Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Taliban Resurgence threatens Elections

Obama Obama in Newsweek:


' Our success in Afghanistan is going to be deeply dependent not just on getting more troops there, which we need, but also some sustained high-level engagement with Pakistan—something that I discussed before but I think is significantly more urgent than even I had imagined. Basically there doesn't appear to be any pressure at all being placed on Al Qaeda, on these training camps, these safe havens, in the FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas].'


Although there have been cease-fires between the Pakistani military and FATA militants at certain points and with regard to some groups (and as part of political negotiations), the Pakistani military took on tribal forces in Khyber recently and it is not fair to say that nothing is being done. Hundreds of Pakistani troops have died fighting the tribes and al-Qaeda in recent years. In his Berlin speech Obama also talked about terror training camps "in Karachi." None existed to my knowledge. Karachi is a stronghold of the secular MQM. There is lots to criticize about the Pakistani government, but this level of animus and misinformation is odd and you have to wonder where it is coming from.

The increasing violence in Afghanistan is threatening the country's ability to hold scheduled presidential elections in 2009, according to Aljazeera International:



NATO forces killed a car full of innocent civilians on Friday, one in a series of such incidents. Even NATO is admitting that its troops' killing of innocent civilians is alienating the Afghan population.

Barnett Rubin weighs in on the issue of whether Afghanistan is a "narco-state.

Pakistani Taliban are attacking Shiites. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has called on Pakistani Shiites to rally to the support of their brethren in Parachinar, who say that they have been interfering with Taliban infiltration of neighboring Afghanistan.

Remember how the US Pentagon kept claiming that Shiite Iran was helping the Taliban? Fairy tales for children courtesy Cheney.

Taliban factions are suspected of informing on each other to British and other NATO troops, thus using them to decapitate their internal rivals.

Taliban propaganda is becoming more effective.

Pakistani Taliban are threatening merchants who conduct cross-border trade with Afghanistan.

12 Comments:

At 2:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have trusted your information for the last five years or longer. Please stop with the Obama Support. It is annoying. Do what you do best

 
At 3:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/25/AR2008072501875_pf.html

July 25, 2008

Senator Obama with President Nicolas Sarkozy

Paris

BARACK OBAMA: And we talked about Iran, which we agree is an extraordinarily grave situation. President Sarkozy and I agree that the world must send a clear message to Iran to end its illicit nuclear program. A nuclear-armed Iran would pose a grave threat to both of our nations. It would endanger Israel and the rest of the region and could embolden terrorists and spark a dangerous arm race in the Middle East....

 
At 3:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/world/europe/26obamacnd.html?hp&pagewanted=print

July 26, 2008

Obama, in France, Says Pressure on Iran Is Building
By JEFF ZELENY and STEVEN ERLANGER

Both men agreed that Afghanistan is "a war we have to win," Mr. Obama said, vowing to send two more American brigades to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda there. Mr. Sarkozy, who has already sent another 700 French combat troops, said that "we are not allowed to fail" in Afghanistan and let the Taliban again "prevent 6 million little girls from going to school." ...

 
At 4:19 PM, Blogger Don Thieme said...

Your criticism of Obama's mistatement's regarding Pakistan are well-taken. We do not need another point in the "axis of evil" to tilt at. Rather, we need to move past seeing the world as black or white, red-state or blue-state.

 
At 4:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Heck, you ask the right question as always. Where is Obama's advice coming from? I do not understand, but I am genuinely distressed.

 
At 6:08 PM, Blogger El Cid said...

Why does this all seem so familiar to me?

The Taliban found it possible to consolidate power the first time as the population seemed prefer their miserable leadership to continued civil war chaos hell.

Are we setting up the conditions for a second ascension to power of the Taliban, by giving the population the apparent choice between continued warlord chaos hell and a glum Taliban consolidation?

