Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Talaban to power, an ISI blunder?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Talaban to power, an ISI blunder?

    ISI's name is taken almost always when creation of Talaban comes under discussion.

    I would like to know the opinion and research of people here, about the links between the two groups?!

    If ISI was the sole creator, then why were the Talaban chosen? Was it their ethnicity or just due to the fact that all other fractions were harder to 'handle' or had inclination towards other countries in the region?

    Does ISI (or some fractions of it anyway) also share the ideology of Talaban? Or did the ideology come about as a by-product to keep the regime in power?!
    I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
    - Robert McCloskey

    #2
    Originally posted by ahmadjee:
    ISI's name is taken almost always when creation of Talaban comes under discussion.

    I would like to know the opinion and research of people here, about the links between the two groups?!

    If ISI was the sole creator, then why were the Talaban chosen? Was it their ethnicity or just due to the fact that all other fractions were harder to 'handle' or had inclination towards other countries in the region?

    Does ISI (or some fractions of it anyway) also share the ideology of Talaban? Or did the ideology come about as a by-product to keep the regime in power?!
    ISI has worked with CIA for a long time in Afghanistan, and its mindset has become just like that of CIA. For some reason, they think they have the birth right to be king maker around the world.

    Pakistani ISI has been doing the same king-making process in Pakistan. Sometimes, PPP is imposed, and the other time NS, GIK, and other sort of people.

    In Afghanistan, they tried Burhan uddin rabbani (who is now the president), but this guy was pissing him off by not giving other pushtoon the 'due' share. In the first 10 years of war in Afghanistan, CIA and Saudi Arab supplied all sort of money to the drug barons and religious parties in Pakistan to make them committed to Afghan conflict. JUI and JI type religious parties kept sending their religious students and hardcore elements to Afghanistan to wage CIA and Saudis war in Afghanistna against communist regime. These students became so confident of their muscle power and so high in numbers that in the mid 90s, they occupied some provinces. ISI at that time was fed up with Rabbani, and seeing an opportunuity their, they started supporting Talibans with arms and training. Pakistani's army generals were in Afghanistan till recently to help Taliban plan their strategy against the NA.

    So Taliban's origin is indigenous, but as a by product of years of religious education funded by Saudis and USA. Their rise to the power is off course completely supported by Pakistani army.


    Does ISI share Talibna's views? If u listen to Gul Hameed (former chief of ISI in CIA's involvemnt period), u would be amzed to know how dumb, fundunamentalist and idiot people were calling the shots in the 80s era. This guy is complete idiot and paranoid. It goes to CIA's credit that they were working with him all that time!! u can imagine the idiots in CIA too!!


    Comment


      #3
      Taleban were 'chosen' because they were the predominant anti-NA force in Afghanistan.

      contrary to what American/Indian media will have you believe, ISI did not 'create' Taleban. They were created by the USA/Saudi funded madrassas. They weren't militant till they claimed control in 1996. So they took 4 years to see if NA can establish fair rule.

      ISI has secrety tried to establish ties with NA too (like all good spooks do) but due to ethnic differences it hasn't gone too far.

      My prediction.. the Taleban will return.. albeit with a different name and who knows with Uncle Sam's funding again..

      History has a funny way of repeating it's self.
      JaddoN kaddya jaloos ghareeba tay shehr ich choatalee lug gayee

      Comment


        #4
        FreeMind,

        C-Span was broadcasting a senate committee hearing of the CIA officials about Talaban, a couple weeks back.

        They blamed ISI for running all the shots. Also denied that they had any involvement in shaping militarily or through $$$ in Afghanistan once the Russians forces pulled out.

        I agree with you that CIA has influenced ISI greatly! And rather than being just an Intelligence gatherer ... they want to use that Intelligence, however they may choose.

        PakistaniAbroad,

        Other than the ethnic difference, was their any other reason why ISI couldn't get along with NA?

        And why didn't ISI try to establish a broad based government then, ather than choosing only one particular regime? Which seems to be Pakistanís policy now! Is a broad based government hard to control?!

        If ISI thought they had control (or great influence) over Talaban, the past couple of months have shown that it was not the case.
        I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
        - Robert McCloskey

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by ahmadjee:
          FreeMind,

          C-Span was broadcasting a senate committee hearing of the CIA officials about Talaban, a couple weeks back.

