Wikileaks Documents Indicate Pakistan Supports the Taliban (Updated)
[Guest post by DRJ]
According to the New York Times:
“The documents, made available by an organization called WikiLeaks, suggest that Pakistan, an ostensible ally of the United States, allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders.”
This is one reason why many experts think America can never win in Afghanistan, but I doubt the New York Times would have published this without the knowledge or even the approval of the Obama Administration — so this may signal the government/military is finally willing to do something about Pakistan.
— DRJ
UPDATE: The White House condemned the release of documents by Wikileaks.
Indian and American cooperation and ties have never been stronger in light of the spread of Islamic crazies into central India
I bet if we sent a few thousand tanks and artillery to the indians our pakistinian problem might get solved
Pakistan is roughly made up of 4 tribes – attacking the core of their industry on the coast will keep the Pak Secret Service occupied
EricPWJohnson (3efc69) — 7/25/2010 @ 5:13 pmYes, EricPWJohnson, given that both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers, a few thousand tanks is all that the Indian Army needs …
After all, they only have a few thousand already … and manufacture their own modern main battle tank. ( Oh, and India manufactures its own artillery and multiple-launch rocket systems too )
Sheesh, EPWJ, your quest to find new topics on which to embarrass yourself continues.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/25/2010 @ 5:22 pmThis news is unexpected and unprecedented for anyone who has been reading the MSM or been asleep, which is the same thing, for the past nine years.
daleyrocks (940075) — 7/25/2010 @ 5:29 pmThat the Pakistani govt (or elements within it) supports the Taliban is VERY old news, as they (particularly the ISI) were part and parcel in the creation of the Taliban to ensure that they (the Paks) had a strong voice in Kabul and would not have to worry about that sector of their border.
AD - RtR/OS! (46c251) — 7/25/2010 @ 5:29 pmThis has been the great dilemma of U.S.-Pak relations since 9/11:
We need the Pak Govt’s cooperation to deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan (effecient logistical ops pretty much demand a close-by sea-port);
but, too close cooperation between that govt and the U.S. could lead to elements within the military overthrowing the govt.
This is still the problem vis-a-vis our relations with the Paks,
beyond the problem of our closeness to the Indians and the complications that those relations add to the Pak situation.
Comment by daleyrocks — 7/25/2010 @ 5:29 pm
Doesn’t say much for the editors of the NYT, does it?
AD - RtR/OS! (46c251) — 7/25/2010 @ 5:31 pmPakistan is where the whole thing started with Akhtar and Youseff, not to mention the Zelig like
ian cormac (d407d8) — 7/25/2010 @ 5:31 pmHamid Gul, organizing and supplying the groups that
would become AQ (Abu Sayef, Hekmatyar,) and the Taliban (Khalis, Haqquani)
AD, don’t worry about our closeness to India (the product of hard work by the Bush admin by the way) – Obama is busy undermining that.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/25/2010 @ 5:34 pmIt sounds to me that someone in the administration wants to start building the case that we can’t win in Afghanistan, and the best thing to do is to cut and run. The “someone” may simply mid level staffers maneuvering for advantage, and not reflect the current thinking of the higher ups (as opposed to the future thinking of the higher ups). Or it may reflect what Obama wants to do. This is the sort of thing that made Kreminology so fun during the Soviet Union.
I am however a bit puzzled:
so this may signal the government/military is finally willing to do something about Pakistan.
What do you think “doing something about Pakistan would entail”? As far as I can tell, the situation, in terms of military cooperation, etc. is as good as we can really hope for, so there’s not really any room to improve it in line with our goals. Apparently the government there can’t or won’t reign in the pro Taliban elements in its intelligence and military services, and there’s no replacement I know of which would do a better job.
kishnevi (7af3d7) — 7/25/2010 @ 5:37 pmComment by SPQR — 7/25/2010 @ 5:34 pm
Why does that not make me feel warm and fuzzy?
AD - RtR/OS! (46c251) — 7/25/2010 @ 5:38 pm“… Apparently the government there can’t or won’t reign in the pro Taliban elements in its intelligence and military services…”
To do so would be to commit to someone in the Pak Military the complete support of the United States with an iron-clad agreement between the Indian and Pak Govt’s solving the Kashmir question in return for the purging of all supporting elements within the Pak Govt for AQ and the Taliban, and probably the deportation of all the Wahhabi imams from Saudi that populate the madrassas.
