American born al Qaeda militant Adam Gadahn. The daily Telegraph of London reports the arrest of Adam Gadahn as a major victory for the US-led battle against al-Qaeda and follows the recent detentions of several Afghan Taliban commanders in Karachi, including the movement’s No 2 commander. US officials did not immediately confirm Gadahn’s capture. Photo: REUTERS
IF YOU BYPASS ME, SO SHALL I
by Nayyar Hashmey
I agree with what Peter says in first 3 paragraphs of his story. [You will find these paras before the image of former Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed]
Actually it is a love-hate relationship between US and Pakistan. When interests are in full sync, they turn into love. When, rivalry, though to call it rivalry will rather be a big word as Pakistan can neither be a rival to America nor it can aspire to, so let’s call it a clash of interests, it then becomes a ‘hate’ relationship. But I personally think it’s all a humbug.
The Pak politicians adopt a posture i.e. of indifference, anti-US or something like a ‘hate’ feeling towards Washington, mostly to avoid a sudden backlash by the people of Pakistan, who never did benefit from Pakistan’s “most allied ally” of the United States of America relationship whether it was the honeymoon period between Washington and Islamabad or was a period of interests’ conflict which in any way never benefited the people.
Our leaders though do orchestrate a massive display of such signs as “Thank you America” when they feel benefited from this relationship and when they feel of being “bossed” by the officials from the State department, then these billboards are replaced by “Yankees go home” or “Down with America” shoutings and signs.
In the following two paragraphs [You can see these paras below the image of Binyam Mohamed], again Pete is right. It’s both. The State department/CIA guys perhaps wanted to bypass the Paks which of course means its high ups in the ISI, who seem to have signaled the CIA that if you could talk to the Taliban at our cost, then we can do ‘this’ as well. Secondly there has been a good number of news as well that US having been forced to strategize steps by which she could avoid heavy losses to its forces, then its worth considering buying them out.
And Jeff I wish to share something personally with you and the readers that I have blood relations; from my maternal side with the Pashtuns and I know that some tribal leaders are terribly lusty so could be that Americans identified such elements in Taliban leadership and it is possible that with hefty sums Americans might have been able to persuade these ‘ISI assets’ why fight with us when we can offer you something better than what the other side is offering.
Through this process Am’s could have not only bought these assets but would have extracted their links as well. So here too Peter is quite logical and right and this is what he refers to in his following paragraph.
Quote: “The true meaning of the arrests can be ascertained from the timing of the events. It may have been primarily an American/Pakistani operation to isolate Taliban leaders who had either negotiated with the British, or had been held at Guantanamo. British courts had taken up the case of Binyam Mohamed and American officials publicly stated that disclosing classified information about US abuse of this detainee would damage intelligence cooperation between the agencies of the two nations”. Unquote.
In the successive part of his article, where he has detailed the name of major Taliban leaders, I don’t know much about the others but one Mullah Rocketi in Afghanistan’s northern belt, had put the Taliban after 2001; and this included Taliban from Pakistan also who were packed into steel barrels and fire was alighted beneath these barrels. It was reported that when the sealed humanware in the barrels rocked during the bodies burning process [roasted], the sadistic Mullah enjoyed the scene like the old Romans enjoyed the tearing of slaves’ bodies by hungry lions in the coliseum of Rome.
My further information especially where he has time-lined the events, and his subsequent views is much limited, hence unable to comment on this aspect. But what he says in the paragraphs following this part, I fully endorse his views.
The paragraphs one above the image of Hafiz Saeed and the other following the same image, are fully endorsed too.
On his information regarding ISI’s involvement in using the Taliban for inter sectarian riots and other acts of terror, again my information in this regard is also much limited, hence unable to comment further on this aspect too.
My further information especially where he has time lined the events, is also much limited, hence unable to comment on this aspect of the story. But what he says in the subsequent paragraphs, I fully endorse his views.
Again what he says in the paragraphs one above the image of Hafiz Saeed and the other following the same image, I fully agree with him.
On his information regarding ISI’s involvement in using the Taliban for inter sectarian riots and other acts of terror, again my information in this regard is much limited, hence unable to comment further on this aspect of the story.
Coming to his analysis on Rigi’s arrest by Iranian authorities, and ISI role in this regard seems to me too as valid one and therefore, I agree with him in this regard.
Peter’s assessment about the central Asian drama seems to be the most pragmatic part of the story, Central Asia. If you combine Balochistan with Afghanistan and with Central Asia, the new great game starts unfolding before you, as this is the area which holds strategic position for every one i.e. Pakistan, China. India, Russia and the West.
As regards his assessment on Americans opting for Hekmatyar’s role, it could be so, but I doubt Americans would be ready so soon to come to an understanding with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. First, because he is a highly qualified Mullah (unlike others who though have an ever burning flame of Islamic Jihad in them like Mullah Umar etc., yet are academically poor).
In contrast Hekmatyar has been teaching at a University and had a very close relation with Pakistan’s Jamat-e-Islami. He is quite a formidable factor in the current drama going on in Afghanistan. But as always the case is, in war games nobody comes to ‘talking’ until and unless one is forced to. If the Americans do not have any other possible alternative, the scenario presented by Peter may very well hold.
Now about the part regarding the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan. The TTP is reported to have been behind the terror attacks in Lahore, Rawalpindi, Islamabad and Peshawar. These acts of terror included the suicide bombings as well. And being Muslim, howsoever bad he may be, he can never think, I repeat, even think of attacking some body in a mosque. It’s as simple as that. No Hindu would attack a Mandir and no Sikh would even think of such act /s in a Gurdwara. This is possible only when such an undertaking is either a false flag or otherwise some lunatic may do this. In later case there can be some singular incident but not on such a large scale as they have done it in Pakistan.
I am in full agreement with Peter’s analysis as presented by him in the last part of his story. [This starts from the paragraph where he mentions about president Obama having taken over administration in White House.]
And with this, I conclude my comments on Peter Chamberlin’s highly useful and analytical coverage of this most recent event (of an on-going saga of so called war on terror). Once again peace be to you all.
Back to 1. Comments on Peter Chamberlin’s Article: Arresting Taliban to cover America’s Ass2. AF-PAK: Arresting Taliban to Cover America’s Ass3. These gimmicks can’t bail out America
YOUR COMMENT IS IMPORTANT
DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF YOUR COMMENT