Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Senate Votes to Extend Sweeping Bush Era Surveillance Powers
- Six Weeks After Reelection, Obama Sells Out Liberal Democrats
- The Only Way Left to Beat GOP Fanatics: Call Their Bluff and Go Over the Fabricated "Cliff"
- New Year’s Revolution: Connecting the Dots, Coming Together and Fighting Like Hell
- The Financial Elite's War Against the US Economy
- Six Weeks After Reelection, Obama Sells Out Liberal Democrats
- Revealed: How the FBI Coordinated the Crackdown on Occupy
- The Financial Elite's War Against the US Economy
- Senate Votes to Extend Sweeping Bush Era Surveillance Powers
- New Year’s Revolution: Connecting the Dots, Coming Together and Fighting Like Hell
Popular content
Today's Top News
Pakistan Rebuffs US on Taliban Crackdown
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Demands by the United States for Pakistan to crack down on the strongest Taliban warrior in Afghanistan, Siraj Haqqani, whose fighters pose the biggest threat to American forces, have been rebuffed by the Pakistani military, according to Pakistani military officials and diplomats.
Jalaluddin Haqqani, right, in Islamabad, Pakistan, in 2001. The Obama administration wants Pakistan to turn on Mr. Haqqani, a longtime asset of Pakistan's spy agency who uses the tribal area of North Waziristan as his sanctuary. But, the officials said, Pakistan views the entreaties as contrary to its interests in Afghanistan. (Reuters) The Obama administration wants Pakistan to turn on Mr. Haqqani, a longtime asset of Pakistan's spy agency who uses the tribal area of North Waziristan as his sanctuary. But, the officials said, Pakistan views the entreaties as contrary to its interests in Afghanistan beyond the timetable of President Obama's surge, which envisions drawing down American forces beginning in mid-2011.
The demands, first made by senior American officials before President Obama's Afghanistan speech and repeated many times since, were renewed in a written demarche delivered in recent days by the United States Embassy to the head of the Pakistani military, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, according to American officials. Gen. David Petraeus followed up on Monday during a visit to Islamabad.
The demands have been accompanied by strong suggestions that if the Pakistanis cannot take care of the problem, including dismantling the Taliban leadership based in Quetta, Pakistan, then the Americans will by resorting to broader and more frequent drone strikes in Pakistan.
But the Pakistanis have greeted the refrain with official public silence and private anger, illustrating the widening gulf between the allies over the Afghan war.
Former Pakistani military officers voice irritation with the American insistence daily on television, part of a mounting grievance in Pakistan that the alliance with the United States is too costly to bear.
"It is really beginning to irk and anger us," said a security official familiar with the deliberations at the senior levels of the Pakistani leadership.
The core reason for Pakistan's imperviousness is its scant faith in the Obama surge, and what Pakistan sees as the need to position itself for a major regional realignment in Afghanistan once American forces begin to leave.
It considers Mr. Haqqani and his control of broad swaths of Afghan territory vital to Pakistan in the jostling for influence that will pit Pakistan, India, Russia, China and Iran in the post-American Afghan arena, the Pakistani officials said.
Pakistan is particularly eager to counter the growing influence of its archenemy, India, which is pouring $1.2 billion in aid into Afghanistan. "If American walks away, Pakistan is very worried that it will have India on its eastern border and India on its western border in Afghanistan," said Tariq Fatemi, a former Pakistani ambassador to the United States who is pro-American in his views.
For that reason, Mr. Fatemi said, the Pakistani Army was "very reluctant" to jettison Mr. Haqqani, Pakistan's strong card in Afghanistan. Moreover, the Pakistanis do not want to alienate Mr. Haqqani because they consider him an important player in reconciliation efforts that they would like to see get under way in Afghanistan immediately, the officials said.
Because Mr. Haqqani shelters Qaeda leaders and operatives in North Waziristan, Washington was opposed to including Mr. Haqqani among the possible reconcilable Taliban, at least for the moment, a Western diplomat said.
In his reply to the Americans, the head of the Pakistani military, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, stressed a short-term argument, according to two Pakistani officials familiar with the response.
Pakistan currently had its hands full fighting the Pakistani Taliban in South Waziristan and other places, and it was beyond its capacity to open another front against the Afghan Taliban, the officials said of General Kayani's response.
The offensive has had the secondary effect of constraining the Haqqani network in North Waziristan and driving some of its commanders and fighters across the border to Afghanistan, senior American military officials in Afghanistan said.