 
At 6:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Cole, you should be able to show with maps that only route of supplies to US/ISAF souldier in Afganistan is either by air or through Pakistan by land through Khyber pass(Landi Kotal) or through Baluchistan(Bolan Pass I guess). When US/Pakistan/Afghan GovTS TALK ABOUT TERRORIST REGROUPING IN FATA and Pakistan doing nothing, what they mean is that Pakistan arm which has become Arm for Rent is not keeping its end of the bargain. Now that is what happens when you try to do things on cheap and ignore the sentiments of Pakistani Pushtoons as well as 1.5 million Afghan Refugees in Pakistan, which nobody including bright Mr Obama like to talk about.Good Luck

 
At 9:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh no Professor Cole one must wonder whether your new animus against Obama is coming from. He is surely right that the Pakistani government is losing its fight with the Taliban because it has itself supported and sanctioned the Taliban for so long. Ziauddin Sardar has a much more realistic understanding of the Pakistani government's failure, for which terrorized Pashtuns, Afghanis and Indians are paying a most heavy price.
See
http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2008/07/pakistan-taliban-peshawar

 
At 1:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama is right to pressure the Pakistanis over their unwillingness to confront Taliban takfiris. In this issue Prof. Cole mentions
that Pakistan military won't help
Shiite citizens in border areas.
Everyone should realize how dangerous fanatical militias like the Taliban are to any social system. The Pak army needs to disarm them as soon as possible.
Elements of the Pak ISI undoubtedly enhance their (political)power inside a fracturing Pakistan from its alliance with Taliban/Al Qaeda militants(the boys in the bush) and stands to gain little from confronting them. Obviously those
elements need to be purged and that huge 1,000,000 man army(financed in part by US taxpayers) needs to demonstrate strength against these paramilitary favorites.
IMO Obama is right in addressing the issue honestly. Bush has been ignoring the Pakistan problem for years and it is festering. The installation of 'miracle-working transforming democracy' in Pakistan was a low cost (though high risk) Hail Mary play that failed.

 
At 1:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay, people, climb down from the ledges. Here's what Obama's actually planning:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/election2008/story/45677.html

Obama to McClatchy: Goals in Afghanistan should be modest

By Margaret Talev | McClatchy Newspapers

In an interview with McClatchy Saturday night as he returned from his overseas trip, Sen. Barack Obama answered questions about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and other issues in his campaign against Republican Sen. John McCain.

Q: Afghanistan is something you've spoken a lot about...Take us to the next level, why, as you've said, and how, we need to put more U.S. forces into Afghanistan. To the Soviets it became a quagmire. How do you avoid that? How do you measure success? If you could give us a little more detail about what you think you'd like to do.

A: I'm not here to lay out a comprehensive military strategy. That's the job of our commanders on the ground. I can tell you what our strategic goals should be. They should be relatively modest. We shouldn't want to take over the country. We should want to get out of there as quickly as we can and help the Afghans govern themselves and provide for their own security. Our critical goal should be to make sure that the Taliban and al Qaida are routed and that they cannot project threats against us from that region. And to do that I think we need more troops. I also think that we need to deal with the situation in Pakistan and the fact that terrorists are able to operate with relative freedom of movement there right now.

Q: Do you have an idea of how long it might take?

A: A lot of it depends on not only our military actions but on our diplomatic initiatives with countries like Pakistan. And it also depends on how quickly we can get the Afghan government to cut down on corruption, take seriously the problem of the narcotics trade. So there are a lot of moving parts there. You don't know until you know.

 
At 11:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In your opinion what should be done by US/coalition troops in Afghanistan if :

- they come under fire from across the Afghan-Pakistani border, i.e. from Pakistan ?

- they are attacked by militants who flee across the border into Pakistan immediately afterwards ?

- there is logistical support from the Pakistani side to militants attacking US/coalition troops ?

- units of Pakistani paramilitaries responsible for fighting Taliban on the Pakistani side are actually observed assisting the Taliban i.e. not pursuing fleeing Taliban or actually sheltering them ?

Is it your understanding that none of these situations usually apply ?

I'm confused. Can someone help ?

 
At 8:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some other pertinent questions that could be added to Daniel,s list are?

What is US/Nato army,s mission in Afganistan?
How much is the knowledge Gap that an average westerner(Who believes that USA owns the world) needs to bridge before undertanding of the geo-political context of this conflict will dawn on him/her?

Who are the people who make majority of Pakistani armed forces?

How cheap has the Army leaders sold themselves and their nation to US interests( some say it would take 5 CIAs approx 25 Billion dollars per year to do what Pak Army is being asked to do)?
What is the end point?
With dollar and US economy tanking faster than you can say uncle Sam, how long can this folly continue?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home