despite Pakistan's longstanding support for Taliban, the group seems unable or unwilling to contain terrorist groups operating within Afghan borders, including those targeting Pakistan"

Alice Wells, the US assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia under Donald Trump, called the CPEC initiative an "unstainable and unfair" debt for Pakistan during a visit to Islamabad last year.

Pakistan rejected the US's criticism of CPEC last year. The Chinese embassy in Islamabad at the time stated that "the US is obsessed with the story it [has] made for CPEC."

Last month, Pakistan's ambassador to Afghanistan, Masoor Ahmed Khan, held talks with the new Afghan leadership about Kabul's joining CPEC. 

The deteriorating security situation in Pakistan, however, has prompted concerns about how it could hamper Chinese investment in the country, as well as Islamabad-Beijing relations. China has in the past urged Pakistan to improve security for its projects and personnel against possible Pakistani Taliban attacks.

Elizabeth Threlkeld, director of the South Asia program at the Washington-based think tank the Stimson Center, told DW that Pakistan runs the risk of "spillover instability" from Afghanistan, as cross-border terrorism incidents and attacks are carried out in the Balochistan province and tribal areas.

"Despite Pakistan's longstanding support for the Taliban, the group seems unable or unwilling to contain terrorist groups operating within Afghan borders, including those targeting Pakistan," she said.

Shuja Nawaz, a South Asia analyst at the Atlantic Council in Washington, told DW that Pakistan should maintain ties with both the United States and China, saying it "need not try to swing" between the two.

"China is an important neighbor and friend. The US and Pakistan have long historical ties," Nawaz said.  

"Pakistan needs to act in its own interest in reshaping its relations with the United States so it is not dependent on the Americans nor does it have to deceive them about its actions on their behalf," Nawaz added.

Threlkeld said Pakistan "will be hard pressed to maintain positive relations with the US" as "US interest wanes and frustration grows over Pakistan's support for the Taliban."

"While it might be tempting to focus solely on its ties with Beijing, Islamabad knows it must continue to engage with Washington," she said.

"The US, likewise, continues to need Pakistan for counterterrorism support in Afghanistan," she added.

Pakistan in need of 'a deep public debate'
Nawaz said Pakistan would need to engage in dialogue on its foreign policy stance. He says civilian and the military leadership must take a unilateral stance, and avoid short-term foreign policy strategies.

"Pakistan needs a deep public debate on its foreign policy in Parliament and then an articulation of the principles of its foreign policy for the next 10 years," he said. "No zigzags or short-term deals, which have been a recent pattern."

Pakistan "must not exaggerate the value of a telephone call with Biden again and again," Nawaz said. It is "important for the groundwork to be done at lower levels," before Biden and Khan speak with one another, he added.

"More importantly, Islamabad and Rawalpindi [where the Pakistani military headquarters is based] must speak with one voice to Washington, DC," he said. 

Riaz Haq said...

US nearing a formal agreement to use Pakistan's airspace to carry out military operations in Afghanistan
By Natasha Bertrand, Oren Liebermann, Zachary Cohen and Ellie Kaufman, CNN

The Biden administration has told lawmakers that the US is nearing a formalized agreement with Pakistan for use of its airspace to conduct military and intelligence operations in Afghanistan, according to three sources familiar with the details of a classified briefing with members of Congress that took place on Friday morning.

Pakistan has expressed a desire to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in exchange for assistance with its own counterterrorism efforts and help in managing the relationship with India, one of the sources said. But the negotiations are ongoing, another source said, and the terms of the agreement, which has not been finalized, could still change.
The briefing comes as the White House is still trying to ensure that it can carry out counterterrorism operations against ISIS-K and other adversaries in Afghanistan now that there is no longer a US presence on the ground for the first time in two decades after the NATO withdrawal from the country.

With no formal agreement currently in place, the US runs the risk of Pakistan refusing entry to US military aircraft and drones en route to Afghanistan.
A Pentagon spokesman said the Defense Department does not comment on closed briefings due to security classifications. CNN has reached out to the National Security Council, State Department and Pakistan embassy in Washington for comment.