But implicit in General Kayani's reply was the fact that the homegrown Pakistani Taliban represent the real threat to Pakistan. They are the ones launching attacks against security installations and civilian markets in Pakistan's cities and must be the army's priority, General Kayani argued, the officials said.
For his part, Mr. Haqqani fights in Afghanistan, and is considered more of an asset than a threat by the Pakistanis. But he is the most potent force fighting the Americans, American and Pakistani officials agree.
He has subcommanders threaded throughout eastern and southern Afghanistan. His fighters control Paktika, Paktia and Khost provinces in Afghanistan, which lie close to North Waziristan. His men are also strong in Ghazni, Logar and Wardak provinces, the officials said.
Because Mr. Haqqani now spends so much time in Afghanistan - about three weeks of every month, according to a Pakistani security official - if the Americans want to eliminate him, their troops should have ample opportunity to capture him, Pakistani security officials argue.
As a son of Jalaluddin Haqqani, a leading mujahedeen fighter against the Soviets who is now aged and apparently confined to bed, Siraj Haqqani is keeper of a formidable lineage and history.
In the early 1970s, the father attended a well known madrassa, Dar-ul-Uloom Haqqaniya in the Pakistani town of Akora Khattack in North-West Frontier Province.
In the 1980s, Jalaluddin Haqqani received money and arms from the C.I.A. routed through Pakistan's spy agency, the Inter Services Intelligence, to fight the Soviets, according to Ahmed Rashid, an expert on the Afghan Taliban and the author of "Descent Into Chaos."
In the 1990s, when the Taliban ran Afghanistan, Jalaluddin Haqqani served as governor of Paktia Province.
The relationship between the Haqqanis and Osama bin Laden dates back to the 1980s war against the Soviets, according to Kamran Bokhari, the South Asia director for Stratfor, a geopolitical risk analysis company.
When the Taliban government collapsed at the end of 2001 and Qaeda operatives fled from Tora Bora to Pakistan, the Haqqanis relocated their command structure to North Waziristan and welcomed Al Qaeda, Mr. Bokhari said.
The biggest gift of the Pakistanis to the Haqqanis was the use of the North Waziristan as their fiefdom, he said.
The Pakistani Army did not appear to be assisting the Haqqanis with training or equipment, he said. More than 20 members of the Haqqani nuclear family were killed in a drone attack in North Waziristan last year, showing the limits of how far the Pakistanis could protect them, Mr. Bokhari said.
Today Siraj Haqqani has anywhere from 4,000 to 12,000 Taliban under his command. He is technically a member of the Afghan Taliban leadership based in Quetta, the capital of Pakistan's Baluchistan Province.
That leadership is headed by Mullah Omar, the former leader of the Taliban regime. But Mr. Haqqani operates fairly independently of them inside Afghanistan.
Siraj Haqqani maintains an uneasy relationship with the Pakistani Taliban, said Maulana Yousaf Shah, the administrator of the madrassa at Akora Khattack.
Mr. Haqqani believed the chief jihadi objective should be forcing the foreigners out of Afghanistan, and he had tried but failed to redirect the Pakistani Taliban to fight in Afghanistan as well, he said.
Ismail Khan contributed reporting from Peshawar, Pakistan; Pir Zubair Shah from Islamabad, and Eric Schmitt from Kabul, Afganistan.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

12 Comments so far
Show AllThe language in all these articles is interesting, if not gratifying.
The government of Pakistan, insofar as there is a Pakistan and a government, is asked to ally with the United States by a military alliance against social groups and quasi-governmental and political groups within its borders.
The United States, meanwhile, continues to attack the population in the northwest of the Pakistan that the government called Pakistani claims to govern.
Surely the inability or unwillingness of the society to unite against such a horror shows that whatever loyalties exist in the area, few exist between the so-called government and the peoples it claims to govern.
Of course, that also means that no functional alliance with the United States is possible, since no state exists with authority to ally.
Meanwhile, for whatever provisional and deeper loyalties prevail in the region, battle against such a proposition must be requisite for existence.
It almost like those resisting US forces are fighting for OUR freedoms. If they went down without a whimper the BEAST would hardly be sated. It would turn its attention to other prey the world over all at the cost of the Liberty of its own citizens.
Every bomb dropped is another nail in the coffin of USA society.
Bardamu 4:58 ---- Your post reeks of USA exceptionalism, I doubt if you would find one Pakistani to agree with you.
You can easily substitute USA for Pakistan and be as accurate or more so.