In other words, it is an impossible outcome in a rational world.
AD - RtR/OS! (46c251) — 7/25/2010 @ 5:45 pmI updated the post with the Obama Administration’s response. Now that Obama is President, apparently leaks aren’t that useful.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 7/25/2010 @ 6:08 pmAs if Obama and Democrats would do something about Afghanistan. The release was “all about the Bush war period” that magically included the first year of the Obama administration. It’s politics period. If you can’t figure out Obama’s strategery on this then go sit in Rev. Wrights church for 20 years and be sure to wear your dunce hat. The fact the NYT, Guardian and others have had access to these docs for weeks should tell you it’s been coordinated.
The quick version is this will be used during the elections this year, moves the news away from Obama’s domestic disasters, lays the ground work to withdraw since Bush poisoned the well so badly and, as a bonus, to remove Petraeus from entering the Presidential race in 2012.
cedarhill (5470e3) — 7/25/2010 @ 6:12 pmPaki’s go with this
or Paki’s go with that
they can go with
…………………./´¯/)
ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c) — 7/25/2010 @ 6:13 pm………………..,/¯../
………………./…./
…………./´¯/’…’/´¯¯`·¸
………./’/…/…./……./¨¯\
……..(‘(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’)
………\……………..’…../
……….”…\………. _.·´
…………\…………..(
…………..\………….\
kishnevi,
I don’t think the Obama Administration would go to war with Pakistan but it might withdraw some economic and military support. Of course, even if Obama tried to do that, it could be a bluff that Pakistan would call — like when Obama threatened to take action against Afghanistan and Karzai over corruption but backed down when Karzai threatened to strengthen ties with the Taliban.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 7/25/2010 @ 6:15 pmYou may be right. Perhaps I shall.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 7/25/2010 @ 6:17 pmDon’t forget, DRJ, that Obama claimed that he would go to war with Pakistan during the ’08 campaign.
Just one of many reasons I pointed out the juvenile nature of his foreign policy pronouncements.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/25/2010 @ 6:17 pmInteresting no WH scolding the NYT itself for actually publishing the papers… the paper of record has printed a A Note to Readers regarding how they decided exactly which items to publish, and which ones not to…
Dana (8ba2fb) — 7/25/2010 @ 6:44 pmThe Taliban did originate in Pakistan. They went into Afghanistan because we, and the Russians, left a vaccum there — run by opium-dealing thugs. The Norther Alliance, bandits, murderers, rapists. The Taliban hanged the animals. That cannot be denied.
nk (db4a41) — 7/25/2010 @ 6:46 pm*vacuum*
nk (db4a41) — 7/25/2010 @ 6:47 pmnk, the Taliban hanged one set of animals and became another set. Don’t forget that these Taliban animals made their mark by dragging women into a soccer field during a match to execute them.
The Taliban were initially supported by Pakistan’s ISI to counter Afghan tribes less friendly to Pakistan.
So lets not find some odd set of virtues of the Taliban.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/25/2010 @ 6:51 pmAnd by the way, Wikileaks is not releasing this for the benefit of the US. Wikileaks is run by people who actively hate the US and are trying to harm us. That’s been clear for a long time, but most recently recall the fraudulent anti-US and anti-war attacks based on the leaked Apache gunship video.
Wikileaks is working to undermine our nation, Don’t forget that.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/25/2010 @ 6:58 pmSPQR – Personally, I enjoyed the CD’s of the Taliban Philharmonic I received as Christmas presents several years ago.
daleyrocks (940075) — 7/25/2010 @ 7:04 pmdaleyrocks, did they use the sound of the explosives destroying the statutes of Buddha for the cannons of the 1812 Overture?
Or did they just use suicide percussionists?
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/25/2010 @ 7:06 pmTrue, sPQR, but it does back up other research by the LSE and other sources on the real enemy
ian cormac (d407d8) — 7/25/2010 @ 7:07 pmWadda? What we are doing now, we should have been doing 25 years ago. Instead of invading Grenada. Neglect and indifference. So just cut the partisan ****.
nk (db4a41) — 7/25/2010 @ 7:15 pmReagan was the biggest failure of all, in Afghanistan.
nk (db4a41) — 7/25/2010 @ 7:18 pmThat was deep, nk. Really deep.
