In the Arena
Uncategorized

Pakistan’s Game

By Joe Klein | @JoeKleinTIME | August 23, 2010 | +

As I’ve been reporting here for several months, the Pakistanis allowed us to “arrest” Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the second in command of the Taliban, because they were upset that the Taliban and the Afghan government had launched peace talks without Pakistani participation. The ever-excellent Dexter Filkins reports out the story in detail in today’s Times. The insanity of our situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan can be summed up in one quotation:

“We picked up Baradar and the others because they were trying to make a deal without us,” said a Pakistani security official, who, like numerous people interviewed about the operation, spoke anonymously because of the delicacy of relations between Pakistan, Afghanistan and the United States. “We protect the Taliban. They are dependent on us. We are not going to allow them to make a deal with Karzai and the Indians.”

So here is a Pakistani official openly admitting what no one has been willing to say: our Pakistani “allies” support (specifically, they train, finance and protect) the very people who are killing U.S. soldiers and trying to overturn the Afghan government. This is extremely screwed up. And it way past time for the Pakistanis to decide which side they’re on. After all, the Taliban are not providing millions of dollars in flood relief in Pakistan right now, or $7.5 billion in economic aid over the next five years, or helicopters and other military equipment. We are.

Admittedly, we’ve been unreliable allies in the past. But the behavior of the Pakistanis has been outrageous. Several things need to happen now: The Pakistanis have to choose between the U.S. and the Taliban–and we have to make that choice easier on them by cobbling together an alliance of neighbors, backed by the United States, that will guarantee Afghan neutrality. This will relieve Pakistan of its greatest fear: that India will emerge as Afghanistan’s protector.

But our tolerance of Pakistan’s obfuscation and subterfuge should come to an end now.

Related Topics: Uncategorized

  • Latest on Swampland

    Barack Obama May 25, 2012

    Audacity of Dope: Tales of a Toking Teenage Obama

    We knew Barack Obama smoked weed in high school because he wrote about it in his books. What we didn’t know until Buzzfeed posted these choice nuggets (I’m so sorry) from David Maraniss’s new book on the President’s younger years, is the giggle-worthy details of his “Choom Gang” lifestyle, which are right out of a buddy stoner flick. Obama and his friends drove around the lush Hawaii countryside, hot-boxing their VW bus and re-upping with a long-haired pizza-tossing dealer named Ray, who Obama thanked in his yearbook “for all the good times.”

    From our Partners

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    2012 Election May 25, 2012

    Obama Stumbles? Why the President’s Right to Talk About Bain

    The meme of the day in journo-world is that President Obama has stumbled at the outset of the general election campaign. The evidence for this? Well, uh, there isn’t very much, really–except that a few Democrats have criticized his campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital and that Obama’s fundraising is merely humongous, instead of obscenely humongous. The two phenomena are linked, of course: Obama isn’t getting the usual haul from Wall Street because he has outrageously–outrageously!–tried to regulate the bankers who did so much to crash the economy in 2008. The handful of Democrats squawking are people who either (a) get money from private equity firms or (b) have retired and joined Mondo Casino. But there is another side to this story:

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Ok, I don’t usually comment on typos here, but this article was hard to read. Particularly, the second paragraph where “opening” should read openly and further down the word “is” is omitted.
    .
    Sloppy, Joe Klein. Very, very sloppy.

  • michaelfury
  • Ike Jakson

    Ditto! Oh, let’s make it twice.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Lets acknowlege for a moment that when we refer to “Pakistan” that the government and the populace are two separate entities. While you can insist all you want that ‘Pakistan’ chooses sides, unless the Pakistan your refering to is the general population, all you’re doing is insisting that a dictatorship act like one.
    .
    Perhaps you’re reporting should include if and why the Taliban may enjoy support among Pakistani’s in general.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    Pakistan’s possession of nuclear weapons is why no one has bothered to invade them. It is also why it may not be wise to completely alienate them.

  • pintortwo

    The Pakistanis have to choose between the U.S. and the Taliban
    .
    Do you really want to force them to make a choice? This poll is about a year old, but it’s very clear:
    .
    (A) public opinion poll in Pakistan showing that 64 percent Pakistanis see America as the enemy… only 9 percent of Pakistanis see the US as a partner. -link
    .
    ..this was before the drone attacks in Pakistan went into full-effect. It is quite possible that numbers are worse now.
    .
    .
    we have to make that choice easier on them by cobbling together an alliance of neighbors, backed by the United States, that will guarantee Afghan neutrality.
    .
    ..you’re suggesting that Pakistan will abandon its ethnic, historical and political bonds with the Taliban- the most influential group in Afghanistan- for guarantees of Afghan neutrality from.. Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan..? or does “backed by the US” mean solely a US guarantee? (Pakistanis probably don’t value our guarantees too highly.)
    .
    .
    Mr Klein, when will you acknowledge that there is nothing to be gained, in terms of National Security, by our continued war in Afghanistan and that our “official policy” there is nonsense?
    .
    Your final sentence in this post should be:
    .
    But our tolerance of this war should come to an end now.

  • Ike Jakson

    This deserves two more times Ditto.

  • allthingsinaname

    Yes! When one considers that the US doesn’t even know where they are at, I am afraid that the Pakistanis are holding all the cards.

  • injuntrouble

    Pakistan is not a dictatorship, it has an elected President and Prime Minister,

    As for why Pakistanis support the Taliban, many northern Pakistani are conservative Pashtuns and share the cultural as well as religious background of the Taliban. The rest of the Pakistan supports the Taliban as a means to control their northern neighbor (Afghanistan) as well as to a carry out terrorist missions to its other neighbor, India. Just explaining the rationale behind the Pakistani support for the Taliban does not mean Pakistani behavior is excusable. Just like the author says, it is totally outrageous.

  • prasadgc

    > But the behavior of the Pakistanis has been outrageous. [...] The Pakistanis have to choose between the U.S. and the Taliban–and we have to make that choice easier on them by cobbling together an alliance of neighbors, backed by the United States, that will guarantee Afghan neutrality. This will relieve Pakistan of its greatest fear: that India will emerge as Afghanistan’s protector.

    Translation: Pakistan has been screwing us. Let’s screw the Indians to make them feel better.

blog comments powered by Disqus