At the same time, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are emerging as the top options for possible locations to establish a US military presence to conduct so-called over-the-horizon operations in Afghanistan, the sources said, but both would run into severe opposition from Russian President Vladimir Putin and some local politicians. "Both are long shots," one source said, calling them "likely pipe dreams due to needing Putin's blessing."

Riaz Haq said...

A senior Pentagon official has informed Congress that Pakistan continues to give the United States access to its airspace and the two sides are also talking about keeping that access open.

US Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Colin Kahl shared this information with the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday during an open/closed hearing on “Security in Afghanistan and in the regions of South and Central Asia”.

He was replying to a question from the committee’s chairman Senator Jack Reed, who asked him to update the panel on “our arrangement with Pakistan regarding their cooperation with us in counterterrorism”. The senator referred to recent press reports claiming that Pakistan was working with the Taliban to attack the militant Islamic State group.

“Pakistan is a challenging actor, but they don’t want Afghanistan to be a safe haven for terrorist attacks, external attacks, not just against Pakistan but against others” as well, Dr Kahl told the open session. “They continue to give us access to Pakistani airspace and we are in conversation about keeping that access open.”

Riaz Haq said...

"Our first target is to destroy Pakistan because the main reason for everything in Afghanistan is Pakistan. When the Taliban were here (even as the previous government still reigned), they were saying that we control 80 per cent of the country, but they were not implementing Islamic rulings. That's why we stood up in we started (ISIS-K) over here in this area," knewz quoted Nazifullah, a member of ISIS-K as saying.

According to him, Afghanistan has gone from bad to worse since the Taliban - who he accuses of "destroying the country" took the helm some two-and-a-half months ago.

"We want to implement Shariah Law. We want to implement the way our Prophet was living, the way he was clothed, the dressing hijab was there. Currently, we don't have much to fight. But if you give me anything, I am going to fight Pakistan now," knewz quoted Nazifullah as saying.

Riaz Haq said...

After #Pakistan, #China too decides to skip NSA-level meet on #Afghanistan hosted by #India NSA Ajit Doval. Pakistan NSA @YusufMoeed has called India a “spoiler”, not a “peacemaker” in Afghanistan. #AjitDoval #Modi via @indiatoday

On China, India was keen that Beijing participate but see no reason to doubt the reason for their absence. A source reminded that China did participate in the BRICS NSA meeting, so no reason for them to skip this one.

India will focus on humanitarian aid to Afghanistan which constitutes a major part of bringing security and stability to the country. India’s commitment is to the people of Afghanistan and there is a need for quick access to Afghanistan and its people which Pakistan has denied, said sources. Adding, if Pakistan is concerned they should allow Indian aid to flow through.

The other area of concern for India is drug trafficking. Everyone in the region has raised their levels of alert and capacity on the issue.

On visas for Afghan nationals who have been urging India to help them leave the country, sources say it is a national decision and will be taken keeping security and humanitarian needs of applicants. Matter of constant review between agencies said sources.

India is maintaining a small team of local staff in Kabul working on consular issues.

Before returning to their countries, various delegations wish to visit various places in India which is being organised. Sources say the Kazakh delegation would visit the Golden Temple in Amritsar, Uzbek delegations want to visit the Taj Mahal in Agra, while the delegation from Tajikistan want to go sightseeing in Delhi.

Riaz Haq said...

#TroikaPlus group seeks to ease access to banking services in #Afghanistan. The group, made up of #Pakistan, #China, #Russia & the #US, met in #Islamabad against a backdrop of growing alarm over the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. #hunger #poverty

The so-called Troika Plus group pledged on Thursday to try to ease severe pressure on Afghanistan's banking system as it warned of possible economic collapse and a humanitarian disaster that could fuel a new refugee crisis.

The group, made up of Pakistan, China, Russia and the United States, met in Islamabad against a backdrop of growing alarm over the situation in Afghanistan, where more than half the population is facing severe hunger over the coming winter.

"I urge the international community to fulfil its collective responsibility to avert a grave humanitarian crisis," Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan wrote on Twitter, adding that Pakistan would provide aid including food, emergency medical supplies and winter shelters.

The Taliban victory in August saw the billions of dollars in foreign aid that had kept the economy afloat abruptly switched off, with more than $9 billion in central bank reserves frozen outside the country.