Why do USAan's decide that whenever the USA starts bombing and destroying a nation, that the victim nation is somehow a lesser nation than the maniacal USA?
MANIFEST INSANITY for US to stay in Iraqiranistan ONE MOMENT LONGER!
Has everyone been watching the wonderful documentary films of Robert Greenwald in his "Re-think Afghanistan" series? Some of the soldiers he interviews approach the eloquence of Winter Soldier testimony in Silver Spring, MD a year or more ago (Still available for anybody on the web). One soldier suggested in Greenwald's most recent film that despite President Obama's declarations about the horrors of war, it's all intellectual and he would change his mind if he himself were on the ground for one week. Either this soldier or another (doesn't much matter) tells how an American soldier
was killed, so he and all his buddies were ordered to go around and kick in doors and get to the bottom of it. And after they'd pissed off entire villages they discovered that the killed soldier was Pat Tillman, done in by "friendly fire." And the story-teller found this incident extremely typical. Now why won't Baraq or Hillary or Bob or Stanley or
Richard ever hear these narratives and ACT upon them-- where is their human gene?
Like anyone who pretends to be the slightest bit honest, I can say positive things about our current president, but can't stand him when he plays the jingoist role on D-Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, and any other of the 365 days
he can think of.
It's always about how grateful we should be to our troops for
"protecting" us. How they're doing that is never clear. And should we be grateful if they're "jeopardizing" us? I don't think so. I can feel sorry for a few poverty cases, but I tell you, it's a voluntary Army. And when young people volunteer for stupid wars, they are stupid young people, pure and simple.
Poor education is supposed to explain it-- they were not sufficiently informed. And were victimized by unscrupulous recruiters. But whatever happened to street smarts? I admire the ones who converted their views, will gladly call them along with the poet Brian Turner, author of "Here, Bullet," the greatest American patriots.
Who, however, can applaud anyone's initial decision to join the American Military today? Throughout history nearly all of the wars have been avoidable, and the recent continuing two fall in that category.
When a president starts preaching about "how there will always be war," you know he's given up already.
We lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan by kicking in doors in the night and then shooting people who attempted to defend their homes. The collateral damage in both Iraq and Afghanistan has also lost us the moral high ground and they will hate the US for the next ten generations. General Petraeous finally stopped the kick in the door routine and told soldiers to knock on the doors. It was really quite a shock in Iraq when an old man told the door kickers, "But it is permitted that we can have an AK-47 by law". The Afghanis and Pakistanis in North and South Waziristan have lived under tribal laws for centuries and we will not change that method of self government.
The Pakistani Government hears that comment from Obama about starting to pull troops out in 2011 and are taking him at his word, even though our generals would want to stay forever. They remember that the Russians made a decision to leave and know that the US will also make that decision. They are already starting to hedge their bets.
If the u.s. could stop the flow of drugs from b.c., in canada, then maybe they'd have a chance to "suppress" this region.
It's more like Vietnam, where they finally declare a victory and get the **** out.
The only war that the u.s. has actually won, is their own "civil war".
...if you could only stop the Americans from smoking all that fine BC Bud.....
Every US soldier loved to be trigger-happy by endlessly shooting every cent worth of bullets and firing every dollar worth of missiles often at invisible enemies all the time. The Taliban leaders are not so stupid as to deploy more of their sitting ducks in the battlefields to fight against large numbers of hungry wolves. We often noticed it took several fighter tanks and several hundreds of US soldiers and so much bullets and missiles just to have killed less than a dozen of dead enemies lying scattered here and there and sometimes, one or two scary cat(s) were caught. These modern wars are unlike wars in olden days where 10,000 heroes would confront 10,000 villains in the battlefields. I believe all US military generals might have watched too much war movies often acted by John Wayne or Ronald Reagan who was starring as the US Military Hero leading large troops of armies on horses against large troops of enemies with bows and arrows ready and visible out in the battlefields. Instead of shooting at a few willing and brave "sacrificial lambs" of the Talibans, why not throw bags of money at them? Perhaps, they may die laughing without ever wasting one bullet. And perhaps, all the US taxpayers won't be pissed off and may rather contribute much more for such a good cause like this.
Obama mustn't follow the expensive footsteps of Bush who did the grave mistakes against Iraq.
I just pray to God that the US liberates Pakistan by invading it and splitting it up in to two or three parts. Then and only then the people of that region will get the message that US is trying to send.
I just pray to God that the someone liberates the USA by invading it and splitting it up in to two or three parts. Then and only then the people of that region will get the message that the world is trying to send.