The Russians withdrew from Afghanistan when, nk? Do you even know? Hint: Reagan was not in office. Mullah Omar first began expanding support in 1994, with his first military operations.
But you want to blame Reagan.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/25/2010 @ 7:25 pmThe truth is a little more complicated on either side of the divide, fancy that. It seems clear from
ian cormac (d407d8) — 7/25/2010 @ 7:33 pmthe contemporaneous accounts of Bonner and Kaplan,
not to mention Bearden, a dozen years later, that
they knew what Hekmatyar, Haqquani,Khalis were up to. Crile’s bio of Wilson indicates that Avrakotos
the company man in charge of the arms pipeline tried to investigate the Afghan Arabs but were thwarted
“Reagan was the biggest failure of all, in Afghanistan.”
nk – Woulda, coulda, shoulda. So just cut the partisan ****.
daleyrocks (940075) — 7/25/2010 @ 7:36 pmRight I forgot, Moledet is just like the Taliban
ian cormac (d407d8) — 7/25/2010 @ 7:54 pmthings were going so
ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c) — 7/25/2010 @ 8:37 pmwell and then nk show up
there you go again
Pakistan, NOT afghanistan, is the PROBLEM. Afghanistan/Taliban should be allowed to take back their land of Pakhtunwa currently under illegal Pakistani occupation. We wish for Americans to leave as soon as possible because this will finally give us the opportunity to invade Pakistan to get out land back. Under American security protection, Pakistan has inflicted a lot of damage to Afghanitan.
Shah Rukh Kahn (4f3ab5) — 7/25/2010 @ 9:56 pmNo one is discussing more important matter in news media
OBL ???
Why Pakistan is giving him shelter?
Pakistan playing masterfully with world community.
Let us analyse ,why pak Hiding OSAMA inspite of world pressure .
Pakistan is indeed knee deep involved in 9 /11.
By giving up Osama ,their involvement will be out in front of the world
Either Paki had killed OSAMA or
JERRY (336ca2) — 7/25/2010 @ 10:44 pmOsama taking refuge in pakistan and blackmailing paki that he will let the world know duble game of paki
Well, as we would have said around the NCO Club bar in Peshawar:
AD - RtR/OS! (46c251) — 7/25/2010 @ 11:53 pmThis subject has really drawn a crowd of Rag-Heads!
I think this was just done to take the heat off of Oliver Stone’s Hitler-was-right comments in the Sunday Times.
Kevin Murphy (5ae73e) — 7/26/2010 @ 12:01 amWe used the Afgahnis like an ax to cut the Soviets and after the job was done we threw them on the ground to rust.
Yes, SPQR, the Taliban showed up in 1994, because nobody else except some opium dealers, rapists and murderers were there. Did I, or did not, say “vacuum”?
nk (db4a41) — 7/26/2010 @ 1:27 amnk – Woulda, coulda, shoulda. So just cut the partisan ****.
Comment by daleyrocks — 7/25/2010 @ 7:36 pm
I like Reagan. I voted for Reagan. But I’m not going to deny reality. We bought weapons secretly from China to arm the Mujahadeen and after they humiliated the Soviet Union for us we told them “eat the bullets”.
nk (db4a41) — 7/26/2010 @ 1:44 amnk, the Soviet’s left in early 1989 and the Soviet’s puppet Najibullah’s government did not fall until 1992. So your claim that it is Reagan’s fault that he did not stabilize Afghanistan means that you think Reagan should have invaded Afghanistan and directly confronted Soviet troops with US troops.
If you are criticizing the “vacuum”, which occurred with the muhahidin finally defeating Najibullah’s government, then you are talking about the last year of G.H.W. Bush and Clinton’s admin.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2010 @ 7:11 amThere is hardly a person in the US who doesn’t want our troops back. But aren’t these leaks exposing our soldiers to even greater risks? I do believe in free speech, but I’m not sure if these documents should be online at this time.