"Nobody wishes to see a relapse into civil war, no one wants an economic collapse that will spur instability," Pakistan's foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said.

"Everyone wants terrorist elements operating inside Afghanistan to be tackled effectively and we all want to prevent a new refugee crisis," he told the envoys, who also met the Taliban acting foreign minister Amir Khan Muttaqi.

Restrictions on the banking system put in place by international governments since the Taliban took over have deepened the pain for Afghans, prompting growing calls for the freeze on the reserves to be lifted.

The troika said it acknowledged concerns about the "serious liquidity challenges and committed to continue focusing on measures to ease access to legitimate banking services."

Pakistan has called on governments, including the United States, to allow development assistance to flow into Afghanistan to prevent collapse.

Pakistan has also discussed the idea of Afghanistan joining CPEC, its multi-billion dollar infrastructure project with China, which comes under the banner of Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Thursday's conference, which reiterated calls on the Taliban to ensure women's rights are respected and that Afghanistan does not become a base for militant groups to carry out attacks outside the country, is the latest in a series of diplomatic meetings in the region.

Muttaqi arrived in Islamabad on Wednesday to discuss trade and other ties, while neighbouring India held a conference for regional countries on Wednesday, though arch-rival Pakistan did not attend that meeting.

Riaz Haq said...

Watch Pakistan's Raja Faisal respond to India's GD Bakshi on Ajit Doval's NSA Meeting on Afghanistan: US, China and Russia are all attending the Islamabad NSA Meet on Afghanistan. You (India) couldn't even get your ally US to attend.

Riaz Haq said...

Pakistan Allows #India to Send #Wheat Overland Through its Territory as #Hunger Grips #Afghanistan. It'll be the first such consignment from #NewDelhi. #Pakistan, #Iran & #UAE have already been providing Afghanistan with food and medical supplies.

Pakistan will allow India to send 50,000 tons of wheat through its territory to neighboring Afghanistan, which is reeling under a severe hunger crisis as its economy has stalled since the Taliban took over in August, according to an Afghan government official.

Islamabad agreed to allow over land wheat shipments nearly a month after Kabul sought permission, Sulaiman Shah Zaheer, a spokesman of the Afghanistan Ministry of Commerce and Industries, said in a phone interview.

“The issue has now been resolved, and India can now send the wheat to Afghanistan via the Wagah border in Pakistan,” he said

The aid will be the first such consignment from New Delhi, which is yet to recognize the country’s new Taliban regime. Pakistan, Iran and U.A.E. are among the other nations that have provided Afghanistan with food and medical supplies. More than half of the country’s nearly 40 million people are likely to face acute food shortage and nine million are already on brink of starvation, according to a recent World Food Program report.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan had said that his country would “favorably consider the request by Afghan brothers for transportation of wheat offered by India through Pakistan on exceptional basis,” in a statement after a Nov. 12 meeting with Afghanistan’s Acting Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi.

There was no immediate comment from Pakistan officials Monday.

Last month Pakistan had denied India’s request to send the wheat because of the fractious relationship between the two South Asian nations.

Riaz Haq said...

Brownstein will lobby for #Pakistan for $100,000 a month. #Pakistani government has hired a team of lobbyists from Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, including former Sen. Mark Begich, to represent its interests in #WashingtonDC, #US. via @politico

Brownstein’s contract with the Pakistani Embassy is worth $100,000 per month, to be paid quarterly, and includes Mimi Burke, Sean Callahan, David Cohen, Nadeam Elshami, Marc Lampkin, Doug Maguire, Al Mottur and Ari Zimmerman, in addition to Begich. It comes as Pakistan has continued to engage with the U.S., Russia and China in the wake of the pullout of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and the Taliban’s subsequent takeover. Representatives from those countries, or the extended troika, met last week in Islamabad to discuss what they described in a joint statement as a “severe humanitarian and economic situation in Afghanistan.” The extended troika also met with Taliban leaders on the sidelines of those talks, where they called on the Taliban to allow “unhindered humanitarian access” and pushed for the restoration of rights for women and girls.