          They blamed ISI for running all the shots. Also denied that they had any involvement in shaping militarily or through $$$ in Afghanistan once the Russians forces pulled out.

          I agree with you that CIA has influenced ISI greatly! And rather than being just an Intelligence gatherer ... they want to use that Intelligence, however they may choose.
          Bush has recently passed a decree that no govt's classified doc would be shared with anyone unless the incumbent and the predecssor presidents OKay it. Some weeks ago, a Californian senator was complaining with Gen Powell that his request for all the Taliban related govt documents are not being given to him. he said only press clips were goven to him, which is a travesty of his request. To this, Gen Powell said he would look into that. After that Bush passed that law.

          Americans r now decrying Taliban's human rights abuses all the time, but in late 90s they saw no difference b/w Aghan emorate and Saudi Arab type countries, in which the treatment to political opposition and women r same. At that time, Ameircans were more concerned with having an Unicol-spocored oil pipe from Usbekstan to SA thru Afgnaitsan. But then OBL came into picture and then they started resisting Talibans.

          But before OBL, Talibans were like American buddies.

          Comment


            #6
            It was indeed an ISI blunder but more than that it was a Pakistani blunder.Now they have to bear all the consequences.

            Comment


              #7
              Hindsight is always 20/20.

              ------------------
              Ours is not to reason why;
              Ours is but to do and die
              You can't fix stupid. So might as well troll them!

              Comment


                #8
                To add more than a one liner.

                The ISI had to do something to establish a stable country on our west.
                It was in our best interest.
                Should we have created the Taliban, in hindsight the asnwer would be no.
                We should have stuck and reformed the people who were already good and able leaders.
                But there aim was for our betterment.
                For us a stable afghanistan was good.
                For the afghani people it was also important.

                In my opinion Pakistanis national interests are directly related to the national interests of Afghanistan.
                What is good for them is good for us.
                The ISI had the right idea, but the Taliban got out of hand.

                But like i said Hindsight is always 20/20.

                ------------------
                Ours is not to reason why;
                Ours is but to do and die
                You can't fix stupid. So might as well troll them!

                Comment


                  #9
                  >>>In my opinion Pakistanis national interests are directly related to the national interests of Afghanistan.
                  What is good for them is good for us.<<<<


                  Not necessarily!

                  Afghan demographics is different, their culture is different from Pakistan as a whole. They have different ethnic backgrounds & other countries with whom they share their border!

                  There is no question that a stable Afghanistan is good for Pakistan & that's what ISI's mission was too ... but stability doesn't have to mean a friendly government!

                  Iran is pretty stable but yet not too friendly towards Pakistan!
                  I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
                  - Robert McCloskey

                  Comment


                    #10
                    The ISI was working WITH the CIA to put together an alternate regime in Afghanistan after the United Front sttarted showing its true colors.They may be denying it in hearings,which is not unusual - americans rarely tell the truth unless it suits them - but everyone knows that the ISI was funded and advised by the CIA in a joint operation to put together a new govt in Afghanistan.

                    The ISI - obviously got in touch with the Pushtuns and they supported them because they are closer to Pakistan and have family ties to us instead of the tajiks and uzbeks who were in many eyes the soviets staying back to claim a piece of afghanistan.

                    What the western media are conviniently forgeting is that the Taliban resistance started a long time ago.It started within the first 6 months of the NA's rule - the ISI and CIA stepped in much later - in 1995.

                    The CIA withdrew financial support as soon as the regime was removed.The ISI continued to support the taliban - no doubt. But they had little influence with the taliban or else none of this would have happened.

                    Did the ISI commit a blunder in supporting the Taliban?

                    The answer is no. The taliban were gaining support, sympathy, and territory and the ISI did the wise thing by supporting them at THAT stage of the game.

                    Where the ISI may have made a mistake is when they cut of all ties to the hazaras and the tajikhs and uzebks. They should have at least continued some contact with those forces but they failed to do so.

                    It was a mistake - until the events of september 11th.Prior to that the ISI were everyones favorites.

                    Even the americans admit the ISI is as powerful and capable an agency as they have ever seen.