Good bless America!
sr22 insurance (b18485) — 7/26/2010 @ 8:49 amFair, SPQR. Thank you. That poor place, those poor people. I’ve posted before, I believe, that is has the highest infant mortality rate in the world. 25%. One in four children will not reach the age of five.
nk (db4a41) — 7/26/2010 @ 8:56 amMichelle Malkin has the perfect take on this.
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/07/26/the-blabbermouth-media-strikes-again/
There is a way to put a stop to this kind of nonsense, of course.
Kill enemy spies and homegrown traitors who help enemy spies.
Find out where Julian Assange is and drop a 500 lb on his head, just like you would do with a terrorist. If he’s in a friendly country we can’t bomb, let an assassin do the job. Round up people here who are stealing classified documents (or publishing them), try them for espionage and treason, and then execute them.
Killing enemy spies and traitors is the way to go. It’s effective, and it’s even traditional.
Dave Surls (f0a5a5) — 7/26/2010 @ 4:15 pmYes, SPQR, the Taliban showed up in 1994, because nobody else except some opium dealers, rapists and murderers were there. Did I, or did not, say “vacuum”?
If anyone is to blame for the vacuum in AfPak following the retreat of the Soviets, it is the President who was hell-bent on spending the “Peace Dividend”:
AD - RtR/OS! (46981b) — 7/26/2010 @ 4:28 pmWilliam Jefferson Blythe Clinton!
For, it was the End of History, as Francis Fukuyama laughingly wrote
(will he ever live that one down…Oh, I forgot, being a Liberal means never having to say you’re sorry).
One in four children will not reach the age of five.
Those are jihadi’s that Rumsfeld is not creating.
AD - RtR/OS! (46981b) — 7/26/2010 @ 4:30 pmThe ISI or Pakistan Army support for Taliban or other criminal organisation is happening for a long time, that predates 9/11. The funds for the 9/11 was wiretransferred by a former pakistani intelligence official to Mohammed Atta.
Atleast wikileaks did what it should as a free press to stop the $7.5 billion(tax payers money) which otherwise would have been disbursed to them in a few years(excluding the $10 billion already paid to them). In a futile exercise to stop them supporting the extremist elements.
tblg (e47670) — 7/28/2010 @ 11:11 amtblg,
innocent people who informed on terrorist monsters are named by wikileaks.
I think they could have bothered to read and properly redact the material they posted, because they know it’s a matter of life and death for these innocent people. They are complicit in the inevitable murders of these informants.
It’s lazy to rely on a ‘all info, no matter what, should be public’ mantra.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/28/2010 @ 11:38 amJulian Assange of wikileaks is interesting in a freaky way, but obviously has failed on many levels to accomplish anything. Let’s not forget, at the core, he is just a computer hacker. As we know, in that discipline, the best are creating impressive software and networking solutions, and those that don’t have the skills, well they become like Julian. Interesting to watch some astute, real reporters and hosts ask him questions. He talks in circles, and dreams up reasons why what he is doing has any value. His bitterness about his own personal failures shows quickly. Julian Assange and wikileaks is limited in value and obviously time, as freaks are interesting at first, then we move on to things that are more productive.
byebyewikileaks (58403b) — 7/29/2010 @ 9:22 pmI heard they said these informants were technically criminals somehow. I guess like the French resistance were being bad Vichy Nazis.
It’s a real shame that this has happened. No real insight into the war was gained. America has the embarrassment of secrets exposed, and those secrets will get people killed. And of course, it will be much harder to get someone to inform on the Taliban. you don’t know if, ten years from now, some failed government employee at some level will out you and you’ll be murdered.
For the US military fighting for Afghanistan, life is definitely not cheap. But for whoever decided to leak this information… life must be damn cheap indeed.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/29/2010 @ 9:26 pmSo say the traitors, Dustin, pfc Manning exceeded the arrogance and deceit of Ellsberg nearly forty
ian cormac (e46147) — 7/29/2010 @ 10:00 pmyears ago, who leaked the SIOP before Nixon got on to him
PAKISTAN ZINDABAD this saga of so called wikileaks will soon be over as its a usual propaganda of america to hit islamic world i wonder wat type of leaks we will have to w8 to c actual corroupt face of america that calls itself the super power where in reality its merely failing to be super power 🙂
sabeeha (b8b75d) — 4/18/2011 @ 12:06 amGood grief. We’ve got us a live one!
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/18/2011 @ 12:30 am