— In a statement, Brownstein spokesperson Lara Day said that the firm will work to “forge stronger Pakistan-U.S. bilateral relations” following the withdrawal, which she contended is “essential to regional peace and stability, strong counterterrorism efforts, and promotion of economic growth and trade.” Day noted that Pakistan is also “at the crossroads of developments in and between Iran and China, making it strategically important to both the U.S. and European partners.”

Riaz Haq said...

Darul Uloom Haqqania Madrassa: #Afghan #Taliban ministers' alma mater in #Pakistan. Haqqania's curriculum includes English, math & computer science. It claims zero-tolerance policy for anti-state activities. #education #Islam #science #math #Jihad

Haqqania has broadened its curriculum to include English, math and computer science. It demands full documentation from foreign students, including those from Afghanistan, and administrators said it adopted a zero-tolerance policy for anti-state activities.


AKORA KHATTAK, Pakistan — The Taliban have seized Afghanistan, and this school couldn’t be prouder.

Darul Uloom Haqqania madrasa, one of Pakistan’s largest and oldest seminaries, has educated more Taliban leaders than any school in the world. Now its alumni hold key positions in Afghanistan.

The school’s critics call it a university of jihad and blame it for helping to sow violence across the region for decades. And they worry that extremist madrasas and the Islamist parties linked to them could be emboldened by the Taliban’s victory, potentially fueling further radicalism in Pakistan despite that country’s efforts to bring more than 30,000 seminaries under greater government control.

The school says it has changed and has argued that the Taliban should be given the chance to show they have moved beyond their bloody ways since they first ruled Afghanistan two decades ago.

“The world has seen their capabilities to run the country through their victories on both the diplomatic front and on the battlefield,” said Rashidul Haq Sami, the seminary’s vice chancellor.


Haqqania has broadened its curriculum to include English, math and computer science. It demands full documentation from foreign students, including those from Afghanistan, and administrators said it adopted a zero-tolerance policy for anti-state activities.

Experts on education in Pakistan say that the effort has had some success and that Haqqania doesn’t advocate militancy like it once did.

Still, they said, such madrasas teach a narrow interpretation of Islam. Lessons focus on how to argue with opposing faiths rather than critical thinking, and stress enforcement of practices like punishing theft with amputation and sex outside marriage with stoning. That makes some of their students vulnerable to recruitment from militant groups.

“In an environment of widespread support for the Taliban, both with the government and society, it would be naïve to hope that madrasas and other mainstream educational institutions would adopt a teaching approach other than a pro-Taliban one,” said Mr. Abbas, the author.

The school’s syllabus may be less influential than individual instructors.

“Whenever a madrasa student is found engaged in an act of violence, the wider approach is to hold the madrasa system and its syllabus responsible for the ill and no attention is paid to the teacher or teachers who influenced the student,” Mr. Abbas said.


School administrators point to recent statements by some groups in Afghanistan as reflective moderate teachings. After the Taliban captured Kabul, the Jamiat-e-Ulema Islam-Sami party, founded by Mr. Sami’s father, urged them to ensure the safety of Afghans and foreigners, particularly diplomats, protect the rights of religious and ethnic minorities and allow women access to higher education.

In any case, Mr. Sami said, the world has little choice but to trust the Taliban’s ability to govern.

“I advise the international community to give a chance to the Taliban to run the country,” he said. “If they are not allowed to work, there will be a new civil war in Afghanistan and it will affect the entire region.”

Riaz Haq said...

How #US, #UK & #Pakistan Joined Hands to Stop Another 9/11. They crushed what would come to be known as the transatlantic aircraft plot: a #terrorist conspiracy to kill thousands of passengers by detonating liquid explosives hidden in plastic bottles.

While the Anglo-American intelligence alliance remains rock-solid, the Pakistani-American one has badly foundered. But decades from now, historians will look back on this era’s checkered legacy and highlight OVERT as a model. The menace of transnational terrorism will likely stay with us, and so we should hope that both friendly and adversarial nations will continue to work together to keep their populations safe without losing sight of their values.



01/02/2022 07:00 AM EST

Aki Peritz is a former CIA analyst and the author of Disruption: Inside the Largest Counterterrorism Investigation in History, from which this article is adapted.