                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by ahmadjee:
                      ISI's name is taken almost always when creation of Talaban comes under discussion.

                      I would like to know the opinion and research of people here, about the links between the two groups?!

                      If ISI was the sole creator, then why were the Talaban chosen? Was it their ethnicity or just due to the fact that all other fractions were harder to 'handle' or had inclination towards other countries in the region?

                      Does ISI (or some fractions of it anyway) also share the ideology of Talaban? Or did the ideology come about as a by-product to keep the regime in power?!
                      The answer to your question is NO. You can't create a faction like the Talibans who have such high sense of pride. ISI did supported Talibans against the NA in the form of training and weapons but lacked any political influence.

                      There was never any connection between the CIA and the Talibans. Agents of CIA were long gone before Talibans came into power.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by ahmadjee:
                        >>>In my opinion Pakistanis national interests are directly related to the national interests of Afghanistan.
                        What is good for them is good for us.<<<<


                        Not necessarily!

                        Afghan demographics is different, their culture is different from Pakistan as a whole. They have different ethnic backgrounds & other countries with whom they share their border!

                        There is no question that a stable Afghanistan is good for Pakistan & that's what ISI's mission was too ... but stability doesn't have to mean a friendly government!

                        Iran is pretty stable but yet not too friendly towards Pakistan!
                        There i disagree.
                        Iran is friendly but it ain't that friendly.
                        A stable govt for Afghnaistan can't be anti-pakistan, as then we have a problem on 2 fronts.
                        Then you should welcome a war on both fronts.

                        Pakistanis stability and its ability to control the fundos depends on a strong stable and pro pakistani Afghani govt.

                        ------------------
                        Ours is not to reason why;
                        Ours is but to do and die
                        You can't fix stupid. So might as well troll them!

                        Comment


                          #13
                          It was not a blunder for ISI or Pakistan, Taliban gave pakistan what they wanted to get out of them in the past and when it is ending its giving more to pakistan , as loans and western support. Was the creation of Taliban a good thing , well thats for you all to decide. But in the end it worked for ISI, a blunder i dont think so.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Those who think that ISI was not involved at all in the creation of Talaban are fooling themselves. Being a military brat I can't deny this fact.

                            Where the ISI may have made a mistake is when they cut of all ties to the hazaras and the tajikhs and uzebks. They should have at least continued some contact with those forces but they failed to do so.
                            Such a mistake, is indeed a blunder!

                            Could the sympathy for the Talaban be because of the medievalist fractions of ISI ... traces of ideologies from the Zia era?!

                            A stable govt for Afghnaistan can't be anti-pakistan
                            Was the government in Kabul anti-Pakistan before they were driven out by Talaban (supported by ISI)? Even if they were, did they pose any threats? Were they even capable of posing any threats?

                            Can anyone list some of the policies that government had which were specifically Anti-Pakistan, so much so that they were to be toppled .. ?

                            I agree that they were warlords & as oppressive as any other regimes but those were their internal issue! No?


                            [This message has been edited by ahmadjee (edited November 18, 2001).]
                            I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
                            - Robert McCloskey

                            Comment


                              #15
                              They were providing full access to indian forces on their territory.Raw agents were visible in afghanistan and were advising and indeed training the NA.The border was a major problem for us as indian terrorists were crossing over from afghanistan into Pakistan.

                              The bomb blasts in Karachi and Punjab during 92-93 were directly linked to indian terrorists.

                              The NA govt in kabul was fully aware of this and providing access to the indians.They refused to hand over the indian terrorists or ask them to leave afghanistan.Indeed they were supporting the indians throughout.

                              After the bomb blasts when thousands of innocent Pakistani civilians were killed,the ISI had enough.. they got into gear and went about supporting anti-govt forces in afghanistan - an exercise - that had the full support and funding of the united states and saudi arabia as well.

                              If na had not allowed indian terrorists to operate from their soil, the ISI would not have bothered them because we can easily blow afghanistan apart - thats just a fact.But we didnt have the resources to patrol the huge border with afghanistan effectively while maintaining our troops at the LOC.

                              Pakistan had no choice.We acted in our best interests.Thats just a fact.

                              [This message has been edited by Yasir - (edited November 18, 2001).]

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X