Rauf was snoozing as the bus approached the checkpoint. When it suddenly came to a halt by the railway tracks, Rauf opened his eyes and glanced out the window. It wasn’t the usual bored policeman or train operator idling along the side of the road, but a unit of elite police officers armed with gleaming Kalashnikov rifles. In the group were several plainclothes men; one motioned to the driver to open the front door. The driver obeyed and the officers told him to pull over and cut the motor. The bus driver quickly complied.

As the fog of sleep lifted, Rauf quickly put two and two together. According to his written notes that were later obtained by German authorities, he felt a terrible sinking feeling when he realized he had forgotten to switch off one of his cell phones. In a desperate, pointless effort, he turned off a few phones before the authorities made their way to the back of the bus. After visually identifying Rauf, they cuffed and hooded him, bundling the terrorist mastermind into the back of a waiting van. He didn’t put up a fight. It was over in a few minutes. Rashid Rauf was in custody.

The British, who favored letting the plot develop further, were displeased about this turn of events. The Met’s Peter Clarke was “well and truly miffed;” surveillance chief Steve Dryden was “angry.” “Livid” was how the BBC’s Margaret Gilmore described the cops’ reaction. This was an enormously complicated, calibrated operation involving hundreds, perhaps thousands, of officers. The surveillance squads had been working at full tilt; few had any semblance of a normal home life. But now the American bull had barged into their china shop.

Still, the operation was a great joint U.S.-Pakistan success. But by the following year, the shine was off that relationship. The Pakistanis began withholding assistance. Hayden, the CIA chief, recalled in his memoirs that when the United States went to Pakistan in 2007 with a plan to take out a specific al Qaeda operative, “the response was no, maddening delay, or our target suddenly and unexpectedly relocated.” In response, the CIA chose to aggressively pursue unilateral operations within Pakistan, cutting out the ISI completely. And in December 2007, Rashid Rauf mysteriously escaped Pakistani custody and disappeared.

The lack of cooperation became more obvious a few years later in the 2011 bin Laden raid, in which the United States inserted forces deep into Pakistan to kill the al-Qaeda leader without the ISI realizing what had happened. Relations between the two countries have never recovered.

Riaz Haq said...

Pakistan concludes 'drive' to issue smartcards to registered #Afghan #refugees. Smartcards will give them faster and safer access to #health and #education facilities and to #banking services in #Pakistan. via @refugees

UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, commends the Government of Pakistan for its country-wide campaign to verify and update the data of some 1.4 million registered Afghan refugees and to issue them with smart identity cards.

Following a short pilot, the campaign, supported by UNHCR, began on 15 April 2021 and ended on 31 December 2021. It was the first large-scale verification of refugees in Pakistan in the last 10 years.

According to early provisional results, the data of 1.25 million Afghan refugees was updated and expanded as a result of the campaign, officially known as the documentation renewal and information verification exercise (DRIVE). Among them were 200,000 children under the age of five who were registered by their refugee parents.

More than 700,000 new smart identity cards have also been issued to date. The remaining cards will be printed and distributed in early 2022.

These cards, which will be valid until 30 June 2023, contain biometric data and are technologically compatible with systems used in Pakistan to authenticate the identities of nationals.

The new smart identity cards are an essential protection tool for Afghan refugees and give them faster and safer access to health and education facilities and to banking services.

DRIVE also provided an opportunity for Afghan refugees to flag any specific protection needs or vulnerabilities. More detailed information about refugees’ socioeconomic data will allow for better tailored assistance in Pakistan and for support in case refugees decide to return home, when conditions allow.

Over 40 verification sites were operational across Pakistan during DRIVE, while mobile registration vans facilitated verifications for Afghan refugees living in remote areas. A mass information campaign was also carried out to explain to Afghan refugees about the purpose of the campaign and how to participate.

Strict measures were in place at all sites to mitigate COVID-19 risks through enhanced hygiene, physical distancing, and the scheduling of set numbers of appointments each day during the exercise.

DRIVE is part of a wider effort to assist and protect Afghan refugees, including through the support platform for the Solutions Strategy for Afghan Refugees (SSAR). The support platform was launched in 2019 to help refugee host countries while also sought to invest in former refugee return areas in Afghanistan.